Poll: Interest in a hard moderated forum area?

[MsDoodahs]

I saw that there was another discussion about the foul language, etc, last night.

Is there interest here in a "hard moderated" area where discussion would be limited in scope and foul language disallowed?

There are segments here to accomodate all manner of topics, I'm thinking that if there is interest, perhaps admin would consider creation of such an area.

[Wyurm]

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.

For eveyone else, just remember a word only has power so long as you give it power. As soon as you deny a word the power to offend you, it becomes just another word.

[FreeTraveler]

You've probably seen enough of my posts to remember that I generally think the language here could be better, primarily so that we prevent running off some of the conservatives who could have been RP supporters but took one look at the forums and ran off.

That said, I also think there are times when profanity is NEEDED. The last profanity thread started because I told some dude to STFU about trying yet again to force Dr. Paul into a third-party run after he has said he's not interested.

Perhaps have a rule that profanity in defense of the good doctor is permitted? :rolleyes::D

[Drknows]

http://keelynet.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/ronpaulno.jpg

Why don't you guys do a test run. Put a hard moderated forum up on a separate host or use this one and give us the non moderated one to see which one flourishes.

I'm willing to bet the one with no mods or banning gets the most action.


Or you could just sticky instructions that show how to use the ignore list. Maybe that will appease the whiners who call everyone trolls and ask for bannings :D

[JimInNY]

The problem here is not the foul language. The problem is tolerance of naysayers.

If this forum is dedicated to winning, why are the naysayers not thrown out on their collective asses?

Sure, I am for a hard moderated forum, but not one that moderates language. I want the naysayers tossed faster than they can say... well, whatever it is naysayers say.

[Rhys]

The problem here is not the foul language. The problem is tolerance of naysayers.

If this forum is dedicated to winning, why are the naysayers not thrown out on their collective asses?

cause that's lame and creates an echo chamber, by which we never learn from our mistakes, because all mistakes become masterpieces in our eyes... sorta like Bush. If you're not with us, you're against us now?

for instance, I disagree with you. Which one of us gets banned?

[1836]

cause that's lame and creates an echo chamber, by which we never learn from our mistakes, because all mistakes become masterpieces in our eyes... sorta like Bush. If you're not with us, you're against us now?

for instance, I disagree with you. Which one of us gets banned?

Besides, a lot of these people who Jim would say are "naysayers" are trying to raise constructive criticism.

My first thread did that, and I was called a naysayer and insulted and all of these things. It's absurd.

We need some analysis of our own actions sometimes.

[MsDoodahs]

Why don't you guys do a test run. Put a hard moderated forum up on a separate host or use this one and give us the non moderated one to see which one flourishes.

I'm willing to bet the one with no mods or banning gets the most action.




That begs the question of purpose of the forum in general.

On the night of the Iowa Caucus - this forum had over 4000 members online.

HucksArmy forum had 170 members online.

How did all that online "action" work for Dr. Paul?

[The One]

I never would have thought that RP supporters would be so delicate. I thought we were the rough, hard-core types who would take up arms and fight, if necessary.....not the types who are so sensitive that we can't even handle hearing a wordy dird. I guess if we ever do have to fight, the enemy can just hurl insults at us and then drop the "f" bomb. Our men will scatter.:p

[Revolution9]

cause that's lame and creates an echo chamber, by which we never learn from our mistakes, because all mistakes become masterpieces in our eyes... sorta like Bush. If you're not with us, you're against us now?

for instance, I disagree with you. Which one of us gets banned?

Neither. The one that says the march sux and is bad and we should not do it should get booted as an example . Their input is useless if they have a FUD agenda. THAT is entirely rude to the people putting their hearts and soul into this.

Best Regards
Randy

[JimInNY]

I see the naysayers are ganging up on me. Be grateful I am not a moderator. :p

[Revolution9]

I never would have thought that RP supporters would be so delicate. I thought we were the rough, hard-core types who would take up arms and fight, if necessary.....not the types who are so sensitive that we can't even handle hearing a wordy dird. I guess if we ever do have to fight, the enemy can just hurl insults at us and then drop the "f" bomb. Our men will scatter.:p

We are for a great part rugged individualists. With that also comes a protective streak for those not quite there yet. That is where my heart lies in these matters.

Best
Randy

[JimInNY]

Besides, a lot of these people who Jim would say are "naysayers" are trying to raise constructive criticism.

