Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

About the Moderators' recent efforts on the Illegal Alien threads: keep an open mind
January 7th, 2003 | Sabertooth

Posted on 01/07/2004 7:22:57 AM PST by Sabertooth

Edited on 01/07/2004 10:46:05 AM PST by Lead Moderator. [history]

You may have observed the recent effort in the forum by the Lead Moderator to scrutinize and regulate the Illegal Alien threads, which started over here.

I’ve mixed it up a lot on these threads in the two-plus year I’ve been at FR, as I have some strong feelings about the subject of Illegal Aliens. While I like to think I’ve generally kept my cool, there have certainly been occasions when I haven’t.

That said, there have been plenty of occasions where I’ve attempted to engage sincere posters who did not share my opinions, only to have them jumped on by angry posters who did. In the past I’ve made posts on threads and requests by Freepmail requesting that the more aggressive posters cool their jets… to mixed results.

I’ve also seen posts suggesting that the borders be mined, which I think is stupid, hyperbolic spleen, or posts referring to the President as “Jorge Arbusto,” which stopped being funny years ago, and is now just antagonistic. It doesn’t matter that Vicente Fox once called him that in a friendly fashion, no one on the fence regarding Illegals is going to be persuaded by ad hominem rhetoric.

On the other hand, I’ve also observed a shifting coalition of posters who are less than sincere on the other side of the debate; who are prone to using Democrat talking points to smear posters who are concerned about Illegals as anti-immigrant and closet racists. When reading their posts, one half-wonders if they aren’t moles for the L.A. Times.

Their perceptions of “bigots, bigots everywhere” and posts in that vein have also been toxic to the Illegal Alien threads, and such was often the purpose of their baiting. Success was measured in flame wars, bannings, suspensions, and getting threads nuked or moved to the backroom.

It’s been my contention, and I’ve made the point to the Moderators on a number of occasions, that moving threads to the backroom only rewarded those who don’t want Illegals discussed in this forum, and encouraged their trolling behavior.

I’ll stipulate again that my own hands haven’t always been clean in picking fights and thread jumping. I’ll also reveal that about a year or so ago I attempted to organize a call, via Freepmail, for some self-restraint on these threads. Toward that end, I contacted eight fairly high-profile posters, not all of whom were regulars on the Illegal threads, and whose opinions varied widely on the issue, with the idea of some sort of joint letter. The response was uniformly positive, but the details proved to be unwieldy, however, and the effort died on the vine.

Since then I would come and go from the Illegal Alien threads, and observe the ebbs and flows of all of the behavior I saw above.

A few months ago, I took a different tack, and got into a running conversation over my concerns with the Lead Moderator, through Freepmail.

Last week an Illegal Alien thread was moved to the Backroom, in another episode of the process I described above. This irked me a little more than usual, given the imminence of President Bush’s announcement of a new direction in immigration policy, and I ranted a little more than usual to the Lead Mod.

He was receptive to some of my criticisms, and decided to try the new approach that is now the matter at hand. He posted his account last night (emphasis added)…


To: All
I just got a Freepmail. Without posting it or who it was from, the gist of it was as follows:

1) That the timing of this effort was suspicious.

2) That this person feels the actions taken have shifted the emphasis of the forum from conservative oriented to party oriented.

I wanted to share with you my response:

I am being evenhanded on the matter. There have been those on one side of the issue have been warned about personal attacks and baiting. There have been those on the other side who have been warned about the same.

There has been one suspension, of someone who decided he was going to repost things which had been pulled. He has no one to blame but himself.

There has been one banning, of a person who said that there was no way he was going to abide by the way things are going to be. Once again, it was his choice and if he changes his mind he can mail Jim and his account will be restored.

The timing, you can have whatever suspicions you want. The fact is that for months, someone who is mostly on your side of the issue tried to get me to do more on these threads, hating how they get pulled when they turn into flame wars and how they get backroomed when they turn into flame wars. He would point to examples of baiting. He would point to personal attacks. Sometimes I would point out the things going the other way. Finally, he convinced me and I decided to give this approach a try.

To be honest, I think it is hilarious that some think I had some idea that some policy was coming out of the White House. It is good to be thought of as that well connected, I guess, but it sadly has no basis in reality.

I am going to post my reply on the thread. I won't quote your mail or your name, although I will paraphrase it.

