The Tutu Rule

[HODAG]

I thought Miss Lilly liked Harleys, sometimes.

sometimes..
when they aren't too loud, or the rider is safe looking and they must be painted pretty

she is still lamenting about how we need big blue back

[mika]

I do not like the idea of deleting posts. If you have time to delete the post there is time to redact the unacceptable portion with an explanation of why. We learn nothing from deleting a post.

sometimes..
when they aren't too loud, or the rider is safe looking and they must be painted pretty

she is still lamenting about how we need big blue back

My youngest daughter still has not forgiven me for selling my R100R and that was back in 1989.

[Visian]

I do not like the idea of deleting posts. If you have time to delete the post there is time to redact the unacceptable portion with an explanation of why. We learn nothing from deleting a post.

john - no one likes post deletion. the problem with editing is that one takes ownership of what's left, which is somewhere we don't want to be. (i'm not a lawyer but have received some good advice about this from one.)

the goal here is to get to the point that the norm is so clear that no posts will need to be deleted. that isn't the case right now, but it's what this process is about.

ian

[mika]

I fully understand. During the discussion phase I tilt at windmills with vigor. I don't start wars.

[HODAG]

john - no one likes post deletion. the problem with editing is that one takes ownership of what's left, which is somewhere we don't want to be. (i'm not a lawyer but have received some good advice about this from one.)

the goal here is to get to the point that the norm is so clear that no posts will need to be deleted. that isn't the case right now, but it's what this process is about.

ian

in a perfect world no one would need to be deleted
but.........

leave a trail
transparancy
ISO documentation
black belt 8 sigma yoda stuff

if as a moderator you decide to act you should be able to say why.

plus don't take MOA business elsewhere but here and e-mail, other forums don't care...

[mika]

john - no one likes post deletion. the problem with editing is that one takes ownership of what's left, which is somewhere we don't want to be. (i'm not a lawyer but have received some good advice about this from one.)

the goal here is to get to the point that the norm is so clear that no posts will need to be deleted. that isn't the case right now, but it's what this process is about.

ian

A follow up question for clarification. The deletion we are talking about is...

Deletion of an offensive post, not an entire thread.

I do not like deletions; however, I can understand the deletion of an offensive post in terms of you legal concerns.

Threads should be locked and sent to the dog house with an explination, if they have reached the extreme point.

[HODAG]

A follow up question for clarification. The deletion we are talking about is...

Deletion of an offensive post, not an entire thread.

I do not like deletions; however, I can understand the deletion of an offensive post in terms of you legal concerns.

Threads should be locked and sent to the dog house with an explination, if they have reached the extreme point.

yep

[Visian]

A follow up question for clarification. The deletion we are talking about is...

Deletion of an offensive post, not an entire thread.

I do not like deletions; however, I can understand the deletion of an offensive post in terms of you legal concerns.

Threads should be locked and sent to the dog house with an explination, if they have reached the extreme point.

what i was referring to is *editing* a post, which you had called redacting. this is something moderators will stay away from.

i agree with you & mark about doghousing... especially in cases where a post isn't pron, a personal attack or other serious violation of posting norms.

i hate deletions, too... and all the moderators take it very seriously.

ian

[mika]

I have a question regarding the banned topics or topics that lead to flames. How are these topics viewed when they directly relate to motorcycling? I ask for two reasons.

When I put together the Morning Reads I avoid these topics as much as possible. There are things I do or could post that have a political nature. For example a recent post included the newsletter from the MRF. The letter dealt in main with concerns for the road adhesion v. visibility of road markers, the safety of proposed road barriers for motorcyclist and was informational in nature. I fully expect they will urge riders to contact representatives in the future. Under the proposed guidelines where is the line between information and politics. I am looking for discussion and guidance more than a ÔÇÿbright lineÔÇÖ demarking the foul line.

I am not surprised that guns made it to the proposed banned line. However; I do remember a series of threads dealing with questions for adventure touring into wilderness areas. The topic of carrying weapons for defense came up and was handled well for approximately 100 posts between the threads before at the request of the persons starting the thread urged it be sent to the dog house and the moderator properly concurred. Until it was sent there a good deal of good information and perspectives were aired.

With that as background: is there a way to bring up topics directly related to motorcycling that normally would be on a banned list if they did not have a direct relationship to motorcycling? Are these areas so volatile, even with a legitimate motorcycling connection, which the TOS/Rules can not deal with?

[Visian]

.... Under the proposed guidelines where is the line between information and politics. I am looking for discussion and guidance more than a ÔÇÿbright lineÔÇÖ demarking the foul line.

I am not surprised that guns made it to the proposed banned line. However; I do remember a series of threads dealing with questions for adventure touring into wilderness areas. The topic of carrying weapons for defense came up and was handled well for approximately 100 posts between the threads before at the request of the persons starting the thread urged it be sent to the dog house and the moderator properly concurred. Until it was sent there a good deal of good information and perspectives were aired.

With that as background: is there a way to bring up topics directly related to motorcycling that normally would be on a banned list if they did not have a direct relationship to motorcycling? Are these areas so volatile, even with a legitimate motorcycling connection, which the TOS/Rules can not deal with?

well, i think your guns/adventure thread example pretty much sums up the approach. since there is definitely a gray area instead of a line when it comes to subject matter, the method that's worked so far is to be fairly liberal in interpretation and only rein things in when they get virulent or personal, or both.

or... (and without reading the thread) it sounds like a discussion that was useful to adventure riders, even though involves a "banned" topic only got shut down because it went awry and the thread starter made a request.

do you feel basically comfortable with that?

ian

ps => guns in tankbags is verbotten in IBMWR and relegated to JoMomma at ADV. for some odd reason i think we can trust our membership to talk responsibly.

[mika]

Thank you, I can work with that and hope others can also.

Overall we have handled some heated discussions rather well around here in the past. As the forum has grown in numbers and diversity I fully support as needed what your committee is working on. I admit to be willing to take action first and seek forgiveness latter in some situations; I donÔÇÖt think that is good form for our forum. As we lay down guidelines I want to ask first before I find myself being stupid and needing forgiveness.