Potential Rule Change

[moon]

mudwhistle;

This, after all, is not a Democracy.

True, and unless members show some gumption in at least trying to draw a parallel with democratic society it never will be.
It will just be self-styled shepherds and the herd.

[Imperator]

Originally Posted by 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.

well said.

Keep in mind this would an action slim down threads, not content. There is a difference, do we need several threads all saying candidate A sux, and candidate B is a saint, when there is very little original content?
So, in hopes of correcting that behavior, the threads instead of a never ending miasma of merging them, the repetitious poster of such would be given a more direct example of the consequences of such.

Curtailing the behavior in favor of more original content threads. In short more bang for your buck.
Practicality is also a plus- more posts from the past would be displayed, further back in time, in different topics/forums making it easier to pick out and pick up conversations you may have been having but forget about , and relegated to the 2/3 page of new posts, with slots being taken up by threads as we said, basically saying the same thing.

Is there anyone here, who enjoys coming to the forum, hitting the new posts button to be faced with several posts on what amounts to, after wading through them, content with little difference, just differently couched titles?

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by moon

True, and unless members show some gumption in at least trying to draw a parallel with democratic society it never will be.
It will just be self-styled shepherds and the herd.

Just a thought, if you had your own website/forums, would you let it be run at the whim of the will of the people who were members of it at your convenience/inconvenience?

[Americano]

Originally Posted by Imperator

well said.

Keep in mind this would an action slim down threads, not content. There is a difference, do we need several threads all saying candidate A sux, and candidate B is a saint, when there is very little original content?
So, in hopes of correcting that behavior, the threads instead of a never ending miasma of merging them, the repetitious poster of such would be given a more direct example of the consequences of such.

Curtailing the behavior in favor of more original content threads. In short more bang for your buck.
Practicality is also a plus- more posts from the past would be displayed, further back in time, in different topics/forums making it easier to pick out and pick up conversations you may have been having but forget about , and relegated to the 2/3 page of new posts, with slots being taken up by threads as we said, basically saying the same thing.

Is there anyone here, who enjoys coming to the forum, hitting the new posts button to be faced with several posts on what amounts to, after wading through them, content with little difference, just differently couched titles?

That seems to be the norm on most boards. Posters either respond to or ignore the offerings. The only business danger I can foresee in limiting repetitious product is an ideological shift favoring one position or another, which would reduce participation. If this was a high-volume board then thread subject merging would be the obvious solution, but poster and mod positions on all subjects on this board are well defined with few new posters being attracted and a steady decline of quality posters who tire of emotion based opinions.

[Si modo]

Originally Posted by Americano

That seems to be the norm on most boards. Posters either respond to or ignore the offerings. The only business danger I can foresee in limiting repetitious product is an ideological shift favoring one position or another, which would reduce participation. If this was a high-volume board then thread subject merging would be the obvious solution, but poster and mod positions on all subjects on this board are well defined with few new posters being attracted and a steady decline of quality posters who tire of emotion based opinions.

I favor no ideological shift. I want to participate in a forum where I can learn. You can't learn if not exposed.

You can't learn if driven away by over-zealous moderation by those with paritisan views, either.

[moon]

Imperator;

content with little difference, just differently couched titles?

Show us some of this ' content with little difference, just differently couched titles '. So far we've had plenty of innuendo and no substance for debate.
This whole proposal smacks of too many moderators with too little to do.

Si modo;

I favor no ideological shift. I want to participate in a forum where I can learn. You can't learn if not exposed.

You can't learn if driven away by over-zealous moderation by those with paritisan views, either.

I seldom agree with your politics, Si Modo, but I admire your respect for free speech. That's twice I've seen you stand up against proposed censorship and it's an admirable characteristic.

( It's OK, nobody is going to think that we're in any way associated. Your reputation is safe )

[tamperpr00f]

Originally Posted by moon

Tamperproof;
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.

There is a problem with people making multiple posts on the exact same topic over a short period of time. I chose to exaggerate, as I have already said, to make a point. I have, so far, not listed any culprits because we were instructed specifically not to do so. Furthermore the only point you have made is that your failure to see the problem demonstrates your blindness.

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 ?

I personally have never been treated unfairly by any admin on these forums, even when they strongly disagree with me. I assume legitimate complaints would receive a fair hearing from the moderators because they have never given me any reason to believe otherwise. The fact that you take this forum so seriously as to compare the moderators to a gestapo like government has me further questioning your sanity.

[moon]

Tamperproof;

The fact that you take this forum so seriously as to compare the moderators to a gestapo like government has me further questioning your sanity.

Gestapo ? No shit ?
Hey, no offense, but I'm going to ignore the drivel so as to help keep the thread , well....drivel-free. 'Bye now.

