I think the martial law could be amended and follows guidelines that are used to keep debates civil at Parliaments:
Like in certain Parliaments, it could be forbidden (with a thread ban as sanction)
- to suggest that a poster is dishonest or is lying.
- some words could be forbidden: "apologist" is already forbidden, the list could also include words that are baiting/flaming, like "nazi", "fascist", "evil", "animals" (referring to people). That could include obviously exagerated suggestions like "they don't want peace", "all they want is to destroy X"...
Unparliamentary language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Also, some topics could be forbidden when they are not mentioned in the OP, such as the existence of Palestinian/Jewish people, the right of Israeli/Palestinians to have their own state...
All these things could be listed under the martial law: when someone is infracted for baiting/flaming, the infracted part of the post could be copy-pasted in a post visible by everyone ( a kind of case-law), so that everyone can clearly see what is not tolerated.
Furthermore, I think all moderator actions (thread bans...) in this forum should be public.
I think your post is so cute. I don't know where you're from, but I think your post shows that you don't have a clear idea of freedom of speech. "Political bias optional. Civility a must," seems to be the only rule on this forum. And seems to be enforced rather well.
We really don't have "freedom of speech" on this website, though, because this website is sponsored by someone else. That "someone else" calls the shots. So -- don't like the rules -- go to another website. All in all, seems to me that unless one is personally attacking a poster in an obvious and insulting way, the mods will let it stand. Works for me.
Hope it works for you.
I think your post is so cute. I don't know where you're from, but I think your post shows that you don't have a clear idea of freedom of speech. "Political bias optional. Civility a must," seems to be the only rule on this forum. And seems to be enforced rather well.
We really don't have "freedom of speech" on this website, though, because this website is sponsored by someone else. That "someone else" calls the shots. So -- don't like the rules -- go to another website. All in all, seems to me that unless one is personally attacking a poster in an obvious and insulting way, the mods will let it stand. Works for me.
Hope it works for you.
I think the martial law could be amended and follows guidelines that are used to keep debates civil at Parliaments:
Like in certain Parliaments, it could be forbidden (with a thread ban as sanction)
- to suggest that a poster is dishonest or is lying.
- some words could be forbidden: "apologist" is already forbidden, the list could also include words that are baiting/flaming, like "nazi", "fascist", "evil", "animals" (referring to people). That could include obviously exagerated suggestions like "they don't want peace", "all they want is to destroy X"...
Also, some topics could be forbidden when they are not mentioned in the OP, such as the existence of Palestinian/Jewish people, the right of Israeli/Palestinians to have their own state...
All these things could be listed under the martial law: when someone is infracted for baiting/flaming, the infracted part of the post could be copy-pasted in a post visible by everyone ( a kind of case-law), so that everyone can clearly see what is not tolerated.
Furthermore, I think all moderator actions (thread bans...) in this forum should be public.
I would like to see a ban on the promotion of hate sites, myself.
Bub has been here for nearly 4 years. You haven't been here 4 weeks as of yet.
I don't think I have seen you post in the forum in question, the middle east forum, which already has its own distinct set of rules. Bub is referring to that specific forum, which you might have recognized had you been around long enough to get the lay of the land.
His were well-intentioned suggestions, and I don't think you should fault him for them without knowing anything about the subject matter.
I think your post is so cute. I don't know where you're from, but I think your post shows that you don't have a clear idea of freedom of speech. "Political bias optional. Civility a must," seems to be the only rule on this forum. And seems to be enforced rather well.
We really don't have "freedom of speech" on this website, though, because this website is sponsored by someone else. That "someone else" calls the shots. So -- don't like the rules -- go to another website. All in all, seems to me that unless one is personally attacking a poster in an obvious and insulting way, the mods will let it stand. Works for me.
Hope it works for you.
bub is speaking about a specific sub-forum... the ME Forum. There are enhanced rules there. Here is the sticky that explains them:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/57330-martial-law-me-forum.html/
This is the discussion of this thread.
I'm going to take a chance and allow this discussion with the hope that it neither turns into mod bashing, nor attacks amongst the factions in the ME Forum. I would like ME Forum members to participate, of course, but anyone may. I would appreciate some solid feedback either on what bub is proposing, your own thoughts.
All these things could be listed under the martial law: when someone is infracted for baiting/flaming, the infracted part of the post could be copy-pasted in a post visible by everyone ( a kind of case-law), so that everyone can clearly see what is not tolerated.
