Potential Rule Change

[moon]

I'm not allowed to discuss it.

[MattLarson]

Yeah, but buck up - I'm not allowed to show your propensity for censorship.

Matt

[moon]

I'm not allowed to show your propensity for censorship.

Matt

Just as well, as I don't have a propensity for censorship.

[MattLarson]

Right. Think back to some PMs you've recently sent.....

Matt

[moon]

I haven't recently sent any PMs regarding censorship and I certainly refrain from PMing you, Larson, so I suggest that your innuendo is codswallop, as well as being entirely inappropriate.

Such nonsense simply adds to my suspicions on the motives for this poll.

[noahath]

Originally Posted by moon

Noahath;

I make no secret of my agenda, unlike others, and my protests at this proposal to allow an unelected body to censor the membership according to their own agendas is clearly designed to protect my existing right to air my viewpoint.
Lumping the IOF murder of six Palestinian civilians on Tuesday into the same thead as that concerning the razing of a Palestinian olive grove on Monday is not my idea of 'spam' control, yet I know enough about the politics of USPOL moderators to guess that that is what is intended.
NO. Everybody should be free to politely express their views without having to negotiate any bottle-neck of 'mod-think'.

You are again missing the point entirely moon. NO ONE is denying your right to freely express your view ... all that is being suggested is that posters don't flood the Forum with very closely related threads on the same topic .... as has been explained several times in this thread.

[tamperpr00f]

Originally Posted by moon

It's deduced from my own experiences of 'mod-think' in the past. Let me attempt to assist with any possible myopia regarding giving unnecessary powers to unelected bodies.

There's an earlier post , in this thread, in which the poster praises the moderating team and states that he has never had any problems with moderator decisions. It's been there for two or three days. Now, if somebody had criticized the moderating team and stated that they'd been frequently mistreated by them then that post wouldn't have survived for 30 minutes. I don't doubt that some moderators won't be able to follow my argument here. Let me elaborate;
Moderator's decision= good; leave it up.
Moderator's decision =bad; delete it.
It's hard to see it from the inside, I know. There are rules against even discussing it .
That's what happens when there's no oversight and there would be no oversight on moderator decisions concerning what was thoughtless 'spam' and what was intelligent and deliberate pressurization . I am of absolutely no doubt whatsoever that partisanship would kick in to the detriment of progressive debate. And I don't need to use my Vulcan mind-meld powers to see it coming.
NO

Not true. I have seen, albeit not frequently, posts from people being critical of moderators and even complaints that they believed they were being treated unfairly.

[tamperpr00f]

It must be a cold day in hell. Pram and I agree on something!

[pramjockey]

I knew I was wearing this coat for a reason!

[MattLarson]

Originally Posted by moon

I haven't recently sent any PMs regarding censorship and I certainly refrain from PMing you, Larson, so I suggest that your innuendo is codswallop, as well as being entirely inappropriate.

Such nonsense simply adds to my suspicions on the motives for this poll.

You mean like your innuendo about being censored for your political views?



The sun coming up in the morning would add to your suspicions. Hardly surprising.

[moon]

Larson;

Posting 10 threads on the same incident is what this is about.

Noahath;

all that is being suggested is that posters don't flood the Forum with very closely related threads on the same topic .

According to these quotes even moderators can't agree on what the proposal is. That's part of the problem; interpretation. Larson says 'same incident', Noahath says 'closely related threads'. Somebody else might say 'similar topic' and somebody else might say ' clear agenda '. As a member that is actually proud of having an agenda, an agenda that gets up the noses of several moderators, it seems obvious to me that the proposal is aimed at censorship. I've already been accused of spamming by Noahath, (in the open forum so no harm mentioning it ) so I am 100% certain that at least one moderator doesn't know what spamming is. The proposal is so vague that even mods are at odds.

Not bloody likely. The forum is running smoothly. The proposal is vague and evidently unnecessary. Boot the proposal.

Larson;

You mean like your innuendo about being censored for your political views?



The sun coming up in the morning would add to your suspicions. Hardly surprising.

Larson, get off my case.

[jviehe]

I wish this rule were around back when all the Ron Paul spamming was going on. Not sure what the debate is about Moons posting, as hes been on ignore for years, but Im not sure posting every news item about Israel rises to spam as long as those posts contain comments and he debates the point.

[MattLarson]

Originally Posted by moon

Larson, get off my case.

Don't post nonsense innuendo about your being "censored" and you won't get called on it.

Post inflammatory, fabricated bullshit about being "censored" and expect to get called on it.

Matt

[moon]

fabricated bullshit about being "censored"

A totally unfair suggestion, as I'm not allowed to comment on it. That's not 'innuendo' , Larson.

The proposal is a charter for censorship, a censorship fueled, imo, by attitudes such as yours. I'm completely upfront about what I think of it and I've not resorted to innuendo at all. Thus far the innuendo has been yours and Noahaths. I've pointed out that even mods can't agree what this proposal describes and that I already stand falsely accused of 'spamming'. It's a sinister proposal that should be shunned.

Now, get off my case.

jviehe;

Not sure what the debate is about Moons posting, as hes been on ignore for years, but Im not sure posting every news item about Israel rises to spam as long as those posts contain comments and he debates the point.

As I'm on ignore, you'll miss this. The same can be said for attacks upon the Republican Party, the Iraq fiasco, the Afghanistan quagmire, the Recession and efforts to haul Bush before the ICJ. Each topic is expanded upon daily as fresh events take place. Commenting on a mortar attack on the Greed Zone and an IED attack on a marine patrol in different threads is not 'spamming'. Neither is starting different threads on an IOF armored bulldozer charge in Rafah and another in Gaza City. The suggestion that such threads are 'spamming' is a concerted effort, imo, to control topic material, despite claims to the contrary by the proposers.

[MattLarson]

You clearly implied that you will be "censored" because of your views, moon.

That's pure bullshit.

Don't make silly, untrue allegations, and you'll find your case quite unencumbered.

Make up silly allegations about being "censored" because of your viewpoint, and you'll fine be upon your case.

Your call.