Is censorship on gca.com a good thing?

[Doug Sobieski]

Censorship has been going on here for so long, why are we worrying about it now? Ever since I told Ran to go [expletive deleted by Moderator] himself because I thought that Friar's Head was [opinion deleted by Moderator] and he disagreed, I've noticed something was up. We all know that most of us are a bunch of [political incorrectness deleted by Moderator], but we should still maintain an appropriate level of decorum and focus worthy of Ran's hospitality, especially since Ran is [sycophantic phrase deleted by Moderator].


By the way, did anyone see that [off-topic reference deleted by Moderator] the other night?

[Peter Pallotta]

...This site, like no other place I know, is the time and place to discuss golf course architecture without fear of being labeled a gay ass blow hard....

When you're right you're very right, and when you're wrong you're better.

Peter

[RJ_Daley]

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.  

The problem with your theory about "other" people blurting out things in public John, is that you have made a posting career out of blurting out some pretty outrageous stuff.  Everyone must obey the king's rules except the king.  I have enjoyed many of your off-the-wall observations, but abhored a few of your nastiest, for instance when you went off on a good person with very insulting language and your version of a 'call-out' that was so very unfounded and unwarranted.  Yet, I take the good with the bad, just as I hope folks do with some of my soemtimes radical pronouncements of opinion, when something trips my trigger.  

Craig is right, however, IMO.  I called it censureship, and it wasn't that in the classic sense.  Somehow, an owner of the site decided to delete content by actually taking down an entire 4-5 pages of ideas on a seminal topic of the day that just unfortunately wasn't too golfy.  That is the owner's right.  Someone suggested it may not have been the moderators that pulled it, the thread originator can delete the whole darn thing.  Well, again in MHO, that is too bad.

The thing is, this is a "closed" poster site to a mere 1500 worldwide, where you need to register, and be given access.  That makes this a sort of closed club party and a discussion often times among friends and previous acquintences.  It is not the Southwest terminal, so much as a key club, Elks, Eagles, Rotary, Optimists, or the grill room at Victoria National.  

I for one learn a great deal both from the challenge of arguing with a fellow like Lou (who no one can say is not ready with smart arguements) and sometimes I have to go to some research to figure out what people are saying.  It is a learning process better than school, IMHO.  To be in a closed club, where sometimes the golf discussion becomes a little redundant (particularly to long timers who have to some degree heard most of the ideas on MacRaynorBanks expressed about 1000 times now) a good intelligent discussion aside, can be much more stimulating.  

Yet, it is a golf discussion board, and to know if Obama plays golf apparently takes presidence over the totally incongruous discussion of tax policy and H.C. that insues among 'GCA members'.   And while fascinating and unique and a tribute to the free market place of ideas that such a deviation occurs between citizens who 'revel' in the free speech of it all, we have to conform or take our ball elsewhere.  

I post infrequently on Huffington post as DaMare.  But, it isn't the same as speaking/writing almost directly with people I have come to know either in internet persona or in person from meet-ups.  Those sort of Blogs are populated with 100s or thousands if not millions, and a voice is so small there, where it is more effective here.

I do believe that Ran missed the boat with not having the O.T. button to transfer ongoing non-golf archie debates.  It might be better learning opportunity than university of the Internet.  

[Norbert P]

 With an official and direct statement, it would be helpful to know specificly  why that particular thread was obliterated.  

I disagree with the Golfing Politicians thread being removed, but I didn't see it to the finish.  From others' accounts of it, it seemed like it was heated but respectful.

Rule #1 - It's Ran's site.

But this is the internet - a freewheeling hub of people with thoughts from various backgrounds of social and financial backgrounds. Things have to roil somewhat or we'll become a cold bowl of chowder with a hard pat of butter sitting lifeless upon it.

[RJ_Daley]

But this is the internet - a freewheeling hub of people with thoughts from various backgrounds of social and financial backgrounds. Things have to roil somewhat or we'll become a cold bowl of chowder with a hard pat of butter sitting lifeless upon it.

Slag, I guess the winter has you couped up too, and you have transformed into a wordsmith, prosemiester... are you posting today in your official GCA.com smoking jacket, puffing a pipe? 

[tlavin]

But this is the internet - a freewheeling hub of people with thoughts from various backgrounds of social and financial backgrounds. Things have to roil somewhat or we'll become a cold bowl of chowder with a hard pat of butter sitting lifeless upon it.

I hate cold chowder with hard pats of butter; goes right to my thighs!

