Put A Disclaimer on the Main Page??

[derdy]

We've been having a discussion about getting rid of the Hot Topics subforum here
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=34221

due to the fact that the mainstream media and others will be looking for anything to 'Swiftboat' Ron Paul on due to the views of his supporters

I think a Disclaimer should be added to the main page of RonPaulForums.com at the very top saying that we don't represent the views of the official campaign, thus allowing free speech and debate w/o any negative consequences to the official campaign.

[LibertyEagle]

Nice idea, but I'm afraid that everything we do will have a consequence to the campaign, either positive or negative. Regardless of whether we like it or not, our actions will reflect on our candidate.

[derdy]

Nice idea, but I'm afraid that everything we do will have a consequence to the campaign, either positive or negative. Regardless of whether we like it or not, our actions will reflect on our candidate.


Right, but a disclaimer would surely help the campaign wipe it's hands of anything discussed here and it's in the name of preserving free-speech :D


Our actions certainly do reflect on our candidate! Remember, remember, Ron's 5th of Novemeber

[Shaun]

AGREED.
This is a good concept.
MSM will understand a disclaimer.
Their jobs are a full time disclaimer.

[LibertyEagle]

A disclaimer can't hurt, that's for sure.

I'm just concerned that people will then think this gives them a pass to run around spewing filthy language and bringing up their pet projects, that have nothing to do with this campaign. Those things too would reflect on Dr. Paul, just like the wonderful fundraising of 11/5. No disclaimer, no wonder how well-worded, would save us.

[derdy]

A disclaimer can't hurt, that's for sure.

I'm just concerned that people will then think this gives them a pass to run around spewing filthy language and bringing up their pet projects, that have nothing to do with this campaign. Those things too would reflect on Dr. Paul, just like the wonderful fundraising of 11/5. No disclaimer, no wonder how well-worded, would save us.

I understand. I don't think strict enforcement of language and such should be enacted except in certain instances of blatant abuse.

Like Ron's ideas on promoting liberty: Make suggestions and encourage others to behave in a certain manner.

We of course will still have admins that will move posts to their relevant locations on the forum, I just think that the disclaimer is needed badly as the MSM will mix our grassroots effort with the official campaign! As the New York Times wrote, "It's the buggy pulling the horse!"

[derdy]

bump

[freelance]

Yes, a disclaimer is appropriate.

[SeanEdwards]

Seems like a good idea.

[Corydoras]

Excellent idea, not just for the sake of the media but also for people who have recently discovered Ron Paul.

[Thunderbolt]

I voted for the disclaimer, but they are never read and everyone assumes that we are responsible for what is said here.

Is there really a reason for the hot topics forum? We are much closer to the election. A lot of folks are coming here. We are cleaning up our language. Why can't we clean up that section?

If you want to vent about things that is fine, but donors are looking at this site. The media is watching us very carefully now because they want to "understand" us. Can't we at least lock it to only people who have been on the site for six months or so?

Most of those topics have nothing at all to do with Ron Paul.

Think about it. If we were infiltrated by a bunch of supporters from another campaign who wanted to talk about nothing but poodles, would we let them? Hopefully not. Would we need a poodle section? No. Poodles have nothing at all to do with the campaign and what it stands for.

Same for the hot topics section. We are changing. We are now being taken seriously. So, is there anything wrong with acting a little more seriously?

Now before everyone flames me about free speech, I am talking about locking up a section that is ugly and full of hate. We don't need that do we? We can disclaim it all we want, but why would we want to have to try to explain to the mainstream press that we are now getting that that is not Ron Paul's message and not all feel that way?

Remember, this is the big boys that are watching us now. I don't think that section ever drove up donations or galvanized all of us. I don't think it did much but hurt people.

Do we really need to hurt people to be free?

Ok, go ahead. Flame me.

[Revolution9]

[QUOTE=derdy;391774]We've been having a discussion about getting rid of the Hot Topics subforum hereQUOTE]

Great.. Another forum nazi. We have been thru and thru and thru this. I carved out the Hot Topics forum. Clowns have continually tried to shut it down. Tough shit. You shut it down all the crap comes to the front page. I guaran-fucking-tee it. You people shivering in your boots over the MSM are pathetic. Does your shadow make you afraid you will get mugged by it??

STOP with the censorship. I will raise hell all over the web if you people get away with censoring the grassroots. You do not own their minds. They want to hash this stuff out. They do it in hot topics.