My first thread did that, and I was called a naysayer and insulted and all of these things. It's absurd.

We need some analysis of our own actions sometimes.

Simply put, this is a BULLSHIT post.

[Revolution9]

I see the naysayers are ganging up on me. Be grateful I am not a moderator. :p

hehe..happens every time. Gotta protect their roosting branch. They seem to have issues with me..LOL! Wonder why..

Best
Randy

[1836]

I never would have thought that RP supporters would be so delicate. I thought we were the rough, hard-core types who would take up arms and fight, if necessary.....not the types who are so sensitive that we can't even handle hearing a wordy dird. I guess if we ever do have to fight, the enemy can just hurl insults at us and then drop the "f" bomb. Our men will scatter.:p

I smoke cigars, drink whisk(e)y, hunt, fly-fish, a member of the GOP and the ACLU, and I once killed a yeti.

Well, some of that's true. :D

I think the concern on my part, and what many have shared, is that people who view this forum for the first time might not get a good impression of Ron Paul by reading his supporters' comments. It's a reasonable concern.

Obviously it resonates because of how many posts have been about this in the last day or two.

[Revolution9]

Besides, a lot of these people who Jim would say are "naysayers" are trying to raise constructive criticism.

My first thread did that, and I was called a naysayer and insulted and all of these things. It's absurd.

We need some analysis of our own actions sometimes.

Or realize you are in the heart of the movement and if truly interested in cogent answers to phrase the question so that is does not cause consternation and doubt. We have been under major attack here from many sdes for months. Forgive the long time posters here for jumping the gun. I think they see you are on the money and onboard. Just think of it as a test by fire. I got the same thing here when I first got here. Now, my original adversaries are now my good pals.

Best Regards
randy

[Drknows]

That begs the question of purpose of the forum in general.

On the night of the Iowa Caucus - this forum had over 4000 members online.

HucksArmy forum had 170 members online.

How did all that online "action" work for Dr. Paul?

Hey if you want to turn this forum into a heavily moderated place go ahead. i guess its your forum after all.

The so called trolls dont bother me. Well most of them have been banned.

Its just the internet my feelings wont get hurt.

[JimInNY]

hehe..happens every time. Gotta protect their roosting branch. They seem to have issues with me..LOL! Wonder why..

Best
Randy

The purpose of this forum to to elect Ron Paul, right? Naysayers are working against that goal. Who needs them? We already have the entire global establishment to fight. We don't need to be having to fight the shills on the forum as well.

I'm tellin ya, give me the key to the ban button! hehehe

[Revolution9]

I smoke cigars, drink whisk(e)y, hunt, fly-fish, a member of the GOP and the ACLU, and I once killed a yeti.

Well, some of that's true. :D

I think the concern on my part, and what many have shared, is that people who view this forum for the first time might not get a good impression of Ron Paul by reading his supporters' comments. It's a reasonable concern.

Obviously it resonates because of how many posts have been about this in the last day or two.

Well.. That is part of the reason for booting the recalcitrant naysayers as their goal s to piss people off and pissed off people tend to cuss more than those discussing how to organise an event for the campaigns benefit. So to discuss the profanity without discussing the why's and where to fores of how it comes about and not dealing with causes of its origin only deals with half the problem, which is the words themselves, and not why the problem is occurring with frequency.

HTH
Randy

[freelance]

A training-wheels forum? What a useless exercise for the moderators?

[JimInNY]

Well.. That is part of the reason for booting the recalcitrant naysayers as their goal s to piss people off and pissed off people tend to cuss more than those discussing how to organise an event for the campaigns benefit. So to discuss the profanity without discussing the why's and where to fores of how it comes about and not dealing with causes of its origin only deals with half the problem, which is the words themselves, and not why the problem is occurring with frequency.

HTH
Randy

My nomination for post of the month on RPF!

[Revolution9]

The purpose of this forum to to elect Ron Paul, right? Naysayers are working against that goal. Who needs them? We already have the entire global establishment to fight. We don't need to be having to fight the shills on the forum as well.

I'm tellin ya, give me the key to the ban button! hehehe

You are correct. I don't want the ban button personally. The current mods are doing a good job considering the scope. Sometimes I need to get very abrasive and I do not think a mod should be doing such. I guess that is why I get calls to inject firepower into certain threads from them.

best Regards
randy

[Revolution9]

A training-wheels forum? What a useless exercise for the moderators?

