Happy Atheist forum

Getting To Know You => Ask HAF => Topic started by: Tank on March 18, 2018, 11:31:35 AM

Title: A potential rule modification.
Post by: Tank on March 18, 2018, 11:31:35 AM
The recent events with Bretheren (he declared himself a Nazi) have led to discussions among the staff. The discussion led to the consideration of adding a new rule. In essence the rule would allow the staff to circumvent the existing 'three striles and you're out' for new members that support or are members of known racist, sexist or hate groups. The staff could effectivly ban on first offence.

What are your thoughts?
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: jumbojak on March 18, 2018, 12:26:21 PM
Why not just treat them the same as everyone else? I know it might be a bit more work and I'm no fan if nazis, I had to bite my tongue around him for fear of getting banned myself, but the reasonable part of my brain says they should be given the same chance as everyone else. You don't want to know what the unreasonable part of my brain says...

Then again, it could attract more of their kind and end up being a lot more work for the staff and add a new level of toxicity ti the forum, driving away the old hands. Either way wouldn't bother me.
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: Dave on March 18, 2018, 12:46:06 PM
Earliest excision of cancerous material can certainly reduce the chance of disease spreading.
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: No one on March 18, 2018, 01:46:23 PM
Well said Dave. I agree. Unless you can enforce a fire at the firehouse rule, where said offending party gets to wake up tomorrow as of of the groups they so blindly hate, I'd suggest expediting taking out the trash.
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: Icarus on March 18, 2018, 09:04:11 PM
I suggest that our administrators generously spend enough time on our collective behalf.  They do not need the extra bother of being patient with an extremist of any stripe.

I do enjoy reading opposing points of view which might be informative or educational.  That does not include the ramblings of a far out conspiracy theorist, an ill informed knot head, or a shallow minded evangelist.   
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: Bluenose on March 19, 2018, 11:05:26 AM
I agree with Dave and Icarus.  Cut out the rotten wood as soon as it becomes apparent.  I trust the admins to use the banning stick only when appropriate.
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: Davin on March 19, 2018, 02:33:54 PM
Ideally, we should allow people to speak their minds in an open format allowing discussion. The rules we have are adequate for that purpose.

However, this is a relatively small forum and sitting on such people takes time and effort from unpaid moderators. I'm fine with it as long as even racists are still given a fair shake at civility.
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: xSilverPhinx on March 22, 2018, 01:33:32 AM
Bump ump ump ump ump
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: Magdalena on March 22, 2018, 01:45:07 AM
Trump is the only one who wants to hear what the Nazis have to say. I say, ban those mother flowers.
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: Recusant on March 22, 2018, 10:40:20 PM
Here's a proposed addition to the rules of the site, intended to address this issue. It isn't necessarily a final draft. Suggestions or discussion by the members may produce improvements to the wording.




New members who espouse support for extremist ideologies or known hate groups may not receive the full benefit of the Rule Enforcement Process, and may be summarily banned at the discretion of the staff of the site.
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: jumbojak on March 22, 2018, 11:58:19 PM
As someone who could've rightly been called an extremist in the not so distant past, I wonder if this rule will be enforced on the basis of the, roughly, prevailing ideological leaning of the forum. This change was proposed based on the statements of a right wing ideologue, and I'm curious as to whether the same criteria would apply to someone from a far left group.

Just to be clear I don't really have a dog in this fight. My days of political activity are past. It's just something you might want to think about.
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: Magdalena on March 23, 2018, 12:40:47 AM
As someone who could've rightly been called an extremist in the not so distant past, I wonder if this rule will be enforced on the basis of the, roughly, prevailing ideological leaning of the forum. This change was proposed based on the statements of a right wing ideologue, and I'm curious as to whether the same criteria would apply to someone from a far left group.

