proposing a new forum

[ConHog]

admittedly stolen from another board; but i liked it.

How would a new forum be accepted here one where no name calling was allowed. Not even if it was just to say another poster was stupid, or that his/her opinions were stupid.

one where any fact claimed must be backed by facts

one where the moderation is much stricter than usual

one where foul language is acceptable, but not foul language that is directed at someone

one where off topic comments of any sort are not allowed

one where posting cartoons is not considered debating

one where a single instance of breaking the rules brings a thread ban, three instances brings a forum ban.


seem to bring on a more pure form of discussion to me, one where people aren't able to just come in drop a bomb and leave, or well they can but they will quickly find themselves on the outside looking in. A forum where we can separate those who actually want to debate from those who simply want to gripe and yell that their way is better .

I would propose that this board be open to ANY topic, but that the rules be strictly enforced. Seems like this would maybe make it easier on all involved including Jim and company who could concentrate most of their enforcement activieis on one single forum and those who don't want to read the other stuff could avoid it without Jim and company having to cull it out.

What say ye oh DP membership?

and please , constructive responses only

[tailfins]

That would just lead to cattiness and stealth insults, perhaps posts with double meanings.

[ConHog]

That would just lead to cattiness and stealth insults, perhaps posts with double meanings.

perhaps, but I think that the moderating team is smart enough to interpret such posts and deal with them accordingly.

[hjmick]

Don't need a "Clean Debate Zone."

[ConHog]

Don't need a "Clean Debate Zone."

i beg to differ

[Nukeman]

i beg to differSo thats your right!! No one says you have to butt into EVERY thread...

[hjmick]

As is your prerogative.

[ConHog]

So thats your right!! No one says you have to butt into EVERY thread...

VERY constructive opinion there. Thanks

[Little-Acorn]

admittedly stolen from another board; but i liked it.

How would a new forum be accepted here one where no name calling was allowed. Not even if it was just to say another poster was stupid, or that his/her opinions were stupid.

one where any fact claimed must be backed by facts

one where the moderation is much stricter than usual

one where foul language is acceptable, but not foul language that is directed at someone

one where off topic comments of any sort are not allowed

one where posting cartoons is not considered debating

one where a single instance of breaking the rules brings a thread ban, three instances brings a forum ban.


seem to bring on a more pure form of discussion to me, one where people aren't able to just come in drop a bomb and leave, or well they can but they will quickly find themselves on the outside looking in. A forum where we can separate those who actually want to debate from those who simply want to gripe and yell that their way is better .

I would propose that this board be open to ANY topic, but that the rules be strictly enforced. Seems like this would maybe make it easier on all involved including Jim and company who could concentrate most of their enforcement activieis on one single forum and those who don't want to read the other stuff could avoid it without Jim and company having to cull it out.

What say ye oh DP membership?

and please , constructive responses only

In other words, a forum that takes five times as much moderating effort as any other?

I like the basic idea, but I would never have time to moderate it if I were a mod.

Are you volunteering?

[ConHog]

In other words, a forum that takes five times as much moderating effort as any other thread?

I like the basic idea, but I would never have time to moderate it if I were a mod.

Are you volunteering?

Doubt Jim wants me anywhere near the red pen LOL.

But why would it be MORE work? For one, I doubt it would get much traffic, at least at first , and for another, the 3 strike rule would quickly weed out those just won't participate.

[Nukeman]

VERY constructive opinion there. ThanksDude I am not attempting to be constructive with you!! I really have a hard time dealing with your mentality of throwing yourself in EVERY argument than bitching that someone may have insulted you... If you don't like the way the thread is going than by all means start a new one!!

I think its a STUPID idea to have a forum where NO ONE is allowed to hurt YOUR feelings.. Beside you aren't that clever this was proposed a couple of weeks ago already!!!!

[Nukeman]

In other words, a forum that takes five times as much moderating effort as any other?

I like the basic idea, but I would never have time to moderate it if I were a mod.

Are you volunteering? Oh God I hope not he would ban everyone that hurt his feelings!!! He's delicate!!

[WiccanLiberal]

The problem with that kind of a forum is that some people resort to all sorts of provocations to get another user they disagree with to make missteps on the rules and thereby get a ban. Several current members here saw that happen on another board we all patronized. Childish? Absolutely. I believe the current atmosphere here is better. Acrimonious disagreements get moved to the cage and discussion can otherwise continue. I'd rather wade through some insults than have people always looking over their shoulders wondering if what they just said constitutes a bannable offense. Just my own opinion.

[aboutime]

Many of us came from just such a forum where the admin had narrowed down the use of the English language to a point, where even a misstep was declared an INSULT, or it OFFENDED another member..which required a BAN for certain periods of time, or permanently.

