If you go back through the moderation thread you'll see my very first response to him was agreeing that I don't really like threads like yours and I wanted to know what people thought before deciding if we should get rid of them or not.

His whining just made me suggest a concrete step for figuring that out.

No bastard option? Son, I am disappoint.

This is serious business.

I think it's pretty lame to do so, but it probably makes the rules easier to enforce by not having to determine whether the purpose of an exclusion is a back-handed way of attacking them. Also, you can just start your own thread where you ran rebut everything told about you. Think of the thread as being a like a blog run by the OP. If you think you're being defamed, go start your own blog. If other people notice the blog is entirely about defaming other people without giving you a chance to respond, they're going to take it with a grain of salt anyway.

High fives WITHOUT repercussions?! The horror!

Dids and Nich, good points.

Yeah, that's kinda the point. We have a blog forum. We don't need this entire forum to turn into a bunch of mini-blogs about who everyone dislikes.

Gets ****ty pretty fast when every thread is one person's **** list.

I'm not sure it needs to be outlawed, but I hope it would be recognized as lame and cowardly, and shunned accordingly.

I was hoping DIB's stupid thread would be a ghost town, because I was all ready with a crack about having the porch light on but not getting an trick-or-treaters. Looking forward to Sputnik's seminar on women's issues tho.

Having said that, if you think it makes your life easier to ban the practice, by all means bring the hammer down.

Yeah, a mob of abusers who got hoisted by one of their own's petard. Really classy group you take "advice" from. I have seen none of the DiB haters are piling on Paul D for starting the stink show, so **** them, their weak morals, and their hypocritical whining.

Spanks, you have a vote too. The same vote as anyone in the 'classy group'.

Not to mention there are at least a couple of people from the classy group that have stated ITT that they're in favour of allowing DiBs thread.

Lol, this is pretty much sums it up. Dibs looks douchey, jj looks cute, and we're all stuck in second grade.

Why the tunnel vision on DiBs thread? It was not the first of it's kind. BTW did you notice his thread contains some actual politics discussion and has an actual politics focus, which cannot be said about the actual hate-thread Paul D started. So why the focus on DiB's thread and not Paul D's? And why leave it up to majority rule when the apparent majority tends to flock together out of spite when it suits them? This whole 24 hour poll idea seems like the wrong kind of easy way out.
Why not wait a while and see how it turns out and decide yourself, even if the right decision for an unchained type forum is not the popular one?

Probably because Dibble's thread bans a much wider range of its subjects from participating.

FYP

So? He listed posters who all post in more or less the same 'way', for more or less the same apparent reasons.

Are all the 'political experts' here so easily swayed by the appeal of popularity? Wasn't slavery popular once upon a time?

One thread starter banned everyone under discussion from participating in a circle jerk, the other thread starter only banned a couple.

It's important to note that letting those being attacked respond to those attacks isn't actually moderation. Keeping those attacked from responding is the moderation action. Since PU is supposed to be largely free of moderation, then the burden to show that the idea of not allowing those being attacked in a thread from responding is a good one should be on those who want that state of affairs, not the other way around.

On a scale from seething to furious, how mad are you that you can't participate (as of yet) in my thread?

DIB's thread was pretty much the exact same thread as the Paul D thread, just different/more people banned plus some political discussion. If one is allowed the other should be allowed. I think the whole let's make a thread to lol at the posters you don't like is stupid and childish, but w/e it is unchained.

Yes, whatever the outcome it will apply equally to Paul D's and DiB's threads.

I understand your argument, but I think there's also some burden on those who would create a new rule in what is supposed to be a "no holds barred" environment. I would hope/prefer that the community's natural organic reaction (bottom-up) would end up in the same place as the rule (top-down). But this may just be wishful thinking. So having said that, I find your argument pretty persuasive. Voted no.

Thinking about it off and on, I think regardless of the outcome of this vote I'm going to rein the starting of self-modded threads back to what's outlined in the sticky.

If somebody wants to mod their own thread they'll have to PM me and I won't allow them for threads that are just for the purpose of attacking other people. They'll have to be issue based and at least some what relevant to politics.

This is mostly out of me having no desire to waste time on threads like "This is the thread for just me to post in, ha ha ha".

The outcome of this poll will still be relevant for threads that are self modded, but I think a lot of the problems will be solved just by requiring people to put effort into a thread they want to self-mod and having it focus on an actual issue.

I haven't decided anything for sure, but that's what I'm leaning towards right now.

Merge the solo threads and the paul/dib threads into the worst poster thread, don't allow those types of threads, problem solved! (And cleanup managed)