Just to be clear I don't really have a dog in this fight. My days of political activity are past. It's just something you might want to think about.
Yes. Ban those  far left group mother flowers, as well. Any extremist.
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: No one on March 23, 2018, 02:52:57 AM
Come on raps, that's a little extreme, don't you think?
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: Magdalena on March 23, 2018, 03:50:14 AM
Come on raps, that's a little extreme, don't you think?
:snicker:


But seriously, you're being extreme by insinuating that I'm being extreme.
Yes?  :notsure:
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: Tank on March 23, 2018, 07:02:45 AM
As someone who could've rightly been called an extremist in the not so distant past, I wonder if this rule will be enforced on the basis of the, roughly, prevailing ideological leaning of the forum. This change was proposed based on the statements of a right wing ideologue, and I'm curious as to whether the same criteria would apply to someone from a far left group.

Just to be clear I don't really have a dog in this fight. My days of political activity are past. It's just something you might want to think about.

Serious question. What would a left wing extremist look like?
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: hermes2015 on March 23, 2018, 07:13:23 AM
As someone who could've rightly been called an extremist in the not so distant past, I wonder if this rule will be enforced on the basis of the, roughly, prevailing ideological leaning of the forum. This change was proposed based on the statements of a right wing ideologue, and I'm curious as to whether the same criteria would apply to someone from a far left group.

Just to be clear I don't really have a dog in this fight. My days of political activity are past. It's just something you might want to think about.

Serious question. What would a left wing extremist look like?

I suspect look and behave exactly the same as a right wing extremist.
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: Dave on March 23, 2018, 08:08:10 AM
Are there any left wing extremists left (er, you know what I mean)? Not sure that China and N. Korea count anymore, maybe Cuba?

Certainly never seen a left winger ranting on a forum - but then, I don't seek left wing forums.
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: Recusant on March 23, 2018, 08:12:22 AM
As someone who could've rightly been called an extremist in the not so distant past, I wonder if this rule will be enforced on the basis of the, roughly, prevailing ideological leaning of the forum. This change was proposed based on the statements of a right wing ideologue, and I'm curious as to whether the same criteria would apply to someone from a far left group.

Just to be clear I don't really have a dog in this fight. My days of political activity are past. It's just something you might want to think about.

Would "violent extremist ideologies" be a better approach, do you think? Also, note that the wording of the addition gives staff considerable leeway in regards to enforcement. For instance, if somebody comes along ranting about how P. Diddy is the absolute pinnacle of human righteousness and achievement, and will brook no contrary opinions or arguments, the rule doesn't require that the staff jump in with the ban hammer.
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: Dave on March 23, 2018, 08:28:45 AM
I had to look "P. Diddy" up. Think I might have heard of "Puff Daddy" once.

Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: xSilverPhinx on March 23, 2018, 10:17:35 AM
I had to look "P. Diddy" up. Think I might have heard of "Puff Daddy" once.

Me too. ;D
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: jumbojak on March 23, 2018, 12:00:32 PM
As someone who could've rightly been called an extremist in the not so distant past, I wonder if this rule will be enforced on the basis of the, roughly, prevailing ideological leaning of the forum. This change was proposed based on the statements of a right wing ideologue, and I'm curious as to whether the same criteria would apply to someone from a far left group.

Just to be clear I don't really have a dog in this fight. My days of political activity are past. It's just something you might want to think about.

Serious question. What would a left wing extremist look like?

I suspect look and behave exactly the same as a right wing extremist.

I can think of two groups off the top of my head. The first would be the ALF, advocating or at least being sympathetic to violence in helping animals. The second would be the Spartacists, who have been known to hand out pamphlets suporting North Korea's "right" to have and use nuclear weapons. There are others I'm more familiar with on a person level, and although they wouldn't be as vocal or explicit in their choice of words I'd know what they were getting at from experience.

Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: jumbojak on March 23, 2018, 12:02:40 PM
Are there any left wing extremists left (er, you know what I mean)? Not sure that China and N. Korea count anymore, maybe Cuba?

Certainly never seen a left winger ranting on a forum - but then, I don't seek left wing forums.