Regards, LM

That is all.
262 posted on 01/06/2004 6:03:37 PM PST by Lead Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies | Report Abuse | link ]

So, if it’s not clear already, the Lead Moderator’s statements in this post are 100% accurate and legitimate. The timing of this effort was a direct result of my conversation with him, and was not the result of some conspiracy by Free Republic higher-ups, or Karl Rove, or Vicente Fox, or whatever current dark speculation is now popular.

Nor is there any overarching effort to censor a wide-ranging debate on Illegals, as far as I’ve seen. In the context of the current effort underway on the Illegal Alien threads, I haven’t received even the slightest hint that there are subjects that are off limits to me in this regard, nor have I been given the impression that there can’t be vigorous debate, and I’m hardly a party-liner in this.

Now, I’m certain that some will find it to be an abomination that I would cooperate with a Moderator, or he with me, but, as a friend of mine likes to say, there you have it.

As for the results, they’ve been a bit mixed so far, in my estimation. Not, however, because the Mods haven’t made an effort to be evenhanded. I’ve seen a few folks I warned to keep cool get swift warning when they didn’t, and I’ve seen some of the usual baiters get cease and desist orders. I’ve seen nothing to indicate that the effort to raise the tone of the debate on the Illegal Aliens isn’t sincere.

Are the Mods doing things exactly as I’d like? Nope, nor do I expect them to do so. I’ve got strong opinions and subjectivities here, so the standard of my assessment is the combined words and deeds of the Mods on these threads to correct all offenders. Things look promising thus far.

However, I do think that there are posters of diverse opinions who need to reconsider their ways, and take this effort to heart.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Free Republic; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: filipinochicksrock; immigrantlist; itsallaboutme; memememememememe; oneissuevoter; pleasebehisopus; saberbunny; saberisnotanative; snowtooth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 481-493 next last
To: ladyinred
Divided we fall.

Exactly! Hope people take this to heart!

201 posted on 01/07/2004 10:35:24 AM PST by PhiKapMom (AOII Mom -- Support Bush-Cheney '04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: PRND21
Thanks for clearing that up -- we need a list of what is off-limits IMO!
202 posted on 01/07/2004 10:38:07 AM PST by PhiKapMom (AOII Mom -- Support Bush-Cheney '04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: mrustow; Lead Moderator
All I know is, that 90%+ of the best articles on immigration are published by a web site that is banned on FR. Thus, it is impossible to have an intelligent, thorough, informed debate on illegal immigration here.

I think I should rephrase my stement a little (revision in bold)...

Nor is there any overarching effort to censor a wide-ranging debate on Illegals, as far as I’ve seen. In the context of the current effort underway on the Illegal Alien threads, I haven’t received even the slightest hint that there are subjects that are off limits to me in this regard, nor have I been given the impression that there can’t be vigorous debate, and I’m hardly a party-liner in this.

I'm aware of a few sites that aren't allowed. When I've gone to those sites from time to time, I've mainly seen articles that would be acceptable at FR, but for the fact that they're from forbidden sites.

If there are other aspects of those sites that make them entirely objectionable, I haven't seen much in the way of a thorough explanation of them, though I've asked.

It's a discussion worth pursuing, in my opinion.


203 posted on 01/07/2004 10:43:10 AM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Made the change in your original post. Thanks
204 posted on 01/07/2004 10:44:33 AM PST by Lead Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
At least now we're talking about "FR's third rail," so that's good.
205 posted on 01/07/2004 10:45:19 AM PST by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PRND21




Oops.

For the record, I didn't hit abuse on your VDARE post, I found it all rather amusing.


206 posted on 01/07/2004 10:46:15 AM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: ladyinred
Very well said, and my sentiments exactly. I have been troubled by this very thing lately as we are coming into election season, and this is the last thing we need to be doing. Divided we fall.

Groupthink is deadly poison. Keep it in your own cup, please.

207 posted on 01/07/2004 10:47:38 AM PST by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: Lead Moderator
If I or any one of the staff here removes something, and you, Joe, repost it because you disagree, then you will be banned.

I fully understand that. But I didn't repost anything that had been removed. LOL! It's no big deal. Really, No hard feeling.

This whole invasion thing is over the top. People are extremely upset, and the outrage goes far beyond this site.

I personally know of good people that wouldn't last 10 seconds on this board as their outrage is shear brutal contempt for those that have allowed this titanic invasion to escalate. These people are cynical, fed up, and way beyond calmly chatting over tea regarding this epic crisis.

Those that suggest that we just continue to calmly debate this issue is like telling someone who is on fire to calmly, slowly, walk to the hospitial and inquire about treatment.

