27 replies to this topic

[Johnny D]

Just saw this.

J~
 

23.1 Participant Conduct - Expectations

It is expected that every participant [Ref: (1.4.4)] and driver (entrant) at a NASA sanctioned event will conduct

themselves according to the highest standards of behavior and sportsmanship, particularly in their relationship

 

with other drivers and Officials, and in a manner that shall not be detrimental to the reputation of NASA, its

 

series, or other drivers. This rule also pertains to actions away from the track, such as posting comments on

forums that are in violations of this rule.

 

[Rob Burgoon]

LOL nice try NASA.

[Tom Sager]

Good intent for sure, but that last sentence must have been written by someone who recently worked in the White House.  Hopefully this post doesn't violate that rule.  

[LarryKing]

Fortunately for me I don't race NASA anymore. So "F" 'em.

[Jamz14]

There is nothing unusual about that clause and I agree with them completely. Not that we are NASCAR or Indy car but, you can bet your life that any driver from one of those series would be handed a hefty penalty fee if they were caught bad mouthing the org on a forum or any other public channel. It doesn't matter if it is at the track or off track. I think you would see the same for boy scouts or just about any other org.

[pat slattery]

The last line was written by Pol Pot I believe

[Qik Nip]

There is nothing unusual about that clause and I agree with them completely. Not that we are NASCAR or Indy car but, you can bet your life that any driver from one of those series would be handed a hefty penalty fee if they were caught bad mouthing the org on a forum or any other public channel. It doesn't matter if it is at the track or off track. I think you would see the same for boy scouts or just about any other org.

 

I think Jamz14 is a total azzhat and big a girly man. Oh crap, this a forum ... I'm sorry Jamz14 .

Rick

[Jamz14]

I think Jamz14 is a total azzhat and big a girly man. Oh crap, this a forum ... I'm sorry Jamz14 .

Rick

No problem Rick. Most here feel that way about me.

 

Pat, Freedom to do what you want works both ways. Go ahead, you have the right to spew anything you wish. But NASA or any other org has that same right. That is called freedom. Something that Pol Pot wouldn't understand. You aren't being forced to drive NASA. This is no different than the rules in my own house with my son. "You may not like or agree with them but it is my house, there is the door if you like". Is that a Pol Pot position or something you understand as a father and as an American?

[FTodaro]

I think I better give a legal opinion on this.

 

Its called FREEDOM OF SPEECH

 

The other comment is, Racers bitch(b i t c h) about everything its an environmental thing.

[Jamz14]

You are free to say it. You aren't free from the ramifications of it. I am free to tell my boss to go F himself. I am not free from him deciding what will happen when I do it.

 

Just like here at Mazdaracers. I am free to write what I want, but Jim is free to delete them or move them or assign bad boy points to me.

[Bench Racer]

    please pass the pop-corn.

[Tom Sager]

You are free to say it. You aren't free from the ramifications of it. I am free to tell my boss to go F himself. I am not free from him deciding what will happen when I do it.

 

Just like here at Mazdaracers. I am free to write what I want, but Jim is free to delete them or move them or assign bad boy points to me.

You are right and comments on public forums are not exempt from defamation claims.  

[Todd Green]

You are free to say it. You aren't free from the ramifications of it. I am free to tell my boss to go F himself. I am not free from him deciding what will happen when I do it.

 

Just like here at Mazdaracers. I am free to write what I want, but Jim is free to delete them or move them or assign bad boy points to me.

By your definition women in the 1600's were "free" to practice witchcraft.  They just might not like burning at the stake.  If your posts are being deleted (or your account is locked) you are not free to say what you want.  You are being censored.  Which is the opposite of freedom of speech.  That's probably because the 1st amendment doesn't apply to NASA, your boss, or these forums.  It applies to government passing laws.  Jim can do whatever the hell he wants with speech on these forums (see what I did there? ), within the boundaries of other laws of course.

[Johnny D]

So Franks Class Action Lawsuit is on hold then ???

J~

[Jamz14]

By your definition women in the 1600's were "free" to practice witchcraft.  They just might not like burning at the stake.  If your posts are being deleted (or your account is locked) you are not free to say what you want.  You are being censored.  Which is the opposite of freedom of speech.  That's probably because the 1st amendment doesn't apply to NASA, your boss, or these forums.  It applies to government passing laws.  Jim can do whatever the hell he wants with speech on these forums (see what I did there? ), within the boundaries of other laws of course.

Ah now this is becoming an interesting conversation!!!

 

Freedom of speech isn't really the issue. The issue is whether people are free (within the bounds of the law) to conduct their business the way they so choose. Freedom of speech was brought up by Frank. Freedom of speech is a legal construct that sometimes does not work well with the ideology of freedom of speech. Take for example screaming bomb in a public forum. You make a good point that if there are ramifications for the things you say then to say them isn't really free. But I don't think you would disagree that you should be, and are, held accountable for the things you say. Does that mean that there is no freedom of speech in the USA?, no. But I can see how you could argue that if you get hung up in the minutia of the ideology of freedom of speech.

 

All of my examples may be examples of censorship, but it is censorship that is allowed by law. That is unless you want to start forcing business owners to take down those signs that say "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone".

[Rob Burgoon]

By your definition women in the 1600's were "free" to practice witchcraft.  They just might not like burning at the stake.  If your posts are being deleted (or your account is locked) you are not free to say what you want.  You are being censored.  Which is the opposite of freedom of speech.  That's probably because the 1st amendment doesn't apply to NASA, your boss, or these forums.  It applies to government passing laws.  Jim can do whatever the hell he wants with speech on these forums (see what I did there? ), within the boundaries of other laws of course.

 

Yep.  Freedom of speech is between you and the government, nobody else.  However, it cuts both ways.  If NASA doesn't like my speech, they are free to lose my business.

[Johnny D]

     please pass the pop-corn.

I'd like some too, please.

J~

[Todd Green]

All of my examples may be examples of censorship, but it is censorship that is allowed by law. That is unless you want to start forcing business owners to take down those signs that say "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone".

That's pretty much the crux of the matter.  Where does one person's rights begin and another's end?  WRT to your sign, you no longer see "no colored allowed" signs so businesses do not have the "right" to refuse service to anyone (for any reason).  They can post the signs, but it doesn't really give them the right to discriminate.  What the signs are for is to remind patrons if they act like an azzhat, they'll be kindly asked to leave.  They have nothing to do with "freedoms".

[Parity]

I think the issue is simply that an organization has the right to establish a moral code of conduct for it's participants. Schools, scouts, sports teams, religious organization all practice that and have a right to. Free speech is something else and takes on different meaning based on cultural swings. Recent events certainly show the powers that be do not believe in free speech if a person can virtually lose their lively hood over comments made years ago (Paula Deen). What about so called hate speech? How is it you can be so uncivil or vulgar in many places but certain opinions based on view point are forbidden? This double standard looses credibility and feeds the thing they supposedly want to eliminate.

IMO if NASA, or anyone else for that matter, wants to retain credibility they will allow reasonably constructive criticism of their policies but when it turns vicious or personal then maybe they decide that person isn't what the club needs. I have no problem with that.

[FTodaro]

I was just joking with my post on Freedom of speech, but this is the problem with a statement or rule like that  above, its so broad and subject to interpretation it is nearly impossible to implement, you would have to read the mind of the NASA official who would enforce it to know if your conduct is within or outside the rule. 

 

I think for the most part people on this board are pretty respectful of others, and if they are not, it does not take long for the regulars to call that out. We don't need more rules.