[John Mayhugh]

I do not like the political discussion at all.  The great thing about this site is the chance to talk with and sometimes meet people with different backgrounds that share an appreciation for GCA.  Knowing someone's political views is far more likely to hurt than help my opinion of them.  We get enough chances to argue over GCA.

Does anyone care who Mackenzie or Ross ever voted for?

[RJ_Daley]

Does anyone care who Mackenzie or Ross ever voted for?

John, not so fast... 

Would it be insightful to discuss and understand how the economic conditions of their times effected their work in terms of quality or quantity?  How did they deal with the roaring twenties, and the onset of the great depression (Though Mac died near the middle of it) Would knowing their politics and underlying beliefs give insight to their craft approach, style, methods, and responses to their business models?

We have discussed some issues of the Great Depression's effect on Tillie as well.  Basically, it ended Tillie's production, relegating him to some small work travelling around for a while doing "consulting" for remodelling.  We know the Good Dr., vigorously opposed 'socialist' inclinations.  Yet, he was victim of not getting paid in full for his ANGC work possibly associated with the hard times.  Had he lived deeper into the deepression past '34, and gone the route of Tillie in that it might have killed his GCA career, would Mac have embraced the "new deal" more socialistic approach to stimulating the dead economy.  Would he have gotten on the WPA public works band wagon like Ross, and a few others?   

Well, that may be a subject of pure conjecture, or end up a well researched historical interpretation, that may or may not be of value to forumites like some of us... 

[Lou_Duran]

Steve Lang,

If I am suffering from a bit of melancholy, it has nothing to do with the current political cycle.  Regardless of who prevails in Nov., it will be a welcomed break from the seven plus years of BHS, and the beginning of a fresher set of controversies.  For a person who enjoys political and economic debate, I actually look forward to it.  If my posts betray a note of sadness, maybe it is because I remain homesick and I am not playing any golf.  And no, I don't have any current plans to visit TX, though when Nuzzo's course is open for play, I will probably come by.

Bill McBride,

Thank you for your confidence (that I'll bounce back).  One of the few advantages of being a little long in the tooth is seeing patterns and cycles.  These are giddy times for your lovely wife, and, maybe, even for you.  Enjoy them while they last.  As others noted in the deleted thread, no matter how much things have changed, it is amazing how they largely remain the same.   Go figure!  At the risk of this post being deleted, I will leave it at that.


As some have noted, this site has been around for a few years now.  While we have not exhausted the universe of potential golf architecture topics, most of the plump ones have been picked-off.  This, I think, is reflected in the type and content of many of the new threads, and, perhaps, in the departure of some very interesting participants.

I am of the opinion that limiting content to non-controversial topics is a serious mistake, and to selectively enforce what is OT only compounds it.  Greater breadth of topics and higher participation by knowledgeable, thoughtful individuals is what this site needs.  Perhaps I am missing something key here, but just like I can't understand why people with different abilities have to play from the same set of tees when playing together, I can't figure out why some here can't simply by-pass a thread that doesn't meet their interest.

The zeitgeist in our country for a few years has been  toward openness and diversity.  I think the deletion of the Obama post, the general concensus opinion I sense from this thread, and even the primary election results show that we talk a much better game than we play.

       

[Bob_Huntley]

Steve Lang,

If I am suffering from a bit of melancholy, it has nothing to do with the current political cycle.  Regardless of who prevails in Nov., it will be a welcomed break from the seven plus years of BHS, and the beginning of a fresher set of controversies.  For a person who enjoys political and economic debate, I actually look forward to it.  If my posts betray a note of sadness, maybe it is because I remain homesick and I am not playing any golf.  And no, I don't have any current plans to visit TX, though when Nuzzo's course is open for play, I will probably come by.

Bill McBride,

Thank you for your confidence (that I'll bounce back).  One of the few advantages of being a little long in the tooth is seeing patterns and cycles.  These are giddy times for your lovely wife, and, maybe, even for you.  Enjoy them while they last.  As others noted in the deleted thread, no matter how much things have changed, it is amazing how they largely remain the same.   Go figure!  At the risk of this post being deleted, I will leave it at that.


As some have noted, this site has been around for a few years now.  While we have not exhausted the universe of potential golf architecture topics, most of the plump ones have been picked-off.  This, I think, is reflected in the type and content of many of the new threads, and, perhaps, in the departure of some very interesting participants.

I am of the opinion that limiting content to non-controversial topics is a serious mistake, and to selectively enforce what is OT only compounds it.  Greater breadth of topics and higher participation by knowledgeable, thoughtful individuals is what this site needs.  Perhaps I am missing something key here, but just like I can't understand why people with different abilities have to play from the same set of tees when playing together, I can't figure out why some here can't simply by-pass a thread that doesn't meet their interest.

