Forum Community Guidelines

[Mr. Morden]

Given Dave's wishes about limiting long threads, shouldn't the "Opinion of Previous Poster's Signature Thread" being retired, and a "Part 2" created?

[Mr. Morden]

attention forum denizens. clarification of forum rules courtesy of Mod-Admin Nym:

• Posting quotes from banned posters here is most definitely not allowed and will be infracted at the maximum penalty.

I interpret that to mean quotes of them from other media, etc.  If a banned poster sends you an email or posts on another forum, you can't reproduce what they said here, or they're basically "shadow posting" on the forum.

But quoting old posts of theirs, from before they were banned, I don't read Nym's statement as suggesting that that's forbidden.

[Mr. Morden]

Good grief... did I actually infract on excessive hyperbole? I always hated that category... so subjective.

I don't think it's used much nowadays.

Anyway, wasn't an excessive hyperbole introduced primarily to deal with the likes of Libertas?

Here is the "excessive hyperbole" debate with Libertas thread, complete with participation by Dave himself:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=122436.0

[Mr. Morden]

Good grief... did I actually infract on excessive hyperbole? I always hated that category... so subjective.

I don't think it's used much nowadays.

Anyway, wasn't an excessive hyperbole introduced primarily to deal with the likes of Libertas?

Here is the "excessive hyperbole" debate with Libertas thread, complete with participation by Dave himself:

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=122436.0

You know what the funny thing is, reading Dave's first post in that thread, it's clear he is not nearly as libertarian in his moderation as the cave interprets. If Dave were a very active moderator on this site, all those petitions on The Atlas board would probably actually be taken into account:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I totally disagree - rhetoric is one thing, excessive hyperbole is exaggeration to the extreme.  I consider it inappropriate to exaggerate beyond reason another person's position - especially to the point of disrespecting the English language.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

is about as bad as it gets... a statement as such is not only inaccurate, but shows utter ignorance for the meanings of the words "fascist" & "extremist", attenuates the true meaning of these words and deafens people to the vigilance they need to confront real threats of people that wish to institute extreme fascism (don't cry wolf).

Furthermore, lets make reasoned rhetoric and hold rational discussions - such statements as above only inflame and enrage, leading to passion instead of reason, making for poor judgement.

Thanks,
Dave

(yes excuse the quote time , I had to rebuild the quote from scratch since I can't actually click the quote button in that thread due to it being locked)

Yes, Dave would be pretty ruthless in terms of what kinds of posts get moderated.  Not sure the same applies to the question of who gets banned though.  Although when he initially introduced the infraction point system, he suggested that anyone getting 20 moderated posts would be banned.  Imagine all the bans we'd have in that case.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I forget if it was this thread or another one where Lunar commented on how funny it was that Dave always ended things with "thanks, Dave", even when he was angry.  I think Lunar even imagined a hypothetical message like:

You must be logged in to read this quote.