Electric Monk

Not necessarily, but I think that if there was some kind of notice in the thread about the action that was taken, it would let people know that action had been taken, and help deter further violations. Edit: Even a notice that appears in the post informing others that it has been reported may be useful, but such a feature may be open to abuse.

Brilliantly put!! I think you've summed up the main challenge here, it is very hard to maintain civility when you are constantly ridiculed and attacked personally, and the tendency is to leave to try to find somewhere else that is less combative. I think the appointment of Charles Anthony to moderator is a step in the right direction, but I think if we wish to make this forum a truly open marketplace of ideas, members need to feel that they will not be attacked for sharing their thoughts. Action needs to be swift and transparent. I have a problem with an overly large "government", but I think there are also problems when the "government" is too small.

If the shoplifting is happening under the noses of security, and nothing is done, then there is a problem. Analogies aside, that's not what I am saying. There may be perfectly good reasons for what happens here.

I just re-read this entire thread, and I encountered numerous violations of forum rules. My problem is, I can click the report button on all of them, but I don't know if any of them have already been reported, and I don't want to needlessly bother the moderators if they are already aware of the violations. What are the conclusions I should come to about the fact that there are numerous rule violations remaining in a thread where both moderators have posted, and is in the Support and Questions section of the site? Is the workload too high? Is enforcement not universal? What is the purpose of having forum rules if they are not enforced? These are honest questions, and are not meant to offend.

One of the other forums I frequent has a very open moderating style where instead of only privately messaging a rule breaker, they also post the warning in the thread itself, right after the offensive post. This serves a number of purposes. First, it embarrasses the offender, which hopefully leads to greater future compliance with the rules. Second, it provides others with a re-enforcing example of consequences for rule breaking. Third, it shows that rules are being enforced, and why the punishment is occurring. A downside to this is that it possibly requires more work on the part of the moderators, and thus more moderators, but in my opinion it is a far superior method of handling conflicts. I much prefer an open and accountable government to one that is secret and unaccountable.

Why not? Because I think that kind of censorship is wrong, and would like everyone in all areas of Canada be able to turn on the radio and hear many different viewpoints.

Are you serious? Ok, I'll play...No if it doesn't include anti-government content.

No, if it excludes anti-government content.

The question is whether those restrictions are an unwarranted intrusion. If the CRTC decided that criticism of government policies over any airwaves should be banned, should that restriction also be permitted? I think that restriction should definitely not be permitted. The difference is that currently the CRTC allows licensing of a portion of the radio spectrum for a religious radio station, but adds the caveat that they also include some other religions for a small portion of their broadcast day. The mandate is inclusion, not exclusion, that's a very important distinction. (edited for clarity)

So by this logic a person who opens a vegetarian restaurant should serve meat as well on behalf of the majority????? And yet you support the CBC whose customers (the taxpayer) do not have the choice and they certainly don't serve the majority. The majority is watching CSI and House not Little Mosque or The Hour. I'll say it again, the radio spectrum is publicly owned, if they want to use another method of distribution of their content, there may be fewer restrictions. The majority of Canadians, at least in 2004 seemed to like having the CBC around.

I see, this is where we differ, I think that those who are using public resources should use them in such a way as to benefit the majority of the public. Morally I cannot say otherwise.

The CRTC didn't change the rules, there is a new station license being applied for, which follows a different format. So basically if I put up money to start a Christian radio station you think it is right that the government should say I have to put programming for other religions on there? Why can't the person putting up the cash put on the programs he wants? What about the rights to govern your own private property? Basically this means that the Christian Radio station can no longer be a Christian Radio station. And henceforth if this policy is enacted across the board there can be no such thing in Canada. You think this is right? I don't think it is 100% right for the government to regulate in this manner, and believe me I see your points, but I think that when you take into account the fact that the radio spectrum is owned by the Canadian public allowances have to be made for the wide range of people within the public. Given that it is a public resource, and fairly limited in capacity, with an extremely high barrier to entry, I think they are doing an acceptable job of regulation. Do you think a completely free-market solution would result in a wider representation of Canadian opinion? I think part of our conflict comes from other ideologies, you may believe that a "pure" Christian radio station is of the greatest benefit to Canadians, while I believe that more good is done by offering a wider range of views. American content is emphatically NOT weeded out entirely by the CRTC, they do require that a minimum percentage of Canadian content is aired on each station, with the most stringent requirements placed on the CBC, that it should air predominantly Canadian Content. If we went to an entirely free-market system I believe we would quickly see most Canadian content disappear and be replaced by cheaper ready-made American productions. How would you feel about that? The religious music station was only required 30 minutes a day of other religions....hardly onerous persecution.

Why would they force them to do that? The station wants to appeal to a niche part of the market. There are other outlets that serve other parts of the Canadian public. It seems like an excuse to discriminate against Christians. Sorry Michael, missed your post. I think the rationale behind the restrictions is that they are a niche station, but using part of the limited publicly-owned radio spectrum. The "price" they pay for that access is to provide some other viewpoints, possibly as long as they are not already available elsewhere in the market. I know they take into account objections by competitors when they make these decisions, and try to ensure that all stations in a market are treated equitably.

The CRTC didn't change the rules, there is a new station license being applied for, which follows a different format.

In an Ipsos-Reid 2004 Poll, 51% of Canadians voted to maintain current levels of funding for the CBC, 38% voted to increase funding, while 9% voted to decrease funding. Looks like the majority wanted the CBC publicly funded then, do you have reason to believe the numbers have changed significantly? Another poll in the same year indicates Canadian opinion on the need for the CRTC is: 34% - Great deal of need, 48% - Some need, 9% - Not very much need, 7% - No need, 2% - Don't know/No opinion. Link (edited to add quote)