• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Updated rules - Hate Messages [W:27, 43, 103]

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
From the update forum rules :

18. Hate Messages - Hate Messages delivered via threads, posts, signatures, or PM's are forbidden at Debate Politics. The Moderator Team defines a hate message as one of the following towards a “protected group” or a message aimed at an individual based on their identity in a “protected group”:

A) The support for or a call for violence.
B) The suggestion of removal of essential civil liberties.
C) Claims of severe dehumanization.
D) Claims of illegal behavior across the entire group.

Protected groups are:
a) Race.
b) Ethnicity.
c) Religion (also atheists).
d) Sexual orientation (including the transgendered).
e) National origin.
f) Gender.
g) Disability.

That sure seems awefully open ended there. Is there anyway to close it up a bit? Because frankly the way this rule is written at least half of the people here at DP could be infracted under the way this is worded. Even the way that it is worded could be construed as a violation of the rule itself. Ex: d) Sexual orientation (including the transgendered).: Transgendered is being "included" as if the writer only added it because they were forced to and considers it a seperate group that doesn't actually have anything to do with sexual orientation.
 
From the update forum rules :


That sure seems awfully open ended there. Is there anyway to close it up a bit? Because frankly the way this rule is written at least half of the people here at DP could be infracted under the way this is worded. Even the way that it is worded could be construed as a violation of the rule itself. Ex: d) Sexual orientation (including the transgendered).: Transgendered is being "included" as if the writer only added it because they were forced to and considers it a separate group that doesn't actually have anything to do with sexual orientation.
Yup, so if you support, say, gun control, then you are subject to moderator action because you are 'suggesting the removal of essential civil liberties' (the second amendment) from a 'national origin' (Americans).
 
Yup, so if you support, say, gun control, then you are subject to moderator action because you are 'suggesting the removal of essential civil liberties' (the second amendment) from a 'national origin' (Americans).

That is one of the many examples that popped into my mind when I read the rule.
 
1. There was already a debate about this along time ago.

2. On the second list:

Protected groups are:
a) Race.
b) Ethnicity.
c) Religion (also atheists).
d) Sexual orientation (including the transgendered).
e) National origin.
f) Gender.
g) Disability.

Shouldn't "(including the transgendered)" be under "f) Gender.", not "d) Sexual orientation."?
 
What jumped out at me is the fact that of the protected groups, one is something that is entirely voluntary rather than innate.

Having a protected group based upon nothing but religious ideology seems thought out very poorly.
 
That is one of the many examples that popped into my mind when I read the rule.
Another example is to oppose SSM in a state where it's already legal, because that's 'suggesting the removal of essential civil liberties' from a 'gender' AND 'sexual orientation'.

Same thing for opposing abortion.
 
Last edited:
What jumped out at me is the fact that of the protected groups, one is something that is entirely voluntary rather than innate.

Having a protected group based upon nothing but religious ideology seems thought out very poorly.
YADWIT.+Yet+Another+Deal+With+It_5a4e26_4658365.gif
 
What jumped out at me is the fact that of the protected groups, one is something that is entirely voluntary rather than innate.

Having a protected group based upon nothing but religious ideology seems thought out very poorly.

The idea of protested classes is stupid no matter what.
 
Some people are more equal than others.

It always came off as a "I'm to much of a baby to made fun of" kind of thing to me.
 
It always come off as a "I'm to much of a baby to made fun of" kind of thing to me.
That is exactly what it is.

The 14th was written to give recently freed slaves citizenship. When did the civil war become about gays sharing insurance policies?
 
Another example is to oppose SSM in a state where it's already legal, because that's 'suggesting the removal of essential civil liberties' from a 'gender' AND 'sexual orientation'.

Same thing for opposing abortion.

Another example is when people call for overthrowing governmental tyranny...something which the US happens to have been founded on. ;) "A) The support for or a call for violence." and in this case even the "support" for such a call could land one in trouble.
 
all muslims were called animal once

l hope teh user was infracted
 
1. There was already a debate about this along time ago.

2. On the second list:



Shouldn't "(including the transgendered)" be under "f) Gender.", not "d) Sexual orientation."?

Actually it would be included in both as it is about orientation and gender.
 
Another example is when people call for overthrowing governmental tyranny...something which the US happens to have been founded on. ;) "A) The support for or a call for violence." and in this case even the "support" for such a call could land one in trouble.
Yup, can't advocate anyone defending themselves against a home invasion anymore...or defending themselves in any way, because defense is violence.
 
Yup, so if you support, say, gun control, then you are subject to moderator action because you are 'suggesting the removal of essential civil liberties' (the second amendment) from a 'national origin' (Americans).

No. If you say that "all Jews should have any weapons that they own, confiscated", that might apply. Being just for gun control does not. No protected group is identified.
 
No. If you say that "all Jews should have any weapons that they own, confiscated", that would apply. Being just for gun control does not. No protected group is identified.
National Origin is a protected group.

This is a political site and your new rules basically make all political opinions of every kind forbidden.
 
It might help if everyday posting examples of what would constitute a violation in each category were provided. I think most people are very concerned that the rules are applied equally across the board.

Most people don't set out to violate the rules, that would eventually be self defeating. At the same time, people need a high degree of rule clarity so that they don't have to reread each post for ten minutes and then end up just canceling the post in order to be safe.

Rule clarity is important on political boards because passions sometimes run very high.

I don't think posters want to learn rule clarification through being infracted, i.e. The School of Hard Knocks.
 
Last edited:
National Origin is a protected group.

This is a political site and your new rules basically make all political opinions of every kind forbidden.

I'm sorry if that's how you are reading them. That is not what they are saying, of course.
 
That is exactly what it is.

The 14th was written to give recently freed slaves citizenship. When did the civil war become about gays sharing insurance policies?

I don't desire to comment on that, but this whole thing only exists because some people lack the nads necessary to deal with other peoples opinions. Yes, some people are assholes and other people are just unpleasant and we have an ignore feature for that.
 
I don't particularly see a need to be protected because of your "national origin" - if people, usually on the left, want to hate me because I'm Canadian and they've never heard of a conservative Canadian, that's fine with me - your hate says more about you than it does about me, and I'd rather you were up front about it and not hiding in the weeds.
 
From the update forum rules :



That sure seems awefully open ended there. Is there anyway to close it up a bit? Because frankly the way this rule is written at least half of the people here at DP could be infracted under the way this is worded. Even the way that it is worded could be construed as a violation of the rule itself. Ex: d) Sexual orientation (including the transgendered).: Transgendered is being "included" as if the writer only added it because they were forced to and considers it a seperate group that doesn't actually have anything to do with sexual orientation.

The rule was significantly tightened up and the degree of severity of a post in order to receive a HS infraction was increased. We felt that members believed that HS infractions were levied to easily.

And we are aware that transgendered is not about sexual orientation, but issues around transgenderism are often discussed around sexual orientation. I believe it SHOULD have read "also the transgendered" for that reason, and an error may have been made there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom