OWK
(revolutionary)
09/26/03 11:43 AM
|
LibertyForum Policies
[ Post 908877 ] |
| | Category: Private Topic: Galt's Gulch |
| | Synopsis: an attempt at codifying LF policy |
| | Source: LF |
| | Published: September 25, 2003 Author: OWK |
| | For Education and Discussion Only. Not for Commercial Use. |
What Users Can Expect of Liberty Forum
Free Speech
LibertyForum is dedicated to the libertarian and anarcho-capitalist principles it ultimately seeks to advance. As such, the forum operates on a free speech policy. This policy affords all participants the opportunity to post articles, opinions, political advocacies, philosophies, and miscellaneous commentary pursuant to their views. No action will be undertaken on the part of LibertyForum moderators or administrators to silence, remove, or otherwise modify posts, solely for reasons of political content. This policy shall not be construed as an endorsement on the part of LibertyForum, of any particular views expressed by its participants.
Non-Disclosure of User Information
Liberty Forum servers contain information provided by users, which might be considered sensitive. LibertyForum therefore operates on the assumption that all user information is private, and pledges to provide no voluntary disclosure of such information to any individual, company, or governmental agency.
Disclosure of Forum Action
LibertyForum wishes to inspire a sense of trust, community, and honesty between participants, and therefore pledges to openly disclose any action undertaken by forum moderators or administrators on the content of any individual post, or with any individual participant. This disclosure may take the form of a discussion post, a policy statement, or a simple annotation in the post acted upon. In the event that action is taken; discussion, feedback, and suggestions are encouraged.
Voluntary Compliance
In the case of forum actions, LibertyForum will (where possible) first seek to allow the user to redress his own posts which are contrary to forum policy. A private notification to the user is generally sufficient to bring about the desire modification. The forum does reserve the right to modify or remove posts in cases of refusal to abide by, or willful disregard for forum policies, without notification to the user.
Appeal of Forum Action
Actions undertaken by LibertyForum moderators, may be subject to appeal by the community of moderators as a whole, or by forum administrators. If you believe that you have been subjected to action that is not consistent with the policies of LibertyForum, that action may be appealed to forum staff in an effort to reconcile differences of opinion. The forum’s chief administrator will provide final arbitration if necessary.
What LibertyForum Expects of Users
Recognition of, and voluntary adherence to, the following policies….
Specific and Direct Threats of Violence or Harassment
LibertyForum recognizes coercion as contrary to the principles upon which it is established. Specific and direct (as opposed to conditional or hypothetical) threats of violence or harassment of LibertyForum members will not be tolerated. If in the opinion of forum moderators a particular post satisfies the requirement of a threat, the post will be removed. Continued posting of threats on the part of that poster may result in further action, up to and including suspension or banishment.
Spam
LibertyForum could not provide a forum for the exchange of ideas, if it were continuously subjected to spam. For the purposes of forum policy, spam will be defined as repeated graphic or text posts whether posted in single or multiple threads, which in the opinion of forum moderators are posted for reasons of impeding or destroying thread flow. Commercial solicitation or advertising posts will be considered spam unless pre-authorized by forum administration. Graphic depictions of explicit sex will also be considered spam. If in the opinion of forum moderators a particular post(s) satisfies the requirement of spam, the post(s) will be removed. Continued posting of spam on the part of that poster may result in further action, up to and including suspension or banishment.
Cyber Attacks
LibertyForum’s ability to deliver forum services is contingent on unimpeded access to it’s own hardware and software functionality. As such, any attempts to gain unauthorized access to forum software, forum logs, or forum servers, will be considered a cyber attack. Likewise, any attempt to overrun servers with traffic with the intent of choking bandwidth (Denial of Service) will also be considered a cyber attack. Cyber attack on the part of any subsequently identifiable user will result in action, including (but not necessarily limited to) suspension or banishment.
Violations of Individual Privacy
LibertyForum respects individual privacy, and operates under the assumption that all users will do likewise. The forum does not permit the posting information (in whole or in part) that could be considered identifying or private information. Examples of identifying or private information include but are not limited to address, telephone number, place of employment, geographical location, IP address, partial IP address, web traffic logs, or any other information that is not directly disclosed by the individual on LibertyForum. In situations of dispute, LibertyForum will err on the side of privacy. Posts that contain private information will be removed. If you have even the slightest suspicion that the individual would consider the information private, do not post it. Continued posting of private information may result in further action, up to and including suspension or banishment.
