The Bonsai Guy stolen out of business, apparently

[luvinthemountains]

You're an angry elf.

I am genuinely confused now who is mad at who in this thread, but this line gets me every time.

 

[Gabler]

both if you have an umbrella policy.

DO NOT DIVULGE WHETHER YOU HAVE AN UMBRELLA INSURANCE POLICY!!!

It’s like leaving your front door unlocked or leaving the keys in your car’s ignition or wearing a sign on your back that says, “Sue me!”

 

[Mikecheck123]

It’s true though… I like this forum for the break from the usual political BS.

Maybe a politics sub for those that want to butt heads over whatever?

I think we should have a no politics rule. Instant post deletion.

If you're linking bonsai and politics, you're wrong. Unless and until a bonsai tree steals an election. Then maybe.

 

[Gabler]

I think we should have a no politics rule. Instant post deletion.

If you're linking bonsai and politics, you're wrong. Unless and until a bonsai tree steals an election. Then maybe.

How? By some accounts, everything is political. Certainly, law and order is political. What about imports and exports? There’s a whole section of the website dedicated to that topic, and foreign trade is certainly political. Bonsai trees themselves have been given as a diplomatic gesture. That’s political.

 

[luvinthemountains]

How? By some accounts, everything is political. Certainly, law and order is political. What about imports and exports? There’s a whole section of the website dedicated to that topic, and foreign trade is certainly political. Bonsai trees themselves have been given as a diplomatic gesture. That’s political.

By some accounts, yes. But you are overgeneralizing, in my opinion. Regardless, in the United States we are used to putting up with some restrictions on speech even in an open forum, if it is privately run as bonsainut.com is. The question of whether to impose some restrictions is a valid one. Some discussion tangents are just so counterproductive to the core mission that admins would be completely within bounds to forbid them. Political ideology may be one of those areas, given how contentious it can get in the current environment. Too much potential for things to get out of hand. Having said that, however, I think peer pressure works just as well at keeping it under control, and I would tend to disfavor empowering/burdening the admins with the responsibility to police the forums for this kind of thing.

JUST BE DECENT AND HAVE SOME TACT, PEOPLE!

 

[Gabler]

By some accounts, yes. But you are overgeneralizing, in my opinion. Regardless, in the United States we are used to putting up with some restrictions on speech even in an open forum, if it is privately run as bonsainut.com is. The question of whether to impose some restrictions is a valid one. Some discussion tangents are just so counterproductive to the core mission that admins would be completely within bounds to forbid them. Political ideology may be one of those areas, given how contentious it can get in the current environment. Too much potential for things to get out of hand. Having said that, however, I think peer pressure works just as well at keeping it under control, and I would tend to disfavor empowering/burdening the admins with the responsibility to police the forums for this kind of thing.

JUST BE DECENT AND HAVE SOME TACT, PEOPLE!

I’m not arguing against restrictions. I’m arguing that the boundaries need to be well defined. We should all be able to immediately agree whether something violates a rule, irrespective of whether we agree with the rule itself.

Nothing kills a group faster than an arbitrary and capricious ban hammer. The Nut is certainly a fair person, but it’s hard for a fair person to be fair without some sort of measuring stick to be certain everyone is treated the same. “No politics” is too vague. How do you measure the cutoff point for what counts as politics?

Returning to my original question, how? What do you propose is the boundary line between political and non-political speech? You could pick any number of different cutoff points, but you need to pick one.

 

[luvinthemountains]

I’m not arguing against restrictions. I’m arguing that the boundaries need to be well defined. We should all be able to immediately agree whether something violates a rule, irrespective of whether we agree with the rule itself.

Nothing kills a group faster than an arbitrary and capricious ban hammer. The Nut is certainly a fair person, but it’s hard for a fair person to be fair without some sort of measuring stick to be certain everyone is treated the same. “No politics” is too vague. How do you measure the cutoff point for what counts as politics?

Returning to my original question, how? What do you propose is the boundary line between political and non-political speech? You could pick any number of different cutoff points, but you need to pick one.

Freakin' lawyers, man. What does "arbitrary and capricious" even mean, anyway? Okay, actually the phrase "ban hammer" illustrates "caprice" perfectly to me. Images pop into my mind of admins gaily skipping through the community, arbitrarily smacking users for who knows what. Oops, "gaily"...there I go getting political (shame on me). Perhaps "whimsically" would have been better.

Joking aside, I completely agree with you. Drawing the line between what is "political" and what is not would become very problematic. Perhaps "political attacks" would be more objectively recognizable, however. Or "personal attacks" period. I remember a while back discussion of religion became a hot button here and a thread got locked. Perhaps it was really an intolerable level of intolerance that was the real problem. Whatever the case may be, the Bonsai Nut community lost some of its best people in that episode, which is why I believe care must be taken. Crowd moderation is easier for some to take than admin moderation.

 

[Mikecheck123]

I’m not arguing against restrictions. I’m arguing that the boundaries need to be well defined. We should all be able to immediately agree whether something violates a rule, irrespective of whether we agree with the rule itself.

Nothing kills a group faster than an arbitrary and capricious ban hammer. The Nut is certainly a fair person, but it’s hard for a fair person to be fair without some sort of measuring stick to be certain everyone is treated the same. “No politics” is too vague. How do you measure the cutoff point for what counts as politics?

Returning to my original question, how? What do you propose is the boundary line between political and non-political speech? You could pick any number of different cutoff points, but you need to pick one.

This isn't the Supreme Court. It's too political if Bonsai Nut deletes it for being too political.

 

[Gabler]

This isn't the Supreme Court. It's too political if Bonsai Nut deletes it for being too political.

I’m not asking you to define “offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel.” I’m just asking what you mean when you say “too political.” I can’t read minds.

 

[jszg]

On that I would reference the honorable Justice Potter Stewart in Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964)

 

[Leo in N E Illinois]

I’m not asking you to define “offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel.” I’m just asking what you mean when you say “too political.” I can’t read minds.

Actually, @Mikecheck123 was being quite literal. There is a point at which Bonsai Nut (Greg) our administrator will remove a post, or lock a thread, or even delete part or all of a thread. Our administrator's tolerance of political speech has often surprised me, he allows arguments to go on far longer than I personally would like. In fact he is unlikely to interfere as long as all parties stay relatively polite and refrain from name calling. A "butt-head" or two is not enough to get things locked down. But Bonsai Nut does keep an eye on the forums, and will act if things get out of hand.

 

[penumbra]

I keep coming back here because I forgot the topic being discussed. I read the title and jumped in to be repeatedly stuck in the quagmire.

May we pass away and leave it to the plants.

 

[Gabler]

I keep coming back here because I forgot the topic being discussed. I read the title and jumped in to be repeatedly stuck in the quagmire.

May we pass away and leave it to the plants.

I can get a bit carried away sometimes.