Hi all,

I want to emphasize from the beginning that this is *NOT* a change to the rules, nor is it one that is inevitably going to be enacted. In another thread, it was suggested to give the moderating staff the power to vote to determine, subjectively, whether or not a user is SPAMing the forum, even if he or she is technically adhering to the rules of the site (a bit of commentary with an article, for instance).

That is, if it is determined that a poster is basically advertising for a candidate or cause, doing nothing to further (and possibly stifling) discussion, such a poster might be given a "general SPAMing" warning, and a continuation of the behavior would result in points. The decision would be made by a near-unanimous or unanimous decision of the mod staff (exact details would be hashed out) to avoid any impression of favoritism or squelching an unpopular or partisan point of view. That is, a substantial cross-section of the moderator staff with its diverse political opinions would basically all have to agree that a poster was a SPAMer.

This is the general idea, and certainly if it were sufficiently well received, there would be discussion among the moderators and the board members at large as to what the particulars were, etc. The purpose of this poll is to get a general consensus as to whether or not the board membership would find such a policy favorable and/or trust the mod staff to implement it.

So, the question is, would you be amenable to such a policy?

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson