Is censorship on gca.com a good thing?

[Lou_Duran]

Was the Obama thread removed by a moderator, or was it just a glitch like the Google pop-up?  If it was removed, is this a good thing for the site?

The state of golf and its architecture is affected in not a small way by politics and economics.  I think that a frank and open discussion of these matters, despite all the acrimony and name-calling that often ensues, is important for a serious website.  Certainly, numerous other subject matters with far lesser relevance are tolerated if not actually encouraged.  Just food for thought.         

[Kyle Harris]

It prevents Ran from being pigeonholed into a political ideology. I'd say a bit of self-restraint on such matters on the part of those posting should be the minimum of respect shown to Ran and those others whose name are affiliated with this site.

[Ken Moum]

Trust me, you don't want political discussions here.

There's nothing good that can come from allowing them in an open golf forum. The only forum I know of that has such discussions without causing pandemonium has a folder that is invisible unless you ask for access.

K

[Lou_Duran]

"Pigeonholed", that's a good one I haven't heard for awhile.  Ran or Ben hardly ever post.  To the best of my knowledge, the site (or Ran) takes no formal positions.  With the exception of an affinity for a small handful of architects and perhaps "firm and fast" conditions, I don't know that there is much concensus here among the participants.

I think that if we are to show respect for gca.com as a serious, unique site and to Ran as its creator, we should be open to serious discussions of tangential but relevant topics.  The respect being called for requires the individual discipline to discuss the issues thoughtfully and with civility.  Whether the subject matter is Fazio, water hazards, the environment, taxation, Obama, we should be able to have a vigorous, passioned discourse while agreeing to disagree agreeably, and without fear of censorship.  To do less than that is to cheapen and lessen the site, in my honest opinion. 

[Kyle Harris]

Lou,

Moreso for the uninitiated who stumbles upon the main page and sees "Presented by Ran Morrissett" and then ventures into the Discussion Group. Guests do read this site.

Guilt by association, as it were.

[David Stamm]

Lou, with all due respect, whether it was deleted or not, this is not the place for those kind of discussions. Quite frankly, this site has way too much O/T on it. Sometimes I wonder if I'm on a architecture board or a dinner party. We all have fun discussing different things and I'm not trying to be a stick in the mud, but I think O/T stuff has really gotten out of hand. I do agree that if it was deleted, far less important issues have been allowed to contnue which is  silly.

[Michael Christensen]

I think all O/T should be allowed or disallowed....why should a Super Bowl O/T thread be allowed, but not on that discusses tax policy??

[TEPaul]

Lou:

I'm a guy who doesn't much like restrictions and limitations but I'm not so sure I like threads that are completely OT to golf architecture which is what this website is here for.

I wouldn't mind the occassional lapses into OT on posts on architectural threads but that's an obvious problem for an "administrator" and it creates problems for contributors and "readers" in the way of "noise" and deflection from a thread subject.

But generally OT things whether threads or posts don't bother me because if I'm not interested in them I just don't bother with them and I can't see why others  shouldn't treat them that way.

[Steve Lang]

   Hey Lou

You sound in a melancholy conservative mood..  Politics got you down?

I have personally asked for various threads to be removed when they were horribly off-topic, and not adding any value, in my opinion, to the discussion group contents.  Apparently the moderators agreed and those threads are now a faint memory ..

I think censorship is essential on this site if it is to serve Ran's original intent and maintain its generally good focus.  It doesn't have to be all inclusive, all allowing.. there needs to be some discipline or principles allways at play, maybe not hard rules but directional guidance that only the ultimate threat of "thread censorship" provides.  I simply trust the benevolence of gca.com's moderators to determine when enough is enough.

ps any travel back to tx in 2008?

[Bill_McBride]

  Hey Lou

You sound in a melancholy conservative mood..  Politics got you down?

Tough times for Lou but I suspect he'll bounce back!   

[Jason McNamara]

I think that if we are to show respect for gca.com as a serious, unique site and to Ran as its creator, we should be open to serious discussions of tangential but relevant topics. 

Lou, two thoughts:

1.  I'd argue GCA is a serious, unique golf architecture site.

2.  We do have political and economic threads here.  Deepdale/eminent domain, the Donald in Aberdeenshire, water use threads, the recent thread about a slowdown possibly being good for the game.  But all those are at least somewhat relevant to GCA (maintenance, housing, infrastructure, possible NLEs), while "Does so-and-so play golf?" seems more like a thread for Yahoo Answers.

(For the record, wiping out all the football threads is OK by me as well.)

[Michael Dugger]

There is a "new generation" of sorts around here which are quite unaware of the relationships some of the treehouse have fostered with their fellow members.

Thus, there are two things going on at once on golfclubatlas.com.  Most of the old schoolers, and it feels funny saying old school because we are talking about seven or so years of history, no longer need to assert their particular positions on said topics because they are widely already known by their peers.