If that is what you are looking for. You can start by Joining the DNC, or the Democrat party, or simply go to where you will be welcomed with open arms for your PERSPECTIVES.

[Abbey Marie]

The problem with that kind of a forum is that some people resort to all sorts of provocations to get another user they disagree with to make missteps on the rules and thereby get a ban. Several current members here saw that happen on another board we all patronized. Childish? Absolutely. I believe the current atmosphere here is better. Acrimonious disagreements get moved to the cage and discussion can otherwise continue. I'd rather wade through some insults than have people always looking over their shoulders wondering if what they just said constitutes a bannable offense. Just my own opinion.


Oooh, drawing the foul. :eek:

[aboutime]

Oooh, drawing the foul. :eek:


Abbey. WiccanLiberal knows exactly what many of us had to experience at another Forum. If some members want to see the strict enforcement of Ever-changing, almost daily, rule changes that nearly declare EVERY English word offensive. That's where those members would be happiest. And the FIRST AMENDMENT...has no place there. Right up some of our member's ALLEY.

[ConHog]

Abbey. WiccanLiberal knows exactly what many of us had to experience at another Forum. If some members want to see the strict enforcement of Ever-changing, almost daily, rule changes that nearly declare EVERY English word offensive. That's where those members would be happiest. And the FIRST AMENDMENT...has no place there. Right up some of our member's ALLEY.

you do understand that this would be ONE forum, and your participation would NOT be mandatory, don't you?

[Nukeman]

you do understand that this would be ONE forum, and your participation would NOT be mandatory, don't you?Still... NO NEED for it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Take a vote or start a pole!!!! I think you find you and mundame are the only ones that need a safe haven!! Rest of us have a little thicker skin and are big kids and take care of ourselves... I find if I don't like a thread I don't participate in it see how that works..

[jimnyc]

No way people always remain true to the rules and it will result in a ton of intervention from staff. Besides, I don't think people 'really' want discussion without the drama, or there would be a lot of people with a lot of people on ignore.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

The problem with that kind of a forum is that some people resort to all sorts of provocations to get another user they disagree with to make missteps on the rules and thereby get a ban. Several current members here saw that happen on another board we all patronized. Childish? Absolutely. I believe the current atmosphere here is better. Acrimonious disagreements get moved to the cage and discussion can otherwise continue. I'd rather wade through some insults than have people always looking over their shoulders wondering if what they just said constitutes a bannable offense. Just my own opinion.

I agree with you 100% and yes I was one of the ones targeted there. Jim has it set up here very well and allows for far more free speech because of how he has it set up.
If anything he could consider a noholdsbarred section added here as I have seen at other forums.
Quite entertaining and purely voluntary. However the cage here serves much of that purpose already so
perhaps its not so good of a thought.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

In other words, a forum that takes five times as much moderating effort as any other?

I like the basic idea, but I would never have time to moderate it if I were a mod.

Are you volunteering?

him volunteering!! ? Its his wet dream most likely!!!:laugh2:--Tyr

[Drummond]

In other words, a forum that takes five times as much moderating effort as any other?

I like the basic idea, but I would never have time to moderate it if I were a mod.

Are you volunteering?

Yes, I think you're exactly right.

It also seems to me that having such a forum running in tandem with others run differently (a) implies a criticism of the rules of the rest of the site, and (b) sets a precedent for more forums to spring up with yet more rule differences. If it can happen once, why not again and again ?

Allow that trend to really take off, and you might one day end up with administrative chaos, with people questioning the worth of whatever set of rules they happen not to like.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Yes, I think you're exactly right.

It also seems to me that having such a forum running in tandem with others run differently (a) implies a criticism of the rules of the rest of the site, and (b) sets a precedent for more forums to spring up with yet more rule differences. If it can happen once, why not again and again ?

Allow that trend to really take off, and you might one day end up with administrative chaos, with people questioning the worth of whatever set of rules they happen not to like.

Right , I have recently been informed of large group of members leaving my old forum because of the strict rules recently imposed there. I went there to verify today and its true. The conservative board there has pretty much been decimated by the exodus. Myself and others left there 6 months back, came here because its so much better and there the rules were smothering and unfairly administered. Exceptions made constantly for lib/dems..
Jim does quite well here. He may be a woman lusting , nude sexy woman lurching douchebag but he surely knows how to run a forum with more free speech rights. ;)--Tyr

[tailfins]

No way people always remain true to the rules and it will result in a ton of intervention from staff. Besides, I don't think people 'really' want discussion without the drama, or there would be a lot of people with a lot of people on ignore.

Yeah, you stupid inbred. Do you have your Aunt-Mom take over when you're too drugged up to take care of DP?

[mundame]

admittedly stolen from another board; but i liked it.

