Why is censorship so prevalent on AZ?!

[pooldogue]

My opinion is there are a bunch of stinkin cry babies on this site that like to complain therefore you need censorship to quell the arguements !!!!!!!!!!! We are suppose to be adults and for "some" here it is hard ,so they complain .................................... Personally i think the site has gone down hill a little bit with all the wineing..

 

[X Breaker]

I think the forum is a great place to meet people who share the same interest. I feel so fortunate to be able to share information with others about the wonderful game of pool. I hope this would go on and I wish this forum will become even more successful.
Richard

 

[pooldogue]

I think the forum is a great place to meet people who share the same interest. I feel so fortunate to be able to share information with others about the wonderful game of pool. I hope this would go on and I wish this forum will become even more successful.
Richard

Yes, i totally agree with you as well......

 

[catscradle]

Mr. Wilson states:
Now, as noted, for people that don't like it here, NOBODY is going to make you read and post against your will.
We make some simple requests of posters. Nothing hard at all.
First and formost, keep ALL the discussion clean and civil.
We can work our way down from there, but 99% of the rules can be covered by just keeping it clean and civil.
I will be making the warnings well known.
3 strikes, you're out.
Pretty simple, right?


That's all well and fine,but what about the Dress Code man, the Dress Code? Do I have to go put clothes on to participate here ?

lol. You still got it Smorg.

 

[catscradle]

So its not okay for me to say 'h***' but Tbeaux and a group of other guys can have Avatars of half-naked women?!?! Don't get me wrong! I don't mind the women one bit! But by saying that chicks in skimpy bikinis are okay for all to see but a curse is way too much to handle, thats just (brace yourselves) asinine. ...

I agreed with a good part of what you've said in this thread, but I especially agree with this sentiment. The female pictures don't offend me (though I think they're sophomoric), but they clearly offend some of the women posters on this forum. Marrissa was banned for protesting them, but they remained. They should be gone. If somebody's avatar was an Aunt Jemima style stereotype black, you can bet it would be gone, rightfully so, in a heartbeat. The same sensibility should be extended towards women. That is the problem with moderating, the rules aren't like the law developed over centurys of trials, it's just arbitrary.

That said, if Mike is happy and it is his forum, then we can live with it (with or without grumbles) or leave.

 

[Koop]

Because I started the thread. No other reason. People follow me around on here like a bunch of groupies trying to start trouble with me. I don't know why, they must have some sort of midget fettish or something.

I honestly don't know why people have a problem with me, but I guess they will continue to harass me until I leave. I am trying to cut back on posting just to please them, but I don't think I can win in this situation.

Shorty

You're not that important Shorty so get over yourself. Groupies, please.
The problem with you is that you are a hypocrite, PERIOD. You report me for placing the letter F within quotes and then you make a post recently using the word friggin. You tell me the damn difference. It seems to me that you have it backwards in that you're the one doing the post stalking.

Please do cut back on posting. This would be happier place without you.

Koop - will not ask to have this deleted as it is exactly what I wanted to say!

 

[pharaoh68]

Pharaoh68, this is the kind of debate which goes on all the time here in D.C., the most recent of which is the Supreme Court nomination, which today will be voted on in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Imagine Mike Howerton a/k/a AzHousePro as the President of, in this instance, AzBilliards website. He has appointed Mr. Wilson to be the moderator of AzBilliards Discussion Forum. Thereafter, Mr. Wilson is the authority on what is acceptable and/or non-acceptable and from time to time must make decisions. These decisions, though, will not please everybody. IMHO, though, I would like to think that Mr. Wilson is accorded some respect and maybe a little bit of appreciation for spending hour after hour each and every single day in order to keep a sense of normalcy here.

Just like the Democratic and Republican Parties, there will always be debate about what is deemed acceptable forum behavior. In this instance on AzBilliards, I think it would be more fruitful if we just allowed the moderation process to move forward instead of analyzing each move made by the moderator. I don't think it is possible to have every little forum infraction written down in black and white.

In sum, there's a whole new pool world on the horizon, just waiting to be explored. Let's go there instead of debating the pros and cons of the appointed moderator's actions. JMHO, FWIW!

JAM

JAM-
To say that Wilson should be accorded some respect is to say that a person deserves respect for doing a job which is a totally ludicrous concept. Nobody deserves respect for doing a job. They deserve a respect for doing the job well or for doing the job correctly. My contention is that it is not being done correctly. If you want to make the connection to politics and government, then is it fair to say that Mike, being the president, is selecting a group of right-wing republicans to be his cabinet because some of these guys have a warped view of what is acceptible and what isn't. I have no problem with the moderating process moving forward. Just do it the right way. Establish rules and enforce them. Don't just leave it up to the discretion of a few because everyone's ideas of what is acceptible is different. That is my point in a nutshell.

Hal, if you posted things that were non-pool related and you posted them in the non-pool related forum, why would I complain?