Make your own board if you want to control it. But be rest assured.. your efforts to shut down the free exchange of ideas in the hot topics section will be met with severe blowback. Go hand out some slim jims and put your peckers back in your pants. You are still youngsters around here..except LE.

Thunderbolt..well he is pure anal retentive and NO decisions affecting a greater community at large should be made by one whose sphincter is in spasmic coiling. Derdy.. I am actually shocked at you.. I though you were an alright fellow.. U see you are just more of the same now that you come whipping your censorship cudgel out..

You people are far woprse for the campaign than those you attempt tp point fingers at and deride with your backbiting condescending bullshit. WTF are you all so afraid of in Hot Topics? That someone ain't toeing the MSM line of BS and is speculating with their own brain?

Signed
Tired of the Censorship Trollings
Randy

[speciallyblend]

yep

[Revolution9]

I voted for the disclaimer, but they are never read and everyone assumes that we are responsible for what is said here.

Is there really a reason for the hot topics forum? We are much closer to the election. A lot of folks are coming here. We are cleaning up our language. Why can't we clean up that section?

If you want to vent about things that is fine, but donors are looking at this site. The media is watching us very carefully now because they want to "understand" us. Can't we at least lock it to only people who have been on the site for six months or so?

Most of those topics have nothing at all to do with Ron Paul.

Think about it. If we were infiltrated by a bunch of supporters from another campaign who wanted to talk about nothing but poodles, would we let them? Hopefully not. Would we need a poodle section? No. Poodles have nothing at all to do with the campaign and what it stands for.

Same for the hot topics section. We are changing. We are now being taken seriously. So, is there anything wrong with acting a little more seriously?

Now before everyone flames me about free speech, I am talking about locking up a section that is ugly and full of hate. We don't need that do we? We can disclaim it all we want, but why would we want to have to try to explain to the mainstream press that we are now getting that that is not Ron Paul's message and not all feel that way?

Remember, this is the big boys that are watching us now. I don't think that section ever drove up donations or galvanized all of us. I don't think it did much but hurt people.

Do we really need to hurt people to be free?

Ok, go ahead. Flame me.

You are so fucking full of shit about this.

I want to fucking make it plain and clear that you censorshup Nazis are getting out of fucking control and I will fucking swear my goddamned mouth off if you all do not stop it with your fucking board nazi bullshit and condescending backbiting of your fellow RP supporters. You do not pwn the fucking monopoly on truth. Noone needs to change their person or life becase the are involved with the grassroots. Yoiu Borg agents of the MSM Medea Priests can take a hike and go hand out slimjims. Or go turn on your 60CPS golem programmer and then get all worried some idiot pundit will again not use their brain and make some stuopid statement or deny the truth for the zillionth time. When they do that be sure to be enraptured by the reel. Then come back here and make sure everybody conforms to your fears.

Be rest assured. I will never be afraid of your bogey man. He is a regurgitation of your fevered imagination and cannot harm me..

Randy

[Corydoras]

You are still youngsters around here..except LE.

Please don't pull the older-and-wiser and I-was-here-first shtick on this crowd. We all know you're significantly older than many of the posters here and have been on the forum longer. Lay off the grouchy old man behavior already.

Yes, gramps, I'm sure that when YOU were a kid in the golden days of the mid-twentieth century, people knew how to run a revolution the right way, unlike these kids today who think they know everything, blah blah blah. :rolleyes:

WELL, THIS IS THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY AND A NEW GENERATION HAS ARISEN. STOP TRYING TO BOSS US AROUND.

[Wyurm]

Correct me if I'm wrong Derdy et. al., but this isn't really up to you. You would need to PM Josh and the mods about this. While this forum is gaining public attention, it is in all truth and reality a privately funded and run forum, thus all the decisions about how it is run are up to the founder(s) and anyone allowed by the founder(s) to make such decisions.

Given: I could have missed a thread including Josh that suggested a poll in which case ignore this post. However, if that did not happen then this poll is really pointless and actually draws attention to the Hot Topics section. Also of note, the Hot topics section is off-limits to anyone who is not a registered member. It is not unusual for forums to have a hidden offensive topics archive.

[fcofer]

These pro-censorship posts are really starting to nauseate me.

I'm not a truther. I'm not a white supremacist. I occasionally read threads in Hot Topics, but I do not post there. But it's an off-topic forum, where people can talk about some of the reasons why they personally support Ron Paul.