For those aforementioned folk, O/T topics are no more than a continuation of conversation between long standing friends.

Then we have the "new school" who are very much into talking about minimalism, The National Golf Links, Max Behr and ODG's.  

Everyone should be tolerant of one another.  I hardly get my feelings hurt over an O/T thread, but I'm sure that to some degree this is because I feel like often times O/T threads provide the only "fresh" material.





  

[Norbert P]

 I thought that the thread was very illuminating.  Did I miss something? Did the real Michael Moore show up?

[John Kirk]

I enjoy civil political discourse.  However, I lose my cool on occasion.

I made a couple posts, disappeared for a few hours, and the thread was gone.  I didn't think it was anything I said.

Very proud to be American.  There, I said it again.

[Matt_Cohn]

Yes

[Tony Ristola]

I didn't see the Obama thread, but I agree with Lou. Golf and politics are intertwined, and at times a serious discussion requires some examination of politics; parties, posturing & decision making.

Environmental regulations. Not political?
Increased cost of construction not in part due to political decisions?
Golf courses permitted or not due to politics?
Length of the permitting process not political?
Golf courses or portions of annexed. Void of politics?

Dr. Mackenzie thought so much of the influence of politics on golf architecture (and society which may or may not take up golf) that he devoted a generous portion of The Spirit of St. Andrews to it. It makes for great reading today, and is still relevant.

Just because a political/golf topic may get a bit overheated is no reason to shirk away from it. Unless, that is, the forum has been PC'd into being a bunch of spineless pansies.

[Craig Van Egmond]

I thought it was a very good thread, with some very good dialog.   As Tony points out, politics is everywhere.

 The problem with the deletion of threads is that it is not being applied in a consistent manner as Michael points out. The Obama thread at least had golf in it, but the Super Bowl threads are another story.

[Jeff Spittel]

I think all O/T should be allowed or disallowed....why should a Super Bowl O/T thread be allowed, but not on that discusses tax policy??

Michael,

I think the easy answer to that question is because the Giants kicked the Patriots' ass.

[Mike Hendren]

Too late, the word's already out that GCA's demographics are a mirror of the USGA's, just without the dandruff.

[John Kavanaugh]

I'm sitting here in the Southwest terminal surrounded by loud talking urbanites who must think I care about their opinions and or social status.  It's Southwest douchebags...I'm not impressed.  The same can be said of those people who hang out on a golf course architecture website and think they are contributing to the important national dialog on viatal social issues.  Find someone who cares and remember that if you do eventually say something worth keeping noone heard it anyway.  Just because you say something loud enough in an airport, restaurant or chat room for others to hear does not make it worth hearing.

[Jason Topp]

Find someone who cares and remember that if you do eventually say something worth keeping noone heard it anyway. 

Count me as someone who listens.  I enjoy much of the political discourse on this website because often it is well thought out and reasoned.  Some topics on which I have become much more informed because of resources and arguments on this site:

1.  Regulatory takings/eminent domain issues
2.  Great discussion of Kelly Tilgman issue
3.  Health care discussion was very illuminating and well thought out
4.  Global warming
5.  Government role in competing with the private sector
6.  tax treatment of country clubs and country club employees

The relevance of these topics to GCA varies, but for me this is a free opportunity to hear discourse rather than rants.  Such opportunities are rare in today's society.   

[George Pazin]

The relevance of these topics to GCA varies, but for me this is a free opportunity to hear discourse rather than rants.  Such opportunities are rare in today's society.   

Man, whose posts are you reading?

Political discussions are too tough for me; I can't even read them anymore because I lose respect for people, but I don't much care if others choose to engage. Still, it's not my site, so if someone feels the desire to eradicate them, I respect his reasons.

[tlavin]

Good thing?  Bad thing?  I'm not sure, but it sure is an inconsistent thing.  We have had many political discussions on the site and many of them were announced as OT but still remained active.  Others, like the Obama thread, started with a limited question but then veered off the tracks onto an extended discussion of economics and politics.  It got pulled after the medical profession was criticized.

Personally, I have no problem if political, racial or religious threads get killed here.  They don't serve any unifying purpose.  We have enough golf and architecture related topics to divide and inspire us so we should probably not go down the political road.  If it takes the moderator's influence to do that, well that's just fine with me.

[John Kavanaugh]

I find that urbanites have no respect for a time and a place.  They just scream out an opinion anywhere anytime one pops in their thick skulls.  This site is simply neither the time or place to say whatever is on your mind.  This site, like no ther place I know, is the time and place to discuss golf course architecture without fear of being labeled a gay ass blow hard.  That gets diluted with every political post.  

[Craig Sweet]

The question and the topic is whether "CENSORSHIP" on GCA is a good thing. And I would argue that censorship is NEVER a good thing....

However, everyone posting here is equating taking down a thread that strays from the stated mission of this discussion group as censorship, and censorship is not the word to describe that action.