why is there suddenly a plethora of racist threads?

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by moon

Now then, Speakeasy is available for sensible discussion.

Implying that you're not available for serious discussion?

See i didn't say anything there...you're digging the whole for yourself.

[ThorHammer]

you know, this thread will problably only make them post more.

[partofme]

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

you know, this thread will problably only make them post more.

At least it will give them the idea that nobody on the site (other than one member I can think of) really supports them and that they are wasting their time.

[Speakeasy]

Originally Posted by moon

Allowing free speech seems to me an admirable defense. Who wants to target free speech ? ( unless it's us )

Our intent isn't to limit free speech, but to make people think a bit harder before posting a thread about everything that crosses their mind.

It's true that clamping down and putting more restrictions on posters may be bad for the site and result in members leaving. However, we also believe that allowing certain groups to invade the board would result in members leaving or not joining in the first place. A new member browsing the board may be quite turned off if 90% of the articles in the Breaking News section are racist rants against black people, for example.

It's kind of like we'd be encouraging people to focus on particular debates a bit more and make them talk with other members, rather than trying to 'yell' and flood the board.

In addition, a lot of these people that invade the board aren't interested in debate or discussion. Their intent is to 'win' their debate by clogging up the forum with threads that reflect their stance on issues, not through reasoned debate and exchanging ideas.

[Speakeasy]

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

you know, this thread will problably only make them post more.

We encourage everyone to post their thoughts, no matter how against the mainstream they are. Yes, even the White Nationalist/Supremacist/Separatist/Etc. get to have a say here.

A thread cap wouldn't be intended to discourage people from posting their thoughts, but to force people to stick to the threads they start and hopefully prevent the board from being 'over run' by a particular interest group.

This problem is only going to get worse as the election nears, as well.

[Si modo]

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

Our intent isn't to limit free speech, but to make people think a bit harder before posting a thread about everything that crosses their mind.

It's true that clamping down and putting more restrictions on posters may be bad for the site and result in members leaving. However, we also believe that allowing certain groups to invade the board would result in members leaving or not joining in the first place. A new member browsing the board may be quite turned off if 90% of the articles in the Breaking News section are racist rants against black people, for example.

It's kind of like we'd be encouraging people to focus on particular debates a bit more and make them talk with other members, rather than trying to 'yell' and flood the board.

In addition, a lot of these people that invade the board aren't interested in debate or discussion. Their intent is to 'win' their debate by clogging up the forum with threads that reflect their stance on issues, not through reasoned debate and exchanging ideas.

I'm still pondering the idea about the ramping of thread creation with existing memebership/time/number of posts. it seems like a good idea, especially since I found a new member questioning what kind of place this is in one of the WN threads. I posted to let him know that what he sees is a relatively new phenomenon.

It can be a turnoff and bad "marketing" for others who are visiting for the first time when dumping occurs from another group.

I'm trying to think of a downside to this thought of thread creation privileges, but finding it hard to do so (other than implementation and enforcement for an already taxed mod/admin team?)

[Speakeasy]

Originally Posted by Traveler

Well how about a little more discression used to be more harsh to those who intentionally aim to harm the site. For example what you may let go for say a regular poster who usually stays within the rules you clamp down on first time on those who seek to dirupt or stack the site?

We already kind of do this, but each moderator has their own personal policy, I guess. For me, I'll usually just let people off with a notice on their first infraction, especially if they're new. The second or third time around, I will assign points. I'll be a bit harsher with problem posters, because they tend to be the ones that need to be kicked in the butt. Members that almost always follow the rules will usually get a pass if they break the rules on a rare occasion. But I certainly don't and refuse to target a certain ideology that I disagree with and that includes the White Superists/Awesomists/Cheerleaderists.

Maybe there are smaller caps on those that are here longer, the longer you're around the mor you can post based on warning assesments on thread dumping/spam threads/duplicate threads/violations in the OP etc etc. But who the heck is gonna create and implement such a system?? Eventually the suggestion will arise that contributing members get to start more threads; not addressing the contextof the problem directly but how many of the WN's or whoever are contributing members? Even indirectly it may work.

Such a system wouldn't be too hard to implement, if I understand correctly. There are quite a lot of vBulletin hacks that allow you a lot of flexibility when it comes to thread capping.

