Thoughts on rules?

[Moby]

I'd like to not have any rules for the board but for some reason adults don't always show basic common sense and let their emotions over rule their brains.

While I like what Mr. Blue posted, we do need a few additional rules because some people are just ass holes.
The rules should be simplified to the basics: Death Threats, Attacks on someone's family, and Excessive use of slurs.

How about these? The one's in italics we kind of need and are in addition to the what Mr. Blue wants.

No racial, gender or sexual orientation slurs.

No threatening statements against another board member or personal attacks against a member's family.

No criminal accusations against others that have not been supported or are not being pursued in US court.

No cutting and pasting from another source without posting a link to that source.

No multiple nick names.

No spamming the board.

No bumping your own threads.

No pornographic material.

[Smurf-Herder]

I'd like to not have any rules for the board but for some reason adults don't always show basic common sense and let their emotions over rule their brains.

While I like what Mr. Blue posted, we do need a few additional rules because some people are just ass holes.


How about these? The one's in italics we kind of need and are in addition to the what Mr. Blue wants.

No racial, gender or sexual orientation slurs.

No threatening statements against another board member or personal attacks against a member's family.

No criminal accusations against others that have not been supported or are not being pursued in US court.

No cutting and pasting from another source without posting a link to that source.

No multiple nick names.

No spamming the board.

No bumping your own threads.

No pornographic material.


Aren't those pretty much the already existing rules?

BTW, I want you to show me how RadioGuy was "Topic" spamming.

[Moby]

Aren't those pretty much the already existing rules?

BTW, I want you to show me how RadioGuy was "Topic" spamming.
Yes they are pretty much the same rules but a shorter version with a few items removed.

Now if you want to discuss something other then the rules here then please start another thread or use PM. This is a thread about the rules.

[Smurf-Herder]

Yes they are pretty much the same rules but a shorter version with a few items removed.

Now if you want to discuss something other then the rules here then please start another thread or use PM. This is a thread about the rules.

You don't want the members to see how you interpret "Topic Spamming?"

You don't think it would be good for them to know how you interpret the rules?

BTW, the rule on "Topic Spamming" that you banned RadioGuy on is not explicitly mentioned in your rules.

[MintJulep]

No criminal accusations against others that have not been supported or are not being pursued in US court.Does this mean stating an opinion that OJ is a murderer, Ted Kennedy committed manslaughter or that Saddam Hussein tortured and killed Iraqis is forbidden?

No cutting and pasting from another source without posting a link to that source. Check

No multiple nick names. Check

No spamming the board. I take this to mean, if a topic is already posted on say, breaking news or a current event, don't post another one? If so, that makes sense.

[Smurf-Herder]

Does this mean stating an opinion that OJ is a murderer, Ted Kennedy committed manslaughter or that Saddam Hussein tortured and killed Iraqis is forbidden?

No cutting and pasting from another source without posting a link to that source. Check

No multiple nick names. Check

I take this to mean, if a topic is already posted on say, breaking news or a current event, don't post another one? If so, that makes sense.

It's supposed to mean (according to the old rules) no single member can post more than three threads on a single topic in one day ... as well as "general spam".

[MintJulep]

It's supposed to mean (according to the old rules) no single member can post more than three threads on a single topic in one day ... as well as "general spam".I have no problem with that. I don't usually post new threads unless it's something I find fairly interesting and try not to repost on the same topics posted. That's general etiquette.

[Mr. Blue]

Rules look fair enough. Spamming, besides general spam, could use that more refined definition. For example, someone posting 4 articles from the NY Times or 4 Videos from Glenn Beck, if they all deal with different topics, would that be considered spamming a source?

Or Spamming as in doing 4 threads on the exact same topic within a day, like, 4 threads on healthcare when one would have sufficed.

[Moby]

Does this mean stating an opinion that OJ is a murderer, Ted Kennedy committed manslaughter or that Saddam Hussein tortured and killed Iraqis is forbidden?
OJ lost a civil suit where he was responsible for murder.
Saddam Hussein was convicted of genocide and there dozens of cases against him for torture.
Osama Bin Laden stated on a video that he was responsible for 9/11.
I'm not aware of any evidence that Ted Kennedy committed any crime.

[Smurf-Herder]

Rules look fair enough. Spamming, besides general spam, could use that more refined definition. For example, someone posting 4 articles from the NY Times or 4 Videos from Glenn Beck, if they all deal with different topics, would that be considered spamming a source?

Or Spamming as in doing 4 threads on the exact same topic within a day, like, 4 threads on healthcare when one would have sufficed.

That's the problem.

Unless it's clearly spelled out, SirMoby will only ban whoever disagrees with his political views, with whatever he wants to fit into vague written rules; when it suits him.

[Smurf-Herder]

I still want you to show the members what you classify as "Topic Spamming"; by how you used it to ban RadioGuy. If it's legit, there should be no problem.

[Mr. Blue]

That's the problem.

Unless it's clearly spelled out, SirMoby will only ban whoever disagrees with his political views, with whatever he wants to fit into vague written rules; when it suits him.

Well, let's just hammer those rules out and put them on record.

I pretty much view it as doing multiple threads on the same topic. I could see though doing say 5 posts on Glenn Beck in one day, might seem a little over the top, but if it's maybe 1 a day that wouldn't be terribly abusive.

[SeniorChief]

I'm not aware of any evidence that Ted Kennedy committed any crime.

Drunk driving was legal in the early 1960s?

[Moby]

Rules look fair enough. Spamming, besides general spam, could use that more refined definition. For example, someone posting 4 articles from the NY Times or 4 Videos from Glenn Beck, if they all deal with different topics, would that be considered spamming a source?

Or Spamming as in doing 4 threads on the exact same topic within a day, like, 4 threads on health care when one would have sufficed.
I've never banned anyone for spamming that wasn't deliberately trying to spam the board.

The Times is a news paper that presents many different news items. If you posted an article from Bill Kristol and then one from Adam Cohen the view points would be very different so that wouldn't be spam in any way.

