rgmustain wrote:
Sorry Harry, but I don't agree. If Bob chooses to attack other VP
personalities in his column then I think those topics should be up
for general discussion on VPFREE.
The topic was and is up for discussion on vpFREE.
I will never agree with censorship BEFORE THE FACT. It should be
assumed that everyone will follow the rules of VPFREE until such a
time that someone doesn't. By removing posts that do not violate the
rules the moderator sets a bad precedence.
The guilty post was a personal attack IMO and violated vpFREE rules.
However, it's very appropriate for discussion here, which we're doing.
The rules are there for a reason and the moderator should enforce
them as they stand. (Yeah, yeah, I know it's always up to the
moderator, but that job is easier if hard and fast rules are in
place)
I agree and so acted.
> There are elements of your post (and quoted text) that do raise
> questions that might reasonably addressed on vpFREE on a factual and
> rational level without levying personal judgements against any
> participant in the discussion.
Yep. And now they won't be.
Why not?
The thread wasn't moved or terminated.
> This includes the extent to which penalty cards are a critical or,
> at minimum, significant success factor in play -- preferably citing
> quantitative or qualitative play aspects against which assertions
> can be evaluated.
It should also cover whether Bob made factual statements in his
attack on Dan or whether he manufactured them.
As long as it doesn't include ANY negative personal comments.
> These are topics which I believe would reasonably be discussed on
> the primary discussion group, provided they are discussed on the
> merits of the facts and not the personalities involved.
Personalities ... no, statements made in his column ... yes.
As long as it doesn't include ANY negative personal comments.
Negative personal comment posts have never been allowed on
vpFREE. They should be posted on FREEvpFREE.
vpFREE Administrator