How would a new forum be accepted here one where no name calling was allowed. Not even if it was just to say another poster was stupid, or that his/her opinions were stupid.

one where any fact claimed must be backed by facts

one where the moderation is much stricter than usual

one where foul language is acceptable, but not foul language that is directed at someone

one where off topic comments of any sort are not allowed

one where posting cartoons is not considered debating

one where a single instance of breaking the rules brings a thread ban, three instances brings a forum ban.


seem to bring on a more pure form of discussion to me, one where people aren't able to just come in drop a bomb and leave, or well they can but they will quickly find themselves on the outside looking in. A forum where we can separate those who actually want to debate from those who simply want to gripe and yell that their way is better .

I would propose that this board be open to ANY topic, but that the rules be strictly enforced. Seems like this would maybe make it easier on all involved including Jim and company who could concentrate most of their enforcement activieis on one single forum and those who don't want to read the other stuff could avoid it without Jim and company having to cull it out.

What say ye oh DP membership?

and please , constructive responses only


I think it would be great.

I have wanted to find a forum for years that did "polite politics." There was one called "Civil Discourse," but it was as rude as they all are, the owner being the worst of the lot by far and left-wing as well. After two people asked me why there would be any problem with having a Muslim as president, I gave up in disgust. There was nothing uncivil about that question, but failed civility plus idiocy --- pointless.

I am not on forums for the fighting. But that may be why most people go to them -- to fight. And destroy all their enemies, which they find as fast as they can, pretty much anyone will do. Like barfights; people are angry generally and want to find a place they can strut and posture and hurt everyone they can.

Or it may simply be that forums are the public, and most of the public sucks. That our most important life task, everywhere, is to sort out the great bulk of enemies from the few people capable of being friends, or at least true.

If there WERE a forum with good governance, though, I think smarter people would flock to it, like a well-governed country or city. The El Stupidos wouldn't like it and would go elsewhere.

[mundame]

Yes, I think you're exactly right.

It also seems to me that having such a forum running in tandem with others run differently (a) implies a criticism of the rules of the rest of the site, and (b) sets a precedent for more forums to spring up with yet more rule differences. If it can happen once, why not again and again ?

Allow that trend to really take off, and you might one day end up with administrative chaos, with people questioning the worth of whatever set of rules they happen not to like.


Actually, I sort of like Drummond's idea. Different forums for different folks. After all, there's a "steel cage" for uncensored meanness, so why not a "polite politics"? That's two. How about a woman's forum? I saw a group with one of those once, and they meant it: men of course just flocked to it trying to get in, but weren't allowed. It was really nice; recipes and obstetrics were favorite topics.

Anybody have an idea for a fourth forum, fifth, etc.?

[ConHog]

Yes, I think you're exactly right.

It also seems to me that having such a forum running in tandem with others run differently (a) implies a criticism of the rules of the rest of the site, and (b) sets a precedent for more forums to spring up with yet more rule differences. If it can happen once, why not again and again ?

Allow that trend to really take off, and you might one day end up with administrative chaos, with people questioning the worth of whatever set of rules they happen not to like.

So that I have this right, you are now implying that by suggesting a new forum, I am questioning the rules of the rest of the board? LOL

[Voted4Reagan]

admittedly stolen from another board; but i liked it.

How would a new forum be accepted here one where no name calling was allowed. Not even if it was just to say another poster was stupid, or that his/her opinions were stupid.

one where any fact claimed must be backed by facts

one where the moderation is much stricter than usual

one where foul language is acceptable, but not foul language that is directed at someone

one where off topic comments of any sort are not allowed

one where posting cartoons is not considered debating

one where a single instance of breaking the rules brings a thread ban, three instances brings a forum ban.


seem to bring on a more pure form of discussion to me, one where people aren't able to just come in drop a bomb and leave, or well they can but they will quickly find themselves on the outside looking in. A forum where we can separate those who actually want to debate from those who simply want to gripe and yell that their way is better .

I would propose that this board be open to ANY topic, but that the rules be strictly enforced. Seems like this would maybe make it easier on all involved including Jim and company who could concentrate most of their enforcement activieis on one single forum and those who don't want to read the other stuff could avoid it without Jim and company having to cull it out.

What say ye oh DP membership?

and please , constructive responses only

So in your opinion....CENSORSHIP = CIVILITY

we need the ruling body to determine what we can and can't say according to you.....

Clear first amendment violation....

But you advocate it..... so......

[ConHog]

So in your opinion....CENSORSHIP = CIVILITY

we need the ruling body to determine what we can and can't say according to you.....

Clear first amendment violation....

But you advocate it..... so......

psst , the first amendment doesn't protect you from Jim.