Glenn Beck is paid to discuss a single view point and is only going to push that view point so 4 posts of him would be spam since they're all the same.

While technically 4 posts on health care would be considered spam if they presented different information about health care (increasing costs, health care legislation, quality) that would not be spam.

Banning only comes when people know they're spamming and they do.

[SeniorChief]

Banning only comes when people know they're spamming and they do.

There have been many occasions when Page 1 - the whole page 1 of this forum - has been nothing more than your cut-and-paste bullshit (that no one reads anyhow).

A subject line, a one liner from you then PASTE.

Repeat, repeat, repeat.

That, my friend, is "Spamming" the board.

So lead by example, if you don't mind.

[Smurf-Herder]

I've never banned anyone for spamming that wasn't deliberately trying to spam the board.

The Times is a news paper that presents many different news items. If you posted an article from Bill Kristol and then one from Adam Cohen the view points would be very different so that wouldn't be spam in any way.

Glenn Beck is paid to discuss a single view point and is only going to push that view point so 4 posts of him would be spam since they're all the same.

While technically 4 posts on health care would be considered spam if they presented different information about health care (increasing costs, health care legislation, quality) that would not be spam.

Banning only comes when people know they're spamming and they do.

See, here you go again.

The orginal rule stated "TOPIC" - not source.

You're only banning RadioGuy and changing the rules to suit your personal point of view.

Not to mention throwing out the whole concept of giving warnings, or combining threads.

[Moby]

See, here you go again.

The orginal rule stated "TOPIC" - not source.

You're only banning RadioGuy and changing the rules to suit your personal point of view.

Not to mention throwing out the whole concept of giving warnings, or combining threads.
Smurf, you've made your feelings clear. We can all read them.

Now will you allow the other board member's to comment on these proposed rules?

Again, I'm sorry that people rejected the rules that you proposed for being way too long. That's not my fault. Isn't it time to get over it?

[Smurf-Herder]

Smurf, you've made your feelings clear. We can all read them.

Now will you allow the other board member's to comment on these proposed rules?

Again, I'm sorry that people rejected the rules that you proposed for being way too long. That's not my fault. Isn't it time to get over it?

Get over it?

This is all about you taking vagely worded rules to use to your advantage. It's not a question of "getting over" anything. It's a question of how to deal with your periodically changing interpretations.

[Zebulon0351]

You resigned as moderator smurf, which means you no longer have any authority to question the actions of another mod.

[SeniorChief]

You resigned as moderator smurf, which means you no longer have any authority to question the actions of another mod.

Is that one of the new rules? There are so many, I haven't had time to read them all.

Which General Order is that?

[Smurf-Herder]

You resigned as moderator smurf, which means you no longer have any authority to question the actions of another mod.

Apparently my resignation wasn't accepted, as I still have Mod status. So I'm still here - fighting for the rights of all members, regardless of political views.

[Smurf-Herder]

BTW, this whole thing about Glenn Beck is a Red Herring.

Mostly what we're seeing is different people being interviewed - not just what Beck Says .......... not to mention the different topics.

It's really pissing me off on how you constantly manipulate your own rules, SM.

[MintJulep]

Unless it's clearly spelled out, SirMoby will only ban whoever disagrees with his political views, with whatever he wants to fit into vague written rules; when it suits him.Hopefully not. I see he doesn't like 20 threads being posted of Glenn Beck videos and to be fair, that's understandable. Maybe it would be helpful if the poster made some commentary about the topic along with the video? I don't know. Generally, this board is pretty free, IMO. I don't see a whole lot of consistent overreaching. I don't have any complaints.

[Smurf-Herder]

Hopefully not. I see he doesn't like 20 threads being posted of Glenn Beck videos and to be fair, that's understandable. Maybe it would be helpful if the poster made some commentary about the topic along with the video? I don't know. Generally, this board is pretty free, IMO. I don't see a whole lot of consistent overreaching. I don't have any complaints.

The whole thing is, RadioGuy was banned, for something that wasn't in the rules - and still isn't, as they're written. As new members come on, they're not going to read how everything was explained; regardless if we agree or disagree.

And the Professor was banned a while back for something also not in the rules.

What's the next thing we're going to find someone banned over; and afterwards a new rule is made, to justify the ban (while still not being fully explained, even after the fact in the written rules)?

Sources were never brought up before that I can remember, in terms of spamming - only repeating the same topic. Which rule is going to be stretched next?

[Smurf-Herder]

Hey, how's this for a stretch?

Based on the precedent of SM's clarification of "Source Spamming", what if I came up with shit like this?:

We cannot have multiple members using the same source more than three times a day.

And since the premise is being "paid to represent the same ideas", we cannot allow similar sources to be quoted more than three times a day.

So that means, among all the members, only three sources, each in only one post, can be used to represent their side in one day, across the entire board.

Now that's creativity, SM. :thumbsup:

[Smurf-Herder]

BTW, I have no problem with multiple videos from a single source being confined to three threads.

The problem is, it isn't in writing, in the rules. And someone was banned for it before it was.

That's my main disagreement with SirMoby - and it always involves the banning of someone who is vocal and has the opposite political view of his, for something not in the rules as they exist.

[The Professor]

it always involves the banning of someone who is vocal and has the opposite political view of his

and that, sir, is THE POINT

transparently

self evidently

i recall you, on the other hand, banning multiple times members who generally share your views

at least when it comes to THIS loser of a president, folks who overall agree with your take have come into your crosshairs for various reasons

i have witnessed, we all have, an incessant little back and forth between you and probably my very favorite junkie (cuz he's so funny) over bans imposed on him---by you...

2 + 2

[MintJulep]

The whole thing is, RadioGuy was banned, for something that wasn't in the rules - and still isn't, as they're written. As new members come on, they're not going to read how everything was explained; regardless if we agree or disagree.

And the Professor was banned a while back for something also not in the rules.

What's the next thing we're going to find someone banned over; and afterwards a new rule is made, to justify the ban (while still not being fully explained, even after the fact in the written rules)?