Everyone needs to accept:

1. We are not all going to agree on these reasons.
2. Every now and then stuff is posted in Hot Topics that is extreme and with which we do not agree, and the poster is right and the rest of us are wrong, even though we don't know it. Stop thinking that we are right because we are the majority.

Censorship is now being advocated due to fear of "swiftboating" by the MSM. There are two reasons why we should not go down this route:

First, practically speaking, this forum is overestimating its importance. If the MSM wants to do a hit piece on us, they are not going to run out of ammunition just because we start censoring things on this forum. Stop acting so important.

Second, it is wrong to censor. Sure, we can move stuff out of the grassroots forum that doesn't belong there, but the minute that we move to deleting posts just because they might be embarrassing or might not fit into the positive orthodoxy (as determined by some moderator), then we have destroyed this forum and thereby done great damage to the grassroots campaign.

I know that I will leave and find some different place to get my news and talk about the grassroots campaign if such a policy is instituted, and although that might not be such a great loss, I suspect that many others on these forums will leave, also. This is not because I want to talk or read about controversial stuff -- it's because I will not aid and abet the denigration of one of the most important facets of Ron Paul's campaign -- openness and transparency.

Those of you who keep spouting off that the First Amendment doesn't apply here, well, you're right, but it doesn't matter. Either you believe in the principles of liberty or you don't. The administrators started this board to support the campaign, not to be arbitrary dictators. I argue that the kind of censorship advocated here militates against that interest.

“The fact is that censorship always defeats its own purpose, for it creates, in the end, the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion.”

-- Henry Steele

EDIT: Guess I didn't answer the question. I don't mind putting a disclaimer -- this post was aimed at the censorship-by-deletion advocates.

[stevedasbach]

If someone is looking for ammunition to use against Dr. Paul, a disclaimer won't help. The only solution is for all of us to exercise self-restaint, and to avoid posting things that can be used to attack Dr. Paul.

[Ron Paul Fan]

If someone is looking for ammunition to use against Dr. Paul, a disclaimer won't help. The only solution is for all of us to exercise self-restaint, and to avoid posting things that can be used to attack Dr. Paul.

I agree and that's why I voted against this measure. We should set a good example and have others want to emulate us. Ron Paul does it, I do it, and others will follow. When do you see me posting things that can be used to attack Dr. Paul? Never!

[goRPaul]

The goodness of Ron Paul and the grassroots movement outweigh any negatives. As supporters, censoring ourselves means we're ashamed of who we are. We shouldn't have to hide ourselves from those who wish to find out about us.

Don't worry about the Hot Topics forum. The title says it all, and people should be able to handle it. Non-members can't view the forum anyways, so that's good enough for me.

F--k censorship.

[Revolution9]

Please don't pull the older-and-wiser and I-was-here-first shtick on this crowd. We all know you're significantly older than many of the posters here and have been on the forum longer. Lay off the grouchy old man behavior already.

Yes, gramps, I'm sure that when YOU were a kid in the golden days of the mid-twentieth century, people knew how to run a revolution the right way, unlike these kids today who think they know everything, blah blah blah. :rolleyes:

WELL, THIS IS THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY AND A NEW GENERATION HAS ARISEN. STOP TRYING TO BOSS US AROUND.

I was speaking of time on this forum..not age.. Gramps indeed. LE and myself have seen this fight go down many, many times with the same outcome. TThe board owners stick to the principles of liberty and free expression. I have had several dozen warnings from them but as long as I stated my case succinctly they were fine with it. They have even sent me messages thanking me for some of my posts. I carved out Hot Topics with the assistance of the board owners and nearly got banned for my original efforts until the impeccability of my logic in regards to freedom of expression, liberty and openness and transparency .. I assume..may have been my incessant bitching:D..got that forum designated. I rarely go there and read there. I am not a 911 truth movement adherent, nor a conspiracy theorist. I am a historian and amamteur intelligence analyst though so I do have interest in alot of areas. Furthermore..much of the nastiness in the Hot Topics forum is not promulgated by the transparency in public safety issues contingent but those who seem to be aginst transparency in public safety issues who say some of the most denigrating things about these people, their intelligence level and ability to discern reality. They are smply trolling. Exceppt for the paid disinfo agents who seem to roll through there with different handles but the same disinfo sites and writing styles..

