Wow, really?

[Thumpalumpacus]

The in the rules where it says "no hate speech" add a parenthetical "(this includes religious cartoons)".  Why is there so much pushback on simply making this clear and explicit?

Well, that would include all religious cartoons.  This issue concerns a specific self-censoring of "the drawing of one specific offensive person", the action of which is percieved to offend a shitload of bullys & psychopathic murderers who like seeing that they can control what you do.  

The not-to-be-drawn subject Mohammad, was an average camel merchant from a deeply devided family of tribalistic warlords.  He may have had epileptic seizures and is also known for having consummated a "marriage" with a prepubescent child.  

I'm guessing his fans don't want to see him on a wanted poster.    

Make the parenthetical "no cartoons that may incite violence". Or make it "no cartoons of Mohammed". I'm not picky about the wording, except insofar as members here understand clearly what is out of bounds. That is the essence of my point throughout my posting in this thread: members should not have their threads nuked based on unwritten bases. If the Staff feel the need to remove a thread or post, they should be able to cite something in the rules forbidding such expression.

Rule 11 already covers this situation, but it might be a good idea to add “incite” along with “promote.”

11) Hate speech
Posts promoting racism, terrorism, genocide, holocaust denial, or other forms of hate speech are not permitted.  Posts discussing these topics are allowed but members wishing to advocate such positions will be shown the door.

I don’t mind comics in the laughing at religion page, but a thread singling out a particular religion for evisceration can cross the line if it’s not handled with tact, or at least be in good fun. I think the draw mo thread that was created here was intended to poke fun rather than create an environment of hate, and under normal conditions, I'd have favored stopping the thread once it got out of hand rather than assuming that it would get out of hand. Threads like this should be taken on a case by case basis and not rigidly planned for in the rules.

This is generally a forum that allows criticism of religion, but in this particular case, the thread's topic and content caused us administrators to literally fear for our lives. Game over. There are clear examples of terrorism that have occurred in the recent past over these kinds of drawings. While I do appreciate your free speech, I’m just not willing to lose my head for you to say whatever you want and I'm certainty not going to stand for allowing someone else to decide on my behalf where my comfort threshold should be.

Fine. Put that in the rules so everyone knows where they stand. Just state clearly what is and is not acceptable here. I'm not sure why that is such a wobbly issue.

[Chas]

Fine. Put that in the rules so everyone knows where they stand. Just state clearly what is and is not acceptable here. I'm not sure why that is such a wobbly issue.

I think you are really missing the point. 
It was the thread title, the call to create offensive images for one particular religion, that made this potentially dangerous because of the proven behavior of some practitioners of said religion.  No cartoons are being banned as far as I see.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Fine. Put that in the rules so everyone knows where they stand. Just state clearly what is and is not acceptable here. I'm not sure why that is such a wobbly issue.

I think you are really missing the point. 
It was the thread title, the call to create offensive images for one particular religion, that made this potentially dangerous because of the proven behavior of some practitioners of said religion.  No cartoons are being banned as far as I see.

And I in turn think you are missing the point. If the title was what caused @GenesisNemesis's thread to be nuked, make the rule address the titling of the thread. Problem solved.

In either case, and this is the point you're missing, make the rule address the point of the Staff's redaction, and then everyone knows what is and isn't kosher. It would take perhaps five minutes at most: "Don't title a thread inviting insulting Islam, as it may endanger the Staff here."

This isn't rocket surgery. Your objection is a niggle which avoids my gist.

[Chas]

Fine. Put that in the rules so everyone knows where they stand. Just state clearly what is and is not acceptable here. I'm not sure why that is such a wobbly issue.

I think you are really missing the point. 
It was the thread title, the call to create offensive images for one particular religion, that made this potentially dangerous because of the proven behavior of some practitioners of said religion.  No cartoons are being banned as far as I see.

And I in turn think you are missing the point. If the title was what caused @GenesisNemesis's thread to be nuked, make the rule address the titling of the thread. Problem solved.

In either case, and this is the point you're missing, make the rule address the point of the Staff's redaction, and then everyone knows what is and isn't kosher. It would take perhaps five minutes at most: "Don't title a thread inviting insulting Islam, as it may endanger the Staff here."

This isn't rocket surgery. Your objection is a niggle which avoids my gist.

I see what you are saying, I just don't agree with you.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I think you are really missing the point. 
It was the thread title, the call to create offensive images for one particular religion, that made this potentially dangerous because of the proven behavior of some practitioners of said religion.  No cartoons are being banned as far as I see.

And I in turn think you are missing the point. If the title was what caused @GenesisNemesis's thread to be nuked, make the rule address the titling of the thread. Problem solved.

In either case, and this is the point you're missing, make the rule address the point of the Staff's redaction, and then everyone knows what is and isn't kosher. It would take perhaps five minutes at most: "Don't title a thread inviting insulting Islam, as it may endanger the Staff here."

This isn't rocket surgery. Your objection is a niggle which avoids my gist.

I see what you are saying, I just don't agree with you.

That's fair.

[Unsapien]

There's a reason that nations have laws.

There's also a reason that nations have Judges & courts. No nation, or forum admin can be expected to make a rule for every specific circumstance. We have to put some trust in the people that are running the place that they will be fair & balanced.

We've seen times when threads have been closed & posts removed, but this particular thread was perceived as an immediate threat to peoples' safety. I think the response in this case was justified under those conditions.

[Dom]

There's a reason that nations have laws.

There's also a reason that nations have Judges & courts. No nation, or forum admin can be expected to make a rule for every specific circumstance. We have to put some trust in the people that are running the place that they will be fair & balanced.

We've seen times when threads have been closed & posts removed, but this particular thread was perceived as an immediate threat to peoples' safety. I think the response in this case was justified under those conditions.

We actually don't remove posts or close threads unless they clearly threaten the health of the community. Posts are not removed without consultation with the author. Threads are generally closed temporarily to let some folks cool down. 

Total removal of a thread is not generally warranted, in this case it encouraged an activity that posed a threat to someone's life. That is serious and hence the action. Removal of an entire thread always causes fallout in a forum. It is never done lightly.

I get constant complaints in PM that I should ban or remove this or that thread or person. Not going to happen unless they run afoul of rules that are kept to a minimum on purpose, or threaten the health of the forum.

It's an ungrateful job but somebody has to do it. We try to leave as small a foot print as we can. But we do expect people to be rational and respectful of each other.

[Kim]

---
---
---- But we do expect people to be rational and respectful of each other.

Yabut, come on ... we need time to adjust to these strange, cultural changes you and your ilk (management) wish to implement.

I mean, we've only been walking upwrite a few thousand years.