Visit the U.S. Politics Online Discussion Forum Archives!
Sponsored by:
 |
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: Would you support this idea | |||
| I would support it |
   
|
19 | 54.29% |
| I'm nuetural or apathetic to it |
  
|
6 | 17.14% |
| I would oppose it |
  
|
10 | 28.57% |
| Voters: 35. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
05-19-2008
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Potential Rule Change
Also, I realized I hadn't voted, so I picked "neutral/apathetic".
__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases." -Thomas Jefferson 
|
|
05-20-2008
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Potential Rule Change
Quote:
|
|
05-20-2008
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Potential Rule Change
Quote:
|
|
05-21-2008
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Potential Rule Change
Noahath;
Quote:
Unless dyed-in-the-wool partisans are allowed to define 'spam', of course, then angst reigns supreme.
__________________
668.....the neighbour of the beast. Yanqui, go home.
|
|
05-22-2008
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Potential Rule Change
The evidence that this rule needs to be implemented ASAP is becoming overwhelming.
__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush "I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006 "[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004
|
|
05-22-2008
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Potential Rule Change
Quote:
i guess i will have to start practicing GROUPTHINK
__________________
Israel may have the right to put others on trial, but certainly no one has the right to put the Jewish people and the State of Israel on trial. Ariel Sharon CONGRESSMAN LARRY McDONALD EXPOSES THE NEW WORLD ORDER 1983
|
|
05-22-2008
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Potential Rule Change
Quote:
Not to worry. It's very easy. Do what you're told. Say nothing that might cause offense. Say nothing that goes against the mandates of our groupthink. You will have a pleasant day now.
|
|
08-09-2008
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Potential Rule Change
And, did ANYONE ever consider the possibility that one who wishes to post more than three threads in one day on completely unrelated topics, yet good topics to start a discussion because the poster wishes to get input, ANYONE? (Evidently, private forum threads are included in this limit...outrageous.)
IMO, this is a riduculous rule initiated by those whose skin is too thin for the real world, yet their 'feelings' override the larger and much more important principle of communication and free speech. Here's a question: Who actually moderates the overly-sensitive and thin-skinned moderators? Sorry folks, I have no confidence that this 'rule' was well thought out before the emotions took over. Disclaimer: In no way is this post meant to be "bloody antagonistic".
__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them, speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition Last edited by Si modo; 08-09-2008 at 06:25 PM.
|
|
08-09-2008
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Potential Rule Change
Quote:
This forum is already rules and mod heavy, imho...
__________________
"Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves." ~ Lord Byron
|
|
08-09-2008
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Potential Rule Change
Quote:
Objectivity is a good thing, per Martha Stewart. Disclaimer again: This post is not "bloody antagonistic".
__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them, speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition
|
|
08-09-2008
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Potential Rule Change
Quote:
__________________
"Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves." ~ Lord Byron
|
|
08-10-2008
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Potential Rule Change
Quote:
No. Now I just do "drive by posting." Since no one wants to discuss anything and anything they DON'T want to discuss is conveniently called "spam." Drive bys are the way to go 
|
|
08-10-2008
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Potential Rule Change
This seems like a very odd rule.
First, we are all supporting some cause. My "cause" is liberty. All of my posts reflect this, and they all advocate liberty. So what are the criteria? If there should be another "Ron Paul" will those of us who support him be subjected to this rule? Or any other candidate, for that matter. I have never really understood the SPAMing rule to begin with, and this is just a increase in the power of an odd rule. Second, in what way does the advocacy for a candidate or cause stifle debate? At the very least, the posts are ignored. I have never witnessed any "debate-sifling." Of course, I can only post here sporadically, so perhaps this occurs at the most oppurtune times when I am not able to post. In other words, this almost seems like a made-up problem that can be used to stifle those who do not have popular oppinions. Even with the unanimous rule, there is a good possibility that there are several things on which all moderators might agree. For example, it seems that many people were unduly banned for anti-semitic speech. I think that it is certainly likely that moderators might let their emotions rule and ban people who have not broken rules, but are spreading unpopular messages. As I understand it, this rule is absurd. There is no way to determine who is arguing for a cause, and who is arguing. And, there is no reason to punish anyone who is simply arguing for a cause. If there is to be any rule change, the rules should be changed to disallow the sort of posts that add nothing to the converstaion. I think we all know the kind I am speaking of. These are the kinds that do not add anything intelecutally to the debate but are simply one or two line tantrums, sometimes with a picture that is supposed to add something to the message. These are childish and have no place here.
__________________
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question." -Thomas Jefferson in his first inauguration address
|
|
08-11-2008
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Potential Rule Change
Quote:
__________________
Obama's New "57 State Patriotic Pin":   
|
|
08-11-2008
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Potential Rule Change
Quote:
It doesn't seem to be an issue at the moment. I won't make it a discussion of any specific posters, but suffice it to say that some months ago, there was a group of people that would pepper the forum with a barrage of threads almost identical in spirit, if not in letter. For various reasons, these same posters no longer seem to be active/posting. I believe the poster who requested it (and others that were sympathetic) were annoyed by opening a subforum and seeing something like 70% of the threads started by the same poster about basically the same thing. The issue would have been that simply merging the threads would no doubt have aroused the ire of the poster(s) and would have introduced a great deal of subjectivity on the part of the moderation staff anyway. Rather than having moderators arbitrarily deciding that they'd "had enough" of a poster and his crusade, this would at least require the input of a whole group of people and some consensus. Obviously this isn't perfect either, but it's better than notifying the forum that any given moderator might start merging threads without warning (in my opinion, anyway) The issue seems to be, and always has been, that posters continuously invent new ways to violate the spirit of the rules without violating the letter of the rules. But, I don't presume to speak for anyone else, though the "power corrupts" quote above was worth a chuckle for me, as I can't personally, as a moderator, think of anything that I think of as less of a vehicle to power than mediating silly squabbles in a discussion forum. When I want to feel the thrill of absolute power, I go in my backyard and knock over ant hills.
__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases." -Thomas Jefferson Last edited by drgoodtrips; 08-11-2008 at 02:21 PM.
|
|
| Bookmarks | |||
Digg
|
del.icio.us
|
StumbleUpon
|
Google
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