Sources were never brought up before that I can remember, in terms of spamming - only repeating the same topic. Which rule is going to be stretched next?I see your point. All you want is clarity for the gray areas. Again, with the source thing, and the "false info" stuff, it is too vague as it stands. But isn't the purpose of a message board to debate issues? If the source is so poor or the info is "false", then it should be easily dismantled, no? I think it's better to attack the message instead of the messenger.

[Binky]

OJ lost a civil suit where he was responsible for murder.
Saddam Hussein was convicted of genocide and there dozens of cases against him for torture.
Osama Bin Laden stated on a video that he was responsible for 9/11.
I'm not aware of any evidence that Ted Kennedy committed any crime.


Of course you aren't aware of Ted K. committing manslaughter, as it was all covered up and no charges were filed. Either way you slice it, driving drunk, killing someone and then scamming on it, is manslaughter. Money and power overcame. Now ban me for saying what everyone in those days already knew. So be it.

[doctordog]

I'd like to not have any rules for the board but for some reason adults don't always show basic common sense and let their emotions over rule their brains.

While I like what Mr. Blue posted, we do need a few additional rules because some people are just ass holes.


How about these? The one's in italics we kind of need and are in addition to the what Mr. Blue wants.

No racial, gender or sexual orientation slurs.

No threatening statements against another board member or personal attacks against a member's family.

No criminal accusations against others that have not been supported or are not being pursued in US court.

No cutting and pasting from another source without posting a link to that source.

No multiple nick names.

No spamming the board.

No bumping your own threads.

No pornographic material.

I have issue with #1 and #3. Number 1 is ok if it is enforced the same for everyone, however we have a poster that refers to some females poster here as bitch of c*nt and that should be unacceptable.

#3, I have major issue with as everyone is familiar with Ted Kennedy's case and the coverup that followed. That is like saying nothing happened between Bill Clinton and Monica.

[Smurf-Herder]

I see your point. All you want is clarity for the gray areas. Again, with the source thing, and the "false info" stuff, it is too vague as it stands. But isn't the purpose of a message board to debate issues? If the source is so poor or the info is "false", then it should be easily dismantled, no? I think it's better to attack the message instead of the messenger.

Back when I had that long detailed rules page, it was written to cover every situation. Leaving no questions; and primarily intended to protect the members, with the clarity.

Maybe it was long, but look where we are with the short version - huge amounts of gray area to manipulate. IMO, it's not the written rules that are the problem; it's the unwritten rules that hit you out of the blue.

I'm fine with the simple rules - as long as SirMoby has good intentions on applying them fairly and even-handedly.

[doctordog]

We have been working on implementing some rules behind the scenes and dsolo has been good enough to spearhead this for us.

Here they are in their entirety, if you have any feedback please feel free to discuss in this thread.

================================================== =

PG is a Progressive discussion Board. This means a number of things:

1. Every viewpoint on the issues of the day, and from the silly to the sublime, is welcome here and grist for discussion.

2. Everyone’s rights of expression are recognized and protected. No one will be allowed to express him or herself in ways that diminish the rights of others.

3. We value critical thinking over ideology, discussion on the merits over personal vilification.

4. Staff will not allow any member to transform this site from a discussion board into a mere echo chamber to promote the unsupported views of any party, group, or individual. Arguing by “label”, by means of “false equivalence” and any other propaganda technique, which end-runs critical thinking instead of engaging it, are not favored here and are subject to moderation.

5. We value independent thought, constructive criticism, positive confrontation of the challenges that confront us all, and search for common ground that can unite us.

6. We stand against polarizing politics and setting of The People against themselves for private gain at the expense of the Common Good.

7. We will not allow the site to become a dumping ground for pornography. There are thousands of pornography sites on the Internet, and precious few zealously devoted to protection of discussion on the merits. We aim to be the latter.
Free Speech and Moderation

All registered members are free to start and are encouraged to start threads to host the conversations they want to enjoy here. Whoever creates a thread gets to say what’s in scope for it.

The PG Audience: Could it be you?

Who do we want as members? If you’ve read this far and like our vision and policy on speech and moderation, if you like to mix it up on the merits and have fun --- we want YOU! All the rest are implementation details.

If our vision turns you off, or you feel uncomfortable with the fact that the site is moderated, that means our community is certainly not for you.

Be advised: PG is a large and diverse community, hosting a broad range of opinions and view points. People who are easily offended, or who are not accustomed to having their opinions challenged (including and especially deeply held personal convictions), may not feel entirely comfortable here. A thick skin is necessary to participate on this or any other discussion board.


Moderation Guidelines:

1. Everyone's rights count. The site is moderated toward the end of protecting everyone’s rights of expression. Staff will attempt to protect and preserve a thread as intended by the member who created it.

2. No topic is off-limits, No Opinion is forbidden subject to enumerated exceptions.

3. Exceptions, Forbidden Activity. This site (a) requires that you refrain from attacking our all-volunteer staff on account of their moderation decisions (b) prohibits you from posting material that may subject you or PG to civil or criminal liability, including but not limited to: slanderous statements against anyone whether a PG member or not, posting of child pornography, unattributed copying of the content of others, copying where redistribution is prohibited, and incitements to violence and (c) prohibits the posting of racist, anti-Semitic, misogynistic, anti-Gay and all other forms of group-bashing content (“group-bashing”); that is, content which unfairly brands all members of a group as inferior, not credible or culpable for bad acts, merely on the basis of their membership, or imagined membership in that group.

“Group-bashing” illustrated

Example #1

When an unstable fundamentalist Christian takes the life of a Gay person, it is one thing to say that the particular Christians who condemn homosexuality as degenerate, liken it to pedophilia and actively promote an atmosphere of hatred against Gay people have blood on their hands. It's quite another thing to broadly claim that ALL Christians have the blood of murdered gay people on their hands. It's just not true that ALL Christians believe and have acted to promote violence in this way. There is no culpability that can be sanely laid at the feet of ALL Christians.