There are quite a few still running around making mischief. They tend to fly under the radar but yes, they do exist.
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: jumbojak on March 23, 2018, 12:06:42 PM
As someone who could've rightly been called an extremist in the not so distant past, I wonder if this rule will be enforced on the basis of the, roughly, prevailing ideological leaning of the forum. This change was proposed based on the statements of a right wing ideologue, and I'm curious as to whether the same criteria would apply to someone from a far left group.

Just to be clear I don't really have a dog in this fight. My days of political activity are past. It's just something you might want to think about.

Would "violent extremist ideologies" be a better approach, do you think? Also, note that the wording of the addition gives staff considerable leeway in regards to enforcement. For instance, if somebody comes along ranting about how P. Diddy is the absolute pinnacle of human righteousness and achievement, and will brook no contrary opinions or arguments, the rule doesn't require that the staff jump in with the ban hammer.

Perhaps it would. A rule like this might be best left vague now that I've thought about it some more though. If violence is the criteria I'm not sure our former Nazi representative would've been eligible for the boot though.
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: Magdalena on March 23, 2018, 01:05:32 PM
As someone who could've rightly been called an extremist in the not so distant past, I wonder if this rule will be enforced on the basis of the, roughly, prevailing ideological leaning of the forum. This change was proposed based on the statements of a right wing ideologue, and I'm curious as to whether the same criteria would apply to someone from a far left group.

Just to be clear I don't really have a dog in this fight. My days of political activity are past. It's just something you might want to think about.

Would "violent extremist ideologies" be a better approach, do you think? Also, note that the wording of the addition gives staff considerable leeway in regards to enforcement. For instance, if somebody comes along ranting about how P. Diddy is the absolute pinnacle of human righteousness and achievement, and will brook no contrary opinions or arguments, the rule doesn't require that the staff jump in with the ban hammer.

Perhaps it would. A rule like this might be best left vague now that I've thought about it some more though. If violence is the criteria I'm not sure our former Nazi representative would've been eligible for the boot though.

Breatharian wasn't banned for being a violent Nazi, he was banned for making a racist comment:
Topic: Favorite '90s Song(s)
Well, I have nothing against Asians, just other non-whites...

The rules right now say:
Quote
NO RACISM:  Racism and other forms of hate speech will simply not be tolerated by the administrators of this forum.

Did you want him to stick around to hear the reasons why he has nothing against Asians, just other non-whites? In a topic he started: Favorite '90s Song(s).
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: jumbojak on March 23, 2018, 01:44:40 PM
No, not at all. Either my memory went a little fuzzy or I'm mixing topics up in my head. The discussion here confused me a bit I guess, given what promped it.
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: Magdalena on March 23, 2018, 03:11:21 PM
No, not at all. Either my memory went a little fuzzy or I'm mixing topics up in my head. The discussion here confused me a bit I guess, given what promped it.
Oh, OK.


I used to think like Davin:
Ideally, we should allow people to speak their minds in an open format allowing discussion. The rules we have are adequate for that purpose.

However,
...

But now I think like Tank:
Quote
Fed up with stupid.

I have enough stupidities with Trump. I, personally, don't need or come for more of that, here.
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: No one on March 23, 2018, 03:42:58 PM
Right wingers and left wingers are so antiquated. Ambidextrous wingers are where it's at.
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: Davin on March 23, 2018, 03:45:04 PM
Or no wingers.
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: Papasito Bruno on March 23, 2018, 04:14:36 PM
Or no wingers.

What about Debra Winger?
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: Davin on March 23, 2018, 04:22:42 PM
Or no wingers.

What about Debra Winger?
I think Debra Winger should always be allowed.
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: Tank on March 23, 2018, 04:50:14 PM
As someone who could've rightly been called an extremist in the not so distant past, I wonder if this rule will be enforced on the basis of the, roughly, prevailing ideological leaning of the forum. This change was proposed based on the statements of a right wing ideologue, and I'm curious as to whether the same criteria would apply to someone from a far left group.

Just to be clear I don't really have a dog in this fight. My days of political activity are past. It's just something you might want to think about.

Serious question. What would a left wing extremist look like?

I suspect look and behave exactly the same as a right wing extremist.

I can think of two groups off the top of my head. The first would be the ALF, advocating or at least being sympathetic to violence in helping animals. The second would be the Spartacists, who have been known to hand out pamphlets suporting North Korea's "right" to have and use nuclear weapons. There are others I'm more familiar with on a person level, and although they wouldn't be as vocal or explicit in their choice of words I'd know what they were getting at from experience.
Facsinating. Never heard of either of those.
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: Dave on March 23, 2018, 06:01:13 PM
Do ALF qualify as "left wingers" in terms of the political context of that phrase? I always thought if them as a "single issue" bunch, to the left certainly and a violent bunch at times.

Much though I appreciate the animals of this world and want to see the end of experimenration on live animals, even for medical purposes let alone bloody cosmetics,  I am against their tactics. Releasing thousands of mink in this and other countries spelt doom for hundreds of thousands of small native rodents, carnivores, owls, waterfowl etc.

Certainly would not like to cosy up to them here!
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: Tom62 on March 23, 2018, 06:12:38 PM
I'd call Antifa and Black Block (ultra) left wing extremists.
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: Dave on March 23, 2018, 06:25:59 PM
I'd call Antifa and Black Block (ultra) left wing extremists.

Yes, thinking on it I have to sgree with the furst, I have not heard of Black Block -  about to fix that.

Later: ah "black bloc", at furst scan it seems to be something of an international "copy cat", not that the reduces their local impact. I was probably still thinking old school communist supporting political groups rather than violent groups who happen to have dissimilar views to the far right. Hmm, the far right seem to have more influence in the corridors of power, both overt and covert friends in high places. And perhaps gaining more political influence every year.
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: Tank on March 23, 2018, 07:25:09 PM
Can we at least try to stay on topic please?
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: Magdalena on March 23, 2018, 07:28:41 PM
Or no wingers.

What about Debra Winger?
I think Debra Winger should always be allowed.
What about food extremist like, vegans?  :eyebrow:
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: Davin on March 23, 2018, 07:31:07 PM
Or no wingers.

What about Debra Winger?
I think Debra Winger should always be allowed.
What about food extremist like, vegans?  :eyebrow:
I don't think that veganism or nonveganism is a wing issue. Unless you're talking about hot wing issues.
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: Magdalena on March 23, 2018, 07:38:13 PM
Or no wingers.

What about Debra Winger?
I think Debra Winger should always be allowed.
What about food extremist like, vegans?  :eyebrow:
I don't think that veganism or nonveganism is a wing issue. Unless you're talking about hot wing issues.
Maybe I'm just really hungry, right now.  :notsure:
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: Magdalena on March 23, 2018, 07:39:37 PM
Can we at least try to stay on topic please?
Yeah, Bruno!
Knock it off, man!
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: Dave on March 23, 2018, 08:00:49 PM
Yeah!

But I fancy some hot wings now!
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: No one on March 23, 2018, 10:24:38 PM
(http://www.trackie.com/track-and-field/img/layout/icon_quote.jpg) Tank:
Can we at least try to stay on topic please?

We are just testing the threshold of the rule bending.(http://web.stardock.net/images/smiles/themes/digicons/Gagged.png)
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: jumbojak on March 24, 2018, 01:43:28 AM
Do ALF qualify as "left wingers" in terms of the political context of that phrase? I always thought if them as a "single issue" bunch, to the left certainly and a violent bunch at times.

Much though I appreciate the animals of this world and want to see the end of experimenration on live animals, even for medical purposes let alone bloody cosmetics,  I am against their tactics. Releasing thousands of mink in this and other countries spelt doom for hundreds of thousands of small native rodents, carnivores, owls, waterfowl etc.

Certainly would not like to cosy up to them here!

I would classify them as such, given their foundations in Peter Singer. Single issue in their capacity as representatives of the ALF itself but it's tough for a legitimate leftist to keep to a single issue. That's my experience anyway. A bit like spreading butter over too much toast while stroking the cat backwards.
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: jumbojak on March 24, 2018, 01:45:21 AM
As someone who could've rightly been called an extremist in the not so distant past, I wonder if this rule will be enforced on the basis of the, roughly, prevailing ideological leaning of the forum. This change was proposed based on the statements of a right wing ideologue, and I'm curious as to whether the same criteria would apply to someone from a far left group.

Just to be clear I don't really have a dog in this fight. My days of political activity are past. It's just something you might want to think about.

Serious question. What would a left wing extremist look like?

I suspect look and behave exactly the same as a right wing extremist.

I can think of two groups off the top of my head. The first would be the ALF, advocating or at least being sympathetic to violence in helping animals. The second would be the Spartacists, who have been known to hand out pamphlets suporting North Korea's "right" to have and use nuclear weapons. There are others I'm more familiar with on a person level, and although they wouldn't be as vocal or explicit in their choice of words I'd know what they were getting at from experience.
Facsinating. Never heard of either of those.

There are more. Some have even managed to get representatives elected. The SA in Washington got Kshama Sawant on the city council in Seattle.
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: Siz on March 24, 2018, 02:35:49 AM

Wasn't there a 'shampoo protocol' some years ago?

An official/formal recommendation to deploy shampoo protocol on any given thread (or ignore them) might be enough to make them self-regulate . Any escalation of their posts to try to get a reaction is likely to contravene any number of existing ban-worthy rules anyway.

Is that naive?

£0.02.

Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: Bad Penny II on March 24, 2018, 01:18:30 PM
The recent events with Bretheren (he declared himself a Nazi) have led to discussions among the staff. The discussion led to the consideration of adding a new rule. In essence the rule would allow the staff to circumvent the existing 'three striles and you're out' for new members that support or are members of known racist, sexist or hate groups. The staff could effectivly ban on first offence.

What are your thoughts?

I'd make sport of them, they're such a bunch of stupid fucks.
Let them display their hate based view and make mockery.

Hey Siz :-)
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: Bad Penny II on March 24, 2018, 02:03:44 PM
Or no wingers.

What about Debra Winger?
I think Debra Winger should always be allowed.
What about food extremist like, vegans?  :eyebrow:

Less people eating meat → cheaper meat = Vegans good
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: Bad Penny II on March 24, 2018, 02:09:01 PM
Can we at least try to stay on topic please?

Cat herder [sneer emoticon hsssss)
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: Dave on March 24, 2018, 02:20:31 PM
Or no wingers.

What about Debra Winger?
I think Debra Winger should always be allowed.
What about food extremist like, vegans?  :eyebrow:

Less people eating meat → cheaper meat = Vegans good

You sure about that first part, Penny? The second part is judgment.

If the market for meat vollapses, because lots of people have stopped eating it, Farmer Giles has to reduce his beef herd of 200 to, ssy, 20. But he still needs to pay bills and taxes - which will not reduce by a factor of ten. So, no option but to charge more for what has now become a niche product!

Of course, if the change occurs slowly over a long period, like a generation, beef farmers will decline slowly, but betcha beef gets no cheaper! Same for all other meats.

I have to admit that I enjoy the taste of most Quorn products but had to get used to the texture. Just eaten some beef jerky, not found a veggie product to equal that texture.

However, the potential for nutrients per hectare certainly favour veggy stuff - and more so with GMOs - so long as they don't use aggro chemicals by the ton and poison the waterways.
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: Bad Penny II on March 24, 2018, 03:02:15 PM
Or no wingers.

What about Debra Winger?
I think Debra Winger should always be allowed.
What about food extremist like, vegans?  :eyebrow:

Less people eating meat → cheaper meat = Vegans good

You sure about that first part, Penny? The second part is judgment.

