PDA

View Full Version : Poll: Hide certain sections of the site from visitors?




EvilEngineer
11-06-2007, 11:00 PM
In response to the censoring threats, as I have proposed to the admins and in the other threads. Most forums allow certain sections of the forums to be restricted to members only in both viewing and posting. Simply by making areas such as this a members only area, it would vanish off the face of the site to those not logged in or not registered. Meaning visitors would only be able to see certain "cheery" aspects of the site and aspects about Dr. Paul and the campaign.

How do you feel about it?

cradle2graveconservative
11-06-2007, 11:07 PM
In response to the censoring threats, as I have proposed to the admins and in the other threads. Most forums allow certain sections of the forums to be restricted to members only in both viewing and posting. Simply by making areas such as this a members only area, it would vanish off the face of the site to those not logged in or not registered. Meaning visitors would only be able to see certain "cheery" aspects of the site and aspects about Dr. Paul and the campaign.

How do you feel about it?

You're therefore suggesting that we have something to hide or that we have to pretend there aren't crazy people out there. The fact is there will always be people, in every campaign, who can't control themselves in certain situations, or perhaps at all. Denying this when it is so clear will only lead to mistrust among potential supporters, they may believe there is also something we're hiding in the message of the campaign. As this is obviously not true, I can think of no good reason for such a viewing restriction. What happens when someone who sees the "cheery" version of the forums decides to register to share their opinions, and is suddenly confronted with the fringe?

RP4ME
11-06-2007, 11:08 PM
Our campaign is about TRANSPARENCY! AND YES we have some warts and scales but in the end we are as smooth as a babys bottom!

Ron Paul Fan
11-06-2007, 11:09 PM
I voted no as I did on the censoring. We don't need an amendment to the Consitution. We need to police ourselves because you cannot legislate morality. Personal responsibility, freedom, and peace. Also, I do not think that we should have secrecy on this forum.

EvilEngineer
11-06-2007, 11:11 PM
All fair points. I'm not a big fan of censorship, but group restrictions on some aspects of a forum are very routine. I bet there is an admin forum here that we don't see.

ShowMeLiberty
11-06-2007, 11:11 PM
Our campaign is about TRANSPARENCY! AND YES we have some warts and scales but in the end we are as smooth as a babys bottom!

+1


I voted no as I did on the censoring. We don't need an amendment to the Consitution. We need to police ourselves because you cannot legislate morality. Personal responsibility, freedom, and peace. Also, I do not think that we should have secrecy on this forum.

+1 again

paulitics
11-06-2007, 11:13 PM
This is one of the most succesful forums anywhere. I know myself, I usually don't join a site if I have to register to look at posts.

American
11-06-2007, 11:14 PM
WOW, I guess we know who the converts from the LP party are....

To bad this is the Republican party nomination we are trying to get. i.e. Religous folks who take this seriously.

Ron Paul Fan
11-06-2007, 11:16 PM
WOW, I guess we know who the converts from the LP party are....

To bad this is the Republican party nomination we are trying to get. i.e. Religous folks who take this seriously.

And I bet they appreciate your avatar! You're surely helping the cause!

Pete Kay
11-06-2007, 11:16 PM
I think that is a great idea. When I first started posting reguarly on this board I was very polite and well mannered. But over time the free spirited and extremely casual nature of the board led me to be sometimes immature and crass. I can be very formal and intelligent but this board doesn't seem to swing that way. I'd like to have a members only area where we can talk nonsense and joke around - a community board.

JaylieWoW
11-06-2007, 11:17 PM
I voted yes and I'll explain why.

We all often talk about the "founding fathers" and what a great constitution they drafted along with the sacrifices these same people made in revolting against tyranny.

Put into that context, is it really too much to ask or too much "transparency" to give up by setting aside a private area for everyone to just "hang loose" in?

I know that's a really rotten way to put it, but I think any supporter lost, no matter how weak any of us may believe for their reasons (again, not seeing the forest for the trees), is it really THAT precious of a thing to "sacrifice" something so small?

Further, how can you honestly ask someone else to sacrifice any prominent belief they might hold in order for the greater good, if you are also not willing to sacrifice as well?

ShowMeLiberty
11-06-2007, 11:18 PM
I think that is a great idea. When I first started posting reguarly on this board I was very polite and well mannered. But over time the free spirited and extremely casual nature of the board led me to be sometimes immature and crass. I can be very formal and intelligent but this board doesn't seem to swing that way. I'd like to have a members only area where we can talk nonsense and joke around - a community board.

Isn't that what the chat room is for? I'm just asking.

Cali4RonPaul
11-06-2007, 11:19 PM
LOL all these vote threads, really show the fractures in our coalition. I voted yes to hidden member only zones. Maybe it might limit the copiers and the malicious activities of other campaigns.

cradle2graveconservative
11-06-2007, 11:20 PM
LOL all these vote threads, really show the fractures in our coalition.

I would be suspicious of any campaign full of blind followers that agreed on everything

rp0x
11-06-2007, 11:21 PM
You saying no one should have differences in opinion ?