[tamperpr00f]

Originally Posted by moon

Tamperproof;


Gestapo ? No shit ?
Hey, no offense, but I'm going to ignore the drivel so as to help keep the thread , well....drivel-free. 'Bye now.

Way to dodge having to answer the rest of my post. Don't think I didn't notice the previous dodge either. Way to put your cowardice on display.

[pramjockey]

Originally Posted by moon

Show us some of this ' content with little difference, just differently couched titles '. So far we've had plenty of innuendo and no substance for debate.

Such behavior would be a violation of this mandate:

Originally Posted by drgoodtrips

Re-opened, per discussion in the mod forum. Vote and post at will, but please don't make this a discussion of who you think is guilty of what. This is just intended to get a general feel for people's opinions on this.

because it would be singling out a member or two.

[moon]

pramjockey;

Such behavior would be a violation of this mandate:

Then voting on an indefinable topic is a violation of common sense.

OK, in order to extract some semblance of a description of the vague-but-unpopular activities perpetrated by the you-know-whos, suppose that the proposer of this further curtailment of member's academic freedoms comes to the fore and illustrates, by means of fictitious posts, what, in his/her mind constitutes 'spam' .

'Spam', to my way of thinking, is , according to its innovators, the Monty Python team, the repetitious shouting of the same thing ( 'Spam', in their case ) so that nothing else can be heard. Obviously, I'm not going to accept a definition of 'spam' as being a collection of loosely-associated topics with a common purpose. Neither should anybody else. Posting would become purposeless.

[noahath]

Originally Posted by moon

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.

I find it somewhat ironic Moon that you accuse others of pursuing an agenda.....

[Wisdom_Seeker]

Does this mean we cant discuss the same topic ever? Otherwise it would be considered "spamming".

So how long do I have to wait until I can open another thread of "Bush is an idiot" without it being considered "spamming". Just protecting my virtual freedom guys!

Come on, some topics will have repititions quite alot anyway. This is what keeps this forum alive. For example, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, Iraq War, Al Qaeda, Myanmar recently...expect to see threads on these topics atleast once a day, ...why? because events in them develop quickly, so it may stay the same issue every day with new developments.

Spamming is spamming, the exact same thread over and over. But I disagree for example if a thread is opened about a new attack in Iraq, or in Palestine, etc... that this is considered "spamming". Its the same conflict, but its something new, so it will create new discussions.

I feel that this rule will give powers of abuse, whereby, as soon as you open another topic on Iraq for example, you will get points for "its been discussed last week dude, stop the spamming". I wannabe able to discuss Iraq on a daily basis, because something new happens every day there. I want to be able to remind people so they dont forget, of whats happening in Palestine, Iraq, and everywhere in this friggin world... without being called a spammer

Maybe the issue here is boredom? Try not to stop people of discussing the same current events,... but try to bring new topics of a different nature without stopping the old topics being discussed again.

I dont think I ever spammed in here but I dont want some moderator to send me a PM with 54 points saying "you dissed the US again dude, new rule, no spamming"

And to those who said Moderators are of different opinions and views. A moderator once told me that he swings depending on the number of threads posted in support of a particular cause. If alot of threads are posted in favour of Palestinians he is a pro-israeli.... if alot are posted in favour of Israel... he is pro-palestinian (though this is rare in this forum especially from moderators especially) LOL. Just an honest observation.

Anyway more thought needs to be put in this rule. What is spamming. Expect members to talk about US elections ALOT...cos thats wats going on these days.

Define spamming, give examples of spamming, educate the members first before telling them you will penalise them for discussing the same issue over and over.

WS.

[MattLarson]

I think people are misunderstanding the proposal.

Let us say that a new poser, Garfield, really enjoys lasagna.

So over the course of a week, he starts 10 new threads:

• I Love Lasagna
• Lasagna is the perfect food
• Lasagna is the ultimate food
• Lasagna is the greatest food
• I really love lasagna
• I really, really love lasagna
• Next to lasagna, all other food is crap
• Lasagna is better than pizza
• Lasagna is better than spaghetti
• Lasagna is better than ravioli

This is pretty much spam, isn't it?

Note that this is not the same as someone who posts a thread on an individual incident in an ongoing topic, but rather the a bunch of nebulous platitudes on a given narrow topic.

There are a very few posters here who rise (sink?) to this level. It isn't something 99.9% of the membership would ever have to worry about.

Matt

[Traveler]

I think that is well explained and put in to context well.

When explained to other posters in more detail and with the actual propoals and not any of this slippery slope stuff folks are worried about, i think most posters will see it as a good idea.