Social Network Marketing Tycoon

**nocturnix** · 02-09-2007, 11:28 AM

Every forum has its own boundries and guidelines. In larger forums those boundries will always be put to the test. I personally am a very big proponent of free speech, and cannot stand forums that are heavily moderated. After all this is the internet and the age of open and free communication, we should be able to discuss just about anything. But obviously there have to be boundries when discussing the most racy of topics.

There is a thread on my forums in "The Inferno" where members can discuss more racy topics and flame each other.

The thread got off to a "good" start posing a poll asking how appropriate it was that one 30 year old member of another website solicited nude pictures from a 15 year old.

Needless to say the thread is now 15 pages long. I have a good solid team of volunteers moderating the site for me and I dont visit very often since I quit the game years ago. Just before posting this thread, I read the most recent few pages and noticed a newly registered user posting arguments and rebuttals to everyone basically defending pedophiles.

Obviously this has stirred the members up quite a bit, and caused alot of friction. However, from what ive read he hasnt really "broken" any rules or laws that I know of. The mods are close to banning him but are holding back due to this fact.

My question is...where do we draw the line in a situation like this? I havent written any rules pertaining to or thought about this scenario yet. Also, if google spiders this thread, or msn, or yahoo...what will the search engines think of such a thread?

I dont like banning members unless they blatantly break the rules or the law. I suppose I could add a rule "No discussion of child abuse etc." but then what happens if someone just wants to post an article, or something. And then, I would have to add "No discussion of x, No discussion of y, No discussion of z".

Despite the fact that this member is pushing some very taboo, uncomfortable, and technically illegal opinions, they are just opinions. Also, the "common enemy" does bring members together.

So far I was thinking, if he mentions any ACTION at all, he could have his poste edited and be warned that next time he makes mention of a specific action taken by him or makes a threat of action he will be banned.

What do you think?

**Get a Community** · 02-09-2007, 11:08 PM

I feel the boundary is what the rules are. If the said member is not violating any rules, then the member has to be allowed. As I have not seen the questioned posts but it seems like that particular member is just dragging the discussion. It remains to be seen how strong logic does that member have. I suggest you can also drop in once in a while in that thread and put your comments there.

**Daniel Alan** · 02-14-2007, 04:55 PM

I say the decision lies with the admin/mod. Personally, I wouldn't ban anyone if they didn't break any rules. Either that or I would change the rules so I could

**The Fat Boy** · 02-14-2007, 10:47 PM

You opened the can of worms.

Consider that nobody would bat an eyelash if a guy got on to the forum and started discussing his latest batch of hashish brownies. Its strange how drugs have become so acceptable, especially on the internet.

Don't ban the NAMBLA guy, but allow drug discussion, and cite legality as your cause.

Allow me to paraphrase: I may not like what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. If you really want to come from a free speech approach, you have to allow america haters, klansmen, neo nazis, boy lovers, and all sorts of deviants.

Its what you wanted, right?

**wwwSENSERELYcom** · 02-15-2007, 01:30 AM

You just have to cover your *** legally, other than that, there's no free speech anyway, on the internet or elsewhere, there's not.

**Fredto** · 02-15-2007, 09:10 AM

Where you have to draw the line is where it makes sense to do it.

If he defends pedophiles by presenting medical and psychological arguments, he just brings a smart point, something that is scientifically proved. If he just says stuff like "They're right, I would sleep with a 15 years old girl too because they're sexy", he dosen't bring anything to the argument.

Same goes for almost every "touchy" subjects like racism or religion.

Freedom of speech is a good thing, but the idiots that just like to argue for the sake of flaming or starting an "uproar" should be asked politely to bring a point and then, if it dosen't change, punished.

**rex_b** · 02-15-2007, 04:08 PM

The line is crossed when the Admin says so. Or when it is laid out in the rules.

There is no such thing as Free Speech in a Privately owned business.

**Chris 96 WS6** · 02-19-2007, 12:19 PM

Its all up to the Admin as has been said. In the US at least, the right to free speech only aplies to public venues. A forum is your property, and you have every right to censor content on your site. Users post as a privilege you grant them (and you can take away, aka ban), not a right.

I think the bigger question is what should you let slide in order to grow your forum. Clearly too strict site are going to have a hard time recruiting members, but at the same time you have to be true to your own convictions.

I use a PG-13 standard...no porn/nudity, I censor certain words (but not all), etc.

**kriscad** · 02-20-2007, 12:25 AM

i just banned all the racist and offensive words over time... that did the trick

**The Fat Boy** · 02-26-2007, 08:41 PM

itd be funny to change the dirty and offensive words into something silly, like turning the n word into bathing, stuff like that, so when people said racially changed stuff like "i hate 'the n word" it said "I hate bathing"... turn the derogatory term for hispanics into "soap" or even "heterosexual intercourse" if you prefer, and let the hilarity ensue.

**xluciusx** · 02-28-2007, 08:07 PM

eh personally i'd draw the line with racist comments
and those dealing with personal information (such as house address n etc)