Ishvala wrote:My implication was that CH doesn't trust the majority of its members to be adults and avoid things like scams and dramatic trolls, etc.
Well, maybe the majority of people can't be adult as you envision it : p
And minority of them may inflict severe damage that it shuts down the community.
One direct way to understand is to make your own site or platform, or use existing ones, focusing on the meta as well. Don't use any restriction. See how it goes : )
I saw several ones including forums and ***NO REDIRECTS ALLOWED*** that were created because they were dissatisfied with CH, yet ended up so bad that they put harsher restriction and ban people for simpler reasons. But if you can prove that you can make the ideal community with no restriction, that'd be quite an accomplishment.
Ishvala wrote:Not sure where in the world CH is, but I'm 80% sure the site itself wouldn't be held responsible.
Ishvala wrote:Issues on a platform directly affect the owners too. For instance, there was a plagerism issue on an RP forum hosted by proboards and the owner of that forum wound up having to go to court.
contradict each other.
And you have to understand that meta sites are different from other mainstream ones, in that they are at risk from 3 major accusations: scam, blasphemy/heresy, and cult. The first and third directly involve the law. The second, while may not be within legal system depending on local ruling, can still be dangerous in that fundamentalists and fanatics can gather to harass the sites, including slander, death threats, etc. In any case, they all can damage the sites
darkwing dook wrote:And you do know even mainstream social media employed restriction to avoid problem, even though they establish themselves as platform, right?
How do you mean?
Can't link any since it's related to political topics, which is a no no here. If you want to know, just google it : p
Ishvala wrote:As I said before, I'm sure CH has their reasons. It doesn't mean I have to agree with them. It also doesn't mean I don't feel the need to question them, send help desk tickets, and challenge view points for the sake of debate and blatant curiosity. There's a difference between malicious intent, trolling, and genuine passion and/or concern. I hope I don't get banned for the prior two and am instead at least a little respected for the latter.
Well, as long as you remember this:
Ash & I founded this forum to be open. An Open Forum means that we welcome all ideologies, theories, beliefs, and thought processes. It means that we welcome open posting that provokes thought, discussions, and debates. Since we do not push one ideology here we request that members do not do it either.
It might be safe (might be, not should be : p).
Additional note: ideology is not the same as rule.
Ishvala wrote:Given the first few responses, logical opinions they may be, there is little factual evidence to backup the current paranoia of the owners.
That's because the evidence is not publicize, which is not a bad idea in order to avoid further drama with the involved parties.
If you really want to know, as Noc said, you need to contact them directly. But don't just say, "Hey, what's the proof of X and Y?", that's not gonna earn you their trust to tell you, which goes back again to whether majority of people are trustworthy. Show them you can be trusted : p