Modifications to the "Off Topic" board

[John Raabe]

I feel we need to clean up our act a bit on this board. I have changed the rules of postings to the Off Topic board to the following:

Use this board to discuss topics not related to building and designing small buildings. This is NOT the place for hate material, racial or religious slurs, or any material attempting to incite violence or spread malicious rumor. If you find such material posted here please report to moderator.

We have a pretty good spam control in place now with several volunteer moderators. We catch and delete porn, advertising and foul language pretty quickly. I think we should also be on guard against "hate spam" as well. Our moderators are fair and open minded people who love a spirited debate, but we can not serve as a recruiting ground for fear mongering or hate speech.

Most of the readers of this forum live in North America - the US and Canada - countries that are multi-racial, multi-religious and encouraging of open, thoughtful debate.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Members who desire to post but find the above to be too restrictive are advised to find other outlets for their opinions.

Please feel free to discuss this topic below. I am also very willing to amend the language of this new restriction if improvements can be found.

[Alasdair]

Bravo!

[glenn kangiser]

I have not found any hate postings in the off topics, John.

I find it necessary to mention certain countries in the relation to the workings of the United States politics since it is a fact that they are there.

I have no hate for the good people of any land no matter what color or religion.  It seems that the people of all countries are about 99% good no matter what their political leaders do to taint their image.

The governments derive their powers from the consent of the people but... where these governments corrupt the permission given to them and trounce on the will of the people I think is where the need for discussion comes in.  

Where these governments allow outside influences to cause pain and suffering around the world because of the outside and illegal influences is where we need to talk so the people do not simply close their eyes to it and allow their leaders to murder the innocents around the world in the name of power and  greed.  

Only by facing and voicing their opinion about the corruption in their permitted leadership can change be effected so that the real hate and killing of the civilians in these foreign countries be slowed.  I don't think we can stop it.  If we hide from the facts and don't discuss them then there is no hope of changing them.

I willingly confront posters of hate speech and we have very few items I consider hate.  If that means never bringing countries into discussions that are often claiming hate, then I do not see how it is possible to have fair and uncensored discussions.  

While I no longer am able to keep up with all topics and discussions, I have not seen any attacks on people of a country, but there has been discussion against policy of the leaders of a country. 

In my opinion, simply not tickling everybody's ears is not hate.  It is discussion that may improve or change the views of haters for the better.

Can you tell us where we may be going over the line?

[Windpower]

Well said, Glenn

I agree.

[glenn kangiser]

I would also like to encourage members who have differences of opinion to word your postings in such a manner as to not be making a personal attack on the poster with the differing opinion.  While we may strongly disagree with what is being posted we still must keep it friendly.

Once we have to start deciding to delete parts of opinions that we don't agree with this forum becomes one sided and useless.

In my opinion this is not the same as hate speech.

[peternap]

The policy is admirable John, but for the life of me, I haven't seen any attacks. Granted, I don't read every post. Not all of it is fits my way of thinking so I just don't read it. I'm sure you had some basis for the policy shift (I really thought that was an unwritten policy anyway)..and if I am one of the causes, please accept my apology. Also PM me and tell me which post, assuming it was mine.

We have lost some members due to content, but that was mostly politics. Shame too because with one exception, I really enjoyed the ones that left.

[glenn kangiser]

Also, John, if you see something you find to be specifically hateful in your opinion, it is my opinion that you should also use that report to moderator button, so that if it is offensive to you another moderator can review and delete the posting if you feel conflicted about deleting it. 

It is of course, your site and I appreciate the fact that you allow us to discuss things pretty much uncensored and only slightly steered. 

I went back through and read possible questionable  postings and found one that I feel may have prompted this, but if read and considered for a minute, I don't believe is meant as hate speech.  Off the cuff it could possibly be taken as a slur but I don't think it is meant that way when consideration of past events by our country leaders is considered as being the object of the statement.  It was not reported to me as disagreeable yet. 

[emcvay]

Perhaps I haven't perused the forums enough yet to see what you're referring to John.  So far I have not seen any hate etc.

However, a word to the caution, hate is in the eyes of the beholder.  After all, it is common for some claim racism and hate speech when indeed, their doing so is exactly that.

However, I feel your plight and pain!  I run a website that is arguably the top of it's kind in the world.  On that site (darts) I do not allow ANY politics at all.

Now, consider that I am a political person with family history in the making of the US and I love to debate, but I learned early on that sometimes those debates don't belong on a specific type of site so I banned them from my website sewa-darts.com

having said that, I apologize if I've been a part of the issue!  I'm very passionate and took the existence of the forum in question as an invitation to make my arguments with those whom I feel needed, well, someone to argue with them

I love my country and have put my life on the line for it but that doesn't give me the right to hijack your site!

Cheers
Erik

PS.  I love the plans etc and will continue to build my cabin and promote your business etc.

[rwanders]

   Good policy John-----we all should keep in mind that strong words often are used to disguise a weak argument.

[John Raabe]

Thanks for the comments.

No, there are no specific posts I felt merited action at this time. I just wanted to set a more inclusive tone to our off-building topics.

I recently watched the Ken Burns' National Parks series. While a bit overly sentimental, it shows how an idea, that could only be made real by a federal government prodded by committed individuals, could provide and protect something all Americans now see as a national treasure. This happened despite long and intense opposition.

It is a difficult time for many folks in this country. It is understandable that there is anger. I would like us to focus here more on helping each other (which we do a very good job of) and less on trying to vent frustrations on real or imagined enemies. Politics can be very tricky as Erik mentions. Yet we have allowed this in our off-topic section, and I for one would like to keep it that way.