Example #2

A soldier in the Israeli army lobs a grenade into a home in Gaza, killing an entire family of innocent Palestinians. Based on the above, someone posts, "The Jews" kill innocent Palestinians.

It is group bashing to speak of "The Jews" here because the characteristic of being Jewish is has nothing to do with the act in question. There are Jews within Israel and without who are horrified by the current policies of the State of Israel. There is nothing in the Jewish religion that compels the murder of innocent people. All Jews as such are simply not culpable.

4. Transparency around Moderation decisions. The staff will be happy to explain its moderation decisions. Note: Staff will not respond well to questions that assume they have acted in bad faith or with malice. See guideline on abuse of staff on account of their moderation decisions.

5. Concerns about Moderation Policy or Staff. If you have a question about any of PG’s moderation policies, or wish to register a complaint about someone on staff, please contact an admin or the board owner. please do this privately.

6. Substantiation of Matters Asserted as Fact. During exchanges about the truth of matters asserted, you may be called upon to substantiate your claims. Opinions expressed as such will never require substantiation.

7. Moderation of Personal Attacks. This is an adult discussion board, not a daycare center. Staff will intervene to curtail personal attacks only when: (a) A member is being subjected to bigotry, slander or piling on, or (b) A good exchange on the merits is being derailed by a flame war.

8. Fair Warning of Intended Moderation. We don’t want our members to have to guess whether or not statements they wish to make will subject them to moderation. Consequently, and with one exception, fair warning will always be given before moderation action is taken. Exception: Threads or Posts that contain racist, anti-Semitic, anti-Gay and other forms of “group-bashing” content or industrial-strength spam are subject to removal without notice.

9. Rules applied with Common Sense and PG Vision in Mind.
• We want everyone here to participate and have fun. Not every statement uttered on the board is meant to be taken seriously. We will moderate with this in mind.

• This is an adult discussion board. We expect that our members will moderate themselves as much as possible. Staff will be moderating to enforce the spirit of the rules and will not act to enforce every technical violation.

• Being Progressive does not mean we support being politically correct. To the contrary, we aim to foster an irreverent spirit without which the orthodoxies and sacred cows of the day cannot be fully and fairly examined.

• Staff members also like to post here. You should feel as free to vigorously attack what we say – on the merits – as you would the statements of any other PG member. How will you know when we are wearing the Moderator hat and you are beginning to cross a line? We will tell you.

Moderation Actions and Their Application
Here are the actions PG staff are authorized to take:
• Thread Banning. If, after warning, we find that someone persists in conduct that threatens meaningful exchange in a thread, they may well find themselves on the outside of the thread looking in.

• Movement of Spam. To protect a thread from imminent derailment, staff may move group bashing, staff bashing and other forms of industrial-strength “spam” to some other thread.

• Thread Closing. We close threads when we find they have completely lost value due to flame war or other derailing activity or because they have simply run their course. Closing a thread tends to punish the person who started the thread the most. Consequently, as a general rule, we’ll look to protect a thread before taking action to close it.

• Site Banning, Temporary. Many of the issues confronted on PG are highly emotional ones. Abortion, the Middle-East, Torture War Crimes all spring to mind. When, after repeated thread banning, we conclude that someone has temporarily lost their regard for the free speech rights of others, we may deem it necessary to temporarily ban a member from the site. We do not want to lose a good poster who has only temporarily lost his or her compass. And neither do we want everyone else to suffer until sanity returns.

• Site Banning, Permanent. Permanent site banning should be used sparingly. This action is reserved for any member who repeatedly demonstrates that they do not support the PG vision or moderation or The PG Golden Rule, see below.

Readers Digest Guide to fun and fame on PG: The PG Golden Rule

Attack the issues with gusto and flair, not the other members. Respect the “free speech” rights of others as you would have them respect yours. Remember to have fun!!

5 bucks says these make no difference at the graveyard.:D

[Smurf-Herder]

We have been working on implementing some rules behind the scenes and dsolo has been good enough to spearhead this for us.

Here they are in their entirety, if you have any feedback please feel free to discuss in this thread.

================================================== =

PG is a Progressive discussion Board. This means a number of things:

1. Every viewpoint on the issues of the day, and from the silly to the sublime, is welcome here and grist for discussion.

2. Everyone’s rights of expression are recognized and protected. No one will be allowed to express him or herself in ways that diminish the rights of others.

3. We value critical thinking over ideology, discussion on the merits over personal vilification.

4. Staff will not allow any member to transform this site from a discussion board into a mere echo chamber to promote the unsupported views of any party, group, or individual. Arguing by “label”, by means of “false equivalence” and any other propaganda technique, which end-runs critical thinking instead of engaging it, are not favored here and are subject to moderation.

5. We value independent thought, constructive criticism, positive confrontation of the challenges that confront us all, and search for common ground that can unite us.

6. We stand against polarizing politics and setting of The People against themselves for private gain at the expense of the Common Good.

7. We will not allow the site to become a dumping ground for pornography. There are thousands of pornography sites on the Internet, and precious few zealously devoted to protection of discussion on the merits. We aim to be the latter.
Free Speech and Moderation

All registered members are free to start and are encouraged to start threads to host the conversations they want to enjoy here. Whoever creates a thread gets to say what’s in scope for it.

The PG Audience: Could it be you?

Who do we want as members? If you’ve read this far and like our vision and policy on speech and moderation, if you like to mix it up on the merits and have fun --- we want YOU! All the rest are implementation details.

If our vision turns you off, or you feel uncomfortable with the fact that the site is moderated, that means our community is certainly not for you.

Be advised: PG is a large and diverse community, hosting a broad range of opinions and view points. People who are easily offended, or who are not accustomed to having their opinions challenged (including and especially deeply held personal convictions), may not feel entirely comfortable here. A thick skin is necessary to participate on this or any other discussion board.


Moderation Guidelines:

1. Everyone's rights count. The site is moderated toward the end of protecting everyone’s rights of expression. Staff will attempt to protect and preserve a thread as intended by the member who created it.