208 posted on 01/07/2004 10:48:00 AM PST by Joe Hadenuf (I failed anger management class, they decided to give me a passing grade anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom; ladyinred
*Divided we fall.

**Exactly! Hope people take this to heart!

I hope the President takes this to heart.

To push Amnesty will cost elections for the GOP. It's a polical loser.

Those concerned about judicial appointments need to understand how an effort to legalize Illegals will jeopardize potential gains in that area.


209 posted on 01/07/2004 10:49:27 AM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 201 | View Replies]

To: Joe Hadenuf
"But I didn't repost anything that had been removed"

OK, since you keep wanting to portray me as a liar, I've decided I've had enough. Buh bye.

210 posted on 01/07/2004 10:53:40 AM PST by Lead Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 208 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth; Lead Moderator
This a great post Sabertooth. It is quite sad that this "meta" issue had to come up in the first place. One should always argue to the point and not the person, and there are clearly serial violators of this principle. On almost evey political issue discussed here.

There are prominent radio talk show hosts, congressman, journalists, political consultants and tv personalities that read this forum. I know this for a fact, I talk to these people all the time. They don't come here to read people's petty and infantile behavior or watch stupid cyber jihads carried out. They read FR to feel out the base and they read FR to see what issues are hot with the right-leaning public.

If you care about the forum and you care about the influence the forum has on the political circle, knock off the stupid petty inflamatory behavior. If you don't think you can say something to someone's face with out getting punched then don't say it. Don't ruin this forum and turn it into a virtual grudge match. Make a point with reason and facts, people lurk here and value the unfolding of a reasonable debate. Nothing turns off lurkers faster than observing a giant internet Hatfield-McCoy exhibition.

211 posted on 01/07/2004 10:54:13 AM PST by diotima (tithesthai ta phenomena)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lead Moderator
I an not suggesting that.
212 posted on 01/07/2004 10:54:21 AM PST by Joe Hadenuf (I failed anger management class, they decided to give me a passing grade anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: hchutch

I asked you to define "immigration restrictionist."

You said "define open borders' first."

So, I did.

Now, please answer my question, since you implied that you would:

How do you define "immigration restrictionist?"


213 posted on 01/07/2004 10:56:24 AM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Maigrey
The Posse Comitatus I believe is not applicable because those crossing the border without going through customs are criminals and not US citizens and therefore are indeed foreign enemies and are also invaders. They are subject to military action and subsequent destruction.
214 posted on 01/07/2004 10:57:06 AM PST by Final Authority
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Interesting...I didn't even know this was happening. That's me, in my own little world....
Anybody got the president's e-mail handy?
215 posted on 01/07/2004 10:57:32 AM PST by sfRummygirl (Tancredo in '04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BushCountry
How is this type of arguement ever relevant?

A CRIMINAL OFFENSE has been commited.

My sister makes a wonderful pineapple upsidedown cake and is a decent hardworking person as well. But if she BREAKS the LAW then she has to PAY the PRICE!

Besides that, What do you say to the people who patiently follow the path of LEGAL IMMIGRATION? Is it fair to those people?

216 posted on 01/07/2004 10:58:05 AM PST by expatguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom
The one thing I have noticed is they are saying it is not an amenesty program and does not grant them permanent residency or more importantly citizenship and a right to vote. That is huge in my book.

My concern is that a worker program will be a first step in leading to an amnesty, and I think that is just wrong.

217 posted on 01/07/2004 10:59:55 AM PST by SCalGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: diotima
They don't come here to read people's petty and infantile behavior or watch stupid cyber jihads carried out. They read FR to feel out the base and they read FR to see what issues are hot . . .

Rather, they come to read the tepid, lukewarm groupthink responses to the hot issues--because the hot reponses and their authors have been kicked out and denied entry.

But it tends to validate and reinforce a point-of-view they're comfortable with. It does have that virtue.

218 posted on 01/07/2004 11:00:50 AM PST by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Reader's Digest version?
219 posted on 01/07/2004 11:01:59 AM PST by ambrose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Final Authority
The Posse Comitatus I believe is not applicable because those crossing the border without going through customs are criminals

Which makes crossing the border illegally a matter for civil law enforcement and not the military.

and not US citizens and therefore are indeed foreign enemies and are also invaders. They are subject to military action and subsequent destruction.

Actually, they aren't. They are criminals; they are not members of a hostile armed force. There is a significant difference between the two, and that affects what we can legally do about the situation.

220 posted on 01/07/2004 11:03:39 AM PST by Poohbah ("Beware the fury of a patient man" -- John Dryden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 481-493 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson