It's his frst timeout from all content threads and they will get longer if necessary

Can I remind you that bringing posters family into it is not allowed in any thread (as you just did in the !!!March thread)

Yes you can, but it's a useful way of pointing out someone's hypocrisy if they advocate physically abusing kids that aren't their own. This is serious stuff chez, not just knockabout internet nonsense. There's nothing remotely funny about an adult punching a child in the face...in fact it's illegal and in most countries would invoke child protection laws and custodial sentences.

Indeed it's a very serious subject. I'm sorry if you think it's important to bring posters family into it but this is a discussion forum with some limits on what's permissible even in !!! threads.

I never have any problem in abiding by the rules if they're clear. If people repeatedly fail to do that, they should probably just **** off.

I've mentioned my sister, at least in P, maybe here, quite a few times as she's a practicing immigration attorney in a sanctuary city. How insane would I have to be to have a problem with her being contextually mentioned by somebody else?

I'm not entirely certain it's clear what "bringing posters' family into it" even means in this context, if it even means anything beyond gibberish. If somebody considers me an awful person, and thinks I'd be an awful father, if I didn't have any children (which I don't, and don't plan to) it would be a topical assessment of my character, but if I did have a young child, a toddler, it would somehow then be about my child and would be bringing him/her into it? That's purely nonsensical.

As you can guess, for me this has **** all to do with wil specifically. I'm just exploring the bizarre aspects of these rules of discourse.

Does this help you.

What's not allowed is bringing up other posters family as a way to insult, attack, troll or annoy them.

Henceforth know as "bringing posters family into it" as it's less words and means the same thing.

p.s.


And chez, it's weird that you keep dodging the following, considering I've said your forum vision makes sense on paper, along with expressing how I don't want posters banned or the forum closed down, but:

At times, personal attacks and !!! behavior =/= 'content'

But

Lack of personal attacks and !!! behavior doesn't automatically = 'content'

The finest point I can put on it is, if you want to have an actual politics forum, as much as it would break my heart, you'd have to ban 1/2 the posters and 2/3 the posts. Like, literally everything monistat and Shoosy posts, and like 9/10 of wil and adios posts, et al.

Honestly, I thought my Flat Earth Thread was irrefutable.

I really don't have a dog in this fight but it's interesting.

For example, I once said the very idea that people like wil actually procreated sometimes depresses me. Is this bringing his family into it?


p.s. Ok I won't drag this out. I'm making a statement about the fluidity of 'attacking the argument, not the arguer'. I don't give a **** if people aren't allowed to bring up wil's child.


p.p.s. If somebody were to tell me that I'm ignorant and biased regarding immigration because my sister has too much influence on me, would that be an attack on me, or bringing my family into it? Or, like, neither, rather an attack on the immigration attorney industry? All of the above?

Can something be done about Fives spam? His continuation of a fight with Wil is crazy.

On the margins, rules will always be guidelines that require us to make judgements.

This appeared just before your warning in the President Trump thread which is a content thread. Please comment on whether or not this post is about the poster and not content.

To provide some extent.

Up to this point I think this clearly a debate based on content. Then goofyballer makes this post.

To me this clearly making it about the poster and adds nothing to the debate.

Just put him on ignore. Then all you see is 4 or 5 of these in a row every time he has a meltdown (which is daily).

You're wrong. Pointing out blatant goalpost shifting - a clear flaw in ogallalalalla's argument - does add to the debate.

Fair enough, that's a good answer.

Hello all. I noticed there is a lot of discussion about moderation in this forum, and it seems like people are trying to figure out how to address the issue. Here's an idea:

Perhaps the forum members should all make decisions about the forum in a horizontal manner, rather than a top down manner with one person or a small group of people making decisions, and instead of a no-holds barred approach where people are able to do things like spread Neo-Nazi propaganda or constantly derail discussions.

I think if you're having trouble organizing the forum, you should look to Occupy Wall Street, and the General Assembly (GA) they made use of, and adopt it to use in the forum. It would work like this:

There is an area of open discussion, where anyone discusses anything. Ideally this discussion would be used for hashing out and formulating proposals.

Someone can then make a proposal, and it will go to the General Assembly.

In the General Assembly, there is a facilitator who facilitates the process. The proposer will outline the details of their proposal, and it will go up to a vote of the users in this manner:

1. Proposal is made

2. A vote is cast to determine if the proposal shall be opened for amendments or not.

3. If voted yes, the proposal will be open for amendments for a period of time, and anyone can offer any amendment they like. As soon as an amendment is proposed, it is voted on and is either adopted or not.

