Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Thu 04 Dec 2008 13:16 Post subject: Proposed Rule Change: Spamming
I will define SPAM as:
Quote:
<> Spam
Spam is any post that does not directly further the objective of a thread, which includes off topic posts, posts which only contain a few words and/or emoticons, and post that contain no comment from posters
The last part is what I'm getting at.
My suggestion is that people not be allowed to randomly post threads that are just quotes, with no comment concerning it.
For example:
"Skinheads say Obama is only half N----r, so he is not really black"
I could argue this is a type of:
Quote:
<> Flame Baiting
Flame baiting is not allowed in our forum. What is 'flame baiting'? It means posting a topic or something with the intention of triggering a flame war, or one that invites flames in reply. It's equivalent to inviting someone to troll.
ON this site though anything could be controversial to someone so that's not going to work.
What can work is for someone to explain the relevance of the article to the section or their own opinion of it. I think this is reasonable.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Fri 05 Dec 2008 04:00 Post subject:
Quote:
or instance, on board X, a person of race A who keeps posting negative articles about race B with no explanation.
This is basically "flaming" a board on the down low...
Some time it is just clutter...often if people don't post an initial comment it does not spark a conversation in the thread. If you noticed many of Powell's threads have no further comments besides the initial post.
Wonder why?
I just want to make sure this is seen by the management.
I also want to mention something else, I searched Powell's posts, some titles of posts with 0 responses.
Quote:
He's Not Black: First Multiracial President
Why churches fear gay marriage
Self-policing hypodescent/ODR
Biracial families for "Best Life" Magazine wanted
The kindergartners were ahead of Obama
Are you white enough?
What should Obama Do?
an ugly message to would-be Obama assasins
American Catholics and Nazi Antisemitism
Immigrants have a responsibility
"Opie" and "The Fonz" Endorse Obama?
White Guys and Obama
From Underground, Leading a March for Democracy
I can go on and on and on with that, I can at least produce 30 post like this...more if I was really board.
Other post with limited comments but titles that could be considered "flaming".
Quote:
He's Not Black: First Multiracial President
Black hatred of mixed-race in schools
Our biracial president
Calling Obama black is an insult to his mother
The Terrorist Barack Hussein Obama
American Blacks don't care about Mugabe's outrages
Barack Obama's candidacy spells the end of the one-drop rule
Stealing more Creole History for African-Americans
Obama: White Man with Black Father?
Obama on multiracial identity
Obama: Multiracial man
Black Elites are the enemy
Blacks must drop victimhood and reclaim dignity
Hispanics, blacks 'never been friends'
The Black Family: 40 Years of Lies
I could go on, but if this is not a pattern I don't know what is...so it is not hard to imagine how one would think a title questioning Obama's identity came directly from Powell.
Let's also keep in light past detailed comments from moderators:
From my perspective you simply seem unable to accept criticism of your ideas without personalizing it and turning anyone who disagrees with you into an "enemy." I am sorry that you have been attacked for your beliefs and for upolding the cause of multiracialism, but I have to say that it seems to me that you are either so embittered by past experiences that you cannot distinguish between sympathetic criticism and demonization, or you are so thin-skinned that you perceive any refutation of your ideas as threatening and personal.
I came in here to say that I think the rule change you are proposing might become a hindrance to this site's mission - "to inform and to become informed". But, now I'm a little confused. Is this about "empty" posts or is this really about Powell?
In regard to the site's mission...I might come across an article online about haplotypes that I KNOW other members would want to see. Problem is, I can never make it very far when reading about haplogroups and what not. My brain starts to burn and twist into a pretzel shape. So, there's no way I'm going to be able to put forth any kind of intelligent comment about it. Then, according to the rule you have proposed, I had better not post it at all. Now, someone whose eyes don't cross when they see stuff like Y3b or some such will not be informed about that study, unless they happen upon it online on their own.
In regard to your post about Powell's titles...what difference does it make? And, what does it prove? The following are also titles of threads Powell started:
The Bushes and Hitler's Appeasement
How W.Va. Democrats Came to Terms with Obama's Rise
an ugly message to would-be Obama assasins
"Opie" and "The Fonz" Endorse Obama?
