Author Topic: Debate, censorship, and CathInfo (Read 861 times)

Matthew · « **on:** July 26, 2009, 11:29:19 PM »

Debate, censorship, and CathInfo

Debate is an important and inevitable action for those who believe in something. It is inevitable because, with our limited intellects, human beings are capable of understanding or focusing on only one element of a complex issue. When I say "debate", I mean two people discussing a topic where there is controversy or disagreement. Often times the passions become involved -- even to a major degree.

I believe debate should go as unhindered as possible, and should be given a place to occur without being nipped in the bud. That place is CathInfo.

So why have some people been banned from CathInfo?

Well, for a variety of reasons, usually a gross mismatch between the person and CathInfo. For example, CathInfo is a Catholic forum; a freethinker ordained in the Church of Divine Man should look elsewhere for his online socializing. Likewise, trolls, spammers, and blasphemers would only destroy a perfectly good forum -- so they are banned without ceremony or remorse.

But what about those who strongly disagree with the moderator, or the majority of people here? Should they be allowed to stay?

I would answer "Yes", as long as they respect the authority of the moderator. But no one can slap an authority in the face -- publicly -- and expect nothing to happen. For good order, something has to be done, or else everyone would disdain the authority. There would be chaos. Whether the authority is great or small, the principle is the same.

CathInfo is only a humble Traditional Catholic forum, but if you want to be a member of this humble forum, you need to behave yourself at least somewhat.

In conclusion, I would say that debate is never censored here, except in cases where the debate shouldn't exist in the first place ("Is Jesus Christ God?"). What is censored/forbidden is impudence against the forum and management thereof. No one can have a problem with the forum defending itself in an efficient manner (i.e., banning the offender).

Matthew

Vladimir · « **Reply #1 on:** July 26, 2009, 11:30:56 PM »

Did something inspire this post?

Matthew · « **Reply #2 on:** July 26, 2009, 11:33:58 PM »

Well, someone was wondering about the recent bannings on here, and it got me thinking.

It's good to clarify such things.

Matthew

Vladimir · « **Reply #3 on:** July 26, 2009, 11:40:37 PM »

Promise me that you will never ban roscoe or Uriel. :sad:

roscoe · « **Reply #4 on:** July 27, 2009, 12:52:03 PM »

I am not sure that I appreciate being confounded with Uriel.

Matthew · « **Reply #5 on:** July 27, 2009, 01:29:55 PM »

Hahaha good point.

No, I think Roscoe has proven himself to be a decent member here. Disagreeing with a great number of members is not a crime. Having unpopular opinions is not a crime. Failure to be charming and smooth-talking isn't a crime either.

If I have to think long and hard about it, a person probably shouldn't be banned. Usually it's obvious, and everyone on here claps and congratulates me after the deed is done. That's a good sign.

When it comes to banning, I err on the side of not banning someone who needs it.

Matthew