if i understand duck's point (and i hope i'm not misrepresenting him) i think he means that it has to be relevant to whatever it may be that is being discussed at the time. that could be anything, because as you siad, this is not an exclusively "atheist chatter" site. (and i doubt anyone wants it to be, in a situation like this where we have so many people who agree on so much, there's a very fine line between stimulating conversation and onanistic chatter)
I do think it might be a good idea to limit the NSFW content. Many workplaces and schools have blockers that look for that sort of thing, and I'd like to give this site a greater chance to show up in those places. Its not that I, personally, care whether or not these things are here, its that I want other freethinkers to have a good chance of finding the site, no matter where they are.
Though seriously guys, if you think we're not going to get immature members who will abuse the privileges, or accumulate religious trolls, you're a bit short-sighted. It might be easier to just set certain bounds to start, that we can all (or mostly) mutually agree on as rational beings, and then act on them. This way discipline for the immature and trolls can be enacted legitimately, and there won't be the drama of "Ohhh well it doesn't say in the rulez, you just hates me/are discriminating/etc!!!"
I wonder if it would be possible to have a "mature" version of the site that allows for things like nudity and the like (i.e. swearing, controversial topics) and those not wanting those things will have it automatically weeded out.
For site interest to reach people, I think it should be censored the same level public life is censored. No porn, no complete nudity. Men are allowed topless, as should be women. Things like posting a picture of my girlfriend, who recently at ComFest had her chest painted CENSOR THIS, and on her back SPEAK OUT AGAINST BREAST HATE. Columbus Ohio allows women to go topless the same as men. She was protesting the fact that breasts are censored in public society. If you can see it walking down the street, there shouldn't be an issue.
"Most freethinkers I know (but not all) are advocates of freespeech." Free speech yes, but also respect for the owner of the home/building/website one is speaking in.
By analogy I think the recent government smoking bans in US cities is tragic. I am a non-smoker, and at times the smell of lots of smokers in a bar can get to me... but then I leave. A business should be able to make up their own mind on whether they will allow smoking. If the government hasn't banned smoking, but a store owner does not allow it in his own store that's not censorship, thats the rules of the store owner; if you break those rules the owner has good reason to kick your ass out, saying "I have a right to smoke where I want" will not fly. You break my rules in my home you'll be facing the business end of a twelve gauge - your "rights" can be damned.
Similarly here - the government should not censor what should be on a website. But the website owners/moderators/community can certainly decided on what is appropriate. While making that decision is the purpose of this discussion I wish to point out the flaw in any thought process along the lines of "anything goes, otherwise its evil censorship." It's not censorship, its house rules.
Personally I could care less what is or is not allowed. But if the admin/moderators here decide that nudity is not allowed great, if they decide cuss words are not allowed great, if they decide that anyone who uses the word "orange" or any other given random word is banned great. Thats not censorship, it may be foolish, but its not censorship.
So the value of this discussion is for reasons for or against allowing nudity, or cussing, or any other item that could be questioned. I don't believe the anti-censorship sentiment can be applied here.
Although censorship was not entirely accurate (and I apologize for that), it seems that most people understood me.
Actually, now that I think about it, I think it would be a valid term. That is, if we consider that the admin is the "government". After all, he does decide who belongs (citizenship), the powers and rights of the membership, etc.
Which is interesting you say that since we have a complete ban at restaurants etc in Sweden for health issues. Not for the smokers themselves, but because of the dangers with second-hand smoking and to make easier for people who are allergic or suffer from extreme asthma to actually be able to visit a restaurant.
I am very sensitive to second-hand smoking myself, I can get nausea and headache and I remember when I was in, where was it, Bulgaria once, and I couldn't enter a normal cafe. The smoke was lying thick in the air like an additional layer. I couldn't even enter to order what I wanted so my relatives had to do it for me. So I can only say that the ban in Sweden was a positive thing. If smokers are so lazy they can't even go out to smoke... then that's their issue to be honest. I am always apalled by the lack of respect from most smokers who seem to completely ignore the fact that a lot of people are sensitive and can get seriously sick breathing in their smoke.
Non-smokers and people who are sensitive to the second-hand smoking should not suffer because they are in a minority when it's the smokers who made an additional choice to smoke. A non-smoker must always have an option to visit a place which is not filled with cigarette smoke imo. That's respect for them.
As a newly invested mod., I can tentatively inform you of the guidelines I've been sent on censoring posting (subject to change or correction):
-politeness (post deletion with notification)
-no porn (ban)
-no ad hominems (post deletion with notification)
-no thread clones (post deletion with notification)
-no commercial advertising (ban)
-no objectionable PMs (ban without appeal)
-no trolling (post deletion with notification, ban on second offense)
-no disclosure of PMs without consent of both parties(ban)
I'll try to use my discretion about 'curse-words' unless used deliberately and offensively. As for nudity, you'd better have a damn good justification for using it as illustration! As mentioned above, the 'no censorship' breasts picture is probably fair use, provided an 'unsafe for work' header or similar was used.