Poll: Interest in a hard moderated forum area?

[Shink]

They taught English when I was in school.

I taught myself English when I was in school. Everyone else ate my dust. That and lead paint chips.

 

[pinkmandy]

Language doesn't bother me, this is a diverse group. Like Randy and Jim, I'm more bothered by the negativity (and I'm standing behind you guys at the march ). There's a vent board for it now so hopefully that helps.

Negativity is the enemy of enthusiasm. We need enthusiasm to win thus we are at war with negativity. There's a difference, imo, between true constructive criticism/thoughtful discussion and blatant naysaying. And there's a time/place for the criticism.

 

[thoughtbombing]

MsDoodah's just hit me with an infraction for saying DUMBASS in a thread I started, when the original post was moved by SOME IDIOT into another forum(LIBERTY FOREST.. I didn't even know there WAS Liberty Forest!)

[Mod Note: poster given infraction for violating forum guidelines: insulted other members.]

Fascism is alive and grimey on this forum, as well.. why bother doing a poll or moderating with word filters if you're just going to give infractions until we're banned anyway? That is fucking rediculous.

 

[icon124]

Yes, I honestly believe some have come here and decided against Ron because of what they read here. We were advised of this happening by one of our members. (AnnaK, I think? It was a long time ago.) She had materials returned to her and was told "no thank you" because the people she had spoken with came to this forum and decided against RP as a result of what they read here.

The difference is that those people did not KNOW they wanted to vote for Ron - they were assessing him, and because this place is full of Ron supporters, our behavior here turned them off to our candidate.

May not be what you want to hear, but that has happened.

well if that's the case I wouldn't want them supporting him anyway....how could anyone look at Ron Paul and say they won't support him because of some website we people chatting away using FREE SPEECH...

 

[undergroundrr]

it's in your user preferences.... i think.

click "User CP" up near the top banner, it's somewhere in there.

I don't see any way to filter New Posts results from the Control Panel. Somebody please let me know if you can find out a way.

I actually have a lot of appreciation for the job the moderators here do. But the moderation is fairly meaningless for anyone who uses the New Posts link.

 

[Banana]

MsDoodah's just hit me with an infraction for saying DUMBASS in a thread I started, when the original post was moved by SOME IDIOT into another forum(LIBERTY FOREST.. I didn't even know there WAS Liberty Forest!)

Fascism is alive and grimey on this forum, as well.. why bother doing a poll or moderating with word filters if you're just going to give infractions until we're banned anyway? That is fucking rediculous.

Erm... Calling someone an idiot for moving thread that doesn't appear to have do anything with Paul doesn't make it fascism. I'm pretty sure of that.

A PM to the mod and it could have been resolved without all drama.

 

[Tdcci]

News about the Official Campaign, to make sure grassroots/offtopic stuff does not go there, not expressly for language purposes though.

 

[MsDoodahs]

well if that's the case I wouldn't want them supporting him anyway....how could anyone look at Ron Paul and say they won't support him because of some website we people chatting away using FREE SPEECH...

And guess what? Those people DID NOT support Dr. Paul and WE ARE LOSING.

What IS your reason for being here? To spout curse words and feel like a tough guy or TO GET RON PAUL ELECTED?

This was the decision each of us as individuals faced.

We know where you came down on the choice, icon.

 

[MsDoodahs]

Erm... Calling someone an idiot for moving thread that doesn't appear to have do anything with Paul doesn't make it fascism. I'm pretty sure of that.

A PM to the mod and it could have been resolved without all drama.

Oh, trust me. He sent me a PM ... for giving him the infraction.

 

[JohnM]

I voted no for this reason: inevitably people will come to the forum perhaps even by people linking to the moderated section, then look at the un-heavy moderated sections and become offended. I would suggest a disclaimer instead if this is such a serious concern.

The end decision is of course up to our hosts Bryan and Josh, but my input would be no.