Now you know


oh ps another thing, we're talking about one new forum, not changing the rules in all the forums, you would be free to continue to post misinformation, then when called on it ,edit your post to contain correct information in the other forums then lie and claim you didn't edit anything even though the proof is right on the board still.

[tailfins]

psst , the first amendment doesn't protect you from Jim.


Now you know


oh ps another thing, we're talking about one new forum, not changing the rules in all the forums, you would be free to continue to post misinformation, then when called on it ,edit your post to contain correct information in the other forums then lie and claim you didn't edit anything even though the proof is right on the board still.

Jim is better than the First Amendment. I just made a total a55hole post and got away with it.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

So that I have this right, you are now implying that by suggesting a new forum, I am questioning the rules of the rest of the board? LOL

Actually more like he was politely saying you are a bit daft..
Others were less polite about it but still dead on.
Admirable that you want a forum where you can safely nest. I doubt it will become a reality and know THAT I WOULD NEVER PARTICIPATE THERE.--TYR

[ConHog]

Jim is better than the First Amendment. I just made a total a55hole post and got away with it.

that may be, but it doesn't change the fact that if Jim made a new rule and told us we couldn't post the word fuck on his message board anymore, there is no first amendment protection from him doing so.

[mundame]

So in your opinion....CENSORSHIP = CIVILITY

we need the ruling body to determine what we can and can't say according to you.....

Clear first amendment violation....

But you advocate it..... so......



Is this a government forum and they propose to jail you if you say the wrong thing? No? Then it can't possibly be a first amendment violation.

I'm always amazed at how few people understand that the first amendment simply prevents the government from imprisoning you for speech. Otherwise, you are free to say what you want, and other people are free to knock you down for it. Not really, but some English writer said that.

But of course you are right: Censorship IS required for civility. Otherwise, there isn't any. Every group trying for civility has rules -- churches, Congress, Parliament, London men's clubs, etc., etc. If there isn't censorship, behavior quickly degenerates to the lowest common denominator, as everyone jockeys for ways to dominate the next person and the blows get lower and lower.

[ConHog]

Actually more like he was politely saying you are a bit daft..
Others were less polite about it but still dead on.
Admirable that you want a forum where you can safely nest. I doubt it will become a reality and know THAT I WOULD NEVER PARTICIPATE THERE.--TYR

Tyr, I don't know what you're talking about safely nest. As you well know I'm more than capable of holding my own when it comes to flaming when I so choose.

That isn't even what I am talking about.

You're right though. You wouldn't participate b/c a political discussion without hatred, hyperbole, and dishonesty is anathema to everything you and your little circle stand for.

What I find TRULY bizarre is how scared you are that others may want to be provided a shelter from your type of "debate"

[Voted4Reagan]

psst , the first amendment doesn't protect you from Jim.


Now you know


oh ps another thing, we're talking about one new forum, not changing the rules in all the forums, you would be free to continue to post misinformation, then when called on it ,edit your post to contain correct information in the other forums then lie and claim you didn't edit anything even though the proof is right on the board still.

Notice how the HOG tries to spin this off..... he knows that I am aware that as a private site Jim can do what he wants with Debate Policy... But he tries to make it seem like I dont... this is the subtle thing the HOG does to try and provoke and troll...

The Hog is well aware that I was making an analogy that his request for a censored forum administered by the ruling body here would b
e a direct assault on the constitution in REAL LIFE...

but he plays it off as if I didnt.....

Seems like the Hog doesnt like being figured out.....

and for your information Hog... I did add the picture of the APC to that post after it originally didnt attach.... see... the computer I am on was damaged in Hurricane Sandy and often deletes what I try to do be it typing or attachments....

I've made that clear since October..... but you were on Vacation and didnt get the memo...

Keep trolling.... one day you may catch something

[ConHog]

Notice how the HOG tries to spin this off..... he knows that I am aware that as a private site Jim can do what he wants with Debate Policy... But he tries to make it seem like I dont... this is the subtle thing the HOG does to try and provoke and troll...

The Hog is well aware that I was making an analogy that his request for a censored forum administered by the ruling body here would b
e a direct assault on the constitution in REAL LIFE...

but he plays it off as if I didnt.....

Seems like the Hog doesnt like being figured out.....

and for your information Hog... I did add the picture of the APC to that post after it originally didnt attach.... see... the computer I am on was damaged in Hurricane Sandy and often deletes what I try to do be it typing or attachments....

I've made that clear since October..... but you were on Vacation and didnt get the memo...

Keep trolling.... one day you may catch something

oh yes, I'm sure that explains it all. An analogy. LOL how stupid do you think the people reading this thread are anyway?

[Voted4Reagan]

oh yes, I'm sure that explains it all. An analogy. LOL how stupid do you think the people reading this thread are anyway?

Using you as the benchmark?

everyone else is a Genius....

Keep Trolling Hog.... Keep Trolling...

[mundame]

What I find TRULY bizarre is how scared you are that others may want to be provided a shelter from your type of "debate"


Interesting point.

This is true: I've often seen a sort of desperate defense of flaming on a number of other forums.

I think it's because so many people come to these venues just to flame strangers. If somebody goes to a bar for the barfights, to knock people's teeth in every night, he won't be happy to see the owner has hired security.

[Kathianne]

Interesting point.

This is true: I've often seen a sort of desperate defense of flaming on a number of other forums.

I think it's because so many people come to these venues just to flame strangers. If somebody goes to a bar for the barfights, to knock people's teeth in every night, he won't be happy to see the owner has hired security.

Then again, neither yourself nor CH are 'strangers.' Go figure.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Tyr, I don't know what you're talking about safely nest. As you well know I'm more than capable of holding my own when it comes to flaming when I so choose.

That isn't even what I am talking about.

You're right though. You wouldn't participate b/c a political discussion without hatred, hyperbole, and dishonesty is anathema to everything you and your little circle stand for.

What I find TRULY bizarre is how scared you are that others may want to be provided a shelter from your type of "debate"

So finally you admit that you want a "shelter"!! :laugh2:

So it was to be a "shelter " from me!! My, my I am impressed and what with me using no paragraphs too. :laugh:-Tyr
Who knew I had such a potent weapon!!???:laugh2:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Then again, neither yourself nor CH are 'strangers.' Go figure.

Now, now the Conhog merely wanted "shelter" from me and "my type of debate"..
My not so secret weapon of "no paragraphs" demolished his vastly superior intellect and sent him requesting --"SHELTER".
Who knew it was that great a weapon!?? I did 't.. And now I do...-:laugh:--Tyr

[Kathianne]

Now, now the Conhog merely wanted "shelter" from me and "my type of debate"..
My not so secret weapon of "no paragraphs" demolished his vastly superior intellect and sent him requesting --"SHELTER".
Who knew it was that great a weapon!?? I did 't.. And now I do...-:laugh:--Tyr

I read your shorter pieces, I too wish you'd use paragraphs. Just my wish, no obligation on your part. I just can't bother with all those sentences running together, call it 'old age' if you wish.

[tailfins]

that may be, but it doesn't change the fact that if Jim made a new rule and told us we couldn't post the word fire truck on his message board anymore, there is no first amendment protection from him doing so.

If the board goes too far, it won't be safe for work and eventually be blocked by Netnanny, etc., thus reducing traffic.

[red states rule]

Now, now the Conhog merely wanted "shelter" from me and "my type of debate"..
My not so secret weapon of "no paragraphs" demolished his vastly superior intellect and sent him requesting --"SHELTER".
Who knew it was that great a weapon!?? I did 't.. And now I do...-:laugh:--Tyr

Now that CH is "gone" the new forum could be how long will CH stay away this time? If you are the closest without going over you get bonus rep points

[PostmodernProphet]

psst , the first amendment doesn't protect you from Jim.


Now you know


oh ps another thing, we're talking about one new forum, not changing the rules in all the forums, you would be free to continue to post misinformation, then when called on it ,edit your post to contain correct information in the other forums then lie and claim you didn't edit anything even though the proof is right on the board still.

does anyone else find it ironic that CH wants to start an insult free forum?......

[red states rule]

does anyone else find it ironic that CH wants to start an insult free forum?......

Only those who do not know CH

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Now that CH is "gone" the new forum could be how long will CH stay away this time? If you are the closest without going over you get bonus rep points

ok, I guess 22 hours, cause he will not make it a full day..-;)

[red states rule]

ok, I guess 22 hours, cause he will not make it a full day..-;)

Who really knows except I suspect this will be like a Mike Tyson type "retirement". Like a stray cat, he could come back anytime

[Marcus Aurelius]

Other than the administrative nightmare it would be, you'd have the additional problem of deciding what does and doe not constitute 'proof', since one of the rules would be that proof is required when posting. The poster will claim something proves their argument or comment, detractors will claim it does not, while others will claim their both wrong.

Waste of bandwidth, IMHO.

[red states rule]

Other than the administrative nightmare it would be, you'd have the additional problem of deciding what does and doe not constitute 'proof', since one of the rules would be that proof is required when posting. The poster will claim something proves their argument or comment, detractors will claim it does not, while others will claim their both wrong.

Waste of bandwidth, IMHO.

I suspect one of the "rules" would be CH's word is law and there is no appeal

[Voted4Reagan]

I suspect one of the "rules" would be CH's word is law and there is no appeal

The problem would be that Jimmy and all the other Mods would have to spend extra time monitoring it thereby wasting time from their administration of the rest of the site...

It seems at this point that it is now all MOOT...