Use of Multiple Accounts
LibertyForum operates on a policy of one user account per individual user. The forum relies primarily on the integrity of users to adhere to this policy. The forum administration does reserve the right to review its internal registry information for multiple users accounts, and will do so from time to time. If multiple accounts are detected for a single user, the forum will (after consultation with that user) restrict the user to a single account. Continued registry of multiple accounts by that user may result in further action, up to and including suspension or banishment.
Multiple Users of a Single Account
LibertyForum has no way to determine with certainty whether multiple users are accessing a single account, and objectively sees no particular benefit to users in doing so. LibertyForum will therefore not restrict the practice of multiple users of a single account. The only exception to this policy, will be administrator or moderator accounts (which will be restricted to a single user).
Post Rating
LibertyForum provides a system of user feedback in its post rating system. The intent of this system is to provide honest feedback within the scope of the parameters available for rating posts. Users are expected to use the system with some measure of integrity. Post ratings that are (in the opinion of forum moderators) dishonest, punative, unduly favorable or otherwise outside the intended use of the post rating system, may be reversed by moderators. Continued misuse of the post rating system may result in further action, including but not necessarily limited to suspension of post rating privileges.
Article Attribution and Sourcing
LibertyForum allows for posting of material from other sources for the purposes of fair-use discussion. All articles and excerpts posted from other sources, must be posted unmodified so as not to allow confusion between what is sourced and what it original. Posts of sourced material must include proper attribution of the material, and provide a valid source link. If in the opinion of forum moderators a particular post is not properly sourced or attributed, the post may be removed. Continued posting of improperly sourced material may result in further action, up to and including suspension or banishment.
Modification of Article Subject Lines (Thread Titles)
LibertyForum provides for the ability to modify the title of a given thread. The intended use of this feature, is to recharacterize the scope of a discussion which has drifted from the original intent of the post so as not to continue with an off topic discussion on another's thread. It is NOT intended to allow for trivial expression of ideas, or ridicule of other posters. Modification of a thread title should include the new title first, then the old title as follows.. New Title (was: Old Title). Any use of forum members screen names in subject lines, will be removed by moderators.
Affirmation
Posting on LibertyForum is contingent on voluntary compliance on the part of indivdual users to the policies specified. Continued participation on the part of any user, signifies a good-faith willingness to adhere by these policies in spirit and in letter. Attempts to skirt forum policies by evading their intent with tortured word definitions or legalese interpretations, will be considered bad-faith on the part of the poster.
OWK writes: "please feel free to comment." Edited by OWK on 09/28/03 08:04 AM.
|
OWK
(revolutionary)
09/26/03 11:45 AM
|
Re: LibertyForum Policies
[ To: OWK | Post 908886, reply to 908877 ] (Score: 2) |
Flag to: Randal, CubicleGuy, Mr_Nuke_Buzzcut, boston_liberty, John Deere, LSJohn For your consideration.
"I don't think, or say, "nuke the Kikes". I say "nuke Tel Aviv". --bluegrass (yes, he was serious) 899878.
|
OWK
(revolutionary)
09/26/03 11:53 AM
|
Re: LibertyForum Policies
[ To: OWK | Post 908914, reply to 908886 ] (Score: 2) |
Flag to: MadameAxe FYI
"I don't think, or say, "nuke the Kikes". I say "nuke Tel Aviv". --bluegrass (yes, he was serious) 899878.
|
CubicleGuy
(agent provocateur)
09/26/03 12:14 PM
|
Re: LibertyForum Policies
[ To: OWK | Post 908977, reply to 908886 ] (Score: 2) |
Looks good. You should have been a professional disclaimer writer. It's not too late to give up that worthless artsy stuff, you know. 
For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another.
|
boston_liberty
(revolutionary)
09/26/03 12:29 PM
|
Re: LibertyForum Policies
[ To: OWK | Post 909039, reply to 908877 ] (Score: 2) |
Very well done.
|
Randal
(freedom fighter)
09/26/03 12:51 PM
|
Re: LibertyForum Policies
[ To: OWK | Post 909106, reply to 908877 ] (Score: 2) |
Looks good to me.
Couple of typo's:
Under "Post Rating", punative for punitive.
Under "Affirmation", individul for individual
The only bit I don't like is the bit under "Spam":
"For the purposes of forum policy, spam will be defined as repeated graphic or text posts whether posted in single or multiple threads, which in the opinion of forum moderators are posted for reasons of impeding or destroying thread flow."
I think this is a recipe for admin harassment of unpopular members, and is something better dealt with by the rating system. If you are talking about an automated repeat posting at high rate, that comes more under cyber attack, I'd say.
A few other items perhaps need covering if you want it to be fully comprehensive (pornography - perhaps under spam with commercial solicitation, criminal speech - threats to POTUS etc). Compliance with attribution rules for articles, thread titles, etc?
How comprehensive do you want to be?
"You only have to be sufficiently determined to realise heaven on earth to be sure of raising hell"
|
OWK
(revolutionary)
09/26/03 02:02 PM
|
Re: LibertyForum Policies
[ To: Randal | Post 909273, reply to 909106 ] (Score: 2) |
It occurred to me that we might want to cover pornography this morning... I'll work it in somewhere.
If you have any specific suggestions for the language under spam, I'd love to hear them.
I tried to make it unambiguous (repeated text/graphics for the purposes of...) kinda language... but any help would be appreciated.
Thanks
"I don't think, or say, "nuke the Kikes". I say "nuke Tel Aviv". --bluegrass (yes, he was serious) 899878.
|
LSJohn
(extremist)
09/26/03 09:47 PM
|
Re: LibertyForum Policies
[ To: OWK | Post 910152, reply to 908914 ] (Score: 2) |
Very well done.
I would like to see something regarding proper sourcing and attribution of articles.
Spam and pronography are both slippery slopes and I don't know how to handle them -- either as statement of policy, or in actual situations -- entirely objectively.
Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice
--Barry Goldwater (by Karl Hess)
|
OWK
(revolutionary)
09/27/03 12:38 AM
|
Re: LibertyForum Policies
[ To: LSJohn | Post 910436, reply to 910152 ] (Score: 2) |
I would like to see something regarding proper sourcing and attribution of articles.
Good suggestion, I'll add it.
Spam and pronography are both slippery slopes and I don't know how to handle them -- either as statement of policy, or in actual situations -- entirely objectively.
They are slippery slopes... but they need some mention I think.
I'll try to make the language as specific as possible (graphic depictions of sex, etc.) and will stress the self-restraint aspects indicating that users should choose to limit it themselves.
The forum will ultimately have to rely on the discretion of the moderators.
"I don't think, or say, "nuke the Kikes". I say "nuke Tel Aviv". --bluegrass (yes, he was serious) 899878.
|
kate9954
(neophyte)
09/27/03 07:10 AM
|
Re: LibertyForum Policies
[ To: OWK | Post 910625, reply to 908877 ] (Score: 1) |
I think you've done very well at defining spam. We have to look at the purpose of these forums, which is not to advertise our businesses. There is a tasteful and appropriate way to place an advertisement - namely our signatures, as I have done with my book - but to do a "buy me" sort of post would be completely inappropriate here.
In a forum devoted to discussing books, I might post a review of it with attribution - provided it wasn't written by me. Anything else is distracting from the purpose at hand.
I am not anti-advertising - in other venues, I'm an advertising mamma - but there is a place and a time, and frankly, to advertise inappropriately alienates more potential buyers than it attracts. So it's pointless anyway, and an annoyance to the rest of us.
I feel the same way about pornography. I am not against it. In the proper venue, it's both appropriate and enjoyable, and this wild eyed Pagan gal can enjoy porn with the best of us. But this isn't the proper venue. I come here to discuss (preferably non-violent) ways and means for recovering my/our lost freedoms, and I believe that is the case for most of us. Wrong place and time.
One very important exception that I see, however, is a porn site accepting emetal for payment. That is a valid business, whether you choose to indulge in purchasing it or not, and it is in keeping with our stated purpose of forming business alliances that use emetal for currency. That doesn't have to mean posting porn, by any means. But a porn business would be a completely valid candidate for membership in the alliance, and other members could purchase or not at their whim and in complete privacy.