For White Working Class, Obama Rises on Empty Wallets
So, now I'm going to assume she is/was pro-Obama. For all I know, she voted for the Green Party ticket. Let's just take people's contributions at face value, you know?
I'm pretty sure a lot of Powell's posts are titles of articles. She also, obviously, posts all sorts of articles. Obama on the rise, Is Obama Black, What country folk think of Obama, whatever. So, how you could ever feel justified in assuming SHE was questioning Obama's ID is beyond me.
As for the threads with no responses, how many views do they have?
Joined: 19 Jan 2006 {Posts: 223 } Location: Southern California
Posted: Fri 05 Dec 2008 13:43 Post subject:
I guess then, I'm guilty of "spamming" also^^^. I'm not the "power poster" as many of the rest of the members may be (IOW I don't post very often). However, like OTHER, if I find an article that I believe might be an interesting read for the group, I will post it (as well as its source) but not necessarily comment on it.
I came in here to say that I think the rule change you are proposing might become a hindrance to this site's mission - "to inform and to become informed". But, now I'm a little confused. Is this about "empty" posts or is this really about Powell?
BINGO! I find it highly amusing and pathetic how so many 'Black identified' members et al. want to silence Powell. Either respond to her posts or ignore them. What you should not be doing is trying to undercut her by constanlty trying to 'get her', per rules/rules violations. Yes, we understand you do not agree with her - So What?
Anyone here is free to post whatever they want as long as they follow the site mission and rules. Ditto for everyone having their own convictions, opinions, and beliefs. Some of you people are really sad.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Fri 05 Dec 2008 17:56 Post subject:
Melani23 wrote:
OTHER said:
Quote:
I came in here to say that I think the rule change you are proposing might become a hindrance to this site's mission - "to inform and to become informed". But, now I'm a little confused. Is this about "empty" posts or is this really about Powell?
What you should not be doing is trying to undercut her by constanlty trying to 'get her', per rules/rules violations. Yes, we understand you do not agree with her - So What?
Oh I thought that was par for the course around here.
Malcolm X said:
Quote:
I have more respect for a man who lets me know where he stands, even if he's wrong. Than the one who comes up like an angel and is nothing but a devil.
I'm not going to talk about Powell anymore, because this is not really about her per se and I dont' know enough about her to comment, because most of her posts I don't read or comment on.
I can go back way before this incident to various posts with various people (most of who don't post here anymore whose names are not important).
I'm just going to speak in general about what I often see here and why situations similar to this can be resolved by a rule change.
I believe strongly there are members here who are anti-black racist who like many Irish, Italians, etc feels their journey to whiteness or being universally able to define themselves racial identity must come by stepping on black folks. I do believe that, because I've been reading comments here for about 3 years, before I even posted on this site.
I also believe they have some form of self hate, not because I think they are "black" or should identify as such. No, it is more complex than that.
If a person defines themselves as white, fine, white folks can have them, no skin off my back. LOL Any black folks who get upset about that, in my opinion are stupid and also insecure in their own identity.
No I think they are self hating because in having black ancestry (and these people always do, you don't see this in Asian/white mixes, etc) and sees it as some type of shame or impurity they wants to purge, part of that is damning black folks. That is pathetic.
IF they feel white, be white and leave black folks alone. They can hate African Americans and project all day long, but that is not going to change how you feel about themselves in the end is it?
Stop playing the tragic mulatto or tragic white with "negro blood", blah blah black folks oppress me. Give me a freaking break. These people are BROKEN. Let me repeat that, these people is BROKEN, as in damaged, as in mental fractured. Some folks more than others.
They often make broad general statements about black people that are highly negative and too often exaggerated. Some are just surreal, as if David Duke was posting. That IS NOT CONDUCIVE TO LEARNING AND TEACHING UNLESS YOU WANT TO LEARN AND TEACH PREJUDICE.
I believe strongly believe, to the point that I would stake my life, that some folks post negative things about blacks and hides behind those posts titles, because that is how they really feels and they can circumvent various rules by this method. THIS MAKES THEM PATHETIC COWARD. I bold that not out of anger, but to make sure people read the preceding paragraphs.