The great, all powerful, all knowing, all intelligent and super sensitive ConHog has stormed off because nobody wanted to go back to the way it was 6 months ago when he ran around the boards insulting and diminishing every thread he could...

It took the board all of three short days to put "The Hog" on notice that his self indulging antics would no longer be tolerated...

Good riddance to bad rubbish.. the "HOG" has taken his ball and run back to whatever sty he crawled out of because nobody wanted to play his game...

I say this... the reaction of people from BOTH SIDES be they Liberal or Conservative to putting the HOG on Notice shows that the board has indeed changed... that it will not tolerate childish self indulgent and narcissistic posters that seek to disrupt discussions and debates...

I will not miss THE HOG and thank all that put him on notice that his antics were a thing of the past and not to be tolerated anymore...

Rant over..... you can all go back to picking on Gabs and Mund..... (j/K)

[red states rule]

:clap::clap:

[jimnyc]

How about a woman's forum? I saw a group with one of those once, and they meant it: men of course just flocked to it trying to get in, but weren't allowed. It was really nice; recipes and obstetrics were favorite topics.

I've always found that too many forums, and some end up being ignored.

But as to the woman's only forum - we actually had that once, might have been at my old joint, can't remember. I would happily create that for the ladies if you like. I could go down the line and only grant entry to the ladies. Keep in mind though, by default, staff would have access. Of course Abbey would be there anyway, but Darin and myself would have access. We wouldn't participate, to keep it fair, but just so that it's known.

If you would like that, shoot me a PM as a reminder when the ladies decide, or one of the other ladies shoot me a message. I think it would be a good idea for ya'll.

[tailfins]

I've always found that too many forums, and some end up being ignored.

But as to the woman's only forum - we actually had that once, might have been at my old joint, can't remember. I would happily create that for the ladies if you like. I could go down the line and only grant entry to the ladies. Keep in mind though, by default, staff would have access. Of course Abbey would be there anyway, but Darin and myself would have access. We wouldn't participate, to keep it fair, but just so that it's known.

If you would like that, shoot me a PM as a reminder when the ladies decide, or one of the other ladies shoot me a message. I think it would be a good idea for ya'll.

Can Geraldine join (for those old enough to remember Flip Wilson)?

http://www.bionicdisco.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/flip_as_geraldine_chicken_delivery.jpg

[gabosaurus]

I already think there are too many forums on DP. Look how many of them haven't been used in several months.

The only new forum I would approve of would be a totally non-moderated one. That way, if you want to throw shat around, go ahead and do it.
Otherwise, DP is due for contraction, not expansion.

http://drupal.org/files/forum-you-are-not-allowed.png

[Drummond]

I already think there are too many forums on DP. Look how many of them haven't been used in several months.

The only new forum I would approve of would be a totally non-moderated one. That way, if you want to throw shat around, go ahead and do it.
Otherwise, DP is due for contraction, not expansion.

http://drupal.org/files/forum-you-are-not-allowed.png

I disagree strongly. Non-moderated forums degenerate, sooner or later (most probably sooner) into slanging-match cesspits.

I know this to be true. Years ago, I posted on a forum (.. and it was another American one, before you're tempted to post some anti-British remark ..) where mod action was so minimal as to seem to be absent. Only when the very worst of infractions imaginable was committed did the mods intervene.

The site was eventually cleaned up, but not before scores of contributors had left it, themselves having sent missive after missive to appeal for action (I was one of several of them who sent those appeals to reason).

In such a nearly unmoderated forum, reasoned discussion dies a death, and thread after thread becomes a putrid hate-fest. And let me tell you, Gabby, I learned more about the nature of the Left in a single week than I'd done in YEARS beforehand.

[Voted4Reagan]

I already think there are too many forums on DP. Look how many of them haven't been used in several months.

The only new forum I would approve of would be a totally non-moderated one. That way, if you want to throw shat around, go ahead and do it.
Otherwise, DP is due for contraction, not expansion.

http://drupal.org/files/forum-you-are-not-allowed.png

We already have a section like that.... it's called...THE CAGE.

you can pretty much say anything you like and fling shat till the cows come home...

I've challenged you there at least 2 or 3 times.....

you never answer....
\

[tailfins]

I disagree strongly. Non-moderated forums degenerate, sooner or later (most probably sooner) into slanging-match cesspits.

I know this to be true. Years ago, I posted on a forum (.. and it was another American one, before you're tempted to post some anti-British remark ..) where mod action was so minimal as to seem to be absent. Only when the very worst of infractions imaginable was committed did the mods intervene.

The site was eventually cleaned up, but not before scores of contributors had left it, themselves having sent missive after missive to appeal for action (I was one of several of them who sent those appeals to reason).

