Lelouch Le Brittania
Banned
I understand that every forum, rightfully so, has rules and parameters to create order. I myself haven't broken any rules, don't think I ever want to, and see no reason to. I myself don't feel so encumbered and circumscribed by the rules as others. However, the reality is in the end of the day this place is still an Internet forum, not a university hall, not a classroom, not a work office, but a forum dedicated to anime characters. To be stringent with the rules and overly punctilious with propriety to the point of pedantism is making a lot of members on this website either leave or banned. Which, compounded with the fact that Naruto has ended, is making this place seem empty and almost deserted. Many members have complained to me on other forums, former NB members who either got banned or are disillusioned with NB, that they feel that the rules are too strict.
I'm not saying to waive all or even most of the rules, as that would create anarchy. But several rules pertaining to the political correctness and censorship of anything minute seems like a problem. A good example is the thread Hawker made about Islam and refugees. Even though I myself abjured and rebutted most of Hawker's points, even though I myself felt there was intermittent racism spewed, I still found the thread stimulating and a much needed discussion that is simmering under a lot of unreleased tension; sweeping debates like these under the rug won't solve anything. Sure there was a lot of arguing and contention, but for the most part there wasn't the kind of crazy attacks and out of control ad hominems and invectives to warrant closure. Ignoring that one thread, there shouldn't be a problem with controversial and contentious issues being discussed, even if ideas are caustically satirized and religions possibly repudiated, as long as the intention isn't to troll and basic propriety of discussion is maintained then no idea or belief system should be immune from criticism. In the rules it states to respect all religions and avoid harassment. That rule is ideal, but the enforcement of that rule seems to be along the lines of "maintain the status quo and avoid any possible catharsis that will cause one to question their beliefs". Diatribes and vitriolic spewing is one thing, but if someone wants to make a thread in which they criticize a religion, say Islam or Christianity or even non religions like atheism, it should be welcomed as it stimulates much needed discussion and allows different views to be synthesized. There have been cases where members have been hectored on account of their religion, race, sexual orientation, etc. that is harassment and should be dealt with accordingly. But unless the person or group of people are being harassed and or reasonably uncomfortable, then there shouldn't be an actual problem discussing the idea of homosexuality, the idea of Islam, the idea of Christianity, the idea of letting refugees in Europe, etc. Even more controversial topics such as race and intelligence, even topics such as these shouldn't be avoided out of fear that people will get offended. It may be uncomfortable hearing unpalatable views on these taboo topics, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be discussed. It just means people have to learn to debate controversial topics civilly.
That's just one example of some people complaining that the rules feel too stringent at times. Personally I'm just saying what I've heard and nothing more.
I'm not saying to waive all or even most of the rules, as that would create anarchy. But several rules pertaining to the political correctness and censorship of anything minute seems like a problem. A good example is the thread Hawker made about Islam and refugees. Even though I myself abjured and rebutted most of Hawker's points, even though I myself felt there was intermittent racism spewed, I still found the thread stimulating and a much needed discussion that is simmering under a lot of unreleased tension; sweeping debates like these under the rug won't solve anything. Sure there was a lot of arguing and contention, but for the most part there wasn't the kind of crazy attacks and out of control ad hominems and invectives to warrant closure. Ignoring that one thread, there shouldn't be a problem with controversial and contentious issues being discussed, even if ideas are caustically satirized and religions possibly repudiated, as long as the intention isn't to troll and basic propriety of discussion is maintained then no idea or belief system should be immune from criticism. In the rules it states to respect all religions and avoid harassment. That rule is ideal, but the enforcement of that rule seems to be along the lines of "maintain the status quo and avoid any possible catharsis that will cause one to question their beliefs". Diatribes and vitriolic spewing is one thing, but if someone wants to make a thread in which they criticize a religion, say Islam or Christianity or even non religions like atheism, it should be welcomed as it stimulates much needed discussion and allows different views to be synthesized. There have been cases where members have been hectored on account of their religion, race, sexual orientation, etc. that is harassment and should be dealt with accordingly. But unless the person or group of people are being harassed and or reasonably uncomfortable, then there shouldn't be an actual problem discussing the idea of homosexuality, the idea of Islam, the idea of Christianity, the idea of letting refugees in Europe, etc. Even more controversial topics such as race and intelligence, even topics such as these shouldn't be avoided out of fear that people will get offended. It may be uncomfortable hearing unpalatable views on these taboo topics, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be discussed. It just means people have to learn to debate controversial topics civilly.
That's just one example of some people complaining that the rules feel too stringent at times. Personally I'm just saying what I've heard and nothing more.
Last edited:
