Checking in

[Dave Ridley]

I've had problems accessing this forum because it is apparently confusing my IP with some EuroSpammers... I use a VPN.  But I did want to check in and say hi.   It's unfortunate so much traffic from what was once probably new hampshire's top web forum... has been stolen by facebook.  The experience here, when there were people here, was almost always superior to what has replaced it.

[Becky Thatcher]

It's unfortunate so much traffic from what was once probably new hampshire's top web forum... has been stolen by facebook. The experience here, when there were people here, was almost always superior to what has replaced it.

What do you mean there are no people here...what am I, chopped liver? 

It's true this forum, unfortunately, isn't as busy and lively as it used to be.  And that's a shame, some of the older threads are hilarious.  There are still people on here attempting to keep the Underground forum alive.  But this actually involves using said forum oneself instead of just blaming Facebook for "stealing" users and telling people they should just give up and go elsewhere.

[Free libertarian]

Nice that you are checking in Dada Orwell.     Yes, some of us are still here. 

I assume the question posed by Becky was rhetorical, but for the record she is not chopped liver. 

[John]

Hi.
Welcome home.

[Jim Johnson]

What's wrong with chopped liver?

[Tom Sawyer]

Dave is trying to reestablish the Free State Project forum as the place to organizes activism, both political and CD.

JonM makes the case for why it can't happen there... Ridley suggests Shire Society.

I guess his super secret VPN connection will keep his whereabouts secret...

Admins should re-allow political & civil dis organizing on this forum
http://forum.freestateproject.org/index.php?topic=28358.msg297711#msg297711

[JonM]

As I said over there, the FSP's mission is purely recruitment of Participants to reach 20,000.  The activities it does coordinate in NH, NHLF and PorcFest are to convince people to sign the SOI.  Once the FSP hits 20k, it will have no incentive to sponsor such events, but I feel confident both can continue on their own without FSP sponsorship.

As far as allowing coordination of activism within NH, to me it seems contrary to the stated mission, and could potentially jeopardize the 501(c)(3) status.  Now I agree that paying for the hosting of the website where the forum resides is a tenuous link between saying the FSP supports such discussion, though a change in the policy would say it condones it.  Would that be enough to make the government yank the 501(c)(3)? I dunno, it was hard enough to get the status to begin with.  A good argument can be made for allowing it, so I am open to having my mind changed, should a good enough case be made that it would not have jeopardize the tax exempt status.

The discussion which helped spark the creation of this forum was on coordinating a UN flag burning.  That wasn't considered super controversial, as few people who might be attracted to the FSP would have much an issue with it.  Discussion on burning of other flags might get more heated, so the decision to encourage people to move it to other websites was to avoid having to pick winners and losers on which discussions should be allowed and which should not.

If I changed my mind and reversed the policy, the other, far more active admin on the site, Jason is on board with that, then should there be limits on what TYPE of activism should be allowed to have coordination on the FSP's forums?  Would it be appropriate to coordinate a U.S. flag burning?  I certainly have no issue with a debate on whether or not that was appropriate.  Most of the people who are against it are against it, and forgive me for this word, for the "optics" of the situation.  Like the flying of the stars and bars, you may not intend for it to convey a racist message, but thanks to the actions of those who started flying it 50-60 years ago in protest of the civil rights movement, that's the message a great many people receive when they see it.  And there are probably even more controversial things that could be coordinated.  Is providing a place to discuss it really supporting it?  Does the FSP want to deal with things like Reason magazine had to when some of their forum users said some hyperbolic things?  Of course the stated posting guidelines already on the FSP forums suggest most of those posts would have been deleted by a moderator.  I doubt allowing in-state activism discussion would raise that potential much more than it sits at today.  They're watching us and always looking for an excuse to prove how right we are about them, for some reason.

If I change my position on the policy, the FSP leadership could still weigh in and set a policy.  So far as I know they never did.  If I decided to change it I'll let them know and give them a chance to react before setting that into place.

If you're gonna try and convince me, do it over there please.