In such a nearly unmoderated forum, reasoned discussion dies a death, and thread after thread becomes a putrid hate-fest. And let me tell you, Gabby, I learned more about the nature of the Left in a single week than I'd done in YEARS beforehand.

I participated in a forum with similar characteristics. It was Brazil-centric. It eventually became a ghost town. When it was alive it was mud wrestling between avowed racists and communists and others who violently disagreed. Personal defamation was the communication of choice. It just got old little by little. Porn images were used to illustrate insults. Some upstanding citizen hacked the IP list and managed to drain another member's bank account. I think the victim was telling the truth. Threats of physical violence were commonplace.

This was the introduction:


A place for questions, comments, mutual help.
A place to make friends, start a discussion, find out romance.
A non-moderated forum.
You are welcome and encouraged to start new threads.
Portuguese, English, or any other language are welcome.


We already have a section like that.... it's called...THE CAGE.

you can pretty much say anything you like and fling shat till the cows come home...

I've challenged you there at least 2 or 3 times.....

you never answer....
\

The steel cage is still moderated unless it reaches the level I just described above about that Brazil-centric forum. If Jim want's a TRULY unmoderated forum, he can even allow offers to trade controlled substances.

[jimnyc]

The steel cage is still moderated unless it reaches the level I just described above about that Brazil-centric forum.

We encourage taking the fighting and perpetual fighting to that forum. We'll try to stay out of the wars going on in there, but things like bringing family into the fighting, threats... some things still won't be tolerated. I just don't understand why at times the fighting MUST be in the political thread being discussed. 2 or 3 clicks, type the same thing, and the community is better for it.

[tailfins]

We encourage taking the fighting and perpetual fighting to that forum. We'll try to stay out of the wars going on in there, but things like bringing family into the fighting, threats... some things still won't be tolerated. I just don't understand why at times the fighting MUST be in the political thread being discussed. 2 or 3 clicks, type the same thing, and the community is better for it.

What about offers to trade controlled substances?

[Drummond]

We encourage taking the fighting and perpetual fighting to that forum. We'll try to stay out of the wars going on in there, but things like bringing family into the fighting, threats... some things still won't be tolerated. I just don't understand why at times the fighting MUST be in the political thread being discussed. 2 or 3 clicks, type the same thing, and the community is better for it.

... and that, right there, is a description of the sort of moderation any thread needs at minimum. But it's still moderation, even if it's toned-down moderation.

The forum I've been referring to (un-named, and it'll remain so) is one where threats were fairly commonplace. To be fair, there was one post that took joy in suggesting that one poster's son should experience an IED while serving in Iraq ... that one disappeared from view around 35 minutes after appearing (probably a record for the forum). But hate-fests not QUITE reaching that pitch were commonplace.

No, moderation is highly necessary, whether low key or otherwise. This is something I KNOW, not something I THINK.

[jimnyc]

What about offers to trade controlled substances?

So long as I get a product based commission. :)

[Abbey Marie]

I disagree strongly. Non-moderated forums degenerate, sooner or later (most probably sooner) into slanging-match cesspits.

I know this to be true. Years ago, I posted on a forum (.. and it was another American one, before you're tempted to post some anti-British remark ..) where mod action was so minimal as to seem to be absent. Only when the very worst of infractions imaginable was committed did the mods intervene.

The site was eventually cleaned up, but not before scores of contributors had left it, themselves having sent missive after missive to appeal for action (I was one of several of them who sent those appeals to reason).

In such a nearly unmoderated forum, reasoned discussion dies a death, and thread after thread becomes a putrid hate-fest. And let me tell you, Gabby, I learned more about the nature of the Left in a single week than I'd done in YEARS beforehand.

I agree about under-moderated boards. I left one such place because it ended up seeming like the inmates were running the asylum.

[tailfins]

I agree about under-moderated boards. I left one such place because it ended up seeming like the inmates were running the asylum.

You mean you wouldn't want someone creating the username Abbəy and start offering intimate favors?

[Drummond]

I agree about under-moderated boards. I left one such place because it ended up seeming like the inmates were running the asylum.

I call that a pretty fair description of the forum I was referring to ... with the difference that I think the inmates effectively WERE running what they'd turned the place into being !! ...

[Robert A Whit]

admittedly stolen from another board; but i liked it.

How would a new forum be accepted here one where no name calling was allowed. Not even if it was just to say another poster was stupid, or that his/her opinions were stupid.

one where any fact claimed must be backed by facts

one where the moderation is much stricter than usual

one where foul language is acceptable, but not foul language that is directed at someone

one where off topic comments of any sort are not allowed

one where posting cartoons is not considered debating

one where a single instance of breaking the rules brings a thread ban, three instances brings a forum ban.


seem to bring on a more pure form of discussion to me, one where people aren't able to just come in drop a bomb and leave, or well they can but they will quickly find themselves on the outside looking in. A forum where we can separate those who actually want to debate from those who simply want to gripe and yell that their way is better .

