"racism" for the discussion of racism.

I don't believe it is in the best interest of the community to avoid terminology that is racist, as a portion of discussion points. 

...that I've been having for 2+ years. I'm sorry to say this, but I'm glad I'm not alone in feeling this way.

I think we really have to start instituting the "time out" option that we've discussed. I think that Tschida qualifies for a 3 day suspension, given his willful disregard of the social contract on Rob W.'s thread. Can we get a community vote?

Can't you see the hypocrisy of that? You just posted those words too.

Norm had a real eye-opener when he pointed out that many people would not have realized some of those words were offensive. We're not handed a list of forbidden words in Kindergarten, we usually learn something's a Bad Word when we either get smacked for repeating it, or if a parent tells us not to repeat what was heard. There's a slur-word for Black People that I didn't realize was one until I was 19, I am so thankful I never naively used it.

The word that you exampled was another one I'm not familiar with. I would have thought that's its usage was no different than something like a Boojum. Now I know, and I'm glad I do.

"OlyBlog is not a broad range of Olympians in any way shape or form" In my opinion, this statement couldn't be further from the truth. Take a look around the joint Rob, seriously. Olyblog is a huge crossection of Olympia.

Anti-war advocates

IT personnel

Mayoral Candidates

City Council Representatives

Retirees

Soldiers

Cops

College Students

Homeless Advocates and the Homeless themselves

Etc. Etc. Etc.

How is this not a broad range?

I disagree. The people who post the most may be white males, but membership is a different story. Look how often I post...rarely.

Edit: just saw your posts above after I wrote this. Is the problem with who's posting or the composition of Olyblog and the folks that lurk here?

"You Vill Post More Often Fraulein"

;)

In an ideal world everyone would respect eachother. Everyone would like constructive discussions. Everyone would shun deconstructive banter. We wouldn’t limit what eachother could say, and we would have to reason to do so. Voluntary self-restraint, personal discretion, and concern for eachother would do the job.

We do not live in an ideal world. We do not live in an ideal world.

Whether, when, how, and to what extent it is appropriate to restrict another person’s speech is a fiercely debated questions and has been for some time. There are great minds on both sides.

I think it would be in order for us to recognize:

1) This is a comlex dillema to which there is not perfect solution. What is the ideal way to operate in a less-than-ideal world?

2) If we believe in the ideal of respect, we should include respect for those who disagree with us over whether and how that can be enforced.

With that in mind, let me make a few more points.

1) This is a private blog, and therefore, has the legal freedom to set boundaries which could not be set on a state or national level. Those who have other agendas could set up separate blogs or whatever . . . we aren’t throwing anyone in jail!

2) With that being said, I’m a bit of a laizez-faire fan . . . I prefer NOT to have a bunch of rules being forced on me and being free to just walk by my own concience.

3) If the intention is to craft and enforce a standard, I think the question of balance/bias is relevant. I think finding people who can be even-handed, regardless of their own politics/social-standing/etc, would be preferrable to trying to create a 50/50 mix of biased people. But serious attention should be given to ensuring that those enforcing the standard will do so in an equitable matter. I’m not commenting one way or the other on the current docent board. I have had only limited experience with any of them . . . and I don’t feel called upon to give an opinion on their qualifications. But I want to communicate that I think the question of whether we can (and would) equitably enforce a standard is relevant to the discussion of whether to adobt such a standard, and if we do go about enforcing such a standard I think explicit attention should be given to whether are current system is working and what safeguards could be put in place to ensure equitable judgements.

Thanks for your post Rob. Like you, I'm a veteran of this blog. OlyBlog is a public meeting, and all public meetings need to have a Sergeant at Arms for the drunk, disorderly, and mentally ill. Everything you said has merit and needs to be taken seriously, especially given the fact that you are one of the early and founding members of this experiment. I would like to see the docents be more aggressive in giving the 86 to the mono-egos, just like Bubbaz did to Independent Voter. That example should serve as a template.

I appreciate all the docents. Circumstance has placed me in a position to know something about the abuse you guys have to endure. What really gets me are all the folks who think any computer glitch or "access denied" is a sure sign of Left-wing censorship. Paranoia: a mental disorder characterized by delusions, as of grandeur or persecution.

"It is OK to have boundaries" as someone respected by this blog says. Rob, I support your views.   

Can we vote on this one (and I'm not being sarcastic)?