Censorship here is dead flat wrong. We have always taken care of any issues amongst the forum members in regards to trolls or shit disturbers who are simply shit disturbing. We have a great forum community and it does not need to be messed up by authoritarianism or collectivist thought inculcation or political correctness or fear or media clowns and fools and assorted gaping fumaroles of inflammatory rhetoric.

Regards
Randy

[fcofer]

Censorship here is dead flat wrong. We have always taken care of any issues amongst the forum members in regards to trolls or shit disturbers who are simply shit disturbing. We have a great forum community and it does not need to be messed up by authoritarianism or collectivist thought inculcation or political correctness or fear or media clowns and fools and assorted gaping fumaroles of inflammatory rhetoric.

Hear, hear.

[mfoley1]

you can do it!

[Suzu]

You are so ****ing full of **** about this.

I want to ****ing make it plain and clear that you censorshup Nazis are getting out of ****ing control and I will ****ing swear my ******** mouth off if you all do not stop it with your ****ing board nazi bull**** and condescending backbiting of your fellow RP supporters. You do not pwn the ****ing monopoly on truth. Noone needs to change their person or life becase the are involved with the grassroots. Yoiu Borg agents of the MSM Medea Priests can take a hike and go hand out slimjims. Or go turn on your 60CPS golem programmer and then get all worried some idiot pundit will again not use their brain and make some stuopid statement or deny the truth for the zillionth time. When they do that be sure to be enraptured by the reel. Then come back here and make sure everybody conforms to your fears.

Be rest assured. I will never be afraid of your bogey man. He is a regurgitation of your fevered imagination and cannot harm me..

Randy, what will harm you is your own anger. The emotion of rage causes biochemical changes in the body, the saliva pH becomes the equivalent of rattlesnake venom. Others reading your spew, if they are sensitive, are also affected. Not to mention how you look to forum visitors and how that affects Dr. Paul. "The beating of a butterfly's wings" and all that.

Men are like government bonds, I guess... They take sooooooo long to mature!

[inibo]

Men are like government bonds, I guess... They take sooooooo long to mature!

I resemble that remark, it only took me about fifty years.:D

I voted for the disclaimer, something to the effect that "The opinions expressed here are the opinions of the individual posters and do not reflect the opinions of RonPaulForums.com or the Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee."

That being said I do not favor getting rid of Hot Topics. I've got news for you: Old Media people and supporters of other candidates have been coming here from the very beginning. If the stuff in Hot Topics could hurt us it would have already happened. There have already been attempted hit pieces written based on stuff people have found here, it's been going on for months. For the most part they've gotten very little traction because professional journalist know that trying to write a substantial story based on Internet forum posts makes them look like idiots.

There are always going to be people who are opposed to us regardless, e.g., RedState and DailyKOS. Nothing we say or do is going to change that. Those people are marginal and they are the ones who have tried to use Ron Paul's supporters against him. It has gotten them nowhere. Old Media and regular voters don't give two hoots about them and this is as it should be.

I, for one, trust our moderators. If I see a post that is blatantly offensive, racist or antisemitic I flag it with the http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/buttons/report.gif icon and tell them why I think it should be moved, locked or deleted. I suggest everyone else do the same. Self-government doesn't just mean me governing myself, it means us governing each other. That is not collectivism or mob rule, it is spontaneous order. Freedom and order are emergent properties of people being free and orderly.

[ronpaulfan]

Disclaimer = more freedom to post = good

[davidhperry]

I also think it would be a good thing to do. Even if it said something along the lines of "Unofficial Ron Paul Forums" or "Official Unofficial Ron Paul Forums":)

[Menthol Patch]

We should not eliminate free speech on this forum. If we do then we are no better than the neo-cons.

[Corydoras]

We have always taken care of any issues amongst the forum members in regards to trolls or shit disturbers who are simply shit disturbing.

"Taken care of." Don't you understand that it comes across as classic bullying by a grouchy old guy who if he were less interested in politics would spend his spare time yelling at the kids running across his lawn?

[rrt82]

Well, two things to consider:

1. The US Constitution only applies to the government, the admins of this site can limit speech in anyway they seem fit to do so.

2. There needs to be restraint as long as people think this site is part of Ron Paul. Even with a disclaimer on the front page, our actions on this forum reflect on Dr. Paul. I think profanities should be censored, and I believe we should act like adults. I've seen improvement, as I have not been rick-rolled in a while on here.