[Tom Sawyer]

As I said over there, the FSP's mission is purely recruitment of Participants to reach 20,000.  The activities it does coordinate in NH, NHLF and PorcFest are to convince people to sign the SOI.  Once the FSP hits 20k, it will have no incentive to sponsor such events, but I feel confident both can continue on their own without FSP sponsorship.

As far as allowing coordination of activism within NH, to me it seems contrary to the stated mission, and could potentially jeopardize the 501(c)(3) status.  Now I agree that paying for the hosting of the website where the forum resides is a tenuous link between saying the FSP supports such discussion, though a change in the policy would say it condones it.  Would that be enough to make the government yank the 501(c)(3)? I dunno, it was hard enough to get the status to begin with.  A good argument can be made for allowing it, so I am open to having my mind changed, should a good enough case be made that it would not have jeopardize the tax exempt status.

The discussion which helped spark the creation of this forum was on coordinating a UN flag burning.  That wasn't considered super controversial, as few people who might be attracted to the FSP would have much an issue with it.  Discussion on burning of other flags might get more heated, so the decision to encourage people to move it to other websites was to avoid having to pick winners and losers on which discussions should be allowed and which should not.

If I changed my mind and reversed the policy, the other, far more active admin on the site, Jason is on board with that, then should there be limits on what TYPE of activism should be allowed to have coordination on the FSP's forums?  Would it be appropriate to coordinate a U.S. flag burning?  I certainly have no issue with a debate on whether or not that was appropriate.  Most of the people who are against it are against it, and forgive me for this word, for the "optics" of the situation.  Like the flying of the stars and bars, you may not intend for it to convey a racist message, but thanks to the actions of those who started flying it 50-60 years ago in protest of the civil rights movement, that's the message a great many people receive when they see it.  And there are probably even more controversial things that could be coordinated.  Is providing a place to discuss it really supporting it?  Does the FSP want to deal with things like Reason magazine had to when some of their forum users said some hyperbolic things?  Of course the stated posting guidelines already on the FSP forums suggest most of those posts would have been deleted by a moderator.  I doubt allowing in-state activism discussion would raise that potential much more than it sits at today.  They're watching us and always looking for an excuse to prove how right we are about them, for some reason.

If I change my position on the policy, the FSP leadership could still weigh in and set a policy.  So far as I know they never did.  If I decided to change it I'll let them know and give them a chance to react before setting that into place.

If you're gonna try and convince me, do it over there please.

Hello JonM, long time no hear. 

I was not in disagreement with your position. Sorry I was unclear about that.

[John]

I <3 it right here.
Peace

[dalebert]

Most forums have become a cozy meeting place for a few people. Nothing wrong with that. I stabbed at the behemoth that is Facebook for over a year with futility. Feel free to stab at it for a while yourself. It's is Quixotically satisfying for a while. 

[Dave Ridley]

Yay  for some reason I was able to log in today.   I'll keep trying now and then and trying to catch up.  Glad to see there is still traffic, though I miss the days when people organized action more here and it was easy to see.

thanks for mentioning my concerns in my absence tom.  I actually am also not sure I disagree with Jon;  I wouldn't want to see traffic on the free state forums that jeopardize their 501 c whatever status.  That status has not proven to be an obvious problem and hopefully  has helped them fundraise.

So: Everyone, what are you hearing and experiencing regarding access to this forum; are you getting blocked by the software from viewing it semi-randomly as I am?

[Free libertarian]

I do not experience log in problems Dada Orwell.

[Becky Thatcher]

We don't experience problems logging in either.

[JonM]

Dave comes in from many different ips, some which might have been blocked due to spammers.   I've tried to exempt him on the ftp forums, but don't know if it will work, as I can't seem to find a Whitelist like I recall from smf 1.1.  If anyone does have problems logging in there due to VPN, let me know.

As for here,  don't know which anti-spam mods are running,  but if an admin can let me know I can provide advice.

[John]

I never have problems getting in here, but Tom P. says he always does.