4. As soon the amendment period ends, the entire proposal is voted on. If passed, the proposal is enacted. If failed, the proposer can feel free to refine their proposal, hash out in discussion why people didn't support it, etc. and other people can make other proposals. (Only one proposal can be active at a time)



While voting you can

a. Abstain (if Abstain, you are not counted in vote talley)

b. Vote yes

c. Vote no

And you can also perform four actions:

1. Point of Information (POI) - A POI is raised when a member feels like they have important information that was unaddressed, and they need to make everyone aware of it.

2. Point of Process (POP) - A POP is raised when what is occurring does not follow the established rules of procedure.

3. Question or Clarification (QOC) - A QOC is raised when a member is unsure about a detail in the proposal or amendment.

4. Block - A block is raised when what is happening in the GA might be very bad, or it might go against the safety of the users, or it might lead to some bad consequence like serious legal action taken against users or the owners of the site, or something like that. A block is not a no vote, and is not merely a disagreement, a block is a safety check on the integrity of the GA.

Whenever one of these four actions is taken, the vote is halted, reset, and a revote occurs.

The voting rules are as follows:

The normal voting rule in effect is simple majority, meaning you just need a majority to pass a proposal or amendment. But if a block action is taken, after the vote is reset, it goes into a one against all rule. In this rule, if there is more than one person voting no, the vote doesn't pass. It can only pass if it's everyone voting yes, versus a single no vote (the blocker).

Users don't have to participate, and can leave at any time. I think you would have to have them leave the forum however, as this is a method that can be used to organize the forum. It's Direct Democracy, and horizontal decision making, where everyone has equal say and input to the outcomes.

The facilitator would do things like outline which point in the process the GA is in, open the GA to a vote, manage the time, count the votes, things like that. They are sort of the Operating System of the GA. What's important to note is that the facilitator does not have more power in the GA than any other user, they are merely facilitating the process.

This approach does have a weakness however, and that is a user could do nothing but block every vote, or use one of the other four actions to continuously reset the vote. There can be an established rule prohibiting this, and if a user exhibits this behavior they would be subject to whatever punitive measures were established. This would be necessary to keep the GA functioning, which is important because with this approach, everyone that participates in a good-faith manner will have direct influence in the forum.

Just an idea to consider, and I think it would be a neat experiment!

I got as far as GA, tried to imagine how it might work with posters who only want to use the forum as a whiteboard for their racist and far right views, and gave up.

How is spamming peoples twitter opinions content in content threads?

What are we gonna do about this. NoQuarter deliberately spreading false information in the Immigration thread by editing his quote in a very misleading way.

Intent is impossible to determine on the internet. If a poster makes a habit of misstating or misrepresenting statistics in a sinister manner, then he would be subject to moderation sanction.

In this particular case, the original poster should no longer cite the $583 billion figure as being all from the U.S.

Looking at the number of deleted posts in the last page of the President Trump thread, a place where people have already been given final warnings, it sure seems like the rules you guys are trying to enforce on content threads are mere guidelines and are being treated as such by thread participants.

It's a fair criticism but for posts that break the 'making it about the poster' rule we're tying to avoid micro-managing the Content threads. The rules are being enforced though - two timeouts were issued, more will be on the way as necessary and repeat timeouts will get longer so posters will have to follow the rules or will find themselves unable to participate.

There have been a lot of complaints about excessive tweeting and linking. We now have the following guideline in the rules sticky

Quote:

Originally Posted by chezlaw

Be considerate to other posters in the Content thread. Tweets, videos, links, pictures etc are generally welcome when relevant but please avoid using them excessively. If they are annoying others because of their quantity or repetition then they may be deleted.

Well, my opinion is that far right views should be allowed to be expressed, so should far left, and moderate views. Racism is another thing entirely, however.

If racists are the minority in the forum, they won't have much influence.

I'm a strong believer in direct action, so I'm going to take some action. I'm going to start a thread where anyone who wants to, can participate in this experiment. I think if people were able to see how it works in action, they might think it's a good idea. I personally think it's a good idea, and I'd love to see it in action, just as an experiment.

There should be precisely one alt-right containment thread for the racist/nationalist alt-righters.

Something like this:



I'll start it but it has to be lolzy, !!! ITT We Discuss the Clear and Present Danger of Gingers Crossing the Southern Border, and Other Alt-Right Positions.

simulated ginger oppression content.