The zeitgeist in our country for a few years has been  toward openness and diversity.  I think the deletion of the Obama post, the general concensus opinion I sense from this thread, and even the primary election results show that we talk a much better game than we play.

       

Lou,

Very well said.

Bob

[Michael Christensen]

Lou,

The McBrides will be giddy until that tax bill of 2010 reaches the lofty confines of the estate in Pensacola....he probably doesn't realize it, but he is one of the hated rich

I think a tax policy discussion is inherently important the golf industry...higher taxes = less discretionary income, which in turn probably means less rounds played, more courses going under, etc, etc.

[SL_Solow]

I stayed out of the first discussion.  I probably should stay out of this one.  For what its worth, here is my take.

We all come to this site with certain expectations and by signing on we are subject to certain "guidelines".  The basic premise is that this is a site for discussions about a specific topic; golf course architecture.  Given the eclectic nature of the topic and the varying interests of the parties, the discussions often stray into areas whose connections to GCA are at best tenuous.  Couple that with the inevitable and desirable development that many of us have become friends and, as friends, wish to discuss numerous matters and exchange what we hope are friendly gibes, we can go far a field.  We certainly do no not want to lose the ability to talk to each other.

Moreover, I have always been a strong opponent of censorship.  One of the key tenets of our system is that truth has the best chance of prevailing when there is a free exchange of ideas.  Unfortunately, that requires that we put up with some unpleasant and offensive offerings but it is the price we pay.

However, all of us came here understanding that this was a limited forum; in a sense we contracted with Ran and each other to focus on one main area.  Thus to call a limitation on topics "censorship" is a misstatement; this is not the general marketplace of ideas, it is a specialized forum.  Many of us are likely to have come here to escape precisely these types of discussions which we can have in any number of other forums.  While it is true that we can choose to ignore the off topic discussions, it is equally true that those wishing to carry on those discussions can take them elsewhere and save bandwidth for those topics that brought us here.

Finally, and this is where I will probably get into trouble, I must confess that I have been intensely interested in politics and political philosophy since I was old enough to know the topics existed.  I studied and worked in and around politics while holding my day job, raising a family and playing golf.  I have friends on every side of the political spectrum and have spent more hours than I care to recall discussing a plethora of issues.  Those who know me realize that I am not a shrinking violet.  I chose not to enter the fray for two reasons.  The first was my previously noted belief that this is not the appropriate forum.  The second is that I found the discussion to be unenlightening consisting mostly of doctrinaire positions I have heard too often from "both" sides with very little if any adjustment to the points of the other side.  As Monty Python once said  "thats not an argument, its contradiction."  So aside from the fact that I think its the wrong place, I think we do much better when we stick to GCA.  Having strayed into dangerous territory,  I'll restrain myself from a critique of the recurring paens to Ayn Rand.  I finished those discussions in about 1967, the same time I got tired of fighting with my friends in the new left about Herbert Marcuse (a blast from the past for those students of poltical thought.)

[John Kirk]

Although I often enjoy the process, I agree with others that off-topic political discussion should not be attempted here.

All disagreements eventually devolve into some form of "I'm right and you're wrong."

[Lou_Duran]

SL,

"paens to Ayn Rand"?  What is a paen?  Like the poster on the deleted thread who attempted to diminish me and my message by citing "Atlas Shrugged" and how he got passed that juvenile phase of his life many, many years ago, you do nearly the same, but with such more eloquence.  With your substantial intellect and extensive experience in the study and practice of the law, I doubt that much of what anyone can say on any number of subjects can de described as other than "unenlightening".

I am not offended at all by your post, though I do find it interesting how you can take very strong "doctrinaire" positions on mandatory caddy programs as you previously have- hardly a core golf architecture topic- finding merit in its discussion, yet summarily dismiss a thread involving free market principles and tax policies as lacking relevance (to gca), original thought, or the potential of changing minds.  You may disagree with me on this as well, but I think that tax policy has quite a bit more impact on gca than a few dozen clubs having mandatory caddy programs.  It is amazing how things sound so much more pertinent and cerebral when they match one's way of thinking!

As to bandwidth, I actually brought that up before and it was not an issue.  Has it become since?  Perhaps we can end the practice of copying and reposting large numbers of pictures and other people's comments and save the site a few bucks.  But I hardly think this is the point, right?

[Eric_Terhorst]

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?

I say yes, it was a good thing, and I agree 100% with Mr. Solow's analysis, except the part about Herbert Marcuse, which is over my head! 