Shorty, you're right. I hate you.

Koop. Shorty's right. I hate him.

To the rest of you think I'm just whining here, open your eyes. Learn to read. Go back and look at everything that I've said. My argument is legitimate. I'm not saying rule and regulation is out of order. I'm saying the method in which it is being carried out is slipshod at best. Within the last few days, my posts had been removed when I questioned why someone was posting electronics for sale in a pool related forum. Yet within the last several months when some seriosuly heated debates arose over cuemakers, threats and obscenities were dished out with no regard for authority and that was in no way moderated. Why? Because people disagreed with what I was saying? If you want us to abide by your rules, you need to make them clear and then you (the moderators) have to abide by them as well.

 

[Koop]

Shorty, you're right. I hate you.

Koop. Shorty's right. I hate him.

Although it won't be long before he cries his way to getting this thread deleted too, I can tell you that you are not alone in your assessment. NOT BY A LONG SHOT

Koop

 

[iacas]

You speak like a schoolyard principal. Well, I've got news for you. I had a principal and that was eleven years ago.

Stop behaving like you still need one, then, eh?

Like it or not, this site has moderators and adminstrators. They set the rules. You are provided a FREE service in exchange for following those rules.

I've personally not found any of the rules to be capricious, ill-enforced, or otherwise flaky. They're pretty simple - and you're free to take them or leave them.

That being said, what makes your opinion right and mine wrong? If you can prove your point, I'll accept it.

He's a moderator. You're not. Point proven. Accept it or don't, that choice remains yours... but the logic of the situation is pretty darn simple.

 

[DaveK]

Free public forums? I'm not so sure about that. I believe someone pays to host these forums here which makes them a private company. Which also gives the owner of the company the right to Refuse Service to anyone. And kick anyone off for whatever reason they so please.

If you do not like it you can buy a domain name and create your own forum where profane language can be allowed.

I'm a cusser myself. But when I get on these pages I try to assume that maybe some 10 year old got a pool table for Christmas and wants to learn what they can about the game. And the last thing they need to view is a bunch of old drunk chain smoking trash talking pool hall junkies talking about how they punched the bar maid last night.

I like you smittie, good post, although our old drunk trash talking AZ junkies may disagree .

I see the Internet as a bit of anarchy where even legitimate attempts to regulate things turns into a exercise in cat herding ... meow !

Dave, with a strange desire to punch a bar maid ...

 

[Timberly]

The female pictures don't offend me (though I think they're sophomoric), but they clearly offend some of the women posters on this forum. Marrissa was banned for protesting them, but they remained.

Using Marissa to prove this point wasn't a good choice. She doesn't have a leg to stand on in the debate about avatars. She ran amok on this board back in the summer hijacking every thread and making it about her and another guy putting obscene things up obscene places. People were mortified and disgusted. She also has nude photo's of herself on her website. Art or no art, they're nude. People keep bringing up kids... is a kid going to know art from porn or is a kid going to know nude?

Marissa says she's not the only female "bothered" by it, she's just the one speaking out. Hello ladies??? You need a new spokesperson because the one you're using doesn't have a leg to stand on.

I'm a heterosexual female and I have no problem with any avatar that has been used. Marissa is a bisexual female with nude (art) photo's of herself and she's offended? I beg to differ.

 

[pharaoh68]

I've personally not found any of the rules to be capricious, ill-enforced, or otherwise flaky.

Watch what you say. 'Flaky' might be a bad word in the eyes of some!

... but the logic of the situation is pretty darn simple.

In reference to the comment about logic, don't use big words you don't understand. Logic has not been applied here. I've asked for someone to please justify their actions. I've already said outright that moderating is an important part of this forum. But I have also said that laws cannot be enforced unless the general public knows what these laws are. Set the rules. Post the rules. Then enforce the rules. In the meantime, all you are really doing is creating an online forum which caters to the likes of the 'elite' few who are chosen to be moderators.

 

[1pRoscoe]

He's a moderator. You're not. Point proven. Accept it or don't, that choice remains yours... but the logic of the situation is pretty darn simple.

Stalinism

n : a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.) [syn: dictatorship, absolutism, authoritarianism, Caesarism, despotism, monocracy, one-man rule, shogunate, Stalinism, totalitarianism, tyranny]

 

[Snapshot9]

Here's my take ...

