I think apex said it best.

If the blazn azn hadn't reached such beautiful fame and were still a morosely introverted fuck up living and breathing on this Earth and you happened upon the drivel which spilled from his disjointed fingertips, would you make a thread about it?
What would its merit be?

As he did shoot people and all that, what is the play's merit?

There is no literary merit to this 'play'. It was originally posted "4 teh lulz", and deleted as it should have been. Such threads have no place in Printed Matter.

Dizzle is continuing to post the thread because he has some personal qualm over it being deleted. That's fine to voice once, but NOT in the form of nine threads of the same topic. ANY thread that is re-posted after being deleted by a moderator will be treated as spam, and, the user will be given an infraction for each subsequent ditto thread.

Questions? Concerns? Comments?

__________________
On ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur.
L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux

yey, we have a response.

Does this mean we can discuss the play here, or will you continue to remove any reference to it?

I'll abstain from commenting on the content of the play to address the tyranny and censorship issue, which I has much greater importance (to me) than some people I've never known getting murdered, people I've never known are murdered every day (ie Iraq), but censorship is something which affects me directly on a day-to-day basis.

The nature of what is 'insensitive' is deeply subjective. Who decides whether something is 'insensitive'? The majority of people perhaps? Let's take "The God Delusion" as an example, it's a rather controversial book in America, 51% of Americans being offended by Dawkins' view that religion is a disease, but I doubt that the majority of TOTSE would be offended by this idea.
The majority of people (including myself) find sadistic works such as
Three Ladies At Sea, truly objectional, but does that mean that they cannot be discussed, simply because someone might take offense? Have a look at the 100 most frequently banned books, they all must have offended someone at some point.

Wrong. When originally posted it was a relevant discussion, not only topical and an insight into a mind of a killer, but also the making of a nice long thread filled with interesting debate. By the 2nd or 3rd post, you should have realised you had a dispute on your hands, locked the thread instead of deleting it, redirected everyone to a thread in bitch and moan where we could debate the appropriateness of the subject matter.
As (I'm assuming here) an authoritatian you took an emotional response to the post, while as an anarchist, diz took an equal and opposite emotional response to the fact that he was censored (in his opinion for no good reason). That's what caused the 10 threads (one after another, not all at once), a new "rule", and a load of bad feelings all around.
IMO if you're going to have rules they should not be based around emotional responses, but around protecting the forum from descending into chaos. If you're going to have moderator status it should not be about protecting your view of what is right and wrong, it should be about protecting the forum, promoting discussion, and keeping the punters happy. The forum is bigger than you, and you serve it, not the other way around.

Oh and one question.. Is Diz unbanned yet, and if not, why not?

bitplane, even by the most objective of values the play Richard Mc Beef is devoid of worth. It is not an attempt at communication, it is merely a poorly written blather.
If it were a well written piece of hauntingly wrought self-analysis by someone about to murder or written with a concerted effort to communicate rather than to amuse himself with the formulation of his pathetically trivial "darkness" on paper, it would be more interesting. As it stands, it's stupid, you're an idiot and bangbangsilverhammer is still a moderator.

Yes, all of totse is a tyranny. It's truly terrible.

To me, there is no issue here. The first thread was not spam, it was simply objectionable; I cut the following few threads slack as well. I can understand standing up for something, but you should really pick your battles.

McBeef isn't worth effort on any side of the fence.

There is another forum for the discussion of religion which finds it a joy; I would say that the best place to discuss the ideas within "The God Delusion" is MGCBTSOYG. Offense that is based around religion is not a current event; I'm rather sure that it has been going on for slightly longer school shootings.

redirected everyone to a thread in bitch and moan where we could debate the appropriateness of the subject matter.

Euda directed one of the first threads to B&M for discussion. Dizzle was not pleased with this, apperantly, and continued to post here.

This isn't about censorship, it's about keeping this forum void of crap.

__________________
On ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur.
L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux

ªÞe×- You used objective along with the words 'worth' and 'opinion', then proceeded to call me an idiot. No further comment required.

Euda - Maddox, imo, has no literary merit whatsoever, but I'd defend that thread too because it's worthy of discussion, even if I think the guy is a prick.
If you can see no issue here, then why was the new thread deleted and Diz is banned for a second time?
http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/5...iasco12ly8.png

bangbangsilverhammer- you asked for questions, but you didn't answer mine. what gives?

I used the word 'objective' with 'values' and the relation of objective values to a particular 'worth' which the play is, in all its subjectivity, distinctly lacking.

The thread has no content. I've invited people to make a thread of content involving the play, if they so choose. The thread involving Maddox has content and the chance for discussion.

Diz's ban has to do with the phone number displayed in each of his posts. The protest thread brought that to the admin's attention.

Zok banned Dizzle for posting a phone number in his profile. I had not given him enough infractions for a second ban.

__________________
On ne voit bien qu'avec le cœur.
L'essentiel est invisible pour les yeux

Well, I don't see one, but I do see a 4 point infraction on my account for posting one.

Phone number is a voicemail to email gateway and is in no way personal information. Zok would have known that if he'd simply asked him before banning.


ªÞe×- give me one example of an objective value. I don't mean to be an argumentitive cunt, but that's what I am, so blow me.