Help Kat and Russell clarify the forum rules

[Quantrill]

Sorry, what is Second Life?  I've heard of this but have no idea what it is...

[jaqeboy]

Sorry, what is Second Life?  I've heard of this but have no idea what it is...

http://www.secondlife.com/

Check it out. There's even a porcupine bar in Second Life! The Gimme Liberty Bar. If all goes well, we'll have a demonstration again at PorcFest.

[Caleb]

And we even have a porcupine who monitors Second Life and reports neer-do-wells to the FBI! 

[Tom Sawyer]

I have seen quite a bit of tolerance here of different opinions and tactics.

This is not an antigun or an endorsement of pacifism debate.

It is as simple as if the host or others at the party ask you to be cool, and you continue to show your ass you will be asked to leave.

[MaineShark]

It's not a subtle point that she's making.  I refer you to this remark from the forum administrator (emphasis mine):

violence against the government goes against what we're trying to do and discussions of it here are not appropriate.  We tolerate (barely) the political discussion because it doesn't directly interfere with what we're doing.  So if you want to discuss violent revolution, Unintended Consequences shooting cops or other government officials "Is it time to shoot the bastards yet?"  we're asking you to take your discussion elsewhere

Does that clarify?

Given that I've obviously read that, and we're having this discussion... no.

If you don't like what I'm doing here, go somewhere else.  Rob and Maineshark should consider joining him.

I have considered and continue to consider all available options.  However, I am trying to find out what you're doing here.  It may very well be that I like it plenty, but I think I've made it clear that I don't understand the ultimate intent, and would greatly like to do so.

Joe

[Caleb]

Well, since you're still in the dark ...

I guess the best thing to do will be to see which of your posts get deleted, then you will know the type of things that are not appreciated on this forum, and can adjust your posting pattern accordingly. 

[David]

It does seem like a pointless meeting.  You are assuming that their decision was some sort of reactionary knee jerk reaction? I don't think that was the case.

The problem with a situation like this is that its difficult to make blanket rules.  Some guy says, "if they came to my house and did that to my family, they'd have a .45 waiting for them!" That remark is dismissed, because no one really expects the guy to go on a shooting spree, so the remark is taken for what it is:  an off the hip remark made in frustration.

The problem is that sometimes these threats and statements start escalating.  At some point the line has to be drawn....Or would you be content with people planning violent insurrection on this forum?  What, exactly, is that point where its gone too far? I think its reached a point where a lot of people aren't comfortable with the direction the forum is going, and Kat and Russell decided to nip it in the bud here and now.  At least, that's how it seems to me.  What is the point of any meeting?

I have to agree completely.  I do not believe people want to kill (psycopaths aside) other people.  But being threated by those in 'authority' naturally causes a reaction. 
I enjoy this forum.  I am very concerned by the direction that sometimes it goes into. 
Every man and woman must choose the path that they will go to.  But I must, for my own comfort, and mental wellbeing pursue my path, and I like this forum, because for the most part, folks here have chosen a similar, but not identical path. 
Because in the end, if we can get the enforcers to leave us alone, I'll be more than happy to sit down and have a cold one with the former oppressors, because at that point they are my friend, not my enemy. 

[MaineShark]

Well, since you're still in the dark ...

I guess the best thing to do will be to see which of your posts get deleted, then you will know the type of things that are not appreciated on this forum, and can adjust your posting pattern accordingly. 

In that case I guess I can assume that nothing I've said here falls outside the standards, as I'm unaware of any of my posts being deleted.

Thanks.

Joe

[Caleb]

I'm aware of nothing that you have said that is "over the top" ... as far as I'm concerned, and I would feel comfortable around you, even if you were carrying.

Then again, I don't read very many of the threads ...

Caleb

[MaineShark]

I'm aware of nothing that you have said that is "over the top" ... as far as I'm concerned, and I would feel comfortable around you, even if you were carrying.

I'm glad to hear that, particularly given the unlikelyhood of me being out in public and not being armed.  I have never and will never initiate force against any person, for any reason.  That was my rule long before I ever heard it put into simple terms like that; I simply knew it was wrong, as far back as I can remember.

Joe

[Caleb]

Do those folk get alerted that their posts are being deleted because of offensive content/used to be just ignored in hopes that they would find more fertile ground   elsewhere.

Should Joe be worried because his significant other has posted suggestions to start a swinger's site here?  There are interesting reasons why Kat and Russell feel that they lost control of something that would have evolved so quickly into
something that people freely contribute free thought process to no matter how controversial.

No one ever promised that a kitchen in cyberspace wouldn't throw in some bad ingredients once in awhile to make sure the general public was not completely satisfied with the general trash that they get dished day in and day out in real life.

I have only personally deleted one post, because it was hateful towards another member of the forum.  when I did that, I did not send a message. I do not intend to delete any posts regarding Kat's new policy on violence, but I will flag posts that I find offensive or in violation for her attention. I would imagine that you will not receive a message, your post will just be gone.

I do not intend to delete or flag Denise's swingers ads, though if I see them I find them in poor taste, especially since there are other forums that are specifically designed for such things and there are some people here under age 18. I don't know what Kat and Russell will do about those posts, but if they start disappearing, I trust that most people won't care.

Agreed that we won't always like things others post. I'm sure people don't like some of my posts, and every day I get a chuckle out of others' posts. Overall, there has been hardly any censorship on this forum, and I think that it is a slap in the face to Kat and Russell to challenge them when they make reasonable requests about what they don't want to see on their forum.

[MaineShark]

Should Joe be worried because his significant other has posted suggestions to start a swinger's site here?

For the record, Denise has suggested no such thing.  We do not believe in monogamy, but that does not in any way equate to "swinging."  Swinging is about random sex.  Polyamory is about meaningful, emotional relationships that happen to include more than two members.

Joe

[Caleb]

Sorry for the confusion. Like I said, I don't read all threads so when dog said that she had suggested starting a site, I took that to be true, even though I haven't seen it myself.  I apologize if that's not the case.

Giving my opinion on something that you didn't ask for my opinion, it has been my experience that "open marriages" rarely result in happiness for those involved in it. I have seen too many people in unhappy "open marriages" ... but different strokes for different folks.

[Rochelle]

Rules? I thought the only hard and fast rule was the post political stuff in the political sections or it would be deleted. Never thought there were any other ones.

The rule I follow myself for posting loosely follows the "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all." There are plenty of topics that I've read on this website that I do not disagree with what is being said or suggested (especially the stuff that seems to be advocating violence!) and I just don't go in there. It doesn't involve me, and I don't want it to.

Be a real libertarian, and mind your own business.

It's Russell and Kat's call what they want to edit on the site and what they don't. I'm just glad they maintain a forum so I don't have to!

[MaineShark]

Sorry for the confusion. Like I said, I don't read all threads so when dog said that she had suggested starting a site, I took that to be true, even though I haven't seen it myself.  I apologize if that's not the case.

No harm was intended, so no apology is necessary.  Her suggestion was to start a dating forum since so many libertarians are single, and might hope to connect with other libertarians, in whatever relationships happen to suit the parties involved.

Giving my opinion on something that you didn't ask for my opinion, it has been my experience that "open marriages" rarely result in happiness for those involved in it. I have seen too many people in unhappy "open marriages" ... but different strokes for different folks.

Depends on the folks, as you said.  Those who do not experience jealousy could never be happy paying lip service to monogamy, "just because."  Those who experience jealousy towards their significant other could not be happy with more than two members in a marriage.  C'est la vie.

Joe