If the market for meat vollapses, because lots of people have stopped eating it, Farmer Giles has to reduce his beef herd of 200 to, ssy, 20. But he still needs to pay bills and taxes - which will not reduce by a factor of ten. So, no option but to charge more for what has now become a niche product!

Of course, if the change occurs slowly over a long period, like a generation, beef farmers will decline slowly, but betcha beef gets no cheaper! Same for all other meats.

I have to admit that I enjoy the taste of most Quorn products but had to get used to the texture. Just eaten some beef jerky, not found a veggie product to equal that texture.

However, the potential for nutrients per hectare certainly favour veggy stuff - and more so with GMOs - so long as they don't use aggro chemicals by the ton and poison the waterways.

Why assume the market vollapses?
And I thought farmer Giles was a pig farmer anyway, isn't he of Ham?
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: Dave on March 24, 2018, 04:59:16 PM
Or no wingers.

What about Debra Winger?
I think Debra Winger should always be allowed.
What about food extremist like, vegans?  :eyebrow:

Less people eating meat → cheaper meat = Vegans good

You sure about that first part, Penny? The second part is judgment.

If the market for meat vollapses, because lots of people have stopped eating it, Farmer Giles has to reduce his beef herd of 200 to, ssy, 20. But he still needs to pay bills and taxes - which will not reduce by a factor of ten. So, no option but to charge more for what has now become a niche product!

Of course, if the change occurs slowly over a long period, like a generation, beef farmers will decline slowly, but betcha beef gets no cheaper! Same for all other meats.

I have to admit that I enjoy the taste of most Quorn products but had to get used to the texture. Just eaten some beef jerky, not found a veggie product to equal that texture.

However, the potential for nutrients per hectare certainly favour veggy stuff - and more so with GMOs - so long as they don't use aggro chemicals by the ton and poison the waterways.

Why assume the market vollapses?
And I thought farmer Giles was a pig farmer anyway, isn't he of Ham?

Nfewer people buying a product usualy causes a fall in price and thus market value. Ubtil it reaches a new level (maybe higher) as a luxury or niche product.

Anyway, had a 100% veggie tea: carrot, cuccumber, red pepper, sweet chillies, olives, tomatoes, celery with crusty olive bread spread with olive oil derived immitation butter.

: show
To balance for stuffing myself with beef jerky earlier this aft!
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: Papasito Bruno on March 27, 2018, 06:01:57 PM
The recent events with Bretheren (he declared himself a Nazi) have led to discussions among the staff. The discussion led to the consideration of adding a new rule. In essence the rule would allow the staff to circumvent the existing 'three striles and you're out' for new members that support or are members of known racist, sexist or hate groups. The staff could effectivly ban on first offence.

What are your thoughts?

You have my vote...Fuck White Nationalists!
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: Tom62 on March 28, 2018, 05:29:24 AM
The recent events with Bretheren (he declared himself a Nazi) have led to discussions among the staff. The discussion led to the consideration of adding a new rule. In essence the rule would allow the staff to circumvent the existing 'three striles and you're out' for new members that support or are members of known racist, sexist or hate groups. The staff could effectivly ban on first offence.

What are your thoughts?

You have my vote...Fuck White Nationalists!

Fuck all extremists. I don't give a shit about their colour.
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: hermes2015 on March 28, 2018, 05:33:49 AM
The recent events with Bretheren (he declared himself a Nazi) have led to discussions among the staff. The discussion led to the consideration of adding a new rule. In essence the rule would allow the staff to circumvent the existing 'three striles and you're out' for new members that support or are members of known racist, sexist or hate groups. The staff could effectivly ban on first offence.

What are your thoughts?

You have my vote...Fuck White Nationalists!

Fuck all extremists. I don't give a shit about their colour.