Goode point here in that the mods will the have their hands full moderating that forum. It s their call though. If they want the extra duty it is up t them and as well up to the posters who post there. It may well serve a good purpose for those threads which need good insulation from negative injections.

Best Regards
Randy

[MsDoodahs]

i guess its your forum after all.



It's not my forum. It's Josh's forum. We dont' have hard moderation because Josh doesn't want it.

I'm looking at options, since this concern isn't going away.

:)

[LibertyEagle]

You are correct. I don't want the ban button personally. The current mods are doing a good job considering the scope. Sometimes I need to get very abrasive and I do not think a mod should be doing such. I guess that is why I get calls to inject firepower into certain threads from them.

best Regards
randy

;):D

[LibertyEagle]

A training-wheels forum? What a useless exercise for the moderators?

I think you are misunderstanding what MsDoodahs is talking about. Truly, I do.

[kaleidoscope eyes]

No, probably not, there's so much else here, I'm sure people wouldn't just ignore it, and end up seeing all the "offensive" materials anyway. Might as well make an entirely new Forum altogether maybe squeakycleanrpforums.com? ;P

I'm not one for peppering normal conversations with profanity just because, but it can be used to make strong points on occasion. Since I've been here, I actually think it's gotten a bit more under control. imho.

[Revolution9]

It's not my forum. It's Josh's forum. We dont' have hard moderation because Josh doesn't want it.

I'm looking at options, since this concern isn't going away.

:)

You guys are doing a good job. Sometimes there is misfires but for the most part it has been done well and you cannot second guess and be correct every time. The mods and flaggers tend to respond to patterns instead of simply a one post ban hammer.

Best Regards
Randy

[ShowMeLiberty]

No, probably not, there's so much else here, I'm sure people wouldn't just ignore it, and end up seeing all the "offensive" materials anyway. Might as well make an entirely new Forum altogether maybe squeakycleanrpforums.com? ;P

I'm not one for peppering normal conversations with profanity just because, but it can be used to make strong points on occasion. Since I've been here, I actually think it's gotten a bit more under control. imho.

+1

Same for me. I tend to use the "New Posts" button, and probably will continue to use it, so I end up reading threads from any and all sub-forums. Whatever bubbles to the top.

I guess if I was a person who was easily offended by certain words, I would confine myself to the G-Rated area. I'd have to be very easily offended to do that though, because I would be missing out on a lot, I'm sure.

Not that it matters, but my sensibilities are more often offended by misspellings, misuse of words, and bad grammar. But I forgive the offenders because we're all here for a greater cause. ;)

[MsDoodahs]

Not that it matters, but my sensibilities are more often offended by misspellings, misuse of words, and bad grammar. But I forgive the offenders because we're all here for a greater cause. ;)

lol, good to know I'm not the only one.

[Douglass Bartley]

The Doodah plan is good, except that it should be recast to create an isolated profanity area, where the cretins can talk to each other with the only words they know. The rest of the forum should be profanity free. The best way of moderating that would be to bar the doors to the Know-Nothings.

[icon124]

Do you guys someone is honestly gonna go find another candidate because of some stuff we post on a forum? Be serious, if I knew I wanted to vote for Ron Paul I wouldn't go look at other candidates because I saw the f-bomb dropped here.

[MsDoodahs]

Do you guys someone is honestly gonna go find another candidate because of some stuff we post on a forum? Be serious, if I knew I wanted to vote for Ron Paul I wouldn't go look at other candidates because I saw the f-bomb dropped here.

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.

[1836]

HTH
Randy



You first.

[fedup100]

When the mods give us a hard moderated negative troll forum, the foul language will self deport like the trolls.

[FreeTraveler]

Do you guys someone is honestly gonna go find another candidate because of some stuff we post on a forum? Be serious, if I knew I wanted to vote for Ron Paul I wouldn't go look at other candidates because I saw the f-bomb dropped here.

So because you're intelligent enough to look past the profanity, we don't need the votes of those who are not?

[tommy7154]

I don't see a problem with a hard moderated sub-forum other than it may be a time waster. If there's that many people that can't handle naughty words though then sure make a PG-13 forum for the kiddies :D Sorry I just find it silly :)

[tommy7154]

The Doodah plan is good, except that it should be recast to create an isolated profanity area, where the cretins can talk to each other with the only words they know. The rest of the forum should be profanity free. The best way of moderating that would be to bar the doors to the Know-Nothings.

