Potential Rule Change

[drgoodtrips]

Originally Posted by mudwhistle

As long as content isn't a major consideration I have no problem with it.

Let's not become like The Democrat Underground or Hannity's site were opposing viewpoints are not allowed.

The aim of this is not to discourage any sort of content at all. People are welcome to post whatever they like (within the rules) so long as we're not talking about an endless stream of threads that could easily all go into the same thread. For instance, if every day I created a thread titled "George Bush sucks" and listed some gripe I had with Bush, this is the kind of thing the mod staff is talking about keeping an eye on. There's no reason for a poster to create dozens of threads that all inform the board that he doesn't like Bush, for example.

[mudwhistle]

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

The aim of this is not to discourage any sort of content at all. People are welcome to post whatever they like (within the rules) so long as we're not talking about an endless stream of threads that could easily all go into the same thread. For instance, if every day I created a thread titled "George Bush sucks" and listed some gripe I had with Bush, this is the kind of thing the mod staff is talking about keeping an eye on. There's no reason for a poster to create dozens of threads that all inform the board that he doesn't like Bush, for example.

I agree then.

By the way....your avatar makes me want to watch Animal House again.

[moon]

Noahath;

I think people may be getting worried that mods will start to penalise people for posting. That is not the intention of this proposed change.

I disagree. I believe that's exactly the intent of the proposal and that all the spin denying it is transparent hogwash. The proposal is aimed directly at stifling viewpoints with which the majority of the moderating team disagree or actively oppose. If adopted, the forum as a whole, but particularly the political aspects, would become attuned to 'moderator-think'. Speaking as a member who already has grave concerns regarding the 'powers' of moderators I want to see such 'powers', in an unelected body, diminished, not expanded upon.
The proposal is a gagging proposal. I believe that the moderating team, the administrators and the site owner are fearful that diverse and opposite opinion might overtake their own and that they will be left as mere attendants to a forum within which the general consensus of intelligent argument conflicts with their own beliefs and agendas. Why else would they want to interfere with a forum which appears to be running smoothly ?

If the forum is being 'spammed' than perhaps the OP would care to illustrate the thread with some examples of what individual moderators consider 'spam' so that us poor mugs, the membership, can gain an insight into which members and opinions are marked for punishment and which are not ? Innuendo does not have substance enough to warrant one's John Hancock.

Damn, I've smashed two keys on my keyboard.

Failing such examples, vote NO to the proposal and retain your freedom of speech - a freedom for which people have DIED to protect. They didn't die so you could just open your mouth the once. They died to make speech FREE, even repetitious if that's what you need to make your point. Vote 'yes' to gag yourself. You can vote to waterboard yourself later.

[tamperpr00f]

Originally Posted by moon

Noahath;


I disagree. I believe that's exactly the intent of the proposal and that all the spin denying it is transparent hogwash. The proposal is aimed directly at stifling viewpoints with which the majority of the moderating team disagree or actively oppose. If adopted, the forum as a whole, but particularly the political aspects, would become attuned to 'moderator-think'. Speaking as a member who already has grave concerns regarding the 'powers' of moderators I want to see such 'powers', in an unelected body, diminished, not expanded upon.
The proposal is a gagging proposal. I believe that the moderating team, the administrators and the site owner are fearful that diverse and opposite opinion might overtake their own and that they will be left as mere attendants to a forum within which the general consensus of intelligent argument conflicts with their own beliefs and agendas. Why else would they want to interfere with a forum which appears to be running smoothly ?

If the forum is being 'spammed' than perhaps the OP would care to illustrate the thread with some examples of what individual moderators consider 'spam' so that us poor mugs, the membership, can gain an insight into which members and opinions are marked for punishment and which are not ? Innuendo does not have substance enough to warrant one's John Hancock.

Damn, I've smashed two keys on my keyboard.

Failing such examples, vote NO to the proposal and retain your freedom of speech - a freedom for which people have DIED to protect. They didn't die so you could just open your mouth the once. They died to make speech FREE, even repetitious if that's what you need to make your point. Vote 'yes' to gag yourself. You can vote to waterboard yourself later.

Nobody isn't saying you a person can't repeat themself. Just do it all on a couple of threads instead of say like 70 threads. If I want to pick a candidate or position to praise or spew hate at I can do it, this rule isn't saying I can't. It's just saying I can't make a brand new friggin thread every single day for a month on the exact same subject. How is that unreasonable?

[moon]

Let's find out. List, for voter's perusal, last month's 'brand new friggin thread every day on the exact same subject'.

Your failure will illustrate why it would be catastrophic for freedom of speech to allow unelected moderators to employ the cloak of a 'democratic' majority to impose their will upon subject matter.

[tamperpr00f]

Originally Posted by moon

Let's find out. List, for voter's perusal, last month's 'brand new friggin thread every day on the exact same subject'.

Your failure will illustrate why it would be catastrophic for freedom of speech to allow unelected moderators to employ a 'democratic' majority to impose their will upon subject matter.

First, I never said that there was a thread posted every day on the exact same subject. I said under the rule change I would not, in the future, be allowed to do that. Therefore my failure to find said posts doesn't demonstrate anything other than I am an ass who sometime exaggerates a point in hopes of helping thick headed numb skulls to understand what I am saying.

Second, this is a forum where the only rights you have are the rights granted by whoever owns/moderates the forum.

