Some members may not realize that there are costs involved in running this platform - there’s a monthly fee to access the forum software, and someone had to buy our domain name, and there is regular work being done on maintenance stuff, as well as moderating the content posted.
It seems reasonable that the people who do the work, and pay the costs, get to set the rules. It’s like being invited to dinner at someone’s house. If your host asks you not to smoke inside, or to remove your shoes at the door, you do it as a courtesy to them, even if you do things differently at your home.
You’re invited to be a guest on the condition that you abide by the guidelines of your host. I can’t imagine anyone going to a friend’s house for dinner, and becoming so combative about the rules they agreed to when they accepted the invitation. Funny how different people act in an online environment.
The dearth of the long-annual Secret Santa activities during the waning years of the OSFE was likely, I would think, mostly founded upon a mistrust in the notion that one’s PII wasn’t being exposed to Bad Actors, via this or that backdoor, simply by one’s participation being exposed in a publicly-accessible/web spider-crawlable forum.
Still, a salient point which @Tallytony astutely raised in response to my last attempt to resurrect that time-honored ASF practice (one that HAD been engaged in, more or less annually, for better than a decade even before PaintCreek’s illustrious run as the ‘Trusted Administrator’) - in regards to foibles possibly arising from both the chosen gift-recipient’s end OR during the Delivery Carrier-handled aspect of said gift reaching them - is one that had been raised over the years several times before.
I do not think it a particularly unreasonable presumption to suspect that there could be some element of similar concern in regards to helping the SAS Staff defray the annual and ongoing costs, which they themselves incur, via direct financial contributions from our own coffers.
Nevertheless, I’d like to toss my hat in the ring in advocacy of such a mechanism being erected - even, if as is likely, additional expense is required simply to support said mechanism in & of itself, and in ensuring compliance with various governmental regulations that come into play in such a scenario.
I’m willing to pony up to support the SAS/BSFE - if we cain’t trust a consortium made up of Mag, Baby Yoda, Boiled Peanut, & Garblovian you can stick a fork in us, 'cause we’re done, folks - How 'bout y’all?
LOL…sounds like Amazon.
I would have had NO issue paying not just part, but all of the monthly fees. This isn’t about money, it’s about a terrible misunderstanding.
I thought this was going to be totally different than Amazon. A free place where people are allowed to go 'off topic", have the occasional heated discussion…and not getting their mouth wiped. I thought this was more about community, getting all the lost folks back here (and I worked 3 weeks straight working on that). It just isn’t at all what I thought it was going to be about.
My Bad. Of course I didn’t create this and have no say on someone else’s platform. All too familiar…and I already have that on Amazon.
So with all my respect to most all of you, as soon as I figure out how to “leave” the group, I’ll take me an my opinions into a quiet corner and stay there.
I do wish you all THE VERY BEST and much success!!!
@Nutty_Nuisance, none of this is new, and you have had no problems sticking to the guidelines to my knowledge, so I’m personally confused by your statements here.
You are a valuable member and important to SAS, so I hope you’ll reconsider.
But if you feel like SAS isn’t a good fit for you, we don’t want to hold anyone back from moving on, if that’s your choice. And we wish you well.
Sounds like if you visited literally anyone’s house… you abide by their rules, or you leave, no?
While I don’t know the (recent) specifics of the questionable posts, any arguments to allow political commentary is a waste of time. [mod edit: political commentary removed] at this specific point in US history it is not possible for online avenues like SAS to allow essentially any political discourse. At times, the offending parties are even completely unaware how backwards and bigoted their opinions are. I definitely don’t envy the mod team at this point.
@papy delete this if it’s redundant or if you think it’ll just create further chaos.
I think I have made my opinion quite clear on topic, so I am not going to say much. However, all I will say is that I have read/continue to read many things that can be interpreted as political commentary/ideology. However, since they are on the “correct” side of things they are let go.
If you want to ban guns in town, fine, just make sure you ban all of them. Not just the ones that you do not like.
You might disagree with the decision, but we are sincerely trying to take care of politics when they creep in.
BTW, the SAS staff is quite diverse, we do not share ideology when it comes to politics, and we all vote quite differently. But we DO work together to decide what violates SAS Community Expectations.
I thought this was going to be totally different than Amazon. A free place where people are allowed to go 'off topic", have the occasional heated discussion
I’m a little confused too. What is it you want to do here that you feel like you can’t? I hope @papy will correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think there’s anything stopping you from discussing politics in a PM conversation with other members that might share your same interests.
You can talk about stuff without adjectives betraying personal bias.
You can say the current President’s policy on such and such sucks and betrays his senility insert rationale. You can’t say he’s a political such and such (correct me if I’m wrong). I think this is a very ‘itsy bitsy spider sized - tiny’ limit on SAS and allows for a wide array of discussion.
Keep in mind when we were having initial invites sent out - the main contention that people were triggered by was political leaning and people were just uncomfortable with how certain views were expressed on the OSF. So why re-create the same sentiment here?
This was the only apparent issue and its been nipped in the bud from the get go.
Religion hasn’t been an issue but is equally triggering and thus the only other limit on the SAS.
And despite this it’s quite clear where many of us stand politically.
You can? I’m pretty sure that would trigger someone with opposing views to chime in to “correct” you and then the gloves would come off and eventually @papy’s head would .
The recent problem is not people expressing their dislike for X policy or Y law, it is their blatant and obvious punching down toward groups of people they disagree with either on social or political reasons.
Then when they get flagged and called out for it, they want to double down and either pretend they magically dropped 50% of their IQ points and are now ignorant of such blatant obvious behavior, or they want to claim they are being censored or other such nonsense, for being as blatantly inappropriate as pitching life insurance at a funeral.
This is a recent problem with cult like identity politics and even religions where one simply cannot filter ones words to simply convey what the core issue they are having with X issue. It is as if every super partisan individual simply CAN say “I hate X law because it affects my business in Y way” then discuss how to mitigate the issue … BUT NOOOO, they cannot stop there… THEY HAVE TO ADD BS LIKE “Go woke go broke” or “Go fash no cash” or other political/social distinction to throw in their political/social ideology and punch down at those they don’t agree with.
I do not want to see this place turn into Desperado v. Cleincole (Epoch Times V. MSNBC) like the OSFE was on a daily basis.
. 
Sooo close. Let’s just leave the President–any President–out of it.