Tina
11-06-2007, 11:21 PM
Sincerity with everyone can be a weakness and we have no idea who is lurking here, so I think a members only is a fair idea.

EvilEngineer
11-06-2007, 11:22 PM
LOL all these vote threads, really show the fractures in our coalition. I voted yes to hidden member only zones. Maybe it might limit the copiers and the malicious activities of other campaigns.

I think it shows our diversity =)

We've got so many people from different walks of the social and political spectrum that it's very hard to come to an equatable compromise. But it is important to listen to everyone and occasionally compromise.

Pete Kay
11-06-2007, 11:22 PM
I voted no as I did on the censoring. We don't need an amendment to the Consitution. We need to police ourselves because you cannot legislate morality. Personal responsibility, freedom, and peace. Also, I do not think that we should have secrecy on this forum.

No one is trying to legislate morality. This board is not the government. It's about having appropriate content where it belongs. When I go into my son's classroom, I don't walk in cussing, but when I'm at work I let loose, because that's the environment there. We really should work to have a more civil environment here. I think a community board would be great for us to be able to let loose in. A Ron Paul saloon.

Cali4RonPaul
11-06-2007, 11:23 PM
I would be suspicious of any campaign full of blind followers that agreed on everything

True, But for clarification what I mean by Coalition, is Democrats, Liberals, Independents, libertarians, Republicans, Religious Advocates, I wont even go into the less palpable groups we have amongst us, I prefer that hidden. Lol.

maxmerkel
11-06-2007, 11:24 PM
"the purpose of governement is to protect the privacy and secrecy of the individual and not the secrecy of government." Congressman Ron Paul

this is the government of the ron paul campaign. i think we should respect his views. real important issues (security) will not be discussed here. Open Source ! :cool:

rp0x
11-06-2007, 11:24 PM
Sincerity with everyone can be a weakness and we have no idea who is lurking here, so I think a members only is a fair idea.

How difficult is it for anyone to register and read the protected forums?

Cali4RonPaul
11-06-2007, 11:24 PM
Someone here made a great thread.

We are very Diverse but we are united under Dr. Paul's message.

Hence forth repeat after me:

"I am a Ron Paul Republican"

:)

Cali4RonPaul
11-06-2007, 11:26 PM
"the purpose of governement is to protect the privacy and secrecy of the individual and not the secrecy of government." Congressman Ron Paul

this is the government of the ron paul campaign. i think we should respect his views. real important issues (security) will not be discussed here. Open Source ! :cool:

We are not the Government, Our efforts are Private, we Can Protect the Privacy as we see fit.

Richandler
11-06-2007, 11:26 PM
I hate the number of boards on this site it discourages me from navigating things. I prefer one board. So largely I would believe a more centered approach to guests would be very ideal.

Bryan
11-06-2007, 11:27 PM
Hot Topics is already hidden from visitors. Check it out. :)

rp0x
11-06-2007, 11:27 PM
This is turning out to be a tight contest :D

maxmerkel
11-06-2007, 11:31 PM
We are not the Government, Our efforts are Private, we Can Protect the Privacy as we see fit.

i see that, but it's a matter of principle. what would be gained in having a private section ? it just makes a bad impression - if you want a private section i'd say there should be a different forum for this.

maxmerkel
11-06-2007, 11:36 PM
i see that, but it's a matter of principle. what would be gained in having a private section ? it just makes a bad impression - if you want a private section i'd say there should be a different forum for this.

after thinking about it 2 secs longer i think this is the only viable way if you even see the need for something like this. make a copletely different private forum - you can invite whomever you want and don't tell anyone else about it. but don't divide this forum - it leaves a bad taste and keeps newcomers off. my .05

DeadheadForPaul
11-06-2007, 11:36 PM
Yes, this will prevent media people and new visitors from being turned off by the nastyness which can occur on our forum and all forums

torchbearer
11-06-2007, 11:39 PM
I voted no as I did on the censoring. We don't need an amendment to the Consitution. We need to police ourselves because you cannot legislate morality. Personal responsibility, freedom, and peace. Also, I do not think that we should have secrecy on this forum.

It dawned on me when i read your post, that our forum is becoming a lil' microcosm of society, a free society of free men/women. We hold elections, we are bound by a republican form of vbulletin, with a forum guide/constitution. except, well, this is a private board. and we are petitioning customers... oh well. you know what i mean.

fcofer
11-06-2007, 11:40 PM
LOL all these vote threads, really show the fractures in our coalition. I voted yes to hidden member only zones. Maybe it might limit the copiers and the malicious activities of other campaigns.