[Speakeasy]

Originally Posted by Si modo

I'm still pondering the idea about the ramping of thread creation with existing memebership/time/number of posts. it seems like a good idea, especially since I found a new member questioning what kind of place this is in one of the WN threads. I posted to let him know that what he sees is a relatively new phenomenon.

Yes, I saw this, as well. Thanks.

It can be a turnoff and bad "marketing" for others who are visiting for the first time when dumping occurs from another group.

Exactly. While Moon raises the good point that clamping down and limiting what users can do may cause a few people to leave, allowing this place to be overrun by hate groups will also cause people to leave and less people to join. The very existence of this site relies on the existence of a solid member base, so allowing these groups to overrun things could lead to the death of the board itself.

I'm trying to think of a downside to this thought of thread creation privileges, but finding it hard to do so (other than implementation and enforcement for an already taxed mod/admin team?)

If such a system were to be put into a place, I think it would mostly be automated by the software, so I don't think there would be any extra burden on the mod team.

[Crystal]

About the 30 day/30 post rule...O'Sullivan and I have the abilty to manually adjust a new members account should they request it and that will give the the ability to start threads. Our only rule when granting such approval is that they are not here to sell cell phones, lap tops, x boxes, viagra, etc.

I'm really hoping Marc can install a captcha program and it would be nice if we could ban a certain email address from registering (mail.ru) to help limit the amount of spam. BTW, Marc should be back around over his Christmas break. He has been very busy working on his Ph.D. He will be upgrading the forum software at that time and any changes to board policy will also be made at that time.

WRT the thread topic, even those with the most vile of opinions are free to post. This is not some kind of elitist community where we judge others as being 'less than' based on unpopular or politically incorrect opinions. We are a global community and all come from different backgrounds. If you deem someone as being beneath you, then my suggestion to you is to ignore them - why waste your time debating with someone you see as so unfit. To answer the question asked in the title as to why these threads are here - IT'S BECAUSE EVERYONE KEEPS RESPONDING TO THEM SO THEY START MORE AND MORE.

As a personal note, I have more of a problem with the people who bitch and moan. I don't have to respond to vile opinions, however, I do have to respond to members to complain about board policy as if they are entitled to something. Which group do you think is a bigger pain in my ass? I'll give everyone a hint - those starting the racist threads haven't bothered me one bit because I can ignore those threads and those who think they are just too fucking good have done nothing but bitch and moan for the last few days.

[Crystal]

Originally Posted by Jefe

I'd just like to add that these threads are also a recruiting mechanism for these hate groups. They're fishing for new members.


As far as I can tell, they aren't breaking any forum rules. It is boderline spam, though. I would encourage everyone to NOT click on any of the links in these threads, because that is exactly what they are hoping for. Please don't increase the hit count on their sites.

If we completely ignore them, they'll go away eventually. Easier said than done sometimes.

Exactly.

If people are responding to them, then there obviously an interest in the topic. If people ignore the threads and the only ones posting in it are all in agreement then the thread becomes one big circle jerk and dies.

[Captain Trips]

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

How do people feel about a weekly thread limit? Maybe a thread limit for unregistered users? A thread limit for people with less than a certain amount of posts?

We're always open to suggestions from everyone.

That's probably a damn good idea :-)

[Speakeasy]

Originally Posted by Crystal

Exactly.

If people are responding to them, then there obviously an interest in the topic. If people ignore the threads and the only ones posting in it are all in agreement then the thread becomes one big circle jerk and dies.

Yep. It is funny that the people who are most against these threads are also the ones that respond to them the most. I'm guilty of this, as well.

[Miranda]

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

Yep. It is funny that the people who are most against these threads are also the ones that respond to them the most. I'm guilty of this, as well.

As am I. Daisy is right, these threads are essentially all saying the same thing, the same arguments in each one.

Point taken.

[Mrs. M]

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

Yep. It is funny that the people who are most against these threads are also the ones that respond to them the most. I'm guilty of this, as well.

LOL I have to admit guilt, too.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by moon

Wassup, is everybody frightened to take on someone with extremist ideas ?

Censorship stinks. Provided members post within the rules then they should be free to express themselves.

Speakeasy;


A ghastly suggestion. It would eliminate everything other than frontpage mainsteam comment. Lesser forums would die of starvation. It would be censorship by ration book.

And discussing other members in public is odious.

Meridious;


But you're an anti-Islamist yourself. You'd never see the light of day. Lol.

If Moon's against it, it's gotta' be a good idea...