2. No topic is off-limits, No Opinion is forbidden subject to enumerated exceptions.

3. Exceptions, Forbidden Activity. This site (a) requires that you refrain from attacking our all-volunteer staff on account of their moderation decisions (b) prohibits you from posting material that may subject you or PG to civil or criminal liability, including but not limited to: slanderous statements against anyone whether a PG member or not, posting of child pornography, unattributed copying of the content of others, copying where redistribution is prohibited, and incitements to violence and (c) prohibits the posting of racist, anti-Semitic, misogynistic, anti-Gay and all other forms of group-bashing content (“group-bashing”); that is, content which unfairly brands all members of a group as inferior, not credible or culpable for bad acts, merely on the basis of their membership, or imagined membership in that group.

“Group-bashing” illustrated

Example #1

When an unstable fundamentalist Christian takes the life of a Gay person, it is one thing to say that the particular Christians who condemn homosexuality as degenerate, liken it to pedophilia and actively promote an atmosphere of hatred against Gay people have blood on their hands. It's quite another thing to broadly claim that ALL Christians have the blood of murdered gay people on their hands. It's just not true that ALL Christians believe and have acted to promote violence in this way. There is no culpability that can be sanely laid at the feet of ALL Christians.

Example #2

A soldier in the Israeli army lobs a grenade into a home in Gaza, killing an entire family of innocent Palestinians. Based on the above, someone posts, "The Jews" kill innocent Palestinians.

It is group bashing to speak of "The Jews" here because the characteristic of being Jewish is has nothing to do with the act in question. There are Jews within Israel and without who are horrified by the current policies of the State of Israel. There is nothing in the Jewish religion that compels the murder of innocent people. All Jews as such are simply not culpable.

4. Transparency around Moderation decisions. The staff will be happy to explain its moderation decisions. Note: Staff will not respond well to questions that assume they have acted in bad faith or with malice. See guideline on abuse of staff on account of their moderation decisions.

5. Concerns about Moderation Policy or Staff. If you have a question about any of PG’s moderation policies, or wish to register a complaint about someone on staff, please contact an admin or the board owner. please do this privately.

6. Substantiation of Matters Asserted as Fact. During exchanges about the truth of matters asserted, you may be called upon to substantiate your claims. Opinions expressed as such will never require substantiation.

7. Moderation of Personal Attacks. This is an adult discussion board, not a daycare center. Staff will intervene to curtail personal attacks only when: (a) A member is being subjected to bigotry, slander or piling on, or (b) A good exchange on the merits is being derailed by a flame war.

8. Fair Warning of Intended Moderation. We don’t want our members to have to guess whether or not statements they wish to make will subject them to moderation. Consequently, and with one exception, fair warning will always be given before moderation action is taken. Exception: Threads or Posts that contain racist, anti-Semitic, anti-Gay and other forms of “group-bashing” content or industrial-strength spam are subject to removal without notice.

9. Rules applied with Common Sense and PG Vision in Mind.
• We want everyone here to participate and have fun. Not every statement uttered on the board is meant to be taken seriously. We will moderate with this in mind.

• This is an adult discussion board. We expect that our members will moderate themselves as much as possible. Staff will be moderating to enforce the spirit of the rules and will not act to enforce every technical violation.

• Being Progressive does not mean we support being politically correct. To the contrary, we aim to foster an irreverent spirit without which the orthodoxies and sacred cows of the day cannot be fully and fairly examined.

• Staff members also like to post here. You should feel as free to vigorously attack what we say – on the merits – as you would the statements of any other PG member. How will you know when we are wearing the Moderator hat and you are beginning to cross a line? We will tell you.

Moderation Actions and Their Application
Here are the actions PG staff are authorized to take:
• Thread Banning. If, after warning, we find that someone persists in conduct that threatens meaningful exchange in a thread, they may well find themselves on the outside of the thread looking in.

• Movement of Spam. To protect a thread from imminent derailment, staff may move group bashing, staff bashing and other forms of industrial-strength “spam” to some other thread.

• Thread Closing. We close threads when we find they have completely lost value due to flame war or other derailing activity or because they have simply run their course. Closing a thread tends to punish the person who started the thread the most. Consequently, as a general rule, we’ll look to protect a thread before taking action to close it.

• Site Banning, Temporary. Many of the issues confronted on PG are highly emotional ones. Abortion, the Middle-East, Torture War Crimes all spring to mind. When, after repeated thread banning, we conclude that someone has temporarily lost their regard for the free speech rights of others, we may deem it necessary to temporarily ban a member from the site. We do not want to lose a good poster who has only temporarily lost his or her compass. And neither do we want everyone else to suffer until sanity returns.

• Site Banning, Permanent. Permanent site banning should be used sparingly. This action is reserved for any member who repeatedly demonstrates that they do not support the PG vision or moderation or The PG Golden Rule, see below.

Readers Digest Guide to fun and fame on PG: The PG Golden Rule

Attack the issues with gusto and flair, not the other members. Respect the “free speech” rights of others as you would have them respect yours. Remember to have fun!!

5 bucks says these make no difference at the graveyard.:D

That's all well and good, but SirMoby's response would be, "it's too long." Roughly as long as the rules I proposed back in April.

You know, like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights - much too long. :lmao2:

[doctordog]

That's all well and good, but SirMoby's response would be, "it's too long." Roughly as long as the rules I proposed back in April.

You know, like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights - much too long. :lmao2:

Hmm, that is what my wife says all the time:disbelief:

[Smurf-Herder]

Hmm, that is what my wife says all the time:disbelief:

This is what I came up with back in April, after two weeks of analyzing the board and anticipating all possible situations - but it's too long; and SirMoby wants one-liners.

This is to be considered “starting from a clean slate. All previous violations taking place before this date will not be applied to any current Members in regards to Board Disciplinary Action. This is also being designed to protect the individual Members and provide specific guidelines for Moderators to adhere to.

1) General Rules and Provisions

Spam

Spam is not allowed on the board in any form. Drive-by Spammers will be immediately banned permanently and all Spam removed. Members found spamming will have their Spam removed and be warned by the Moderator.