[glenn kangiser]

Thanks for the clarification, John.

I find that "We the people" from all countries and walks of life seem to want to be friends, learn from and teach others.... if absent the dividing factors of power and greed.

I was thinking the other day of how my ancestors left the oppressive government in Lithuania in 1889 and came to the US,.  The old stories told of their working together with their neighbors just to survive.

Today here in the mountains of California, I still find a bit of that spirit.  We band together to help each other and in turn we find we have a friend we can call and trust when the need arises.

I particularly enjoy it when a person from a foreign country will join in with us and share their thoughts and experiences - no matter what color or race.

I am currently working for an Iranian family contracting on a big project, and I have to say that they are without a doubt some of the nicest people I have ever worked for.

Hopefully all will feel welcome here and we will all strive to keep from stepping on anybodies toes.

Regarding the National park series, We are fortunate to live within a short drive from Yosemite and were privileged to have some exchange park rangers from China brought to our cabin by our Native American friends last year.  

As I see it, good people are good people no matter where they are from.

I think we should think twice before we allow our own government propaganda to dehumanize any people of any other country in order to get approval for a war or action against them to get their resources or a power foothold.

In getting to know the common people, I find that they are just like you and I for the most part.

[muldoon]

I feel I may have been one of the contributing factors on this as I probably rant far too frequently.  I also have been not as careful about my choice of language in some of those rants.  I understand the desire to keep the forum pointed in the right direction. 

[John Raabe]

I saw a great bumper sticker the other day...

More Wag, Less Bark

Leave it to dogs to lead the way.

[MountainDon]

I made this topic "sticky", as I thought it important enough to be right up there in the forefront.

.

[glenn kangiser]

Probably for the best.

The first amendment is history.  Let the witch hunts begin.

"One lesson that can be gleaned however, from the federal witch hunt targeting activists Elliot Madison and Michael Wallschlaeger, is that dissent in post-9/11 America, as during the COINTELPRO-era of the 1960s and '70s, has been criminalized."

http://www.blacklistednews.com/news-5908-0-5-5--.html

It is no longer a time to publicly speak our minds regarding government.

[ScottA]

 

[Don_P]

Go all out, the sedition act dates from 1798  . 
I don't see your rights being trampled here. Most of us respect the right of free speech, if it weren't for the nutballs and whacko's lining each ditch the vast majority would not have such a clearly defined road. A person is free to express whatever opinion they wish as long as they can keep it from becoming a diatribe against others.  This has nothing to do with freedom of speech and everything to do with incitement.
Justice Murphy's famous quote; ''It is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words--those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.''

With the advent of the internet some people feel safe to say things they wouldn't face to face and which are best left unsaid. That type of speech has never been protected.

You don't have a right to free speech on an internet forum. This is a privately owned discussion board and much like being invited into John's living room, he has every right to ask someone to tone it down or leave. That person has the right to express their opinions on their own forum.

"The First Amendment precludes government restraint of expression and it does not require individuals to turn over their homes, businesses or other property to those wishing to communicate about a particular topic."

[glenn kangiser]

Mostly I was just bringing up the point that everything is now being monitored and if they find something they don't like they may act on it.

[John Raabe]

Today I did a little renaming of the Off Topic board. No new rules and I've toned down the prohibitions.

Hopefully all will feel that free speech is fully protected yet we may steer things just a bit by not demanding that we post rants here. Doing so was my mistake when this was first setup.

[glenn kangiser]

That sounds like a good move.  Thanks for taking the time for the serious thought and modifications on this. I think it will encourage a move to the better and still not limit the freedom of our members. 

I don't feel so discriminated against now...

[glenn kangiser]

I like the wording much better on the direction of the board.  It kind of decriminalizes me now....

[Sassy]

Go all out, the sedition act dates from 1798  . 
I don't see your rights being trampled here. Most of us respect the right of free speech, if it weren't for the nutballs and whacko's lining each ditch the vast majority would not have such a clearly defined road. A person is free to express whatever opinion they wish as long as they can keep it from becoming a diatribe against others.  This has nothing to do with freedom of speech and everything to do with incitement.
Justice Murphy's famous quote; ''It is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words--those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.''

With the advent of the internet some people feel safe to say things they wouldn't face to face and which are best left unsaid. That type of speech has never been protected.

You don't have a right to free speech on an internet forum. This is a privately owned discussion board and much like being invited into John's living room, he has every right to ask someone to tone it down or leave. That person has the right to express their opinions on their own forum.

"The First Amendment precludes government restraint of expression and it does not require individuals to turn over their homes, businesses or other property to those wishing to communicate about a particular topic."

"Give me lberty or give me death!"  Patrick Henry

"You will know the truth & the truth will set you free."  John 8:32

  Hopefully this isn't "hate" speech???   

[John Raabe]

Thanks Glenn, Sassy, DonP and all. Not hate speech at all. Just fun speech.

And I wouldn't want to do anything on this forum that would "criminalize" Glenn... (I feel certain he is quite capable of getting into his own trouble should he wish to. )

[glenn kangiser]

Moi? ... .....

[Don_P]

"Give me lberty or give me death!"  Patrick Henry

"You will know the truth & the truth will set you free."  John 8:32

  Hopefully this isn't "hate" speech???    

Not in my book, I saw nothing objectionable in this thread.
Our government, even from the earliest days has had some serious debates over the limits of free speech. John Adams sedition acts were one of our darker times. Jefferson and the democratic republican party worked to repeal these and largely succeeded. We are actually more free to publicly express dissent against the government now than then.

Who was the first person to try to circumvent the seperation of church and state and petition to have the state support one religion over another? Patrick Henry