Announcement: New Infraction System and Revised Rules

Calling a member a "racist" has never been allowed on Political Forum but citing the fact that a statement reflects racism is not prohibited and should never be prohibited. "Attack the Message and not the Messenger" has always been the "rule of thumb" on Political Forum and I don't believe that is being changed.

Where a problem lies is when a member presents an anecdotal story and then uses that to establish a racial stereotype. Such jumps from an anecdotal story to racial stereotyping are always racist statements and should be pointed out by other members.

 

Attack the statement and not the member. The statement is racist and that is all that needs to be pointed out.

 

very well. So it's never allowed to call another poster racist? I'll keep that in mind, and remember that everytime I see it. Quite a few people will get infractions hehe

 

pointed out in a respectful way , I am okay with that but pointed out by saying you are racist or some other insult is not right either.

 

Let me add some insight. I'm not a Mod. Never have been. So I have no secrets to hold.

My perspective for stating what I have about the current system, and its subjective abuse by some Moderation, is based on 2 facts.

1) I am the most Infracted person ever to be a member here. That has been stated as fact by more than one Moderator. Including you, back in the day; and

2) I have had more Infractions reversed here than any member ever. One dozen at last count. Let me recall that in my very first Appeal thread, you stated that "reversals are rare". Well, I prevailed then. I have had Infractions reversed on more than one occasion where the Infracting Moderator was lobbying for my permanent ban, only to see other Moderators not only disagree, but in fact overturn the Infraction.

To claim that there was not subjectivity with at least some of the Moderations, enabled by the system, would fly in the face of both my experiences, but also of others I am sure. This new system is designed to try to reduce the potential for subjectivity that has existed. And OBTW, I argued strongly for exactly this kind of point/ban system in my very first Appeal years ago, and several times since.

 

If you say so.

 

Look if there are legitimate racist threads being posted here (that I'm not aware of) of HEIL HITLER type of stuff, then I'm all for putting a stop to it. Though I'm sure most people here know that I myself am a white nationalist (and have been accused of being a racist as such) because I've made no secret about it in the two years I've been posting, I want people to know there's a fine and distinct line between white supremacy and white nationalism (or ethno-nationlism in general) so people need to stop accusing me of being a racist (casper, i'm looking at you.) Nationalism or ethno-nationalism or even national socialism is a legitimate political affiliation. Racism on the other hand is not, so I 100% support any attempt to put a stop to it.

But I'm really chapped about people moving threads, the whole zimmerman subforum thing was kind of meeeeh. Not to mention the fact that I can't accuse liberals of being degenerates anymore. That's going to be impossible for me to do, I can't do that.

 

I believe the above logic grossly flawed. In fact, I believe your logic reflects stupidity. <<<< see what I did there

Bear with me Mods. Just making an example. I retract the statement, but would suggest that instead of saying a statement "reflects racism" which is to call someone racist IMMHO, or "reflects stupidity', dittos, the proper reply should be simply to say something akin to "I disagree with your assumption because ..... ", or "That is incorrect because ............. " etc.

But such phrases as "reflects racism" seems to be an insult just as calling someone a racist is. Doesn't need to be a major infraction, but 5 points and a thread ban will work wonders.

 

Serious as a heart attack.

Get rid of the Trolls in a fast and efficient manner.

 

I believe these comments fall under the classification of "personal insults" because they're directed at the member.

 

That is true. How 'good' or 'reliable' or 'factual' or 'accurate' a study is is a matter of opinion, just as with any other possible source (media story, 'expert testimony', blog, etc.), or any other statement or opinion that is expressed.

That is something that members should be able to agree or disagree on and debate between themselves, not something that moderators should ever be passing judgement on. It shouldn't be up to moderators to determine who has proved their 'fact' with 'appropriate' or 'reliable' or 'true' sources - moderators should never be called upon to decide who is 'right' in that way - that is judgement on opinion itself, not just judgement on whether an opinion has been expressed in accordance with the relevant rules about 'respectful' expression of opinion.

It's a whole different ball game for moderation, and a whole new can of worms being opened.

 

Look Tom, you would seem to think that many of the trolls are conservative posters. I and others would be ready to dump a bushel full of liberal trolls on you.

However, I would suggest that the easiest solution is a simple on-topic/not-on-topic test of any post, and then use of the thread ban. Whether a warning first or not is up to the Mod. Nothing curbs trolling better than thread bans. Where the posters remain as members, but actually modify their posting behaviors.

 

If that is how they are going to be treated as we move forward then they're going to end up shutting down an entire subsection because that is what the regulars do in there and they'll all get banned leaving nobody.

 

Ya think?

As a liberal troll I can tell you that I can function just fine in a "Zero Tolerance for Trolls" environment.

However I would suggest to you that most Conservative Trolls could not.

At any rate, I would be more than willing to take that chance.

Thread bans are a slap on the wrist with a wet noodle.

Nothing curbs Trolls like a permaban.

Call it capital punishment for Trolls.

You do believe in Capital Punishment don't you Deuce?

 

Hmmmm.

I think I am going to wait and see how things work out before rushing to judgement.

 

As would many be. Bring it on !

I fail to see how a "perma-ban" changes any behavior. Although if someone trolls enough, they will be perma-banned, will they not ?

I have seen thread-bans work in changing posting behavior.

Your capital punishment analogy is a bit silly, IMMHO.

 

Thats my position.

I have been warned before, and most times deserved it. I have let myself get too emotionally involved in sniping back and forth.

Clearly the intent is to make the discussion here more respectful- and frankly the discussion is often far from that. Away from the anonymity of the Internet, most of us have learned how to have respectful political discussions even with those we do not agree with.

I look forward to seeing how this goes- and I hope that the intended direction works.

 

I guess that depends on who the 'conservative white woman" is. If it's Michelle Bachmann it neither sexist or racist but instead it's a well documented fact.

 

According to one definition of 'racism' -from thefreedictionary.com- racism is discrimination or prejudice based on race. By being a white nationalist you want a white nation right? And thus you discriminate (which means to make a distinction, to distinguish, to differentiate) based on race as you only want people of a certain race in your new nation. So be that definition you would be a racist.

So what do we make about this? Wheter racism is bad or not in this particular case is another matter, but the fact remains that according to some definitions you do actually fit into being a racist.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think it would be anymore efficient than the current system. In fact, I think its very prone to abuse.

 

Sigh. This is why I don't like getting into this subject because so many people are uneducated on this topic and have these ridiculous pre-conceived notions.

It's evident you haven't done an ounce of research on what ethno-nationalism is. But that doesn't come as a surprise I've met very few people who do.

It's not based off discrimination as you put it. It's based off the right to self determination. That's where soooooo many people get it wrong.

But I'm not going to sit here and educate every member on this forum about what ethno-nationalism is.

 

The new rules seem well intended. We'll see what happens; but until I can make a determination I'm not going to invest much effort into posting.

 

I take it that you have some concrete example of this or is this just your opinion?

 

Now that there are well over a hundred replies to this thread we have ample data to be able to tell who the hard core Trolls are.

They are the ones that feel the most threatened by the prospect of having their behavior subject to fundamental rules of decency.

 

One can be a Racist without being a White Nationalist. For example, ideology is a perfectly legitimate basis for hostility. Discrete groups that are herd like politically can be lumped together and subjected to an ideological test. If a discrete group fails the ideological test there is no reason to exempt any of its members from group hostility.

- - - Updated - - -

You have just made a factual assertion. Can you prove it? Show me your links.

 

Wbear, I wonder if it was a good idea announcing rule change ahead of time. Or today itself is a strange day, seems many are on edge.