Clarification - Links to businesses and other related enterprises in a Member’s Signature is NOT considered Spam. References during the course of a post in the “Shooting the Shit” forum is NOT considered Spam. However, this must be used in the context of a post and not the sole purpose of the thread itself. References during the course of a post in the “Speak Your Mind” forum is NOT considered Spam; as long as it’s used in the context of a debate or discussion.

Topic Spamming

Multiple threads by a single member on the same specific subject in the course of a single day will be considered “Topic Spamming”. This will result in a warning from the Moderator; and all “TS” threads will be merged into one.

Pornography

Pornography and Pornographic links will not be tolerated. We do not have "18 U.S.C. 2257" status ( <http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002257----000-.html>), and all ages have access to this site. Consider it PG-13. Anyone posting such material will be immediately permanently banned without a warning.

Clarification - Pornography does NOT include “partial nudity” IE: Breasts with nipples covered, or bare buttocks. Pornography does NOT include foul language (see Section 2 - “Member to Member Conduct” below)

Multiple Usernames

Multiple Screen names are not allowed.

Clarification - There may be rare extenuating circumstances, involving the need to correspond with the Moderator IE: a single appeal in regards to a ban. In which case the “additional entity” will be deleted by banning, after such communication has run its course.

Multiple Screen Names for the express purpose of gaining unfair advantage in a debate, or causing “Malicious Activity” on the board will result in all involved Screen Names being banned, permanently.

Post Content

All Members are expected to maintain a level of coherence in their posts, within reason. In other words, some text may be emphasized - but NOT “Flaming” all throughout the majority of the post. Members not observing this will be given a warning, which must be heeded.

All members are asked to keep their posts in a manner that would commonly be considered easy to follow - In other words, don’t take up a whole page of single lines with double-spacing when it can more easily be followed in normal paragraph style. Members not observing this will be given a warning, which must be heeded.

Clarification - This does not apply to posts containing only a couple sentences.

Thread Bumping

Members may bump their own thread only once, if they see no response by a full day, just to be sure it is seen by all - considering some here may not see a thread being on page 2, if the thread was started at the beginning of the day and a majority of members might not login until the evening. However, this will be limited to no more than a single thread per day; and only once per thread.

“Repeated” thread bumping is not allowed, whether your own or another Member’s. Such activity will result in a warning, or a 24 Hour “Time Out” ban; at the Moderator’s discretion.

Clarification - This does not apply to threads you add new information to; in which case it would not be considered “bumping”.

Quoting and Linking

All Members posting articles reprinted, or quoting of individual statements must be accompanied with a link to the source. A Member not doing so will be asked to provide the link, or reference, only if a link is not available in a rare circumstance. Failure to do so will result in the post being deleted.

Clarification - All Members are expected to make their own judgments as to the validity of the statements linked to, by considering the source from which it originated. IE: WorldNetDaily, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, The Daily Kos, The Huffington Post, Socialist Workers Party, political blogs, etc., would not be considered to have merit as valid factual sources of information by some members. However, they would be considered “sources” as to fulfilling the Member’s obligation under the rules to link to his source.

Part of debating an issue involves making every effort to prove your case; so it’s best to use as independent as source as possible, or at least multiple sources, in trying to make a political argument.

Hate Speech

For the express purpose of allowing as much free expression as possible, the clinical dictionary definition of Hate Speech is being modified, to accommodate generalized characterizations, within reason. Specific references will be used below, to further clarify the rules.

A) Generally understood Racial Slurs, Ethnic Slurs, Gender Slurs and Sexual Orientation Slurs are not allowed. IE: Nigger, Cunt, Twat, Rag head, Camel jockey, Kike, Jew boy, Spic, Wetback, Jap, Chink, Honky, Queer, Faggot, Gay boy; Cock sucker and other terms commonly considered Slurs of the above type. All such references will be deleted.

Jokes containing the above bigoted intent will also be considered Hate Speech.

Clarification - This does not include words that are up to the reader’s interpretation, or the poster’s intent on general characterization. IE: Cupcake, Bible-thumpers, Marxists, Fascists are not slurs, by our interpretation on this board. This does NOT include referencing these words in the context of quoting another individual from an article or statement in the course of a debate or discussion. This does NOT include something less offensive being used to refer to a public official, IE: “IMO, Nancy Pelosi is a manipulating bitch” or “I feel Dick Cheney is a warmongering prick.”

B) Endorsement of Genocide, inciting violence, or threats against religious or political groups, or government officials is not allowed. IE: “All the Muslims should be bombed back to the stone age.”; or “The President should be shot.”; or “Hitler was right in gassing the Jews.”

Explicit Death threats against Government Officials will result in an immediate permanent ban. ( see “Threats of Violence” below )

C) General characterizations are allowed, within reason; within the course of discussion. As long as elements from Parts A and B are not involved. And they must be stated in the context of an opinion, not as fact. General Characterizations CANNOT be used as the Main Topic of a thread. Specific Claims must be proven by linking to sources outside of the board. A Member is expected to prove their argument by doing so, when challenged by a Moderator, or another Member. Otherwise their statement will be considered without merit. And at the Moderator’s discretion, will be asked to refrain from further repeating their statements along this line.

Clarification - The purpose in this is not to stifle free expression, but to prevent endless Rant Spamming or Member “Baiting” (see below).

In regards to all of the above in the “Hate Speech” category, a Member will be given a warning which must be heeded; or a 24 Hour “Time Out” ban will be issued.

2) Member to Member Conduct

As a general rule, it is expected of all Members to respect each other as individuals, and their opinions. Free expression however permits using foul language in the course of discussion at times, within reason. However, all members are expected to do the best to keep their emotions under control, as much as possible.

Personal Attacks

Some back and forth exchanges will be permitted, to a point. However, Members are expected to cool down and not let things get out of hand. At a Moderator’s discretion, all involved individuals will be warned to chill out, when things appear to be getting out of hand; and to apologize. Failure to comply upon being warned will result in a 24 Hour “Time Out” ban, to allow the Member, or Members, to cool down and readjust their attitude.