As Ron Paul himself has said, it's a big tent and he attracts many supporters from all different backgrounds and beliefs. A few people believe that 9/11 was an inside job, and some of those people support Dr. Paul. That's fine, but I believe there is a time and a place to debate what happened on that horrible day. A forum dedicated to electing Dr. Paul President is not the place for that discussion. I don't want the good Doc associated with conspiracy nuts.

If we are going to win the hearts of the average American, we have to act like average Americans, period. The media will be looking for anything, and since Ron Paul's hands are clean they will have to make stuff up. Think before you speak, and don't let them dig dirt up on these forums.

I think a disclaimer is a wonderful idea. In fact, I'd take it one step further and find a way to put at the top of everypage that this website is not affiliated with the campaign at all.

[pcosmar]

Voted Other.
On one hand it can't hurt. Plausible Denial.
On the other it is not necessary. Not part of the official Campaign.
Then on the ,, never mind, thats a foot.

[Suzu]

As far as I'm concerned there is no room for debate here! Maybe some of you "free speech" advocates have not thought this issue through yet? This is our ONE CHANCE to get our country back - and maybe even save the planet from a nuclear holocaust - and all you care about is your "freedom" to use cuss words here?

Whatever it takes, if this was *my* forum, it would be made "work safe". No matter what it takes!! We can do very well without all the profanity! How often have you heard Ron Paul using such language??? Like it or not, WE REPRESENT HIM to everyone who looks at this forum!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[fcofer]

Well, two things to consider:

1. The US Constitution only applies to the government, the admins of this site can limit speech in anyway they seem fit to do so.

Totally irrelevant. Just because they can doesn't mean that they should. I don't care that much about censoring swear words (although I think it's a silly waste of time), but deleting people's opinions just because they are not "mainstream" and "average" is something I totally oppose. The forums would literally disintegrate due to the chilling effect on spontaneity and creativity and the resultant blowback.


2. There needs to be restraint as long as people think this site is part of Ron Paul. Even with a disclaimer on the front page, our actions on this forum reflect on Dr. Paul.

That's true to an extent, and we should encourage people to self-censor. However, we are never going to be able to control it completely without destroying the forum. I think that the benefit that comes from an open, transparent ronpaulforums.com is inestimable to the campaign, and we can't afford to marginalize it in order to avoid some spurious perceived risk.


I think profanities should be censored, and I believe we should act like adults. I've seen improvement, as I have not been rick-rolled in a while on here.

Well, you can't really censor the profanity -- if you think you can, sell the idea to an anti-spam company and donate the millions to the Ron Paul Campaign. As for the rick-rolling, I guess the lesson to be learned is that we can accomplish change through social pressure rather than resorting to censorship, right?


As Ron Paul himself has said, it's a big tent and he attracts many supporters from all different backgrounds and beliefs. A few people believe that 9/11 was an inside job, and some of those people support Dr. Paul. That's fine, but I believe there is a time and a place to debate what happened on that horrible day. A forum dedicated to electing Dr. Paul President is not the place for that discussion. I don't want the good Doc associated with conspiracy nuts.

Well, I'm not a truther myself, but I can think of no better place for supporters of Ron Paul who subscribe to this conspiracy theory to talk about it than the Hot Topics forum. If you get rid of the Hot Topics forum, they will talk about it in the public forums. Try to understand that to some people, Ron Paul's emphasis on transparency and openness in government is central to their support for him. We need a big tent, as you say. Let's not label people as nuts, and let's not prevent them from talking in their designated areas.


If we are going to win the hearts of the average American, we have to act like average Americans, period.

I totally disagree. We have to act like grassroots political activists, and one of the ways that we get better at that is by talking politics with each other and generating enthusiasm by listening to people who have similar political opinions and goals. The primary purpose of this forum has not been, and never will be, direct advertisement.


The media will be looking for anything, and since Ron Paul's hands are clean they will have to make stuff up. Think before you speak, and don't let them dig dirt up on these forums.

Here, I totally agree. The media will take anything when the smears begin. Things will be made up out of thin air. I'd rather have a free, uncensored forum with all the creativity and inclusiveness that has gotten us so far, with social pressure to keep people self-censoring. However, I think that we're overestimating the negative smear value to the campaign of some dude's post on an Internet forum. Let's not overreact.


