How about a rule against campaigning

[Malvolio]

I know what you mean. But Bush and Clinton were just examples, you can add any other name you like. What about the "Thomson is finished" or "Hillary is a socialist" threads? Where do you want to draw the line between discussion and campaigning? Just banning the "vote for ..." phrase will not to trick. Any rule of that kind could as easily be circumvented like the copy-paste rule.

[Traveler]

Yeah it is a tough one to regulate, i mean God knows how many folk have had messages in their signatures endorsing some candidate or another.

At one point even you had a signature saying "Vote for Ron Paul 2008, hope for America" right? Now what was all that about??

But say a thread was specifically telling someone "Vote for X, had it in its title" i assume you'd delete it anyway? I.e. judge it on a case by case basis like with everything else?

[Malvolio]

LOl ... Yeah, I admit that I like some of Ron Paul's positions ... at least in the Republican debates. But I took it down pretty quickly. I just thought it was inappropriate. And don't worry, I can't vote, and nobody listens to crazy Europeans and Canadians anyway.

[Traveler]

In this instance (I.e here on the board) there are mostly Canadians (and a few Americans i guess here and there) who like Paul but what if it ever does come about that an official campaigner or pollster ever came on the site? Wasn't that Rick Blaine guy a GOP pollster before the '06 mid terms?

[Malvolio]

Well, Ron Paul won't be elected anyway. But of course he makes other Republicans look pretty bad on certain issues.

There have been posters who have beens suspected of being campaigners. But what can you do ... unless they aren't openly advertising?

[jviehe]

Originally Posted by Curly

Yeah, it's like campaigning for .... a national sales tax.

You have the option to not view my sig. I do so for others.

[jviehe]

Originally Posted by partofme

Then take that up with Marc although the way he has let people have much more freedom of expression on here in the past makes me think he isn't likely to agree. It is his decision ultimately.

I thought thats what I was doing? I made a request.

[jviehe]

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

I'm also not sure how we would enforce such a rule.

Obviously, people here are going to back a single candidate in the upcoming elections. How do we tell the difference between someone explaining why they are backing a particular candidate and someone actually campaigning for them? The amount of links used?

Can someone endorse a candidate in their posts, but it's off limits to try and convince others to endorse this candidate, too?

Seems like it would be a nightmare.

That why you guys are the moderators. Judgement. Id say if the post is limited to "Candidate A rox. Vote for A", and a bunch of links, thats pretty blatant campaigning. Someone seeking discussion about a particular candidate is a different thing. Like the Supreme Court says, youll know it when you see it.

[jviehe]

Originally Posted by Steve

I think it's a pretty stupid idea.

As has already been said, everyone here is, in essence, campaigning for something.

And, as has also already been mentioned, this is especially funny coming from someone who has a link to a website for a "fair, or "flat" tax (which I support, by the way)...

As I said, its in my sig. Thats what sigs are for. You can turn them off though. I do.

[jviehe]

Originally Posted by Malvolio

I know what you mean. But Bush and Clinton were just examples, you can add any other name you like. What about the "Thomson is finished" or "Hillary is a socialist" threads? Where do you want to draw the line between discussion and campaigning? Just banning the "vote for ..." phrase will not to trick. Any rule of that kind could as easily be circumvented like the copy-paste rule.

Campaigning against someone is a whole different matter.

[wooyarn]

Originally Posted by jviehe

Campaigning against someone is a whole different matter.

How is it different? If you see a thread with a title you don't like then don't go there, it's a pretty simple concept.

It seems to me that you have way too much time on your hands to worry about something such as this. Maybe you can find something better to do during the day then stay on the web.

[Malvolio]

Originally Posted by jviehe

Campaigning against someone is a whole different matter.

It's still campaigning. And once we are down to two candidates, "don't vote for candidate A" is pretty much the same as "vote for candidate B", isn't it?

This is a political discussions board. It's about discussing the pros and cons of candidates, exchanging ideas, eventually convince others. Unless someone is spamming the forum or violating any other rules, supporting a candidate is perfectly OK, IMHO. And you can always put a poster on ignore, if you don't like him or his posts. Unless he's mod, of course.

[Speakeasy]

Originally Posted by jviehe

That why you guys are the moderators. Judgement. Id say if the post is limited to "Candidate A rox. Vote for A", and a bunch of links, thats pretty blatant campaigning. Someone seeking discussion about a particular candidate is a different thing. Like the Supreme Court says, youll know it when you see it.

Well, I'm not sure why we'd need to make a separate rule to ban campaigning. Wouldn't our current rules against spam cover this? We already do delete posts by people asking members to "come to my website and support <insert cause here>!" or things such as that.

[Jason Marcel]

I believe in having little or no regulations other than when people insult others personally. Let freedom of speech be exactly that. In terms of the Ron Paul argument, I think that a lot of people are really excited about him because he's not flattering and he tells the truth, something that speaks directly to those who've become disenchanted with mainstream politics.

There is so much campaigning against stuff these days in America. So much cynicism about everything. Hell, in any other country where a person wins the Nobel, that entire country would humbly congratulate the winner, but America has become so divided these days that they can't even tip their hat to the guy for one day.

Anyway, I love this site, even if there are more trolls than ever and less reason on it, but that just emboldens me to keep dolling out the truth.

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by jviehe

Campaigning against someone is a whole different matter.

I would say its not even campaigning to be honest...see for using that one word everyone will now pounce on you; saying that its no different to campaign in favor of something as it is against.

Attacking Presidents Bush or Clinton is not campaigning against them, they're not running for any office, they're not worried about votes.

Expressing your opinion about someone, good or bad is one thing, but telling others who (and in the case of black people in Florida, how) to vote is another thing altogether.