It seems appropriate to add a quote from Daniel Henninger's WSJ column today,

"The Web is an engine of constant complaint, not idea formation."

When we talk about golf, we have a fighting chance to experience
"idea formation" or at least give Joe Hancock an opportunity to make fun of our attempts to form an idea.  Otherwise, imo it's mostly noisy, wasteful, "constant complaint."

[Joe Hancock]

"The Web is an engine of constant complaint, not idea formation."

When we talk about golf, we have a fighting chance to experience
"idea formation. " Otherwise, imo it's mostly noisy, wasteful, "constant complaint."

I'm just here for the cheap, easy humor.

BTW, is censorship and active moderating the same thing? (That one gets me every time! )

Joe

[Patrick_Mucci]

Here's what Ran Morrissett thinks:[size=4x]

GolfClubAtlas Discussion Group 
 
GolfClubAtlas.com 
 
Golf Course Architecture

A free access board for the discussion of golf course architecture related matters. (note: non-architecture threads/posts are deleted).

Moderators: Ben_Dewar, Ran Morrissett 
[/size]

[Chip Gaskins]

i can't believe we are debating whether censorship is a good thing! 

anyone every spent time in china and done a simple google search?  once you do it and realize that  some other entity is controlling information you instantly realize how vertical that slippery slope of censorship is...

if you don't like the topic, DON'T READ IT.  it is that simple.  i personally learn a lot reading other folks thoughts on things even if i think they are crazy.

it is truly hard to believe there is a debate about censorship.

on to a better topic, why do people think maidstone is so good?

chip-

[Peter Pallotta]

Ah, SL Solow and Joe Hancock, the yin and yang of this website....or so it might appear

I don't mind OT threads, and some I actually like.  But to be honest, the one type of OT thread I never like are ones like this one: the meta threads... the gca discussions about how gca discusses the topics it tends to discuss.  (Funny, I would've thought that'd be right in my wheelhouse) 

But the meta threads always seem have the most blanket statements and generalizations, the most complaints -- about this site and the people on it and everything else -- and the most a priori arguments

Fun if you're the one doing the writing/ranting/a priori reasoning (I know), but....

Anyway

Peter   

[Joe Hancock]

Ah, SL Solow and Joe Hancock, the yin and yang of this website....or so it might appear
 

We could be cast in a movie..."Smart and Dumber"

[Brock Peyer]

I think that it is just fine, I feel like I can control the discussions in my house and I think Ran has that same right.

[Kyle Harris]

To me, there has always been two sides to the OT thread/post coin.

There are the OT threads and posts that add the "3rd dimension" of personality to the GCA poster. Posts where tastes in music, food, wines, literature and other parts of the finer things in life are revealed and likenesses and differences shared. We discover a little bit more about a person many miles away whom we most likely have never met in person. We bond with that person because we realize that there is some form of shared passion or interest even if there is a difference in taste or appeal. It's a positive thing and the conversations exist not for the purpose of elevating our own individual self-esteem but for the purpose of exposing a little more of ourselves and allowing bonds to form naturally.

The second type of OT thread or posts seeks to divide or categorize. I know next to nothing as to the political leanings of anyone on this site as any sort of political post or thread immediately becomes nameless to me and I tend to avoid them in general. I say that so the following doesn't seemed aimed at anyone specifically. I ask anyone posting on an OT thread (of both types) to look within themselves for the purpose of that post or thread and the reason they feel the need to post. What does the post attempt to accomplish? Will bonds be formed or lines drawn in the virtual sand of the internets? Are you exposing a portion of yourself for the purpose of forging a friendship or for the portion of establishing a boundary?

I can stand more of the former type of OT post - this is how I can feel "close" to the likes of Tom Huckaby, Gib Papazian, Tom Naccarato, Lloyd Cole, Brian Sleeman, FBD Martin Bonnar, and other GCA posters the world over who are thousands of miles away from me in Florida.

The very nature of this site and its content will forge relationships through the power of the shared experience. OT posts which serve to divide the group into factions go against the very nature of enjoying a passion and sharing that enjoyment - which is ultimately the meta purpose of Golf Club Atlas.

[Eric_Terhorst]

I'm just here for the cheap, easy humor.
Joe

Joe, I modified my earlier post in appreciation of your mission   

[Norbert P]

With an official and direct statement, it would be helpful to know specificly why that particular thread was obliterated.  

It pains me to quote myself, but I think it's a valid question that would help the DG to be answered. Else we speculate into perpetuity.

Chip, your post should be graven in stone.

[Norbert P]

. . . Hmmm... I see that the Delete option is gone.