Disturbing Trend

[AlexAmore]

Anne I understand you in such that I am a 9/11 "truther", however, even I know that mentioning 9/11 and Ron Paul in the same breath is political suicide for Ron. 9/11 alone is major major topic of controversial discussion/debate, one does not need to complicate it and add Ron Paul to it. If you're talking about 9/11 with someone and then say Ron Paul will open an investigation, then that person will automatically assume Ron Paul is a 9/11 truther.

Most 9/11 truthers are already on board with Ron Paul because of a wide range of issues and because he will start a new investigation. It appears the deal is already sealed with them. I don't know why the message of Ron Paul and his one comment of starting a new investigation must be perpetuated. There simply is not much to talk about that one comment and a lot of discussion makes the layperson think he is a 9/11 truther when he is in fact not.

9/11 as a topic should go into the off topic discussion or loosechange911.com. Ron Paul is not affiliated with 9/11 truth nor has the issue on his website so we should do him a favor and respect his real issues and perpetuate those.

Just because I say i'll open a new investigation into some womens death does not mean i'm implying she was murdered, or suicidal. It just means I want to know more going either way and clarify it.

 

[Bryan]

I propose that we work together to figure out a way to effectively harness that power in such a way so as not to do undue harm to Ron Paul's campaign, but at the same time continue to be inclusive and welcoming people of differing opinions. In that way, I think both sides of the argument could come out as winners.

I'll agree with this totally, it would be great if you could start a thread in the Strategies forum on this.

Otherwise, I think the issue at hand is assuring this forum has an established code of conduct that is inline with the desires of the users. No one wants to crush free expression but I will agree with Anne that attaching negative labels to members isn't going to be productive. Right now my leading thought is that the more purposed forums here (the Issues forum and Strategies forum) could require a stronger code of conduct while General Discussion is more open expression.

Others thoughts and ideas are appreciated.

 

[mdh]

Bryan, codes of conduct are easy to enforce against trolls, general jerks, etc. I've seen a lot of internet trolls and jerks in my day, and none of the people who've been involved in this thread fit that bill. Overly heavy-handed enforcement of codes of conduct also serves to turn people off, but so does constant bickering. Enforcing a code of conduct sometimes also activates in some people a genuinely rude side, which can even lead them to escalating issues and being banned, evading the bans, and generally starting all out wars. I've fought some of these wars, as an administrator of communities, and they are wholly unproductive. They waste the time of everyone involved, distract the community from the real issues, and often create upheavel that pulls in more people than just the original individual(s) involved. I would say that the best thing a moderator/admin can do in many situations where tension seems to be building is to contact people individually, and take the potential drama out of the public realm. This diffuses a lot of the tension immediately; the people involved often no longer feel that they need to maintain bravado in front of their peers, and in addition ensures that personal issues can be dealt with mano-a-mano, instead of in the public square. It also allows people to share feelings they may not want to share in public, but may be too shy to embarassed to initiate private communication. Taking control of a heated situation can be delicate and extremely challenging - and every now and then it turns out you *are* just dealing with a troll, but that generally becomes real obvious, real fast, in private, while they may work much harder on keeping up appearances in public.

Just my thoughts. Best wishes and king regards, Matt.

 

[Bryan]

Thanks Matt, I agree with your position. The two best intervention methods that I've seen to deal with issues are to either lock a thread if is starts to get out of hand or move the thread to an off-topic area. PM is great too and non-intervention. Deleting posts never seems like a good way for regular uses but I still maintain that differ subforums can have different rules so in that way, there can be something for everyone.

 

[mdh]

In my personal experiences, moving threads is good when the thread was... errr... in the wrong place to begin with.
Deleting threads is fine in the case of obvious trolls without substance - something containing only vulgarities, for example - or where the same thread is posted multiple times, either by accident or on purpose.
Things here seem to be going well in general so far.

 

[Captain Shays]

Personally I like to go into Christian oriented forums and tout Ron Paul as the Christian's best hope.

I also like to tell people that he would legalize pot if I think that swhat they want to hear.

He's no conspiracy nut by any stretch but I point out to truthers that he would welcome an investigation into the standard story line.

I make signs that say "Christians for Ron Paul"

And I make signs that say "Deadheads for Ron Paul".

I certainly don't place the deadhead signs in fron of churches though. The Christian signs might work for some deadheads but not all.

The Real anti war candidate works for bringing in Democrats.

Strong on DEFENSE NOT MEDDLING might work for conservatives who understand the truth. Have no doubt, There are a lot of us out here. We just need to reach them and get them to vote in the primaries.

 

[mdh]

Captain Shays has the idea.
And that's basically what my point is on the matter of tailoring our message when it comes to groups or individuals we're familiar with or have some clue of their leanings.

 

[Hawaii Libertarian]

Forum Guidelines

I think Bryan brought this up before, but I think the issues as defined on the official campaign web site should be a critical reference when members join this forum. Perhaps there should be a link at the Forum Guidelines at the top of this forum to the official campaign web site page which definitively defines the issues that Dr. Paul wishes to campaign on. Well meaning members with an intense interest in 9/11 truth, drug law reform, etc. may not realize that these are not listed as issues of the Paul campaign.

I have no problem with any special interest group getting a position from Dr. Paul on an issue, and certainly each member should talk up Dr. Paul among their peers and associates as they see fit.

Among the general public, however, there are certain hot-button themes that could be counterproductive in some segments of the electorate because ours is not a homogeneous nation. Unless you know a target audience really well, we're all better off presenting the issues as listed on the campaign web site for maximum effect.

A sub-board to discuss "secondary" issues off-topic might be appropriate, but it seems for some people, their issues are more important than the primary issues of the official campaign.

Just my 2 cents worth...

 

[Brandybuck]

"Freedom for me, but not for thee." That seems to be the attitude of a few people here. They want the freedom to speak of their conspiracy theories, but they are unwilling to recognize the same freedom of those who disagree. It's absurd.

I think I have made one post on the forum where I told someone to shut up. I apologized afterwards. But I will not stop *warning* people about their speech. Recently I've even stopped trying to convince people that they are wrong about their conspiracies. Instead I've been reminding them to focus on Ron Paul's platform. That platform does not include the exposure of Roswell aliens or a faked moon landings.

Surprisingly, I've been told privately by some Truthers that they agree with me. Conspiracy theories are a distraction. Our common enemy is a bloated, oppressive, unjust and subjugating government. That is what we must focus on.