1) People are hear for various reasons.
2) Some are here for social interaction,
some just like to 'drill' people, and some actually
like Pool, and show it.
3) The people that have a different agenda than
Pool became more of the problem than the solution. The website was becoming a 'soap opra', and Mike had to do something about it as it was degrading the whole integrity of the board.
He made up his mind, and carried out his solution (his board). Everything in life has rules,
so why should this board be any different? I think every poster needs to self-reflect as to why they are here to begin with.
4) An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

And I want to mention 1 other thing: Shorty was chastised and drilled for bringing up a question of price on a cue, and just because it
was Hal (no offense Hal), who is well liked on the forum, people went on a personal vendetta against Shorty, ganging up on him, BUT when
I listed a cue for a friend on here, who had documentation as to its authencity and model,
I was cut to pieces regarding price and model
pubicly, in a sense made it their goal in life
to disprove me, and NOT 1 person said anything
to them about doing the same thing that Shorty
was accused of. SO, IT SEEMS TO ME, THAT THERE ARE A BUNCH OF OTHER HYPOCRITES
EXISTING OUT THERE. It is either right or wrong to question a cue's price publicly on the forum, YOU CAN NOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS JUST
TO SUIT YOU.

One last note: I don't mind a cuss word or two
occasionly, especially if it is on a humorous note,
but I think constant profanity laced posts have no place on this board.

 

[Koop]

I was cut to pieces regarding price and model
pubicly, in a sense made it their goal in life
to disprove me, and NOT 1 person said anything
to them about doing the same thing that Shorty
was accused of. SO, IT SEEMS TO ME, THAT THERE ARE A BUNCH OF OTHER HYPOCRITES
EXISTING OUT THERE. It is either right or wrong to question a cue's price publicly on the forum, YOU CAN NOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS JUST
TO SUIT YOU.

Or it could be that no one noticed. Certainly possible.

The post regarding Hal could not be missed be cause it had about 7 pages.

 

[Timberly]

Or it could be that no one noticed. Certainly possible.

The post regarding Hal could not be missed be cause it had about 7 pages.

Better yet, the problem with the Hal/shorty thread was that shorty beligerantly chastised Hal for his price. Hal stuck up for himself and his price. Shorty deletes what he says and then runs to Mike crying because Hal called him a bad name (boohoo).

BIG difference Scott, big difference.

 

[TipTapper]

Stalinism

n : a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator (not restricted by a constitution or laws or opposition etc.) [syn: dictatorship, absolutism, authoritarianism, Caesarism, despotism, monocracy, one-man rule, shogunate, Stalinism, totalitarianism, tyranny]

I don't believe anyone here can really argure that Mike and the mods try to run a clean form for the sole purpose of flexing their collective muscle as all powerful dictators. That would be the opinion of one very uninformed poster. Ladies and Gentleman this is a business a business that must be given structure and posture to survive. Mr. Howerton and his appointed moderators are here trying to give this forum integrity and much needed direction. Can any of you imagine what kind of crap you would have to filter through on this board just to get to some pool related topics if the mods weren't here filtering the crap for you. These people serve a legitimate purpose on this forum, and I believe we should all just say "Thank You" and enjoy the forum rather than lambasting the mods for trying to keep the place respectable. JMHO.

 

[Mr. Wilson]

Peple are funny.

They talk about LAW, Politics...etc, and it seems like they don't understand the subject material.

There are plenty of "laws" covering this board and what may or may not be done.

First, While it is open to the public, it is PRIVATE PROPERTY.

Just try it, walk into almost any store and start a fuss about the policies they have. Use a stop watch. Make a note of how long it took them to ask you to leave...and not come back.

How about plain old disurbing the peace?

Make your dramatic argument to the officer who shows up for the call.

Maybe He'll buy all that free speech mumbo jumbo. Try cussing him for good effect

I've tried to be impartial, but I will say something to one person, pharoah.

Make sure you understand, you are here because of an open invitation. ( everyone here is ), Thanks to Mike.

Your opinion is noted, but it is just one and making sure that everyone on the board knows it doesn't make it more legitimate.

I do not owe an explanation for removing, moving, editing...etc what *I* might consider hurtful to the board to anyone other than Mike Howerton.

If I choose to say anything in public about the decision, it is as a courtesy, not because I have any obligation to justify *anything* to you.

Are we clear yet?

 

[TipTapper]

Well said (applause.....).

 

[pharaoh68]

Better yet, the problem with the Hal/shorty thread was that shorty beligerantly chastised Hal for his price. Hal stuck up for himself and his price. Shorty deletes what he says and then runs to Mike crying because Hal called him a bad name (boohoo).

BIG difference Scott, big difference.

The problem is that Shorty likes to hide behind the computer. People ask for expert opinions and when they do, I expect to see answers from guys like Sean Brown or Bill Grassley or even some of the cuemakers who post here like John Showman or James White. But then, in pops Shorty making some sort of assinine statement. We, in turn chastise Shorty for piping up and wasting our time when his comments are in no way wanted or needed. He then complains and we get warned or deleted. But then Shorty can jump online and rip someone else apart for pricing a cue how he saw fit. You don't like the price Shorty? Don't buy the cue! But if you can dish out the attack, you better have a strong defense because someone is bound to fire back.

And in regards to the Stalinism comment that someone else made earlier, congrats! Somebody gets it! I'm not saying we should be left alone to monitor ourselves. I'm simply saying lets make the boundaries a little more clear and a little less flexible.