If the problem is that Dr Paul may lose support because of foul language on the forum, the solution is harder moderation for bad language in the whole forum, not creating a small hard-moderated area.

I doubt that it is a big problem. After all, John McCain doesn't seem to have had much difficulty getting votes, despite being well known for his bad language. What sort of person would be turned away from Dr Paul (a man who seems to be a model of polite discourse) because his supporters swear, but be prepared to vote for someone as foul-mouthed as McCain?

 

[icon124]

And guess what? Those people DID NOT support Dr. Paul and WE ARE LOSING.

What IS your reason for being here? To spout curse words and feel like a tough guy or TO GET RON PAUL ELECTED?

This was the decision each of us as individuals faced.

We know where you came down on the choice, icon.

Isn't Ron Paul a STRICT CONSTITUTIONALIST...Please explain the first amendment to me...PLEASE...of course I'm here to get Ron Paul elected or I wouldn't be here at all, but I'm also here because I support his issues as well. And well...the first amendment is a big issue...and hmmmm doesn't Ron Paul support that too.

If you look at my posts, I rarely curse, BUT I will not tell someone else they cannot curse. There is no authority for ANYONE to tell someone else they can't say certain words.

We know where you came down on the choice, MsDoodahs.

 

[MsDoodahs]

Isn't Ron Paul a STRICT CONSTITUTIONALIST...Please explain the first amendment to me...PLEASE...of course I'm here to get Ron Paul elected or I wouldn't be here at all, but I'm also here because I support his issues as well. And well...the first amendment is a big issue...and hmmmm doesn't Ron Paul support that too.

If you look at my posts, I rarely curse, BUT I will not tell someone else they cannot curse. There is no authority for ANYONE to tell someone else they can't say certain words.

We know where you came down on the choice, MsDoodahs.

How does your attitude, expressed here, demonstrate that you are here to get Ron elected:

well if that's the case I wouldn't want them supporting him anyway....

You said that with respect to prospective supporters who found the language on this board so offensive that they chose NOT to support Dr. Paul.

As for the 1st, it does not apply here: this is private property. That is where Josh derives his authority to establish the rules for this forum.

Josh keeps it as open and as free as possible, but there are guidelines that you must follow.

There is no restriction on foul language per Josh's decision. However, as the owner of this property, Josh has ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY to instate and enforce guidelines to ban foul language if he so chooses.

Josh's decision to allow foul language doesn't mean he wants you guys cursing like sailors; I take it to mean he expects you to use some self responsibility when you post.

That some of you refuse to do so does not reflect badly on Josh, nor does it reflect badly on those who frequently request that posters use some tact in their posting choices.

JMO and YMMV: Where it reflects badly is on those who grasp at the 1st amendment as "cover" for their failure to make good decisions when posting.

 

[icon124]

How does your attitude, expressed here, demonstrate that you are here to get Ron elected:



You said that with respect to prospective supporters who found the language on this board so offensive that they chose NOT to support Dr. Paul.

As for the 1st, it does not apply here: this is private property. That is where Josh derives his authority to establish the rules for this forum.

Josh keeps it as open and as free as possible, but there are guidelines that you must follow.

There is no restriction on foul language per Josh's decision. However, as the owner of this property, Josh has ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY to instate and enforce guidelines to ban foul language if he so chooses.

Josh's decision to allow foul language doesn't mean he wants you guys cursing like sailors; I take it to mean he expects you to use some self responsibility when you post.

That some of you refuse to do so does not reflect badly on Josh, nor does it reflect badly on those who frequently request that posters use some tact in their posting choices.

JMO and YMMV: Where it reflects badly is on those who grasp at the 1st amendment as "cover" for their failure to make good decisions when posting.

