less about retards more about politics

[[censored]]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a new theory that the "regular" politics posters may not be all that valuable to the traffic in the forum and in fact are probably the ones driving people away.

[/ QUOTE ]

from the previous thread it seems there is some agreement on the above. I have talked with RR about formally writing out some rules dealing with the unique type of trolling and hijacking that goes on the politics forum by a group of the most active posters.

I can recognize this type of posting and hand out bans but where I am having trouble is coming up the rules and language with properly expresses this.

ideas on rules, sticky language appreciated.

thanks

[iron81]

I hate to say this, but BluffTHIS has posted frequently on a standard where all arguments must be logical and people who repeatedly make illogical arguments are labeled "dishonest debaters". I don't really support this, but its one idea.

[kyleb]

[censored]

I think you should make a post that basically says "just because you're a regular poster doesn't mean you're above the law." Apply regular warnings/bans to people who troll, regardless of viewpoint.

As I've said before, I support ACist views, but I also think that a significant portion of people who are ACist carry a 'holier-than-thou' attitude with them. Don't stand for it.

[RR]

I was thinking about this today. Here is my favorite poekr rule and I think the same principle applies here.

[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ] 8. The same action may have a different meaning, depending on who does it, so the possible intent of an offender will be taken into consideration. Some factors here are the person’s amount of poker experience and past record.

[iron81]

I think the problem is that if we can't define what isn't acceptable, there is no way in hell the users can figure out what we think is acceptable. That leaves three options: 1. Ban away and hope they figure it out. 2. Ban away and realize that people who post in a manner that we don't like will get banned, leaving behind the posters we do like. 3. Not ban.

If you want to add a a rule about not being repetitive, that's fine. I think that combined with the hyperbole rule I added right before you guys came on should take care of most of the problem.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the problem is that if we can't define what isn't acceptable, there is no way in hell the users can figure out what we think is acceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this. I don't know the history of why this came to be, but there is a subset of the politics posters that work hard to be as abrasive as possible without getting banned. Of course this is what makes it difficult is that any rule we write will immediately be tested and stretched.

[citanul]

all,

debate is ok, attack is bad.

disagreeing with opinions, ideas, and posters is ok. namecalling, flaming, etc, is bad.

basically "a note on the tone."

"abrasive" is ok, "abusive" isn't. if it's obvious the person is purposefully toeing the line, you deal with them.

people who can't be civil can't post.

similarly, the moderation can't be biased in terms of what ideas or people it defends, though the line of what is abrasive and what is abusive is clearly going to be arbitrary.

that's my thoughts on the subject.

iron,

"2. ban away and realize that people who post in this manner that we don't like will get banned, leaving behind the psters we do like."

is unacceptable. this implies you would be biased in your bannings even amongst people who post in the unacceptable manner.

citanul

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
similarly, the moderation can't be biased in terms of what ideas or people it defends, though the line of what is abrasive and what is abusive is clearly going to be arbitrary.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can someone tell me if there is a reason the ACists argue in the manner they chose? I have deleted posts and sent warnings to people all across the political spectrum, but the vast majority of the time that I see someone out of line it is an ACist. There is nothing wrong with what they are saying, they just seem like the sort of people that would exercise their free speech with a bullhorn in a library.

[citanul]

RR,

fortunately i think that most of us don't read that forum, so we don't have a clue what forms of idiocy they employ.

[iron81]

I can think of two reasons:

1. They believe that the whole of society is organized to screw them over. They see oppression in places as innocuous as a public school and a welfare program. They are very angry at a lot of people.

2. Their idol is Borodog.

That said, what do you guys think about permabanning or exiling Cardcounter0? He's managed to rack up two temp bans in the last week and he's still being an idiot. I don't think he's going to be able to adapt.