[PrinceLightfoot]

[quote author=TreesAndBirds link=topic=15102.msg163590#msg163590 date=1464134479]
But this shouldnt fall on Yvonne to police us.

Or anyone else for that matter. Do we really need to be protected from divergent, even obnoxious and distasteful, opinions. If you don't like what's being said, respond or move along. Doesn't seem that difficult to me...at least for grownups.
[/quote]

+10

I voted "No" on the poll because the inclusion of charged OT subjects can be destructive towards our common goal of supporting Stanford Athletics and by extension our camaraderie. Moderating political topics is nearly impossible to execute without bias because those with opposing views will eventually offend each other. Nonetheless, I agree wholeheartedly with CowboyIndian (and question my initial vote as a result); thought police should not be necessary in any discussion where deeper understanding can be gleaned whether or not we agree with that understanding.

[quote author=CornFed link=topic=15102.msg163658#msg163658 date=1464156358]
I am impressed that he took such a forceful action to demonstrate his disgust. 

Respectfully, I can't disagree more. He went out in flaming blaze of hellfire, insulting other posters with pretty harsh language, as well as the admins:

Here's an explanation of what I'm thinking: that you're a stupid gutless little bitch to continue spewing your bilious idiocy against somebody that your friends among the board administrators have prevented from defending himself.

This was, in effect, the "I'm taking my toys and going home" move. Just me, but I don't find that impressive.
[/quote]

Other posters? The subject is well defined and the administrators are included in the periphery. Garvin saw injustice and like most who protest created a scene to ensure it was noticed; the person who began the personal attack is still here while the person who was inflammatory initially and responded to a personal attack likewise is not, thus his statement saying that as long as you align with the administrator's biases, you are safe. The explanation of repeat offenses puts the action taken by the admin in context, but bias impacts what is a considered an offense. Is the same type of scrutiny applied to those who share the admin's views? That is purely rhetorical.

For someone who obviously enjoyed posting here for almost 20 years to make this move is impressive because he is sticking with his conviction (whether we agree with it or not) and forgoing his long kept diversion.

[PrinceLightfoot]

[quote author=TreesAndBirds link=topic=15102.msg163590#msg163590 date=1464134479]
But this shouldnt fall on Yvonne to police us.

Or anyone else for that matter. Do we really need to be protected from divergent, even obnoxious and distasteful, opinions. If you don't like what's being said, respond or move along. Doesn't seem that difficult to me...at least for grownups.
[/quote]

+10

I voted "No" on the poll because the inclusion of charged OT subjects can be destructive towards our common goal of supporting Stanford Athletics and by extension our camaraderie. Moderating political topics is nearly impossible to execute without bias because those with opposing views will eventually offend each other. Nonetheless, I agree wholeheartedly with CowboyIndian (and question my initial vote as a result); thought police should not be necessary in any discussion where deeper understanding can be gleaned whether or not we agree with that understanding.

[quote author=CornFed link=topic=15102.msg163658#msg163658 date=1464156358]
I am impressed that he took such a forceful action to demonstrate his disgust. 

Respectfully, I can't disagree more. He went out in flaming blaze of hellfire, insulting other posters with pretty harsh language, as well as the admins:

Here's an explanation of what I'm thinking: that you're a stupid gutless little bitch to continue spewing your bilious idiocy against somebody that your friends among the board administrators have prevented from defending himself.

This was, in effect, the "I'm taking my toys and going home" move. Just me, but I don't find that impressive.
[/quote]

Other posters? The subject is well defined and the administrators are included in the periphery. Garvin saw injustice and like most who protest created a scene to ensure it was noticed; the person who began the personal attack is still here while the person who was inflammatory initially and responded to a personal attack likewise is not, thus his statement saying that as long as you align with the administrator's biases, you are safe. The explanation of repeat offenses puts the action taken by the admin in context, but bias impacts what is a considered an offense. Is the same type of scrutiny applied to those who share the admin's views? That is purely rhetorical.

For someone who obviously enjoyed posting here for almost 20 years to make this move is impressive because he is sticking with his conviction (whether we agree with it or not) and forgoing his long kept diversion.