Third, as previously pointed out to you, the rule change would in no way give moderators the power to impose their will on subject matter. You, for instance, could still write all the anti Israel posts you want. You just wouldn't be allowed to start multiple threads on the same subject over a short period of time.

And finally, this isn't the friggin Congress. If a rule change doesn't work out and gets enough legit complaints it isn't outside the realm of possibility that the rule could be removed. So relax already. And stop acting so paranoid

[moon]

Tamperproof;

First, I never said that there was a thread posted every day on the exact same subject.

You implied that that was the problem. At the very least you reinforced the misconception that that was the problem. It doesn't matter though as my point is made. It isn't the problem. The problem lies in giving somebody the power to say it is the problem when it's not.

You voted, I see, to give up your right to speak whenever you like. Too bad.

If a rule change doesn't work out and gets enough legit complaints it isn't outside the realm of possibility that the rule could be removed

You assume that legitimate complaints would receive a fair hearing by the accused and that the 'government' would move to disempower itself. Where exactly did you learn about politics ?

[AshleyKennedy]

McCarthyism springs to mind.

Someone obviously lied to me about the US being into freedom of expression.

Big brother hasn't just happen in China.

I was always told that Democracy was rule by the Majority with protection of minority rights. What you're suggesting is Tyranny of the Majority.

[noahath]

It's nothing to do with preventing anyone's freedom. As was explained earlier in the thread, if I don't like George W Bush then I should necessarily be able to create, let's say three threads in one day, entitled: Bush is a wanker; Bush shows how dumb he is; if you fail school you too can end up like Bush. All three could be created as different threads, but the content would be exactly the same. What we are saying is that if you want to create one thread (our of the three examples above) then fine ... but multiples of the same topic should be treated as 'spam'. After all, how many times do you want to read random emails about Britney Spears naked before you classify it as spam?

[goober]

First I don't see this as a free speech issue, since this is a private forum, I see it as a marketing issue, how can the forum attract a wide range of posters from across the spectrum, and not become a far left or far right or neo nazi echo chamber.

If you do this, make it so you err on the side of caution.
Require a unanimous vote by the moderators, not a simple majority vote.

The problem I see is that there are people who have legit viewpoints that should be argued even though the vast majority might disagree with the position.

[Americano]

Originally Posted by noahath

It's nothing to do with preventing anyone's freedom. As was explained earlier in the thread, if I don't like George W Bush then I should necessarily be able to create, let's say three threads in one day, entitled: Bush is a wanker; Bush shows how dumb he is; if you fail school you too can end up like Bush. All three could be created as different threads, but the content would be exactly the same. What we are saying is that if you want to create one thread (our of the three examples above) then fine ... but multiples of the same topic should be treated as 'spam'. After all, how many times do you want to read random emails about Britney Spears naked before you classify it as spam?

Given the entertainment taste level of the US general public, if she loses a few pounds and the emails include pictures of her escapades with any young, attractive male there's probably no bottom in that market.

The fact of the matter is most all public forums are privately owned and moderated. What those who control said forums want they'll get. A majority of this forum's posters/moderators/admin are highly defensive of the tarnished US public image to a point of eventual condemnation of any poster who repeatedly and frequently criticizes the US at any level. If the accusations
contain truth and are repeated often enough, those defending US actions commonly use personal insults, baiting, evasion and whatever other means are available in attempts to silence those nagging truths. If a thread limit on any particular subject is desired by ownership, I see no reason for ongoing quibbling or inviting comments, just do it and get the show back on the road.
Those posters who wish to continue following the board product under such circumstances will do so, others will depart.

[moon]

. but multiples of the same topic should be treated as 'spam'.

Deliberate 'spam' is obvious and easy to spot. As some people have already mentioned in this thread, they haven't seen any evidence of recent 'spam'. What you are proposing is to allow you to designate genuine political posts by resident members as 'spam' . Imo, you are trying to put yourself into the position of being the Definer of Spam for the purposes of your own agenda.

Why not rise to my earlier challenge ? You used innuendo to spread your accusations of 'spamming', according to what you'd personally like to classify as 'spam'. Let's see some examples of your concept of 'spam' so that members can go part-way to judging what they would be letting themselves in for.

[Si modo]

Here's an idea: Rather than another rule to be enforced, the mods already have the ability to merge threads; if thread topics by one seem to all fall under one general topic, then the mods merge that person's threads into one in the appropriate sub-forum.

We could have the "All Jews are bad", "All religion is bad", "All the USA is bad", "All (fill in politician-of-choice) does is bad", "All (fill in minority-of-choice) are bad", etc. threads for that single poster in the appropriate sub-forum.

Either way, it's another rule to be enforced (or not).

I'm thinking about California right now, for some odd reason.

[timj219]

I love the idea. I'll send you my list of candidates

[mudwhistle]

Originally Posted by AshleyKennedy

McCarthyism springs to mind.

Someone obviously lied to me about the US being into freedom of expression.

Big brother hasn't just happen in China.

I was always told that Democracy was rule by the Majority with protection of minority rights. What you're suggesting is Tyranny of the Majority.

The Mods are supposed to be the judges of what is good and what is bad and that is why it is important that they be a wide range of political persuasions.

This, after all, is not a Democracy. We are all guests here and subject to the rules that have been agreed upon by the Mods. Tyranny is not something you can claim here. We agreed to follow the rules and we are all free to leave at any time if we don't care for the rules that are enforced. I have had my run-ins with some of the Mods, but over all I think they have been fairly balanced.