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


1 posted on 08/26/2002 7:21:33 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-118 last
To: Jim Robinson
Suh-weet! Glad to hear it, sir!
320 posted on 08/27/2002 9:41:56 AM PDT by wasp69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: JavaTheHutt
Bump!!!!
321 posted on 08/27/2002 9:58:23 AM PDT by JavaTheHutt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Jim Robinson
Has anyone noticed how much like government Free Republic has become? What's next, a reinstatement committee?
322 posted on 08/27/2002 11:10:06 AM PDT by bloodmeridian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Jim Robinson
Kudos to you and everyone that operate FR, no small feat !!!!

325 posted on 08/27/2002 11:50:47 AM PDT by Donald Stone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Jim Robinson
As always, I thank all of you from the bottom of my heart and we are all very appreciative of your support and understanding. I'm sorry for this recent turmoil and hope it is all behind us and we can get on with our FReeping!

God bless you all and God bless America!

Spoken like a true gentleman! Although there are several other competing conversation boards with similar formats, I think FR will always be the "Mother Ship".

May God bless you and yours.

341 posted on 08/27/2002 8:56:03 PM PDT by Dec31,1999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Jim Robinson
We have enough enemies, we don't need to fight against each other
342 posted on 08/27/2002 10:08:08 PM PDT by Michael2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Jim Robinson

"All's well that end's well"

348 posted on 08/28/2002 11:00:13 AM PDT by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Jim Robinson
Glad to hear you and BADJOE are on the mend....
.... viva FRiva!
357 posted on 08/28/2002 7:23:50 PM PDT by TheRightGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Jim Robinson; BADJOE
Some suggestions to keep FreeRepublic sane without the current system of moderation:

1. Don't let newcomers post for two weeks and until they have made 100 replies.

2. Don't let newcomers post Your Opinion/Questions for two months and until they have made 500 replies.

3. Require that newcomers read orientation material before receiving access to posting privileges.

4. Don't let Your Opinion/Questions posts be classified as other major categories as well (breaking news, frontpage news, et al).

5. Use the technique that Slashdot.org uses of moderating posts.

6. Even better, skip moderation altogether and simply give more power to the users to filter content to their tastes.

6-a. Give users the power to filter out categories they don't want to see (i.e. Your Opinion/Questions). (Didn't we have this power before?)

6-b. Give users the power to filter out threads based on key words (i.e. God, four-letter words, et al.) That is, if I didn't want to see any threads that mentioned _President Bush_, I could.

6-c. Give users the power to block posts made by certain users (i.e. so I wouldn't have to read anything posted by BadJoe if I didn't want too, et al.)
358 posted on 08/28/2002 7:26:27 PM PDT by pseudogratix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Jim Robinson
I assume that exoteric discussions on the banned topics are also prohibited. Exoteric meaning a hermetic study of assertions behind a belief system as opposed to advocasy.

For instance, one may state the assertions in the arguments behind a pro-choice position without assuming that position or intending to propogate it legitimacy.

That is an exoteric, hermetic discussion and debate.

The same type of debate is possible on most of the taboo subjects you indicated.

Can you put forth a position on that type of discussion assuming the participants are conducting themselves in a civil manner, or does the potential of bystanders misbehaving give cause to veto all such discussions a priori?

It may seem I am squinting at gnats here, but the policies on FR seem to have evolved from insisting on civil discussion to deeming areas of discussion off limits or an endeavor that one conducts at thier own risk.

In the interests of fairness and recognising that many of todays policies and news have tenticles rooted in these taboo topics, a debator can be hampered and cornered by the designation of such 'land-mined' areas of discussion.

Given that, I would think it is encumbant on the policy makers to be a bit more specific.

Understanding that there are those who seek merely to 'sow discord' and ugliness on certain topics, the question of fairness becomes: Why should the uncivil endanger the civil?

Right now, as best I can ascertain, the policy can be boiled down to: Do not conduct arguments or put forth assertions that cause turmoil because the majority consider them invalid/offensive -- but this only applies to forbidden topics, and does not consider the attitude, intent or civility of the poster. It does not allow exoteric debate nor 'devils advocate' mechanism.

By logical extension of this policy, you would have to include arguments critical of homosexuality -- a topic that is missing from your ad hoc listing.

I sympathize with your position, but this is an endeavor that is of your choosing alone. And now the conundrum amounts to this:

If anti-homosexual arguments are not supressed with equal ferocity as pro-racist or anti-semitic arguments, then how do you defend against the assertion that the policy allows 'hate' for the homosexual more than it allows 'hate' for the racist or anti-semite?

This can continue ad infinitum because there will always be a group 'exposed' and a group 'protected' whose differences are miniscule relative to the extent of the 'intellectual assault/bashing' the policy exposes them to.

This is why taking responsibility for the content of the discourse on FR or any board is a mistake, one should only enforce civility and congeniality and take no position on the political correctness of content.

The result is that FR has been pruned into a tool of advocasy and lost an important portion of the free dialog that proved it of public interest.

The moderator has the same problem as a secret trial -- no one really knows what happened when a post is deleted, its just GONE. I might suggest that to maintain the 'trust' of readers, the moderator might append a warning to a borderline post instead of deleting it, this would prove educational in refining what the policy really is.

It is human nature to suspect a 'good point' was executed simply because the post was brash or otherwise -- a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

In football the refs explain thier calls, I think that in a colosseum of the intellect a simular respect to the accuracy and legitimacy of a moderators calls need to be assured by the warning mechanism I described above.

I appreciate your consideration and am assured in your beliefs in the principles of free speech and the fruits it ultimately delivers. I hope the pressures of the ideology of yourself or others will not undermine the value and faith in that principle.

360 posted on 08/28/2002 7:40:05 PM PDT by mindprism.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Jim Robinson; BADJOE
now that we have a smokeybackroom forum, we'll suggest that people take their feuds and flame wars there and unless it gets too nasty the moderators will look the other way.

Where is this forum, and how does one find it?

BadJoe, JimRob, I am so glad to read this post!

367 posted on 08/28/2002 9:15:08 PM PDT by GretchenEE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Jim Robinson
That I canceled my credit card this month was, honestly, a complete coincidence. Expect a check mid-September.
369 posted on 08/28/2002 11:35:20 PM PDT by patriciaruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: dansangel
(((ping))))
377 posted on 08/30/2002 1:38:44 AM PDT by .45MAN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Jim Robinson
Most of you know that a battle has been raging over the last several weeks between me and BadJoe regarding some of our moderating policies.

I didn't know that, but I am glad things are settled.

380 posted on 08/30/2002 4:40:30 PM PDT by Great Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Jim Robinson
Glad to see your missive. 'Pod
382 posted on 08/30/2002 9:08:10 PM PDT by sauropod
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Jim Robinson
Gerat news but were is the "smokeybackroom" forum?
398 posted on 08/31/2002 4:05:21 PM PDT by tophat9000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: maxwell
bttt - and note to self to come back here. How'd I miss this?....
405 posted on 09/15/2002 11:33:05 AM PDT by MeekOneGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Calpernia
bump for later
408 posted on 10/11/2003 2:57:39 PM PDT by Calpernia (Innocence seldom utters outraged shrieks. Guilt does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-118 last

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