One hundred percent agreement from me.
 :thumbsup:
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: Rift Zone on March 28, 2018, 05:41:13 AM
The way in which this was approached alone leaves the impression such power won't be abused.   So, I'd probably be on board with it even if my feelings about the situation wasn't along the lines of:  fuck all that; lose the lesser quality beings the moment they reveal themselves!    I simply won't have anything to do with hate groups/haters, including hang'n out in the same cyberspace.
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: Bad Penny II on March 28, 2018, 10:08:51 AM
The recent events with Bretheren (he declared himself a Nazi) have led to discussions among the staff. The discussion led to the consideration of adding a new rule. In essence the rule would allow the staff to circumvent the existing 'three striles and you're out' for new members that support or are members of known racist, sexist or hate groups. The staff could effectivly ban on first offence.

What are your thoughts?

You have my vote...Fuck White Nationalists!

Fuck all extremists. I don't give a shit about their colour.

One hundred percent agreement from me.
 :thumbsup:

The A problem is extremists don't think they're extremists.
I think climate change is pretty scary and some definite if not drastic action is warranted.  I'm an extremist to some, though I think I'm prudent. It's messy, this human being business.
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: Tank on March 28, 2018, 11:16:34 AM
The recent events with Bretheren (he declared himself a Nazi) have led to discussions among the staff. The discussion led to the consideration of adding a new rule. In essence the rule would allow the staff to circumvent the existing 'three striles and you're out' for new members that support or are members of known racist, sexist or hate groups. The staff could effectivly ban on first offence.

What are your thoughts?

You have my vote...Fuck White Nationalists!

Fuck all extremists. I don't give a shit about their colour.

One hundred percent agreement from me.
 :thumbsup:

The A problem is extremists don't think they're extremists.
I think climate change is pretty scary and some definite if not drastic action is warranted.  I'm an extremist to some, though I think I'm prudent. It's messy, this human being business.

That is a fair point, in the sense that one persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter. The reason for this rule addition was that we had never come up against a self confessed Nazi before. If he had just stated that inclination and not made a racist comment that member would probably still be here. But he did choose to make a racist comment. Now technically at the moment that should have been a first warning under the 'three strikes and you're out' mechanism. I took it upon myself to ban him at that point without giving the required two more warnings. But I don't like ignoring the rules of the forum (although it wouldn't be the first time I have done it). So if we get members of recognised extremist groups like the Nazi party or KKK I would like the staff to have the option to use the ban hammer on first offence if required. Does that make sense?
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: Bad Penny II on March 28, 2018, 11:47:40 AM
So if we get members of recognised extremist groups like the Nazi party or KKK I would like the staff to have the option to use the ban hammer on first offence if required. Does that make sense?

Of course it does.
 
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: Papasito Bruno on March 28, 2018, 12:57:33 PM
The recent events with Bretheren (he declared himself a Nazi) have led to discussions among the staff. The discussion led to the consideration of adding a new rule. In essence the rule would allow the staff to circumvent the existing 'three striles and you're out' for new members that support or are members of known racist, sexist or hate groups. The staff could effectivly ban on first offence.

What are your thoughts?

You have my vote...Fuck White Nationalists!

Fuck all extremists. I don't give a shit about their colour.

One hundred percent agreement from me.
 :thumbsup:

The A problem is extremists don't think they're extremists.
I think climate change is pretty scary and some definite if not drastic action is warranted.  I'm an extremist to some, though I think I'm prudent. It's messy, this human being business.

That is a fair point, in the sense that one persons terrorist is another persons freedom fighter. The reason for this rule addition was that we had never come up against a self confessed Nazi before. If he had just stated that inclination and not made a racist comment that member would probably still be here. But he did choose to make a racist comment. Now technically at the moment that should have been a first warning under the 'three strikes and you're out' mechanism. I took it upon myself to ban him at that point without giving the required two more warnings. But I don't like ignoring the rules of the forum (although it wouldn't be the first time I have done it). So if we get members of recognised extremist groups like the Nazi party or KKK I would like the staff to have the option to use the ban hammer on first offence if required. Does that make sense?

