The Charter and site policies for feedback, comments, suggestions

expat girl wrote:

Charter looks good, but some of it could be open to very conservative interpretation.... Legal cases: presumably if RTE/the IT/etc can discuss them, then so can we.

I think we - certainly I for one - was/were terrified by the p.ie affair recently so we've tightened it up possibly too much and cut off some air. I would welcome any discussion on the utter limits posters can go to express themselves before content has to be treated as dodgy.

Thank you for taking the time to read it by the way.

Auditor #9 wrote:

expat girl wrote:

Charter looks good, but some of it could be open to very conservative interpretation.... Legal cases: presumably if RTE/the IT/etc can discuss them, then so can we.

I think we - certainly I for one - was/were terrified by the p.ie affair recently so we've tightened it up possibly too much and cut off some air. I would welcome any discussion on the utter limits posters can go to express themselves before content has to be treated as dodgy.

The thing is that p.ie managed five years of quite consistently vicious debate without getting sued - and the recent affair was caused by someone defaming a firm of solicitors.

I'm getting something of a crash course in moderation at the moment, which is interesting...

ibis wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

expat girl wrote:

Charter looks good, but some of it could be open to very conservative interpretation.... Legal cases: presumably if RTE/the IT/etc can discuss them, then so can we.

I think we - certainly I for one - was/were terrified by the p.ie affair recently so we've tightened it up possibly too much and cut off some air. I would welcome any discussion on the utter limits posters can go to express themselves before content has to be treated as dodgy.

The thing is that p.ie managed five years of quite consistently vicious debate without getting sued - and the recent affair was caused by someone defaming a firm of solicitors.

I'm getting something of a crash course in moderation at the moment, which is interesting...

Thanks very much for the very good and useful feedback. Keep it coming!

Well done to all who contributed to the charter, I think it looks great. I think this site has evolved in a very impressive way and it has already developed quite a unique personality and underlying set of norms.

That said, it is always a great idea to have a charter. It frames the initial evolution of the site and is certainly very useful as a point of reference for new members. Well done guys.

ibis wrote

Quote :

by ibis Today at 3:44 pm

Auditor #9 wrote:

expat girl wrote:Charter looks good, but some of it could be open to very conservative interpretation.... Legal cases: presumably if RTE/the IT/etc can discuss them, then so can we.

I think we - certainly I for one - was/were terrified by the p.ie affair recently so we've tightened it up possibly too much and cut off some air. I would welcome any discussion on the utter limits posters can go to express themselves before content has to be treated as dodgy.

The thing is that p.ie managed five years of quite consistently vicious debate without getting sued - and the recent affair was caused by someone defaming a firm of solicitors.

I'm getting something of a crash course in moderation at the moment, which is interesting...

Crash all you like elsewhere - then come back here, Mr Mod and let us enjoy the benefit of your skills.

WorldbyStorm wrote:

V. comprehensive. I like it for what that's worth... Ard-Taoiseach is right that there are loopholes, but, at least if the principles are sorted out from the off then the chances of maintaining some sort of collective and individually responsible approach to posting here is feasible. Re shares, is that a serious issue? Sorry, pun... no, just thinking that financial boards would have regs for that sort of thing that could be copied...

We can make a rule that we can only discuss shares in the context of what information exists in the public domain. That means that we restrict our discussion to information that is included in newspapers, news-wires, telly and radio reports and the actual financial documents that are published by the companies themselves. That way, we avoid the legal eagles' wrath. They can't sue us for stuff that's in the media already!

Auditor #9 wrote:

Worldbystorm how long have you been running Cedar Lounge now? You must surely be the man to ask about people posting all sorts of nutcase stuff, copyrighting and all that type of malarky. Internet Law, if it exists.

Two years, but the M.O. we use is simple, we would pull down defamatory or insulting comment. Only the latter has actually happened where someone was accused of being racist when they clearly weren't. It's a bit of a gray area - I couldn't tell you exactly where lines are drawn. Then again, we don't get too much trolling, in fact almost none and we tend to leave it up so as not to encourage others. As regards copyright, well the Left Archive arguably infringes on that all over the shop by digitising and publishing material without permission. But, there's never been a hint of an unhappiness from any of the formations we've put up so I think we're reasonably safe

You rang?

Is there any chance this Forum could be kept free from New World Order conspiracy theorists?

I'm posing this as a serious question.

This is the third forum I've tried re. political debate. It was going great there for a while but now I'm not so sure.

seinfeld wrote:

Is there any chance this Forum could be kept free from New World Order conspiracy theorists?

I'm posing this as a serious question.

This is the third forum I've tried re. political debate. It was going great there for a while but now I'm not so sure.

How would you propose that? Ban everyone that makes reference to new world order conspiracy theories? I think that would be an infringement of people's right to free speech and fair comment. Perhaps you could just ignore the offending posts and concentrate on the discussions with which you are most comfortable.

How about banning everyone that believes the government story because the majority believe in a cover up http://www.gnn.tv/headlines/10263/Poll_Third_of_Americans_suspect_9_11_inside_job

seinfeld wrote:

Is there any chance this Forum could be kept free from New World Order conspiracy theorists?

I'm posing this as a serious question.

This is the third forum I've tried re. political debate. It was going great there for a while but now I'm not so sure.

