Useful References

I'm sorry that the tenor of the discussion reached such a pitch that James felt that the comments on Betsy's thread had to be closed. I hope it is not too much to assume that Linda's suggestions were not part of what was objectionable, and not part of what James characterized as "shit."

I truly hope that James (and others) would agree that Linda had some excellent suggestions for standards that should satisfy everyone's interest in seeing the blog remains an interesting, informative and welcoming site.

If I'm wrong, James, please do delete this post, because it isn't my intention to oppose your decision.

To quote from Blue Jersey's site:

Blue Jersey is a community and, as in any community, there will be people with whom you agree and people with whom you disagree. As with any other community, we can all manage to get along reasonably well if we just observe some simple, common sense rules for our interactions. Blue Jersey has no objection to heated discussion or disagreement and we welcome impassioned discussion, but there are lines that your common sense should be enough to keep you from crossing. These are our rules:

1. Don't be an ass. This should be enough for most people, but if you need clarification, keep reading.

2. Racism, bigotry, threats of violence and other hate-filled language is strictly prohibited.

3. No personal attacks or revealing of private information is tolerated. This is grounds for immediate banning.

4. No comment spam. Advertising an unrelated site by posting a comment or diary is not tolerated. If it's not relevant to the blog, don't link it.

5. Stay on topic. When responding to a diary or comment, don't hijack the diary with random issues. Respond to the topic being discussed, or write your own diary.

6. Troll ratings are for trolls, not people you disagree with. They play an important role in the community self-moderating itself, so use the ratings appropriately.

Rule #1 is the most important, basically covers everything and is obviously up for interpretation (ours). If you're here just to pick a fight or start trouble, it's pretty easy to tell, but for most people, these rules are common sense and shouldn't be any problem.


I spoke to these on the previous thread

and James agrees with me per our most recent phone conversation. It isn't that the repetition isn't helpful, it's that this issue has already been settled.

Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

I have no objection to them.

I have no objection to them. I just don't think they are demonstrably clearer or less subjective than our current guideline.

More to the point, these ideas don't apply in all situations. We have encountered racism and bigotry here and it has led to productive conversations. I do not consider that a cause for banning someone, certainly not for one instance. Nor do I consider "staying on topic" a useful guideline. Spam is not generally a problem here. And we don't have troll ratings.

All that said, I agree with the last point.

Rule #1 is the most important, basically covers everything and is obviously up for interpretation (ours). If you're here just to pick a fight or start trouble, it's pretty easy to tell, but for most people, these rules are common sense and shouldn't be any problem.

That is exactly what is meant by "intolerably obnoxious."



the fact that they aren't demonstrably clearer or less subjective than our current guideline is why I object to them.

Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

No, I don't think so.

It seems to me that neither you nor James were interestd in looking at any other guidelines.

Of course, you need not look at any other anything. Since it is your site, yours and James', you are entitled to set the rules, and whomever signs onto this site should abide by them or leave. That's a given.

Since it is a given, though, it seems to me that it wouldn't have been so difficult to at least give consideration to the suggestions Linda made. She has been here a long time, contributed quite a bit, and surely deserved better treatment. She was encouraged to make the effort by James, and then spoken to as though the effort were not welcome or worthy.

I do hope that Linda and Grace do not feel discouraged from continuing to contribute to this site because of the hostility they encountered today.

I just have a feeling

that others who contribute meaningfully to this site might appreciate consideration of these guidelines. And of course one wouldn't necessarily invoke the standards for one offense or three, but at least there is some clear guidance as to what is considered offensive. For example, racism as a point of discussion is clearly useful, but a person whose pattern demonstrates a desire to foster or otherwise encourage hateful attitudes would probably not be contributing productively.

Ya know, just because I'm the only person making these points doesn't mean I'm the only person who has these thoughts.

Also, I think Linda deserves the respect of having her suggestions thoughtfully reviewed instead of being dismissed out of hand.

You don't have troll ratings, but you do have people who use the term rather loosely, so, again, I thought the standard was helpful even if we don't have ratings per se.

Could be tweaked. I'm not sure why there would be any objection to further consideration when at least two other people have indicated interest in doing so.

And I don't want you to think, James, that my raising these points reflects distrust for your motives or intentions. I apologize for saying otherwise in private conversation with you. I think you tend to react too quickly sometimes, but that you make a genuine effort to be fair is something that I acknowledge and appreciate.

intolerably obnoxious

You know who is intolerably obnoxious? Skip Stam. Should he be banned from BlueNC?

I 100% believe that there is speech that has no place on BlueNC. Viagra ads are as an obvious example, though intentional racism would be my first concern.

While the community obviously ought to reserve the right to moderate the site, I'm very proud that we have never, to my knowledge, banned anyone. I'd love to continue that running streak as long as possible.

- - - - -
McCain - The Third Bush Term

running streak

I should have said "I'm very proud... and I know that all of us want to keep that streak"

(because yeah I realize that you're not advocating for . . .)

- - - - -
McCain - The Third Bush Term

Well...we have banned a coupla folks...but for different reasons

The whole sock puppet mess. We have also blocked a few spam accounts...that sort of thing. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. We haven't banned anyone for meeting or surpassing the intolerably obnoxious standard.

Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.

Skip Stam

irritates the hell out of me. But he's a bright guy, knows the rules, plays by the rules, is effective for his constituents, all of which I admire, despite his politics.

One person's spam

is probably another person's spam. I take it ads for vertebral adjustment and bone density are right off the table!


Sorry. I was just practicing my authoritarian, oligarchal, "Council of Elders"-type voice. And it cracked. ;/

"Don't look so surprised, Princess;

you weren't on any mercy mission this time. You are part of a rebel alliance and a traitor! Take her away!"

more like.....

"jump in where you can and hang on"
Briscoe Darling to Sheriff Andy

That's even funnier

than that lady juror in the Menendez' case that kept showing up in a Star Trek Next Generation uniform. :)

That made me think of an idea for BlueNC TV

"The Klingon who ran for Delegate" ... of course, it'd be funnier if they crashed the convention in St. Paul.

I ♥ NC General Statute § 163‑211.

I always wanted to be the avenging cowboy hero—that lone voice in the wilderness, fighting corruption and evil wherever I found it, and standing for freedom, truth and justice. - Bill Hicks

hell yeah~

that beats wearing that wacky outfit with sweet buns on the head that Princess Lea wore.

It would also help

if people were not afraid to stick out, to speak up when someone is treated badly, to take a stand on the record, to speak consistently on an issue, and not withhold a valid concern because of fear for the reaction.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

There's a reason I like that quote so much (even if Burke was a danged conservative!)

I take seriously the accusation that I have frightened people away, because I certainly loathe the idea of frightening people. But I think the accusation of "bullying" is something that anyone should take seriously.

It shouldn't be ok for me, and it shouldn't be ok for anyone else. I'd like to see that *that* proposition is taken seriously here, but in all honesty there does seem to be a double standard.