One thing I have noticed is that these forums do seem to have a large number of "trolls," most of whom probably draw paychecks from Mr. Ashcroft under the reincarnation of COINTELPRO. If there is a way to limit their activities without curbing in the slightest way the free speech of the rest of us, I am all for it.
All in all, good job.
Kate
Kathryn A. Graham, author of Flight From Eden, first in the Eden series of Adventures in Freedom.
|
Randal
(freedom fighter)
09/27/03 07:18 AM
|
Re: LibertyForum Policies
[ To: OWK | Post 910629, reply to 909273 ] (Score: 2) |
Quote:
If you have any specific suggestions for the language under spam, I'd love to hear them.
For me, the administration should only step in to deal with commercial spam and that should be part of the definition.
Repetitive political expression (provided it isn't so repeated as to amount to a cyber attack) is something the membership should deal with through rating and peer pressure.
Any marginal benefit we might get from a general rule about non-commercial spam is outweighed by the virtual certainty of abuse, imo.
Pornography is a tricky one, certainly. Clearly it is a limitation on free speech which we apply for essentially pragmatic reasons. If a pornographic picture is required to make a point, though, a link will surely do almost as well.
"You only have to be sufficiently determined to realise heaven on earth to be sure of raising hell"
|
OWK
(revolutionary)
09/28/03 08:06 AM
|
Re: LibertyForum Policies
[ To: OWK | Post 912591, reply to 908886 ] (Score: 2) |
Flag to: Randal, CubicleGuy, Mr_Nuke_Buzzcut, boston_liberty, John Deere, LSJohn, MadameAxe Suggested edits have been included...
Still open for comments...
"I don't think, or say, "nuke the Kikes". I say "nuke Tel Aviv". --bluegrass (yes, he was serious) 899878.
|
OWK
(revolutionary)
09/28/03 08:18 AM
|
Re: LibertyForum Policies
[ To: OWK | Post 912601, reply to 912591 ] (Score: 2) |
(the edits were incorporated in the original post)
"I don't think, or say, "nuke the Kikes". I say "nuke Tel Aviv". --bluegrass (yes, he was serious) 899878.
|
MadameAxe
(agent provocateur)
09/28/03 09:22 AM
|
Re: LibertyForum Policies
[ To: OWK | Post 912676, reply to 908877 ] (Score: 2) |
You've still got "punative" instead of "punitive" in the post rating section.
|
MadameAxe
(agent provocateur)
09/28/03 09:26 AM
|
Re: LibertyForum Policies
[ To: OWK | Post 912680, reply to 908877 ] (Score: 2) |
Quote:
Any use of forum members screen names in subject lines, will be removed by moderators.
What about screen names that are parodies of public figures, like Scott McClellan?
|
OWK
(revolutionary)
09/28/03 12:18 PM
|
Re: LibertyForum Policies
[ To: MadameAxe | Post 912985, reply to 912676 ] (Score: 2) |
You've still got "punative" instead of "punitive" in the post rating section.
And I can no longer edit it... because the maximum edit time has expired.
I'll clean it up in the next post.
"I don't think, or say, "nuke the Kikes". I say "nuke Tel Aviv". --bluegrass (yes, he was serious) 899878.
|
LSJohn
(extremist)
09/28/03 05:14 PM
|
Re: LibertyForum Policies
[ To: OWK | Post 913441, reply to 912985 ] (Score: 2) |
Flag to: OWK, Randal In the spam section I would suggest adding, after, "will be removed" the following sentence: "As with all actions by individual moderators, removal of a thread or post may be appealed to the admin/moderator group as a whole for review."
Otherwise, I think the spam section (as all the rest) is fine. I agree that it gives admins/mods more discretion than we'd think ideal, but making the policy more liberal would have as much disadvantage as advantage IMO. I was one who thought James Bond's repeated posts of links crossed the line into spam in that they were so often posted on threads whose subject matter was not related to his list of links. I think the administration should retain the authority to deal with such.
Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice
--Barry Goldwater (by Karl Hess)
|
OWK
(revolutionary)
09/28/03 05:21 PM
|
Re: LibertyForum Policies
[ To: LSJohn | Post 913458, reply to 913441 ] (Score: 2) |
I explicitly covered the idea that all moderator actions were subject to appeal, in an earlier section devoted to this alone (under what users can expect of the forum)
I didn't see a need to repeat it with each section... but I can if you guys think I should.
"I don't think, or say, "nuke the Kikes". I say "nuke Tel Aviv". --bluegrass (yes, he was serious) 899878.
|
Randal
(freedom fighter)
09/29/03 12:12 AM
|
Re: LibertyForum Policies
[ To: LSJohn | Post 914149, reply to 913441 ] (Score: 2) |
Recent experience confirms my belief that the administration is not to be trusted with such authority.
Imo, it is simply a pretext for a politically or personally motivated confrontation, waiting for its moment.
"You only have to be sufficiently determined to realise heaven on earth to be sure of raising hell"Edited by Randal on 09/29/03 12:16 AM.
|
LSJohn
(extremist)
09/29/03 12:50 AM
|
Re: LibertyForum Policies
[ To: OWK | Post 914179, reply to 913458 ] (Score: 2) |
I see it now.... good enough
Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice
--Barry Goldwater (by Karl Hess)
|
LSJohn
(extremist)
09/29/03 12:52 AM
|
Re: LibertyForum Policies
[ To: Randal | Post 914181, reply to 914149 ] (Score: 2) |
I understand, but it can always be reviewed and reversed when other admins/mods think that is the case.
I feel better if we explicitly state that spam -- even subjectively viewed -- is subject to deletion.
Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice
--Barry Goldwater (by Karl Hess)
|
Randal
(freedom fighter)
09/29/03 01:23 AM
|
Re: LibertyForum Policies
[ To: LSJohn | Post 914201, reply to 914181 ] (Score: 2) |
Quote:
I understand, but it can always be reviewed and reversed when other admins/mods think that is the case.
Easier said than done. Once a confrontation has been initiated the "victim" is likely to respond with defiance which might create further and more genuine cause for sanction, and furthermore there is a natural temptation to not rock the boat and not undermine the administration.
Quote:
I feel better if we explicitly state that spam -- even subjectively viewed -- is subject to deletion.
One man's (non-commercial) "spam" is another man's "information so important it needs to be repeated". Imo this is exactly the kind of thing which can be dealt with by the rating system because it is (almost entirely) internal to members' posts.
Fair enough, though. It's a balance of pros and cons issue, after all. We come down on different sides.
"You only have to be sufficiently determined to realise heaven on earth to be sure of raising hell"
|
LSJohn
(extremist)
09/29/03 06:49 AM
|
Re: LibertyForum Policies
[ To: Randal | Post 914392, reply to 914201 ] (Score: 2) |
I may have created the impression that I feel more strongly about this than I do.
Just offereing my best guess about my best guess.
It's a minor issue anyway.... at least it has been thus far.
Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice
--Barry Goldwater (by Karl Hess)
|
OWK
(revolutionary)
09/29/03 01:01 PM
|
Re: LibertyForum Policies
[ To: LSJohn | Post 915149, reply to 914392 ] (Score: 2) |
Flag to: LSJohn, Randal I'm with you.
I'm more inclined to mention it than not (hoping to rely on the self-governing properties of most).
Deal with rogue moderators as the problem that they are.
Don't convolute the spam issue with them.
"I don't think, or say, "nuke the Kikes". I say "nuke Tel Aviv". --bluegrass (yes, he was serious) 899878.
|
Eric
(rebel)
09/29/03 09:58 PM
|
Re: LibertyForum Policies
[ To: Randal | Post 916177, reply to 914201 ] (Score: 2) |
"One man's (non-commercial) "spam" is another man's "information so important it needs to be repeated". Imo this is exactly the kind of thing which can be dealt with by the rating system because it is (almost entirely) internal to members' posts."
Just one question in regards to this. I would like to know if it is acceptable to downrate a poster who has placed you on a flag list of random users after you have explicitly asked to be removed from said list? This is the method I took in response to JamesBond and may very well have to take up against EricTheRed(Although he seems to be far more selective and his flagging has not crossed the spam line to my knowledge)
Without a Question there is no Answer.. Think about that before you go on your next rant..
|
Flat
Threaded