Absolutely it does, and I'm behind you 110 percent on this one Tank 8)
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: Tank on March 28, 2018, 01:03:11 PM
Here's a proposed addition to the rules of the site, intended to address this issue. It isn't necessarily a final draft. Suggestions or discussion by the members may produce improvements to the wording.




New members who espouse support for extremist ideologies or known hate groups may not receive the full benefit of the Rule Enforcement Process, and may be summarily banned at the discretion of the staff of the site.

So would any body like to comment on the proposed wording of the additional rule?
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: Bad Penny II on March 28, 2018, 01:28:50 PM
Here's a proposed addition to the rules of the site, intended to address this issue. It isn't necessarily a final draft. Suggestions or discussion by the members may produce improvements to the wording.




New members who espouse support for extremist ideologies or known hate groups may not receive the full benefit of the Rule Enforcement Process, and may be summarily banned at the discretion of the staff of the site.

So would any body like to comment on the proposed wording of the additional rule?

New members who espouse support for extremist ideologies or known hate groups,
May be:
Summarily banned because they support extremist ideologies or known hate groups or
Sold for use in medical and or behavioural experiments to finance this forum or
Otherwise disposed of at whim of members
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: Tank on March 28, 2018, 01:59:50 PM
Here's a proposed addition to the rules of the site, intended to address this issue. It isn't necessarily a final draft. Suggestions or discussion by the members may produce improvements to the wording.




New members who espouse support for extremist ideologies or known hate groups may not receive the full benefit of the Rule Enforcement Process, and may be summarily banned at the discretion of the staff of the site.

So would any body like to comment on the proposed wording of the additional rule?

New members who espouse support for extremist ideologies or known hate groups,
May be:
Summarily banned because they support extremist ideologies or known hate groups or
Sold for use in medical and or behavioural experiments to finance this forum or
Otherwise disposed of at whim of members
:grin:
No
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: Bluenose on March 29, 2018, 01:13:58 AM
My suggestion:

New members identifying with known extremist or hate groups may be banned at the discretion of the moderators of the forum on the first occasion of making racist, extremist or other posts of an extreme personal attack nature.
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: Sandra Craft on March 29, 2018, 04:43:13 AM
New members who espouse support for extremist ideologies or known hate groups,
May be:
Summarily banned because they support extremist ideologies or known hate groups or
Sold for use in medical and or behavioural experiments to finance this forum or
Otherwise disposed of at whim of members
:grin:
No

Nuts.   :sad sigh:
Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: Magdalena on March 29, 2018, 05:42:40 AM
New members who espouse support for extremist ideologies or known hate groups,
May be:
Summarily banned because they support extremist ideologies or known hate groups or
Sold for use in medical and or behavioural experiments to finance this forum or
Otherwise disposed of at whim of members
:grin:
No

Nuts.   :sad sigh:

Yeah, very nice, but no.  :notsure:



One more thing, this is just in case this actually wins...Trump won here, so you never know.

If they are going to be, Summarily banned, shouldn't they be Expediently Sold? And..."disposed of" how fast, exactly?  :eyebrow:

~Just wondering about these things.

Title: Re: A potential rule modification.
Post by: Asmodean on April 01, 2018, 02:44:41 PM
I'm somewhat late to the party, so... Here goes.

While I agree that we ahould not actively platform nazis, I think they ought to be allowed to stay and discuss their ideas as long as they keep the discourse civil from their end, and do not violate HaFs terms of service or various applicable laws and regulations.

I'm coming from a place of "If you want to change someone's mind, prove them wrong," and while it has its own pitfalls, I would no sooner ban a nazi for his or her affiliations than a revolutionary Marxist or an Antifa thug (Far-left extremist examples, since someone asked). Personally, I think most people who hold such views and want to use HaF as a platform for spreading or even discussing them would quickly grow bored and fade away, but if they genuinely want to discuss ideas and the merits thereof, then under the abovementioned conditions, it's OK by me.