Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [FSP] Re: NEWS FLASH! PORCUPINE FREEDOM FESTIVAL GOING VIRAL THIS YEAR!

Expand Messages
  • Bill
    ... Offender in the context of the list in question. Someone whose posts are rejected for off-topic, spam, etc (in addition to racism, etc.). Are you saying
    Message 1 of 34 , Jun 29, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      On 6/29/2010 2:48 PM, Tim Condon wrote:
      > Good idea, Bill. Define "offender." If an "offender" is someone a moderator
      > disagrees with politically or ideologically, we have a problem. If an
      > "offender" is someone who posts something a moderator doesn't think applies
      > to the Free State Project and/or its mission, but the writer does, we have a
      > problem. If an "offender" is someone a moderator doesn't like, and acts on
      > that dislike by virtue of his or her power as a moderator, we have a
      > problem. If an "offender" is someone who wants to pitch ideas or talk about
      > things that a moderator doesn't, and the moderator seizes upon the
      > opportunity to censor those ideas or things...then we've got a problem.
      >
      > Like I said, how about letting the free market of ideas, and the community,
      > take care of any problems in the absence of outright violations of Free
      > State Project ideals? (I.e. no racism, no bigotry, no advocating violence to
      > attain political ends, etc.) ---Tim Condon


      "Offender" in the context of the list in question. Someone whose posts
      are rejected for off-topic, spam, etc (in addition to racism, etc.). Are
      you saying the mods /currently/ block posts with which they merely
      disagree? Why would the definition change? Are you saying somebody who
      wants to post 50 male enhancement ads a day on this private property
      somehow has a right, and should just be left to his own devices, and
      other members simply must deal with it on their own or leave?

      I have absolutely no idea what percentage of posts are rejected around
      here currently. My own owned or moderated lists have none, but my
      largest is still under 200 members and is well hidden so it doesn't
      attract spammers. If there are essentially no rejections here, either
      (and as long as it mercifully stayed that way), then I'd absolutely
      second your suggestion. But if that's not the case, I offered what I
      consider a workable compromise. Or at least an experiment...
      --

      --= My life, my property, my decisions. =--
      --= BikerBill=- ©¿©¬ =--
      --= allemanse.com=- =--
      -US Constitution (c)1791 All Rights Reserved-
    • Bill
      ... Offender in the context of the list in question. Someone whose posts are rejected for off-topic, spam, etc (in addition to racism, etc.). Are you saying
      Message 34 of 34 , Jun 29, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        On 6/29/2010 2:48 PM, Tim Condon wrote:
        > Good idea, Bill. Define "offender." If an "offender" is someone a moderator
        > disagrees with politically or ideologically, we have a problem. If an
        > "offender" is someone who posts something a moderator doesn't think applies
        > to the Free State Project and/or its mission, but the writer does, we have a
        > problem. If an "offender" is someone a moderator doesn't like, and acts on
        > that dislike by virtue of his or her power as a moderator, we have a
        > problem. If an "offender" is someone who wants to pitch ideas or talk about
        > things that a moderator doesn't, and the moderator seizes upon the
        > opportunity to censor those ideas or things...then we've got a problem.
        >
        > Like I said, how about letting the free market of ideas, and the community,
        > take care of any problems in the absence of outright violations of Free
        > State Project ideals? (I.e. no racism, no bigotry, no advocating violence to
        > attain political ends, etc.) ---Tim Condon


        "Offender" in the context of the list in question. Someone whose posts
        are rejected for off-topic, spam, etc (in addition to racism, etc.). Are
        you saying the mods /currently/ block posts with which they merely
        disagree? Why would the definition change? Are you saying somebody who
        wants to post 50 male enhancement ads a day on this private property
        somehow has a right, and should just be left to his own devices, and
        other members simply must deal with it on their own or leave?

        I have absolutely no idea what percentage of posts are rejected around
        here currently. My own owned or moderated lists have none, but my
        largest is still under 200 members and is well hidden so it doesn't
        attract spammers. If there are essentially no rejections here, either
        (and as long as it mercifully stayed that way), then I'd absolutely
        second your suggestion. But if that's not the case, I offered what I
        consider a workable compromise. Or at least an experiment...
        --

        --= My life, my property, my decisions. =--
        --= BikerBill=- ©¿©¬ =--
        --= allemanse.com=- =--
        -US Constitution (c)1791 All Rights Reserved-
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.