I would propose that this board be open to ANY topic, but that the rules be strictly enforced. Seems like this would maybe make it easier on all involved including Jim and company who could concentrate most of their enforcement activieis on one single forum and those who don't want to read the other stuff could avoid it without Jim and company having to cull it out.

What say ye oh DP membership?

and please , constructive responses only

I vote Republican for a reason. I love freedom. I value the 1st amendment.

I like the idea but feel that it will be like posting inside a coffin as I understand the nature of your banning and so forth.

I do my best to support the opposite of democrats. Were it possible, I would merge the republicans with the libertarians and mesh both philosophies to be practical since I realize that republicans won't en masse go libertarian. I feel that were that done, we would be closeer to the founders America than democrats ideology makes it happen.

[Robert A Whit]

Oh God I hope not he would ban everyone that hurt his feelings!!! He's delicate!!

Yup. We have a woman member that when I use her name, goes all pissy. Very delicate indeed.

What baffles me is why she started it to begin with.

[Robert A Whit]

Yes, I think you're exactly right.

It also seems to me that having such a forum running in tandem with others run differently (a) implies a criticism of the rules of the rest of the site, and (b) sets a precedent for more forums to spring up with yet more rule differences. If it can happen once, why not again and again ?

Allow that trend to really take off, and you might one day end up with administrative chaos, with people questioning the worth of whatever set of rules they happen not to like.

When I discovered that the Cage gets no updates on the main menu, I saw its value. Maybe as I said elsewhere, several cages for those who want to get ugly. I don't know why some want to get ugly but it happens. I am a long seasoned vet of board wars. Back when I posted on AOL the moderators nailed you for nothing. Democrats never got a warning.

My skin is thick enough for fair arguments but if one unfairly goes after me, I can surely sling mud with the worst of them.

I think Conhog is trying for what he sees as a great idea. Trouble is, it would feel like discussions in a coffin. We sooner or later would all die.

Let me tell Jim why I like it as is.

Jim.

Lighten up a bit but more than on us, on yourself. I am sure you have things you like doing that does not include wiping the nose of adults.

The cage is a wonderful invention. Those who go there can do as they please. And I have noticed that after several days, it all peters out.

If one actually enjoys knock down drag out fights, fight in the cage. Maybe some could use a couple of cages.

But don't work so hard.
:cool:

[Drummond]

When I discovered that the Cage gets no updates on the main menu, I saw its value. Maybe as I said elsewhere, several cages for those who want to get ugly. I don't know why some want to get ugly but it happens. I am a long seasoned vet of board wars. Back when I posted on AOL the moderators nailed you for nothing. Democrats never got a warning.

My skin is thick enough for fair arguments but if one unfairly goes after me, I can surely sling mud with the worst of them.

I think Conhog is trying for what he sees as a great idea. Trouble is, it would feel like discussions in a coffin. We sooner or later would all die.


I completely agree. It would be an arid forum.

But I also think it could be a precursor to greater meddling. There'd be those who'd say, 'If ConHog can arrange forums with different rule environments, what does that mean for the worth of other rules ? Can they be challenged ? Can other forum environments be created (if one, why not several ?).'

We might as well see a line drawn in the sand and say that, as what currently exists is KNOWN to work, why not just stick with it ?

[ConHog]

seriously pathetic that a suggestion for a new forum ends up in the steel cage solely because of who proposed it.

A simple no i don't like that idea would have sufficed.

[DragonStryk72]

Doubt Jim wants me anywhere near the red pen LOL.

But why would it be MORE work? For one, I doubt it would get much traffic, at least at first , and for another, the 3 strike rule would quickly weed out those just won't participate.

But you would have to Read all the posts. With tighter modding comes the necessity to read every single post made. Remember people will find ways to get around the restrictions, and thus you would see backhanded compliments, and other sneaky ways of insulting.

Also, look at the thread counts for both gabs and rsr. Now both go hard into the hooting dickhole territory for their respective sides, but look at how much they post and create threads. Minus the two of them, and you'd see pretty significant thread loss.

[ConHog]

But you would have to Read all the posts. With tighter modding comes the necessity to read every single post made. Remember people will find ways to get around the restrictions, and thus you would see backhanded compliments, and other sneaky ways of insulting.

Also, look at the thread counts for both gabs and rsr. Now both go hard into the hooting dickhole territory for their respective sides, but look at how much they post and create threads. Minus the two of them, and you'd see pretty significant thread loss.

I think you're right, there would be very little posting in such a forum, which would mean very little moderating. I guess I just don't understand the anger at the idea.