I think a disclaimer is a wonderful idea. In fact, I'd take it one step further and find a way to put at the top of everypage that this website is not affiliated with the campaign at all.

Sure -- "ronpaulforums.com -- part of the free speech zone of the USA." Seriously, though, what you propose is fine with me, so that any screenshot of the forum will include the disclaimer.

[fcofer]

As far as I'm concerned there is no room for debate here! Maybe some of you "free speech" advocates have not thought this issue through yet? This is our ONE CHANCE to get our country back - and maybe even save the planet from a nuclear holocaust - and all you care about is your "freedom" to use cuss words here?

We "free speech advocates" also feel that you, um, censorship advocates, have not thought this through. Since we're free speech advocates, though, we always think that there's room for debate. :)

I don't care as much about protecting profanity on the forums, but I care very much about protecting ideas from being deleted. I've lurked over at Huck's grassroots forum from time to time, and I'm amazed at how much they are hobbling themselves by deleting any discussions that reflect negatively on their candidate in even the slightest way -- the drain on creativity and the amount of genuine Huck supporters they lose due to blowback is pretty significant.

I also think that you are overestimating the reach of these forums to "average" voters. I've been a Paul supporter since May, and I didn't even visit this site until August. People who are not used to the Internet are not likely to troll the forums -- and if they are used to it, then they will be used to the attendant language, also.


Whatever it takes, if this was *my* forum, it would be made "work safe". No matter what it takes!! We can do very well without all the profanity! How often have you heard Ron Paul using such language??? Like it or not, WE REPRESENT HIM to everyone who looks at this forum!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sacrificing freedoms because they are perceived to be inconvenient at the time is not advisable. This is one of Paul's mantras and one of the main reasons that many of us support him. I think you ought to consider whether having an open, free forum has contributed much to the success of the Paul campaign before you advocate doing away with the openness. :)

If you are talking just about the profanity, then the final point that I will make is that it is technically impossible to stop it, short of having lots of human moderators to check tons of flagged posts. I suppose that we could work things to where every post had to be vetted before it was published to the forum, but that would really ruin things. You don't really mean, "No matter what the cost," do you?

The best way to get things the way you want them (and, one of the penalties of freedom is that it is pretty much impossible to control everyone's actions) is to convince a lot of other people on the board of your position. Then, when people use profanity in public areas of the forum, they will be subjected to rebuke from others, which will discourage them. There will always be some profanity, but if we change the character of this forum to discourage it, that will be far more effective, and far less costly, then forceful censorship.

[blamx8]

Sacrificing freedoms because they are perceived to be inconvenient at the time is not advisable.

To harness and control a freedom in order to make it work in our best interest should not be confused with sacrificing them.

A well thought out, considerate, unifying, intelligent use of the freedom of speech will do much more to move us toward the desired goal than a name calling, belittling, or offensive rant that intensifies or magnifies opposition and polarizes supporters.

Either way the freedom of speech is ours. The question is whether we master it so it can have the greatest impact.

[DeadheadForPaul]

I think Josh can delete posts or do whatever he deems just given that it is his site. If you want to talk about unnecessarily damaging things to Dr Paul, start your own messageboard

[fcofer]

I think Josh can delete posts or do whatever he deems just given that it is his site.

Uh-huh. Except that Josh wants the grassroots campaign to succeed and to be a success, so I doubt that he will make the forums more authoritarian than necessary. He's in this for the Ron Paul campaign, not for himself. (Maybe I'm wrong; I've never met Josh, but this is what I suspect.)


If you want to talk about unnecessarily damaging things to Dr Paul, start your own messageboard

If you want to have criticisms censored and non-majoritarian opinions suppressed, start your own messageboard.

A little illustration: I thought that Nov. 5 was a bad idea. I admit it. But I didn't try to shut people up who were talking about it. There were calls for the entire idea to be suppressed because it was damaging to the campaign, because it was a false flag op designed to embarrass RP, etc. Search for it if you don't believe me.

I guess we can all agree that it's a damn good thing that the censors weren't convincing, eh?

Look at a certain other candidate's grassroots campaign. They have naysayers, just as we do, but their naysayers are backed by mods who lock and/or delete threads. From the outside looking in, it's incredible to me how much they are damaging their grassroots, all because they fear the (few) downsides of free speech.

[fcofer]

To harness and control a freedom in order to make it work in our best interest should not be confused with sacrificing them.

A well thought out, considerate, unifying, intelligent use of the freedom of speech will do much more to move us toward the desired goal than a name calling, belittling, or offensive rant that intensifies or magnifies opposition and polarizes supporters.

Either way the freedom of speech is ours. The question is whether we master it so it can have the greatest impact.

I'll have to say that your post has given me more pause than any other that I've read on this discussion. To answer you, I guess I'll say that of course I think that our discourse should remain civil and that we should be knowledgeable of the effect our actions have on the campaign. My position, however, is that the damage done to these forums by instituting a top-down system of censorship by deletion of posts would be far more injurious to the campaign (due to the importance of these forums to the grassroots) than whatever collateral damage we incur by not censoring.

Ideally, I'd like to see a DELETED POSTS subforum, where posts that have excessive profanity / vulgarity or that contain [suspected] false and misleading information could be moved. This way, the forums need not be accused of serious censorship and we would not risk the attendant blowback.

[michaelwise]

Use part of the audio from this mornings Face the Nation where Ron says that official campaign must distance itself from the grassroots effort for legal reasons.

[Zotde75]

Voted yes.

[Suzu]

you are overestimating the reach of these forums to "average" voters. I've been a Paul supporter since May, and I didn't even visit this site until August. People who are not used to the Internet are not likely to troll the forums -- and if they are used to it, then they will be used to the attendant language, also.

This is a complete cop-out! At any given time during normal U.S. waking hours there are several hunded VISITORS browsing this forum! These are either supporters who don't type well or something, or - more likely - newbies to Paul just checking us out.


I think you ought to consider whether having an open, free forum has contributed much to the success of the Paul campaign before you advocate doing away with the openness.

It will still be open and free without the vulgarity.


If you are talking just about the profanity, then the final point that I will make is that it is technically impossible to stop it, short of having lots of human moderators to check tons of flagged posts. I suppose that we could work things to where every post had to be vetted before it was published to the forum, but that would really ruin things. You don't really mean, "No matter what the cost," do you?

It would be quite simple to delete all the pre-existing profanity. A handful of moderators could do it in a matter of hours.


There will always be some profanity, but if we change the character of this forum to discourage it, that will be far more effective, and far less costly, then forceful censorship.

The easiest way to change the character of the forum to discourage profanity is to apply an automatic filter to substitute asterisks or something in place of the targeted words. It costs NOTHING to do that, but think of how much time it has already taken in discussion of possible solutions to the issue!

[fcofer]

This is a complete cop-out! At any given time during normal U.S. waking hours there are several hunded VISITORS browsing this forum! These are either supporters who don't type well or something, or - more likely - newbies to Paul just checking us out.

And what fraction of these visitors are new visitors? And what fraction of those have never been on an Internet forum and would be offended by the relatively mild profanity here (I haven't seen any goatse links, for instance)? And what fraction of those would base their decision to vote, after going so far as to visit grassroots forums, primarily on whether supporters on the Internet used profanity?


It will still be open and free without the vulgarity.

I am getting backed into a corner. :) If you are truly arguing only for censoring common vulgar words, and nothing else, then I'm not going to raise a fuss about it (other than to say it won't be effective). My main concern is with the institution of a policy of deleting posts that aren't sufficiently "positive" (based on some subjective metric); i.e., content-based censorship.


It would be quite simple to delete all the pre-existing profanity. A handful of moderators could do it in a matter of hours.

The easiest way to change the character of the forum to discourage profanity is to apply an automatic filter to substitute asterisks or something in place of the targeted words. It costs NOTHING to do that, but think of how much time it has already taken in discussion of possible solutions to the issue!

It is virtually impossible to censor profanity without a human determining whether the words are profane. For example:

SH1t! Those fuxxors are trying to censor me! (I'm not very good at this; I'm sure that someone reading can post a much better example of text that is replete with offensive meaning, but will pass right through a filter.)

What you want to accomplish is to convince people that there's no point in using profanity. I agree with you on this -- this post contains more profanity than any other that I have made. Filters aren't going to accomplish that goal. Plus, even with filters, isn't the profanity 99% as offensive? Are you less offended if I say "f*ck you, Suzu" instead of the real thing? A filter is not going to prevent people from being embarrassing.

All this being said, I'll be happy to make a concession -- I wouldn't object to an optional profanity filter. I still don't think that it matters much one way or another, but would this be satisfactory to those of you who have a different opinion?