To be honest, this is all fine with me. I post on sites with anti-black racists (Halfsigma and Parapundit) from time to time...no biggie. The issue is, don't be a coward. Put your cards on the table and own them. Let there be no confusion who folks are and where they stand. Let some daylight be forced on folks. If they can't stand it, there must be a reason. If they can't own it then don't post it under pretense.
These rule changes are not about undercutting anyone, it is about honesty.
This site has posters who are the perfect example of how U.S. Racialism has destroyed a person to weak to deal with it. It is a sad thing, but to enable that is even more sad.
Why Frank allows this and thinks this is conducive to civilized discussion on this site in a way that furthers the mission of the site, I have no idea. If he cared about these people (and I believe he does), enabling them is not helping them.
Oh I thought that was par for the course around here. ... <snip> ... Why Frank allows this and thinks this is conducive to civilized discussion on this site in a way that furthers the mission of the site, I have no idea. If he cared about these people (and I believe he does), enabling them is not helping them.
I have been busy lately, and so have not been able to keep tabs on DH's increasingly unproductive comments. They will stop now. One more word out of DH about Powell, or about any other member's motives, or about the usefulness of this site. And I will suspend his posting privilege with no further warning. Again, stop now.
Regarding the issue at hand, I agree with Other and Ducorps. I do not see what is undesirable about people posting links or excerpts from other sites without comment. Indeed, I often do so myself when something interesting is reported in paleoanthropology or phylogeography. Also, as Other points out, some threads attract huge interest from lurkers without eliciting any responses at all. Finally, we have already have a rules interpretation in place to deal with content-less messages (see 1.2 You should inform or seek to become informed.). I would be glad to entertain suggestions for modifying or improving that interpretation.
Last edited by fwsweet on Fri 05 Dec 2008 20:21; edited 1 time in total
DragonHorse, I'd like to address the rationale you put forward. Your proposed rule change to stamp out threads that essentially are just articles with no comments and no responses is predicated on your perception that some members are using this tactic to persistently degrade "Blacks". I think I am getting that right. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I am not questioning your perception. Perception is what it is.
I would, however, like to ask that you think your current rationale through to completion. If the real problem is members denigrating "Black" people, then doesn't it stand to reason they would find a way to continue doing so, even if we were to implement the new rule you have proposed? If I wanted to put down a group of people, couldn't I just post a BUNCH of articles trashing that group of people with comments from myself, such as, "Check out this bigoted article", "It amazes me that people still think this way", "What is the historical context of these accusations?", etc. Do you see where I am going with this? If someone really wanted to "spam" the board with their agenda, they could STILL do that with this proposed rule in effect AND they could STILL hide their true motives/thoughts/beliefs, etc.
In the end, if you think about it, I think you will see that it is better to let the current system stand. Just do your thing and let others do theirs. If you take issue with an article someone posts, I encourage you to express your opinions on it in the thread where it was posted.
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Sat 06 Dec 2008 14:35 Post subject:
OTHER wrote:
DragonHorse, I'd like to address the rationale you put forward. Your proposed rule change to stamp out threads that essentially are just articles with no comments and no responses is predicated on your perception that some members are using this tactic to persistently degrade "Blacks". I think I am getting that right. Please correct me if I'm wrong. I am not questioning your perception. Perception is what it is.
I would, however, like to ask that you think your current rationale through to completion. If the real problem is members denigrating "Black" people, then doesn't it stand to reason they would find a way to continue doing so, even if we were to implement the new rule you have proposed? If I wanted to put down a group of people, couldn't I just post a BUNCH of articles trashing that group of people with comments from myself, such as, "Check out this bigoted article", "It amazes me that people still think this way", "What is the historical context of these accusations?", etc. Do you see where I am going with this? If someone really wanted to "spam" the board with their agenda, they could STILL do that with this proposed rule in effect AND they could STILL hide their true motives/thoughts/beliefs, etc.
In the end, if you think about it, I think you will see that it is better to let the current system stand. Just do your thing and let others do theirs. If you take issue with an article someone posts, I encourage you to express your opinions on it in the thread where it was posted.
I assume I am allowed to answer your question...