See now I'm offended again because I swear all the time and because of that you've insulted my intelligence and called me a cretin. Should I make a new topic every couple of days on this subject because my fragile mind is suffering or should I maybe just shut the fuck up and deal with it, realizing that someone is always going to be offended by something or other and I'm not going to get too far if I'm constantly worrying about such petty things?

[mtmedlin]

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.

[Malum Prohibitum]

I voted no, but I see no reason why if the admins want to do it, it shouldnt be done. I wouldnt go there, since I feel this forum is already too heavily modded.

The whole point of libertarianism is to let the marketplace of ideas decide what is good or bad. I agree the mods have a right to do what they do, but I think it ill advised to usher topics off the main areas just because they dont fit someone's idea of appropriateness. If the community doesnt want to discuss it, it will drop like a hot potato all by itself.

[freelance]

I think you are misunderstanding what MsDoodahs is talking about. Truly, I do.

Probably, because it just sounds like more work for you guys.


It may well serve a good purpose for those threads which need good insulation from negative injections.

Randy

While I don't mind a little negativity, the forums do seem to have turned into a cesspool of negativity.

It's just sad that we can't treat each other with a modicum of respect without moderator interference. And, further it's sad that few people contribute more than, "STFU, GTFO, OMFG and FU." It's lost its shock value, if it ever had any, so what's the point (in most cases), except to display a total lack of command for the English language and a dearth of creativity?

[mtmedlin]

I don't see a problem with a hard moderated sub-forum other than it may be a time waster. If there's that many people that can't handle naughty words though then sure make a PG-13 forum for the kiddies :D Sorry I just find it silly :)

I have gotten to the point that I just ignore the threads about banning swearing. Josh hasn't done it up till now and I have a real good feeling that he won't in the future. Of course there is something to say about just posting that picture with the words "This Shit again". It makes a solid double statement. In all honesty, if we all use the language in moderation, I dont think that many will give us to much of a problem.

[tommy7154]

I have gotten to the point that I just ignore the threads about banning swearing. Josh hasn't done it up till now and I have a real good feeling that he won't in the future. Of course there is something to say about just posting that picture with the words "This Shit again". It makes a solid double statement. In all honesty, if we all use the language in moderation, I dont think that many will give us to much of a problem.

Yah I agree basically. It should be used in moderation. I don't think either swearing or people complaining about swearing is a problem though. I'm not against any group of people or anything. We're all just people being people and expressing opinions and ideas...one way or another :)

[MsDoodahs]

I wouldnt go there, since I feel this forum is already too heavily modded.



That's the point. Only those who are bothered by foul language would go there.

Since those who prefer to use more ... "colorful" ... language would not even WANT to go into that forum, I wouldn't think it would be a big deal.

And, it would keep those who aren't as ... "colorful" ... in their use of the language happy, too.

:)

[MsDoodahs]

Probably, because it just sounds like more work for you guys.



While I don't mind a little negativity, the forums do seem to have turned into a cesspool of negativity.

It's just sad that we can't treat each other with a modicum of respect without moderator interference. And, further it's sad that few people contribute more than, "STFU, GTFO, OMFG and FU." It's lost its shock value, if it ever had any, so what's the point (in most cases), except to display a total lack of command for the English language and a dearth of creativity?

"modicum of respect"

and

"dearth of creativity."

OMFG! ;) :D

[yongrel]

I'm not particularly fussed about this. I think I would prefer slightly stricter moderation on the forum as a whole, as opposed to a single alcove of intense regulation.

[Shink]

http://keelynet.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/ronpaulno.jpg

Why don't you guys do a test run. Put a hard moderated forum up on a separate host or use this one and give us the non moderated one to see which one flourishes.

I'm willing to bet the one with no mods or banning gets the most action.


Or you could just sticky instructions that show how to use the ignore list. Maybe that will appease the whiners who call everyone trolls and ask for bannings :D

Quoted for taking my answer.:D This crap comes up every couple of months, and gets about the same response every time. Whatever, though, feel free to make a little cove for the 'I'm offended' types, just like you made one for 'crazy conspiracy theorists' like me.

[thoughtbombing]

No. Wimps.