Members are allowed some freedom in heated exchanges, including limited insults. But Personal Attacks, or attacks on or involving their family members are not allowed. “Unprovoked” Personal attacks, or attacks on or involving their family members will result in an immediate 24 Hour ”Time out” ban.

Explicit Death threats will result in an immediate permanent ban. ( see “Threats of Violence” below )

Clarification - There may at times be a basis for commenting on another Member’s overall attitude. But this must involve a reference to something posted on the board, to make a case for the argument, . However, it must be contained to a simple few replies.

Personal Accusations

No serious accusations against people that you cannot support. If you call a Member a traitor, murder, rapist, terrorist or some other type of serious crime you need to post a link to a news source that actually documents a criminal case against them; or retract their statement. Members failing to do so will be given a warning, which if unheeded will result in a 24 Hour “Time Out” ban.

Baiting

Repeatedly making comments designed to incite heated arguments between Members is not allowed. These can include repeated personal insults, Rant Spamming of political group characterizations within a limited time frame, or repeated specifically targeted remarks toward an individual Member, designed to produce an inflammatory response (pushing someone’s buttons). At a Moderator’s discretion, violating Members will be given a warning to stop. And failure to heed that warning will result in a 24 Hour “Time Out” ban.

Threats of Violence

Any Member making threatening statements against another Member or making personal threats against a member's family will result in a permanent ban.

3) Disciplinary Action

Moderators do the best they can at trying to maintain a certain level of civility and standards on the board, applying to Members of all political POVs. When a Member is given an official warning, they are expected to understand that they have reached a critical point in approaching a line, in regards to the Board Rules; and to heed that warning for the good of all concerned.

At the Moderator’s discretion, repeated warnings may be given, if the specific offense occurs over a given period of time. If warnings are not heeded, the offending Member will initially be given a 24 Hour “Time Out” ban, on specific violations. If a recurrence of the same violation happens within a brief period of time (IE: a week or so) after a “Time Out”, the offending Member will be given a “Week’s Vacation” ban, at the Moderator’s discretion. If the same offense recurs within a brief period of time after a “Vacation”, then the Moderator has the option to either extend the ban or “Retire” the offending Member permanently.

Clarification - This may apply to single offenses, or multiple offenses over a brief period of time; depending on the severity of the offense, or offenses. The guiding principle involved is to establish and maintain a civil environment for Members wishing to have adult discussion and debate on issues of interest. And to weed out obvious trouble makers, without hindering freedom of speech and expression.

[doctordog]

All good Smurfy but in my humble opinion the more rules the less debate that takes place and the more free speech is muffled.

[Smurf-Herder]

All good Smurfy but in my humble opinion the more rules the less debate that takes place and the more free speech is muffled.

True. But the way things have been working out, the less clarification results in people being banned for things outside the rules. Since the existing rules are vague and fuzzy.

In the end, I just wanted my proposal to be a reference, when a member or moderator had a question or disagreement to be clarified.

[MintJulep]

That's all well and good, but SirMoby's response would be, "it's too long." Roughly as long as the rules I proposed back in April.

You know, like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights - much too long. :lmao2:Surely you know wayers is not serious about what he posted. Those rules came straight from Nazi-land, Obot-central, i.e., politicalgraveyard.

You see, back in about 2003, we all belonged to what was the Bill Maher board. It was completely unmoderated, and a blast for a long time. Bill Cosby was there. At one point, the board was shut down for a technical overhaul and no one notified any of the members what was going on for a couple of months, so everyone was mad. During that time, the entire membership migrated to a board with no traffic, what is now politicalgraveyard. The irony is, it is the antithesis of what the BM board represented, complete and unfettered free speech. Needless to say, they've lost just about all the original members.

That said, it is hard for me to find much fault with SirMoby after the place I came from. He is not a control freak, lunatic and this place has a lot of latitude, all things considered. I think it would be best to keep the rules clear and concise, that way it is easier for people to grasp what the rules are. If he wants to ban someone for using a particular source or for any other reason, then let it be communicated to all in advance so there are no surprises. I think personal opinions should be allowed even if they have not been proven in a court of law.

[Smurf-Herder]

Surely you know wayers is not serious about what he posted. Those rules came straight from Nazi-land, Obot-central, i.e., politicalgraveyard.

You see, back in about 2003, we all belonged to what was the Bill Maher board. It was completely unmoderated, and a blast for a long time. Bill Cosby was there. At one point, the board was shut down for a technical overhaul and no one notified any of the members what was going on for a couple of months, so everyone was mad. During that time, the entire membership migrated to a board with no traffic, what is now politicalgraveyard. The irony is, it is the antithesis of what the BM board represented, complete and unfettered free speech. Needless to say, they've lost just about all the original members.

That said, it is hard for me to find much fault with SirMoby after the place I came from. He is not a control freak, lunatic and this place has a lot of latitude, all things considered. I think it would be best to keep the rules clear and concise, that way it is easier for people to grasp what the rules are. If he wants to ban someone for using a particular source or for any other reason, then let it be communicated to all in advance so there are no surprises. I think personal opinions should be allowed even if they have not been proven in a court of law.

That's the problem I've been seeing - it's not clearly spelled out in advance and the rules aren't perfectly clear. Banning Frank was questionable, but still somewhat within reason. But banning RadioGuy for "Source Spamming" and banning the Professor for "Spreading Lies" were not in the rules.

SirMoby and I have different approaches to banning. I usually publically warn, to avoid having to ban; and that usually works. But SM either totally ignores people that share political views, or goes straight to banning those he disagrees with, on fringe interpretations of the rules.

[MintJulep]

That's the problem I've been seeing - it's not clearly spelled out in advance and the rules aren't perfectly clear. Banning Frank was questionable, but still somewhat within reason. But banning RadioGuy for "Source Spamming" and banning the Professor for "Spreading Lies" were not in the rules.Wasn't the Professor banned a long time ago and hasn't been since? But yes, I understand what you're saying. I guess we can just take it day-by-day and see how things go.