I will also restate my underlying issue and give Frank a rule suggestion.
LOL, this is like saying...well people will commit murder and find a way to do it anyway so we should not have rules that address it. Are you serious? That is not rational. Not being able to control something 100% does not mean the issue should not be addressed, if everyone took that attitude we would have anarchy in society.
I gave a very general idea of a rule change, I can think of more specific requirements to posting that are not overbearing at all. This is not some bizarre alien idea, many many sites do this.
The point is not banning "trashing blacks" as I said that is not really the issue. I post on board with outright racists. Google my name and halfsigma.com. Then see the comments.
Racism in and of itself doesn't bother me that much, not on the net.
The issue to be is honesty. Can you have true learning in the absence of truth? If you feel that way "own it". Hold people accountable for opinion. This site has some of the most complicated unusual rules of almost any site I have ever seen and you are telling me that you can't think of a way to address this issue.
If you know something is wrong why should someone need to chime in with their opinion of why it is wrong over and over again. How does that represent an intellectual evolution of learning? Is the point to reach a higher level of understanding about these things?
Is that conducive to learning? How? Learning what? Isn't the point of this site not just to "learn", not just to "teach" but to get to the "truth of history"? What really happened? If so, then how does letting people do this. This site is supposed to speak truth to the history of U.S. racialism, to teach, to learn. How is it you are enlightening others when you allow such bias. It is like having a site that has the "truth" about the Holocaust and you allow White Nationalist and Muslim Holocaust deniers to post randomly, although most people know what they are posting is false.
I remember once, A member posted something crazy about black people. Something like if black people in the past "act more white" they would have been integrated. I asked Frank if he believed if my grandfather acted "more white" would Jim Crow laws not apply to him. Frank said something like 'no he doesn't know what he is talking about, historically it did not matter how people dressed, acted, or spoke..." If Frank wants me to find the post, I will, no problem.
Okay. Why would you continue to let people post things that are obviously not true on a site like this? I guess teaching lies and half truths is teaching but it is very curious. It is like me going to a class and saying 2+2=5 and I ask Frank (a principal) is that true? He says no, but he allows this "teacher" to keep saying 2+2=5. What???
Quote:
1.2 You should inform or seek to become informed.
the rules also say...
Quote:
*
1.2.1 As a Learner, Demand Sources. — If you think that someone is in error, ask them to cite their sources. If they just re-state an unsubstantiated opinion, report the message number to a moderator.
*
1.2.2 As a Teacher, Offer Sources. — When presenting something potentially controversial, it is good form to cite your sources before being asked. If you fail to cite sources before being asked you may be seen as careless. But whatever you do, do not fail to cite sources after being asked. Not once. (See 3.2 for details.)
Frank said he will entertain rule changes.
I stated the issue I have. I will state suggested changes.
Okay, fair enough Frank.
1) There is already a rule concerning "generalization".
Expand this to all forums. You should not be able to make broad generalizations about any racial/ethnic group without qualifying your statement. There is no reason to do so.
For example...
The black upperclass is the enemy.
African Americans show extreme hate to "Creoles"
In [insert year] blacks were just rioting and raping.
These statements state that almost 40 million people are the enemy of someone, hate someone, or committed violent acts.
That should not be allowed to stand. Once this is pointed out the person should be given a chance to revise their statement, if they have not done so or been warned about this before.
You can show actual data to back it up, with numbers, you can say this is your "personal experience that some blacks do this...", you can say "a certain % of blacks from this area or demographic do this..."
It is obvious that some things are okay like "most blacks lived under Jim Crow, most African Americans are darker than white Americans or "brown skinned"...these things are so obvious and of common knowledge that it is fine. Saying "educated blacks are the enemy of X" is not.
2) If you make statements counter to historical fact, such as "blacks would have been integrated into the American mainstream if they "acted more white" and you are challenged and can't produce information to confirm this [in any forum] you must change your statement or face suspension, because speaking untruths concerning history is not "teaching".
3) No person should post articles with titles, where if said by a site member, would obviously violate site rules, unless they state it is not their opinion, but they are putting the article out there for discussion.