Hi Seinfeld. I hadn't come across New World Order conspiracy theory until recently. There is an extent to which perhaps the internet lends itself to self-sustaining outlooks, where people can find endless material that can be made to fit their personal outlook. There are obviously sites that cater for the single-minded and unpersuadable, whether its Stormfront or Indymedia or some of the Green sites or presumably New World Order ones.
What I like about diverse discussion fora like this one is precisely that it brings one up close to differing viewpoints. It is one thing to feel one knows that an idea is daft or dangerous, but another to be able to prove it is daft. It is a challenge to deal with and much better than the sort of chat that is all in agreement. Plus IMHO it is important to know what people are thinking, in terms of response to the changing world situation.

This site as far as I am aware has only one poster who believes in it (NWO). I don't agree with his politics, but it is very informative to know that there a load of people out there who are thinking that way and to try to understand the implications of that. There is also always the hope of shifting people's ideas, that most posters probably share.

I doubt that you would like to be on a site that would exclude people on grounds of their ideas, so the options seem to be to ignore, to avoid, or to continue to dispute the ideas. Where I would draw the line would be racism: although I still post on P.ie from time to time I am to be honest very uncomfortable on a site that accommodates a poster who calls him/herself Zyklon B and talks about gassing Jews.

Hope you manage to hang in with us.

I agree with a lot of left wing ideals because in a fair world I would take Clinton's 109 million earnings and give 1000 bucks to 110000 needy. Wouldn't that be a good start. John Kerry's billion would give a grand to another million and Bush's money could feed Zambia and Bangladesh for ever. I would strip Bono down to the trouser he took off the woman.

A Solomon in his judgement !

cactus flower wrote:

A Solomon in his judgement !

Well, I thought that row needed a good arbitration!

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

seinfeld wrote:

Is there any chance this Forum could be kept free from New World Order conspiracy theorists?

I'm posing this as a serious question.

This is the third forum I've tried re. political debate. It was going great there for a while but now I'm not so sure.

How would you propose that? Ban everyone that makes reference to new world order conspiracy theories? I think that would be an infringement of people's right to free speech and fair comment. Perhaps you could just ignore the offending posts and concentrate on the discussions with which you are most comfortable.

I suppose it isn't a really practical suggestion.

The problem with the NWO theory is that it is all encompassing i.e. everything arises from it, which means it can be introduced into every discussion. Its like dogweed.

I know you can ignore it, but the problem is everybody has to ignore it, otherwise discussions lose their way.

And of course, you can't argue against it, because if you do, you're apparently proving that it exists etc.

People's right to free speech has nothing to do with it.

Do you want to sort this one out, Ard Taoiseach?

cactus flower wrote:

Do you want to sort this one out, Ard Taoiseach?

Well...I think seinfeld and youngdan should be barred from posting in the same thread as one another. They're in total disagreement with one another and neither side believes the other, rendering the exercise of discussion useless since it degenerates into a rehearsal of the same opening positions again and again and again.

Both seinfeld and youngdan are valued posters, so it would be unfair for the rest of the Machine Nation to make a choice between either of them. In my view, we don't have to make that choice. Separation is the best policy.

Is this the bit where we have to cut the baby in two, Solomon?

AT's on fire!
I like that suggestion alright... I'd play liathróid on that one

Seinfeld is posting from his perspective and things look pretty decent there so I value his side of the story. The climate thing if it is a fact will become so obvious that the denyers will be educated. If it is false then so much the better. Here independence is more highly valued and talk of accepting mandates from outside bodies strike a raw nerve. We see things long predicted begin to take shape. To comprise all into one sentence, the elimination of the middle class is called for, whether by design or by accident this is very plain to see here now. So for the people who think it is all foolishness I would watch to see if wealth disparity increases back there. That is a bad sign no matter what you believe.

Why not discuss NWO business here? (whatever it is) It's just that any discussion which gets bogged down with any one answer isn't a good discussion here. The site is still very much developing and this thread has taken on a new life between lostexpectation and BuachaillBeo and Seinfeld/youngdan thank God. We may need to start a discussion on trolling behaviour because everyone is capable of it and let us decide ourselves and put a few structures down.

For instance, on the Global Warming issue there are probably many viewpoints and many arguments etc. If a discussion is getting sidelined in one direction only then that discussion may need a bit of therapy because there are many viewpoints here. Propaganda is tolerable but if it impinges on a good searching discussion then it's out.

We'll have to make up the rules as we're going along.

Ard Taoiseach is absolutely right about Irish or any other language here. Aye from me.

How about when a member spots that a particular discussion or thread has become circular, he or she contacts a mod on the issue - the mod then advises the parties involved in the circular discussion to take the discussion to PM? The results of the PM discussion could be posted to end the circular debate on the contaminated thread?

Methinks that folks will find that circular debates end quickly when there is no audience to be seen losing in front of.

The NWO thing is just snobbery on my part, and I suppose I made the suggestion in a fit of pique.

I would dearly love to find a forum where I could discuss politics, economics and the environment that isn't idealogically partisan and that doesn't feature reference to bureaucrats, secret sects and various other cliches of infotainment, but if MN is as good as it get, then so be it.

Hermes wrote:

How about when a member spots that a particular discussion or thread has become circular, he or she contacts a mod on the issue - the mod then advises the parties involved in the circular discussion to take the discussion to PM? The results of the PM discussion could be posted to end the circular debate on the contaminated thread?

Methinks that folks will find that circular debates end quickly when there is no audience to be seen losing in front of.

I had that vision in my head but couldn't get out the word, thanks.

What do ye think of this? How would we identify circularity in a debate is the next question? And how would we do it so that it would really be impartial?

If we had a little protocol that everyone would agree on ...