thread split from " Taking the site to the next level"

[YesI'mALiberal]

Less censorship. Truth grows best in the sunshine.

[CaseyJones]

Less censorship. Truth grows best in the sunshine.

this is already the most uncensored forum I have ever seen

[YesI'mALiberal]

this is already the most uncensored forum I have ever seen

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?418871-Rand-Paul-Op-Ed-Immigration-reform’s-fatal-flaw&p=5088226&viewfull=1#post5088226

[ClydeCoulter]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?418871-Rand-Paul-Op-Ed-Immigration-reform’s-fatal-flaw&p=5088226&viewfull=1#post5088226

Bryan made a post about that subject. I'm not really sure where it is (MODS?) but everyone agreed that Rand bitching stays out of the Rand Forum and can be in The Vent or even General Politics.

edit: I'm one of them that stays out of Rand's forum, unless I like/agree with him. :)

[LibertyEagle]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?418871-Rand-Paul-Op-Ed-Immigration-reform’s-fatal-flaw&p=5088226&viewfull=1#post5088226

You went into Rand's forum to mock him. Personally, I would have banned you.

[ClydeCoulter]

^^ Rand police :D

[YesI'mALiberal]

You went into Rand's forum to mock him. Personally, I would have banned you.

http://cannonforhire.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/oddballkellysheroes2t1.jpg

[kcchiefs6465]

this is already the most uncensored forum I have ever seen
This.

And I applaud the mods for that.

BTW liberal, did you ever check out my thread titled "War Crimes?" I wanted to get into a little deeper discussion of your views. I can bump it for you if you can't find it. :)

[angelatc]

I'd ban him just for being liberal. ;D

[kcchiefs6465]

I agree. Less censorship.

http://i.imgur.com/CeTE4r9.gif?1

[jtstellar]

i'd recommend site owner make this site actually fun by adding some features..

well let me preface that and say this site has 2 obvious options: full-on campaign mode aiming for 2016, in that case heavy censorship is required. You can keep it as plain as you want, since we are all political junkies anyway or 2, you make it a place to debate ideas and invite people from all walks of life and political beliefs

if you want to expand this to be a more lively place, you need to add some features that actually make it more engaging. quite frankly only political junkies are interested with the platform as it is currently. I would add features that allow people to self-identify more easily and for others to see. Maybe create some catch word labels people can choose and put near their names.. like "anarchist" "paleocon" "liberal" "greenie" "feminist" etc. It's sort of like twitter hashtag but it follows each person.. it's probably more accurate to just call them labels. Then i guess you can filter posts by certain tag/labels, later if site population expands you can actually create small forums where only people who self identify with certain labels can participate etc to play around with that feature

but like i said you can also go heavily campaign-oriented to help rand win. In that case censorship can be justified. but either way it seems a no brainer to say this site has to steer one way or the other if it wants to expand more quickly. Staying somewhere in between is always the worst

you can do tags by education as well, race if people so wish to choose, age-group, retired/non-retired, etc. to see opinions coming from people with different background would be many folds more interesting than how it is right now, without mentioning other potentials. voluntary labels of course.

[ClydeCoulter]

Depends, stellar, on whether you want to put all of your eggs in one basket.
Also, I don't see we need to jump into the pot or the kettle, we're not all frogs, ya know.

[kcchiefs6465]

@ stellar a lot of the best this site has to offer is that I can't tell.

Labeling people, in my opinion, further divides. I imagine people a certain way by the way they "speak" or post but I don't need to know much about them.

Honestly I find out some posters are female and I'd never have guessed etc. It's good to know we are a diverse group. For me, at least, it gives a little bit of hope to a pessimistic view.

We are all people. Let's leave it at that and judge individually on what each post says. People have expertise in different areas and that's the best part. One poster might teach me some foreign policy, someone else on economics, we have posters that strive for civil liberties. Putting people in groups is done to marginalize and minimize their ideas. We all want the same thing.

[tod evans]

I like it as it is.

I'd also like to voice my support for minimal techie stuff....(I'm too ignorant in that field)

[V3n]

Funny how the anti-censorship discussion totally derailed the ideas discussion, becoming in itself, evidence of why the 'censorship' is sometimes necessary.

If we're on a Rand board, discussing activism or money raising ideas, and a bunch of folks chime in with anti-Rand propaganda, that becomes a distraction and detraction and takes away from what we are trying to accomplish.

There are times in open or general discussion, every opinion and every statement needs to be heard, even ones you disagree with.

But there are times when we're working towards a common goal that some opinions just become noise; I don't mind these being silenced by the Mods.

[enhanced_deficit]

Less censorship. Truth grows best in the sunshine.

No one in Americato seems to have the courage to beam some sunshine like this hot babe does:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?418882-Epic-Video-Obama-called-quot-war-criminal-quot-amp-quot-hypocrite-of-the-century-quot-in-Irish-Parliament&

[Red Green]

Titties..... more titties. Everybody loves titties, no?

But if we can't have titties, I think things are just fine the way they are.

[jtstellar]

Depends, stellar, on whether you want to put all of your eggs in one basket.
Also, I don't see we need to jump into the pot or the kettle, we're not all frogs, ya know.

i say it in context of competition.. you already have so many sites doing the same thing. Reason magazine site for example is just a piece of chalk board.. people write all sorts of random stuff on it, there are always liberal trolls there, and it has much less censorship than here, also more audience

dailypaul also used to be some kind of social site a lot less censored than here.. people talking about chemtrails ufos mayans all kinds of crap on there until michael nystrom kinda went full emo after rand got elected, calling him a one-man soap machine and banning people who disagreed with him, etc. Then another month later the site became a pay-to-comment site. Maybe that was the real reason

so in a sense, this is already a campaign-oriented site more censored than other places. but it's more my cup of tea, cus i don't have to deal with emo people that can't engage in proper conversation. So i guess some responses here have a point, until other moderated sites pop up and prove more effective than what's been done here, maybe it's fine to just keep here as it is. I think this is already a semi-campaign site with more serious people, and i like that. I could have registered with countless other unfiltered, colorful social sites during all these years, but i didn't. that might say something(for those like me)

[ClydeCoulter]

No one in Americato seems to have the courage to beam some sunshine like this hot babe does:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?418882-Epic-Video-Obama-called-quot-war-criminal-quot-amp-quot-hypocrite-of-the-century-quot-in-Irish-Parliament&

Now, that, I have to agree with, right off the bat ! :)

[jtstellar]

@ stellar a lot of the best this site has to offer is that I can't tell.

Labeling people, in my opinion, further divides. I imagine people a certain way by the way they "speak" or post but I don't need to know much about them.

Honestly I find out some posters are female and I'd never have guessed etc. It's good to know we are a diverse group. For me, at least, it gives a little bit of hope to a pessimistic view.

We are all people. Let's leave it at that and judge individually on what each post says. People have expertise in different areas and that's the best part. One poster might teach me some foreign policy, someone else on economics, we have posters that strive for civil liberties. Putting people in groups is done to marginalize and minimize their ideas. We all want the same thing.

well the labels are completely voluntary for one.. you choose to slap it onto yourself because that's how you want other people to see you. Granted you may regret that label later and take it off.. but to the extent there will be divide, no one is forcing labels other than themselves, so there is an individual responsibility element to it.

sure this will make the site more colorful, it could steer rpf to become more socially oriented like dailypaul, but like i said since there are already plenty of non-censored sites, especially the ones like reason magazine site where there's pretty much no policy at all except some against spams, maybe this site already found its niche spot. Whatever the site owner decides to do, i just hope it doesn't get "worse", whatever that means. One thing for sure, i do find a lot of posts and posters here much more thought-provoking than those you find on sites like dailypaul.

perhaps some censoring and a dose of seriousness is a good thing. So i guess i'm reverting what i said already about changes absolutely necessary.. that was quick. but i'm not saying it can't be better. but how do you tweak censorship to make this site more serious, engaging for political junkies but at the same time attract more average joes to participate.. can't think of anything off the top of my head at the moment. In a few days perhaps.