Furthermore, I think all moderator actions (thread bans...) in this forum should be public.
I would like to see a ban on the promotion of hate sites, myself.
Regarding the new post on Middle East Forum rules:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/78853-middle-east-forum-rules.html
If we are going to prohibit specific terms and concepts, and particularly if the list of prohibitions is rather extensive, there seem to be two glaring omissions from the list.
1) Calling anyone an anti-Semite, "Jew hater," or variations thereof. Merriam-Webster defines anti-Semitism as "hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group." The definition has nothing to do with opposition to Israeli or American policy.
There is a dangerous confluence between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, though the two concepts are not always identical. Anti-Zionism is often used to conceal hatred of Jews. Anti-Semitic views can be easily distinguished from legitimate criticism of Israel.
-Consider the source. Is the speaker someone with a history of anti-Jewish attitudes?
-Critics who habitually single out Israel for condemnation while ignoring far worse actions by other countries (especially other Middle Eastern countries) are anti-Semitic.
-Likening Israel to Nazi Germany, or to traditional anti-Jewish stereotypical behavior is another sure sign of Jew-baiting.
- Attacks on the merits of Israel's existence rather than individual government policies are anti-Semitic.
2) Accusing anyone of hate speech. Black's Law Dictionary defines hate speech as "speech that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, such as a particular race, esp. in circumstances where the communication is likely to provoke violence."
This is one suggestion I have thought about, myself, and agree with. Anything to make things more consistant fair and transparent is a good thing.
People need to think about unintended consequences here before making new rules sure to be exploited by those with an agenda. Even though you and I disagree vehemently, I don't see you as one of those people who has such an agenda since you get out into the rest of the forum, discuss things with folks and are a generally friendly fellow. There are others, however, who only do one thing on this forum, and that is to vent their spleen on one subject and THAT is the source of the problem here...
Well, what is the criteria for something to be a 'hate site'?
I mean sure we can't link stormfront but that is a given.
First, thank you for your suggestions. Some study might be needed to properly incorporate something along those lines into the Middle East Forum's rules.
The dictionary definition is fairly straight-forward. Certainly, I agree that anti-semitism is not identical to criticism of Israel's policy. However, in recent years, certain treatment directed at Israel has been viewed as an example of discrimination against Jews. For example, when one gets into holding Israel--the world's Jewish state--to a separate standard than other countries, some sources define that different treatment as anti-semitic, as Israel serves as a proxy for the Jewish people. The Jewish Virtual Library explains:
IMO, rather than calling a member anti-semitic, members should report the offending messages. The moderators could then review the matter. If the posted content is truly anti-semitic that would violate Rule 18. In any case, the term should not be used lightly.
DP's Rule 18 already deals with that matter. As noted in the Middle East Forum's rules, the set of rules is in addition to DP's existing rules.
Hi,
While, as you say, anti-zionism may be similar to anti-semitism, there are many cases where the accusation of anti-semitism can be dismissed and should be considered as an attempt to derail an argument.
For example, I think it is clear that criticism towards certain Israeli policies are not directed towards the state of Israel nor towards Israeli, and thus are neither antizionist nor anti-semite.
I have a suggestion for the ME forum.
Perpetual Halloween.
Have all the supporters for Israel dress up as Palestinians, and the supporters for the Palestinians dress up as Israelis. Since nobody is going to be uncivil to or bash their own, problem is solved (although some on each side may fight amongst themselves). :mrgreen:
First, thank you for your suggestions. Some study might be needed to properly incorporate something along those lines into the Middle East Forum's rules.
The dictionary definition is fairly straight-forward. Certainly, I agree that anti-semitism is not identical to criticism of Israel's policy. However, in recent years, certain treatment directed at Israel has been viewed as an example of discrimination against Jews. For example, when one gets into holding Israel--the world's Jewish state--to a separate standard than other countries, some sources define that different treatment as anti-semitic, as Israel serves as a proxy for the Jewish people. The Jewish Virtual Library explains:
IMO, rather than calling a member anti-semitic, members should report the offending messages. The moderators could then review the matter. If the posted content is truly anti-semitic that would violate Rule 18. In any case, the term should not be used lightly.
DP's Rule 18 already deals with that matter. As noted in the Middle East Forum's rules, the set of rules is in addition to DP's existing rules.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?