[Moby]

It's really pissing me off on how you constantly manipulate your own rules, SM.
Trust me, we all know how emotional you are these days. Get over it.

[Moby]

That's my main disagreement with SirMoby - and it always involves the banning of someone who is vocal and has the opposite political view of his, for something not in the rules as they exist.
So that's why you were allowing RG to keep bumping his posts. You liked watching the same crap so he got a pass from you.

Sorry, I don't play that.

[Moby]

That's all well and good, but SirMoby's response would be, "it's too long." Roughly as long as the rules I proposed back in April.

You know, like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights - much too long. :lmao2:
Look Drama Queen. I supported your efforts even though I thought your rules were way too long and it was the board members that kept telling you that.

Can't you remember? It was only a few months ago.

[Moby]

This is what I came up with back in April, after two weeks of analyzing the board and anticipating all possible situations - but it's too long; and SirMoby wants one-liners.
Again you're full of shit.

The board members right here and now are asking for shorter rules. Why do you keep ignoring that fact and trying to blame me?

[Mr. Blue]

Who would have thought it would be so difficult for some basic rules to work. Might be easier if you just add one more mod and then do a three person tribunal for banning. At least it wouldn't be he said, umm, he said, wait, yeah that makes sense.

If I were to recommend someone for the third spot, it would be someone like Bill Cosby, as he seems fair minded even though he's liberal and I'm pretty sure he'd be reasonable. That and I really feel like those jello pudding pops and we all know he's got the inside track on that.

[Smurf-Herder]

So that's why you were allowing RG to keep bumping his posts. You liked watching the same crap so he got a pass from you.

Sorry, I don't play that.

I didn't see him repeatedly bumping his posts. All I know is that's what you're saying now.

[Smurf-Herder]

Look Drama Queen. I supported your efforts even though I thought your rules were way too long and it was the board members that kept telling you that.

Can't you remember? It was only a few months ago.

You sound like a childish baiting fool everytime you call me that.

Just like you kept pushing and baiting RadioGuy to respond. He did, with Glenn Beck; because he knew it bothered you. So you made up the rule about Source Spamming, just so you could ban him on something.

BTW, you left out "Personal Attacks" in your "new" rules.

So you can't "threaten" someone, you can't have "personal attacks on family members"; but there's nothing in there now on personal attacks on other members. You can't even re-write the old rules consistantly.

[Smurf-Herder]

Again you're full of shit.

The board members right here and now are asking for shorter rules. Why do you keep ignoring that fact and trying to blame me?

I'm not blaming you.

I'm saying you use simple and vague language to stretch the general meaning to ban people you personally don't like. And most people with common sense wouldn't expect that - like the professor. RadioGuy wouldn't have posted so much Glenn Beck if he though it was bannable. Because Sources weren't in the rules about banning.

[Smurf-Herder]

Who would have thought it would be so difficult for some basic rules to work. Might be easier if you just add one more mod and then do a three person tribunal for banning. At least it wouldn't be he said, umm, he said, wait, yeah that makes sense.

If I were to recommend someone for the third spot, it would be someone like Bill Cosby, as he seems fair minded even though he's liberal and I'm pretty sure he'd be reasonable. That and I really feel like those jello pudding pops and we all know he's got the inside track on that.

It doesn't work that way here. SirMoby has final say. And he can twist the rules and ban outside of the rules whenever it suits his personal feelings.

[Smurf-Herder]

Trust me, we all know how emotional you are these days. Get over it.

I'm emotional whenever I see you run roughshod over people's free speech, because you just don't like what they say.

[Smurf-Herder]

The bottom line on my feelings concerning the rules is, I have no problem with simple rules. My problem is with SirMoby reading details into the rules when he enforces them, that are not written into the simple rules for everyone to see.

Newbies must think this site is a friggin' joke, when they see four sticky threads on "Simple Rules". :lmao2:

[doctordog]

Look out how the board has grown the last few months, we have many more people and opinions stopping in, trust me, Sir Moby, you don't want another run of the mill echo chamber.

[Smurf-Herder]

Look out how the board has grown the last few months, we have many more people and opinions stopping in, trust me, Sir Moby, you don't want another run of the mill echo chamber.

That asshole just changed RadioGuy's ban from 5 days to Forever, because of "Too much drama.".


I'm leaving this idiotic board now.

This is too much bullshit.

[doctordog]

[QUOTE=Smurf-Herder]That asshole just changed RadioGuy's ban from 5 days to Forever, because of "Too much drama.".


I'm leaving this idiotic board now.[Quote]

Smurfy, please don't go. At least leave your email as I am close to opening a board if the cost is as low as what I read a week or so ago. I would definitely want you as a moderator.

[MintJulep]

If I were to recommend someone for the third spot, it would be someone like Bill Cosby, as he seems fair minded even though he's liberal and I'm pretty sure he'd be reasonable. That and I really feel like those jello pudding pops and we all know he's got the inside track on that.I hope Smurf isn't leaving but if so, I agree with this. Bill Cosby would be an excellent choice. I've known him for 5 or 6 years and I can attest that he is a fair person who values free speech as well as discourse with opposing opinions.

[Smurf-Herder]

I hope Smurf isn't leaving but if so, I agree with this. Bill Cosby would be an excellent choice. I've known him for 5 or 6 years and I can attest that he is a fair person who values free speech as well as discourse with opposing opinions.

I just popped back in to check on PMs. For now I'm going to check out DebatePolicy.com. Someone suggested that. And another member may be starting their own board in the future. I've been invited to moderate it for them.

But, the only reason I'm really posting anything right now is just to agree with you, that Bill Cosby is a fair, open-minded individual; and he'd be a good choice as a mod IMO.

Other than that, I won't be posting; just checking any PMs I may get for the next couple days.

[MintJulep]

So sorry to see you go. I think you've done a great job here. Wish you would stay as a poster, at least. If you don't, let us know where you wind up.