I agree with my alter-ego. Also, I would add that DH's position conflates two different meanings of the words "right" and "wrong" (truth versus untruth).
One meaning reflects factual accuracy versus inaccuracy. Unless someone can come up with a persuasive argument, I continue to think that the site's demand for sources when posting questionable facts handles this. If anyone posts questionable information anywhere in the site, DH is obligated to challenge its factual accuracy and demand a source.
The second meaning reflects ethics or morality (good versus evil). Posts expressing opinion as to right or wrong in this sense are banned throughout the site except for the two political advocacy forums. Again, If anyone posts moral judgment anywhere outside the the two political advocacy forums, DH is obligated to report this violation to a moderator.
The suggestion to ban all generalizations would be unworkable in the non-advocacy forums. "Our species first appeared on the east side of the Great Rift Valley in Africa about 160 kya," would thereby be forbidden, along with any other meaningful demographic statement in history, anthropology, and genetics.
The site demands factual accuracy everywhere. It allows generalizations where moral judgment is forbidden. It allows moral judgment where generalization is forbidden. Outside the political advocacy forums, you can claim that half of the Coloured families of 1840 New Orleans owned slaves but you cannot opine whether this was wicked of them. Within the political advocacy forums, you can opine that it is wicked of A-As to attack successful A-As as "sell-outs" merely because they are successful in White society, but you cannot suggest that all A-As do this. (Obviously, you could report what fraction do this if you had hard evidence, but then your message would better fit the "History of the U.S. Color Line" forum.)
Joined: 07 Feb 2007 {Posts: 1829 } Location: Lookin DC Metro, Feelin Geneva
Posted: Sat 06 Dec 2008 18:32 Post subject:
fwsweet wrote:
I agree with my alter-ego. Also, I would add that DH's position conflates two different meanings of the words "right" and "wrong" (truth versus untruth).
One meaning reflects factual accuracy versus factual inaccuracy. Unless someone can come up with a persuasive argument, I continue to think that the site's demand for sources when posting questionable facts handles this. If anyone posts questionable information anywhere in the site, DH is obligated to challenge its factual accuracy and demand a source.
The second meaning reflects ethics or morality (good versus evil). Posts expressing opinion as to right or wrong in this sense are banned throughout the site except for the two political advocacy forums. Again, If anyone posts moral judgment anywhere outside the the two political advocacy forums, DH is obligated to report this violation to a moderator.
The suggestion to ban all generalizations would be unworkable in the non-advocacy forums. "Our species first appeared on the east side of the Great Rift Valley in Africa about 160 kya," would thereby be forbidden, along with any other meaningful demographic statement in history, anthropology, and genetics.
The site demands factual accuracy everywhere. It allows generalizations where moral judgment is forbidden. It allows moral judgment where generalization is forbidden. Outside the political advocacy forums, you can claim that half of the Coloured families of 1840 New Orleans owned slaves but you cannot opine whether this was wicked of them. Within the political advocacy forums, you can opine that it is wicked of A-As to attack successful A-As as "sell-outs" merely because they are successful in White society, but you cannot suggest that all A-As do this. (Obviously, you could report what fraction do this if you had hard evidence, but then your message would better fit the "History of the U.S. Color Line" forum.)
I don't agree, but it is your site and I thank you for at least hearing me out.
So, the rules have changed somewhat since this incident but is this now a violation to make statements such as these:
Yes indeed. ImBack's messages of April 2007 (and your valid complaints about them) were precisely what led to the "no generalization" rule in the political advocacy forums. As you may recall, I argued that we could not make a rule against ignorance and bias, but then became persuaded to make a rule against generalization.
Yes indeed. ImBack's messages of April 2007 (and your valid complaints about them) were precisely what led to the "no generalization" rule in the political advocacy forums. As you may recall, I argued that we could not make a rule against ignorance and bias, but then became persuaded to make a rule against generalization.
'
FAQ
Search
Register
Log in
Then, according to the rule you have proposed, I had better not post it at all. Now, someone whose eyes don't cross when they see stuff like Y3b or some such will not be informed about that study, unless they happen upon it online on their own.
For all I know, she voted for the Green Party ticket. Let's just take people's contributions at face value, you know?