I disagree strongly with the idea of keeping our ideas secret. It won't work and it is counterproductive. I wrote a huge post (click here (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=317485&postcount=47) ) about how we have a huge advantage over other grassroots campaigns due to the fact that we are the only one that can afford transparency. I will quote a relevant section:


The proposed solution of making a members-only section of our forum as a secure repository for our "ideas" is, to put it mildly, a bad idea. This proposal is based on the principle of exchanging liberty for security, which (1) isn't worth it, and (2) doesn't work. Practically speaking, making a members-only section for ideas would exclude more Paul supporters than competitors from our good ideas -- it would put all of our "secret" ideas in one spot, easily infiltrated, with protections that would act as barriers only to casual Paul supporters. It's analogous to the scheme of requiring photo ID's in order to keep terrorists off of airplanes. ;) We have to accept that anything written on our forums can (and probably will) be read by anyone who wants to emulate our success.

Instead, we should accept the fact that the marketplace of ideas will remain free, and that the competition will lie in successfully implementing them. I have no doubt that we will continue to come up with the best ideas first and that we will continue to be the most successful at realizing them. Let Huck's forums hobble themselves if they wish by trying (unsuccessfully) to keep their own ideas secret and secure at the expense of effectiveness.

I am not necessarily unreceptive to the idea of having a members-only subforum solely for random discussion (like a chatroom), but we must be clear about why such a subforum should exist. I absolutely oppose, however, the very idea of trying to censor these forums from negative comments, negative news stories, and the like. Censorship does not work. Certainly, we should handle trolls, but let's make a subforum for deleted posts and move trolls, etc., to there, so that everyone can see which posts are being removed and we can never be smeared with the charge of hypocrisy.

Don't cite Godwin's law on me here, but Adolf Hitler said, “The great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it.”

We don't have anything to fear. Let's not imitate the other campaigns' forums by devolving to censorship, secrecy and banning of "unapproved" opinions.

maxmerkel
11-06-2007, 11:43 PM
I am not necessarily unreceptive to the idea of having a members-only subforum solely for random discussion (like a chatroom), but we must be clear about why such a subforum should exist. I absolutely oppose, however, the very idea of trying to censor these forums from negative comments, negative news stories, and the like. Censorship does not work. Certainly, we should handle trolls, but let's make a subforum for deleted posts and move trolls, etc., to there, so that everyone can see which posts are being removed and we can never be smeared with the charge of hypocrisy.

Don't cite Godwin's law on me here, but Adolf Hitler said, “The great strength of the totalitarian state is that it forces those who fear it to imitate it.”

We don't have anything to fear. Let's not imitate the other campaigns' forums by devolving to censorship, secrecy and banning of "unapproved" opinions.

i like your opinion a LOT.

as a sidenote: i even think that the libertarian/constitutional party have failed so far in producing anything useful in the world of politics is because of the traditional approach they take. the facist approach of having superiors/underlings has failed miserably throughout history. so far every good idea has survived this forum and every bad one has not.

Naraku
11-06-2007, 11:47 PM
I like the idea of a voluntary profanity filter if that's possible. I don't mind the swearing and I use it more as just regular vocabulary, as in, not just an insult or outburst as some.

However, I can certainly understand if others would rather it not be seen.

ronpaulhawaii
11-06-2007, 11:50 PM
I voted no but, I really like the idea of a registration opt-out profanity filter. And there already is Hot Topics...

Profanity has a place but there are classy ways of including it without being obscene

fcofer
11-06-2007, 11:58 PM
I voted no but, I really like the idea of a registration opt-out profanity filter.


I like the idea of a voluntary profanity filter if that's possible.

I think that there's another thread on that issue. :) This thread is about whether these forums should require registration to view potentially damaging information (negative news reports, etc.).


. . . if you even see the need for something like this. make a copletely different private forum - you can invite whomever you want and don't tell anyone else about it. but don't divide this forum - it leaves a bad taste and keeps newcomers off.

I agree completely.

Danny Molina
11-06-2007, 11:59 PM
Only after 30 or 50 posts.

DealzOnWheelz
11-07-2007, 12:06 AM
Wwrpd

What Would Ron Paul Do??

Everything He Is Preaching Is About Less Authoritative Control

I Can Understand Some Reasons; But Who Chooses What Gets Left For Everyone??

Who Should We Make The George W Bush Of This Forum???

DealzOnWheelz
11-07-2007, 12:29 AM
Bump

V-rod
11-07-2007, 12:57 AM
Is there a way for foul language to be censored *** for guests and maybe allow uncensored for members?
As well, I can imagine some innocent person coming here encouraged by Ron Paul's message and seeing some of these posts here I seen that made remarks about Zionists and their "love of money" if you know what I mean. The visitor might leave in disgust, and still vote Ron Paul, but we could lose potential valuable grassroots ground force.

Paulitician
11-07-2007, 01:00 AM
I think instead of trying to hide certain problems, we should deal with them and perhaps get rid of them outright.

JimDude
11-07-2007, 01:04 AM
I voted NO!

If we start sacrificing our liberties for votes than were gonna lose both!

Ron Paul Fan
11-07-2007, 01:12 AM
I voted NO!

If we start sacrificing our liberties for votes than were gonna lose both!

Exactly. Unfortunately Bryan has already made his decision in the other poll. You probably won't be happy as minority ruled. So I guess that makes this poll moot.