[Banana]

Personally,

I would much rather see more moderation in regards to duplicate threads, moving the irrelevant threads somewhere, nonstop bumping and requiring that there be original content with the link.

It gets a bit tiring to skim through the new post listing seeing 3 sets of multiple threads for same topic, a thread demanding that I pull my head out of my posterior area and acknowledge the truth while another thread demands that I blame the truthers for destroying the campaign, and clicking on a thread only to end up read a long list of "bump" "bump" "bump" "bump".

I hope the staff here consider recruiting more moderators to handle the above. If enough of moderators drilled into everyone's head that this is a ultimately a forum to talk about Ron Paul's Presidential candidancy, helping other Ron Paul Republicans and sharing strategies, several problem will go away on their accord.

To clarify, I suspect most of the problem we see are based on the frustration due to lack of moderation, not necessarily lack of restraint (thought I would like to say that everyone should have the freedom to be responsible for themselves). Have been a veteran of other forums, I can tell you that the suggestions I outlined will make a *drastic* difference in overall tone and demeanor of forum without having to ban anyone or regulate their posts (which is counter-productive anyway).

[Shink]

Personally,

I would much rather see more moderation in regards to duplicate threads, moving the irrelevant threads somewhere, nonstop bumping and requiring that there be original content with the link.

It gets a bit tiring to skim through the new post listing seeing 3 sets of multiple threads for same topic, a thread demanding that I pull my head out of my posterior area and acknowledge the truth while another thread demands that I blame the truthers for destroying the campaign, and clicking on a thread only to end up read a long list of "bump" "bump" "bump" "bump".

I hope the staff here consider recruiting more moderators to handle the above. If enough of moderators drilled into everyone's head that this is a ultimately a forum to talk about Ron Paul's Presidential candidancy, helping other Ron Paul Republicans and sharing strategies, several problem will go away on their accord.

To clarify, I suspect most of the problem we see are based on the frustration due to lack of moderation, not necessarily lack of restraint (thought I would like to say that everyone should have the freedom to be responsible for themselves). Have been a veteran of other forums, I can tell you that the suggestions I outlined will make a *drastic* difference in overall tone and demeanor of forum without having to ban anyone or regulate their posts (which is counter-productive anyway).

I agree with you except on the bumping issue. It's pretty common practice. Often, people are wasting their posts in threads about 'let's speculate on X' or 'I'm bitching about Z.' Some people have to self-bump threads nobody's paying attention to because most of those threads are calling for ACTION. This place was much more action oriented back in the summer.

[nbhadja]

na

[Banana]

Well, instead of just "bump", it helps to put in some comment, maybe add an article or a link. Something to make the thread interesting to read. One thread that started out great had a page worth of "bump", which I thought was ridiculous.

I understand that this is more action-oriented, but one page of bump post doesn't really scream "action" to me, if you know what I mean...

[98Tokay]

Well, instead of just "bump", it helps to put in some comment, maybe add an article or a link. Something to make the thread interesting to read. One thread that started out great had a page worth of "bump", which I thought was ridiculous.

I understand that this is more action-oriented, but one page of bump post doesn't really scream "action" to me, if you know what I mean...

bump

[tommy7154]

Well, instead of just "bump", it helps to put in some comment, maybe add an article or a link. Something to make the thread interesting to read. One thread that started out great had a page worth of "bump", which I thought was ridiculous.

I understand that this is more action-oriented, but one page of bump post doesn't really scream "action" to me, if you know what I mean...

ACTION!!!!!!!!!!! Better?

I won't bother with the rick roll...

[anewvoice]

Doesn't the forum have an optional word replacement filter? I have to say that censorship is likely not the best solution.

[undergroundrr]

I'd love to see an alternate "new posts" link that doesn't return results from Hot Topics, Off Topic, Vent and Bad Media. Is that possible?

[constituent]

I'd love to see an alternate "new posts" link that doesn't return results from Hot Topics, Off Topic, Vent and Bad Media. Is that possible?

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

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

[Captain America]

it would be like web/ronpaulforums 2.0

isnt that the sort of think we are fighting against?

[Banana]

I'd love to see an alternate "new posts" link that doesn't return results from Hot Topics, Off Topic, Vent and Bad Media. Is that possible?

Maybe make that a default for new users?

[freelance]

"modicum of respect"

and

"dearth of creativity."

OMFG! ;) :D

They taught English when I was in school.

[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. :rolleyes:

[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. :D



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