Again, I don't curse to often in threads...so I'm not here defending myself. I'm defending the fact that censorship is a terrible way to run things...and please don't question me supporting Ron Paul...I've canvassed soooooo much for him...and before he came along NEVER did anything for any other politician. I keep people informed of Ron Paul on a daily basis. You act like you are the law of the land or something. If you ask me, it seems as if you probably turn more people away from these forums than the average poster...with all of the "authorities" you use.

 

[MsDoodahs]

Again, I don't curse to often in threads...so I'm not here defending myself. I'm defending the fact that censorship is a terrible way to run things...

Um...no, you were proclaiming the cover of the 1st amendment applies to you HERE, in a PRIVATELY OWNED forum. Changing it now to "I'm just saying censorship is bad" makes you look like you're running.

Which is what you're doing. Because I schooled ya.

and please don't question me supporting Ron Paul...

You mean the way you questioned my support for Ron's candidacy, here:

I wonder about Msdoodahs. this mod is in another thread going against the first amendment. If this mod clearly supported Ron Paul (BTW this mod assumes I don't support Ron Paul because I advocate our first amendment right) there wouldn't be an issue over free speech. Sometimes I wonder...I will probably get some kind of penalty for expressing how I feel, and using my amendment rights here as well. (Like that hasn't already happened before)

Too bad this post also clarifies your lack of understanding of the 1st.

You act like you are the law of the land or something. If you ask me, it seems as if you probably turn more people away from these forums than the average poster...with all of the "authorities" you use.

If you want a completely unmoderated board, you are free to start one of your own.

 

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

I am against regulating foul language entirely but I have soften some what when someone makes a thread or post and all it is is gratuitis swearing. I read one that started "F the march, f so and so and F this if that happens" (not verbatim) since the post in general had no use other then to make one feel better, then it was unnecessary and I think he was well deserved Banned. Some suggestions that I would make and have worked to weed out trolls.

1. Make a 48 hour waiting period before your first post. This will give newbies time to read the rules, learn our group and get used to ....our flavor (nicest way to put it). This also discouraged trolls who get hyped up and want to come over and do something negative. They have a waiting period, almost like hand guns but actually constitutional.
2. More effectively define the groupings of threads. Hot Topics should come with a lable and maybe even off topics. Let people know that the views may or may not be endorsed by the candidate and that language can be used that isnt endorsed by anyone other then the user.
3. News about official campaign should be the MOST regulated. This is our representation of what DR. Paul has actually said and done. It holds the MOST credibility. Even though I have fought long and hard about language being un-restricted, In the News About Official Campaign, I would have no objection to severely limiting this section AND placing a Lable that states the more specified rules. The lable can also direct new people to this location.

If the 48 hour new post time period is used, I would also suggest that they have a required reading (something very small) that describes the areas and explains the differences. This will help them avoid the more flavorful areas.

Lastly, I would more effectively use the feature for "Senior Member". Newbies shouldnt be able to come in and whore post with a hundred bumps, me toos, atta boy or any other non sensical crap. I would limit how many posts per day until they have hit 30 days, then up them to a new level. Also, I wouldnt allow newbies into areas like off topic and Hot topics or any other area that is more "flavored". In other forums that I have been on, Senior Member is actually voted on by other senior members. If someone votes against them, they have to state why. ( I for example am not a fan of truthers, but I COULD NOT vote agaisnt them for that reason, I could vote agaisnt them because they havent done much and their post count is 3000 bumps) Once someone reaches Senior Member, they have had to show restraint and have gone without warnings for a period of time. We have also allowed senior members the ability to flag posts, this makes them temporarily locked with the message "under review". Once a moderator reviews it, then they can do as they wish, with an explanation PMed to the OP. If a senior member is overly flagging then they get a warning.
Some of these ideas really seem authoritarian but in the end, they work and arent difficult.
I hope at least my first few ideas are considered. I expect the last few will not.

kinda like the first 3 ideas. Last ideas...not so much.

 

[ForLiberty-RonPaul]

MsDoodahs 1

icon124 0