Some of you are on thin ice...

Grow up or get out

In many ways, JoeUser is an experiement. It is the only blog site on the Internet that combines the strengths of all the individual bloggers together. When you make a post or comment on someone blog, it is distributed across the thousands of blogs here on this site. And, because JoeUser.com is so popular, your article is likely to get picked up on search engines.

Which, needless to say, creates a temptation for abuse. People who intentionally try to humiliate others by taking advantage of these features.  After some discussion internally, we've decided how we're going to react to this.

1) You may NOT create attack articles about other individuals on this site with your blog site using the person's name or derivative of that name as part of the article title.

2) You should avoid criticizing other users of this blog, by name, in your articles if you have black listed or prevented them in some other way from commenting on your article. Generally speaking, it's cheesy to abuse other people in your article.

3) Related to #2, it IS OKAY to write a counter article. That is, if you disagree with someone else's article, you can certainly reference that article (linking to it is fine) and disagree with the article.

4) Debate the issue don't attack the person. I'm getting so sick of reading flame articles by people that are nothing but hate mongering against other people. I don't care if you think someone else is racist, homophobic, atheist, fanatically religious, whatever. It's irrelevant. If you disagree, then disagree. Explain why you disagree. But to just say "You're a racist" or "You're going to burn in hell" or some other nonsense is obnoxious. 

Bottom line: If you want your blog to be full of hatred towards someone else, then go away. We didn't put all this effort to let people's blogs get a lot of attention so that people could use it as a blunt instrument to attack other individuals by name.

One other note: I also get tired of those who think they have some first amendment right to heap personal abuse on people. You want to write a "I hate <insert person's name here>" articles, go make your own site. Whiney "You're a facist, you're censoring me" articles get old in a hurry.

JoeUser is meant to be a place where intelligent thoughtful people of ALL political persuasions can get together and talk about whatever they want. And they can't very well do that if they have to worry that some hate monger is going to write up a post entitled "<User X> is a jerk!" or whatever.

15,306 views 80 replies
Reply #1 Top
Excellent. It is a shame, but I think without stewardship people abuse their "you can't touch me" status to bring down the overall level of quality for the site.
Reply #2 Top
You know, when I read the title and saw the author of this article, I almost had a heart attack. I'm terrified of getting kicked off this site. It's a good thing I don't fall under any of the categories you listed. I agree with you 100%. You've created a wonderful site.

Trinitie
Reply #3 Top
I cringe when I see articles like that. Melodrama is not something I want to see consume this site, and I'm happy to see that it's not going to be allowed to spread too much. However, I do find those "You're a fascist" articles entertaining.
Why would you be afraid of being removed from the site Trinitie? I, and I'm positive everybody else, believe that you have done absolutely nothing to warrant any sort of removal, even if mass censorship was indeed a reality here.
Reply #4 Top
I agree that the personal abuse needs to stop. Thanks for keeping the site one where we can all be comfortable in expressing our opinion without fear of being retaliated against.
Reply #5 Top
Brad,

It is good to see that there are rules on this site. Just as there are rules on the debate team. The idea is to get your point accross, or at least attempt to do so in a civilized manner. We all like to opine about something, thus we all have our own ideals, and feelings about specific topics and subject matter. So, in the true ideals of debate least do so without the bringing down of one another.

Pam
Reply #6 Top
All I can say is it's about time. I was rather suprised that you've put up with this developing trend for so long. It's good to see that you're stepping up to the plate to restore some order within our ranks. Thanks Brad.
Reply #7 Top
That's great! It's about time you bought down the hammer.

I AM getting sick of the hate blogs.
Reply #8 Top
I would assume that my article regarding Mr. Cooley's anti-homosexual blogs falls under the category of things you don't like. I've deleted it.
Reply #9 Top
Nice to see clear rules of behaviour. I hope it doesn't lead to you having to spend too many hours policing the joeuser site.

Paul.
Reply #10 Top
Thanks, Brad....I rarely drop in here....but the times I have done so have had me more than a little unamused with some of the content.
It's a bloody near-impossible task to find the balance between good 'stewardship' and restrictive domination....but so often it can be smarter to err on the side of the latter rather than the former.

Good luck to the poor hapless chap/s who are tasked with 'policing' the standard/s....I envy them not...:)
Reply #11 Top

Jafo, I'll just get out my Fist of Death from WinCustomize

 

Reply #12 Top
THAT'S THE GRRRR FIST!!!!

Trinitie
Reply #13 Top
I have an example of this in my blog on GCJ and SPM and Brad. I speculated on the identities but was not dis-respectful of them. I was shown to be in error. I have left it up to resolve this if it should occur again and to show how such actions can backfire. I will take it down if asked as it was a light-hearted blog, but it is its own witness against such actions and I think it should remain for them to use and respond to as they choose.
Here we get into the 'fine-line' the 'slippery-slope' and the censorship arguments of old. Who shall decide and for what end? were I owner, I would let dis-grace stand on its own and be the truibute to the person's inablility to produce good mateial. They marginalize themselves by such blogging. I find censorship to be not worth its' effort except in the case of a 'deleted' who was all but making threats to children in his works. You take a lot on your shoulders, but your call.

I would require that the blog is one that states it uses 'censorship' in its posts by not allowing certain opinions to be heard in response to the blog. Since the blog world at-large sees the post and does not have the chance to see dissent of some, shouldn't non-members know that the reason is because the blogger is suppressing it to make it appear there is none? Censorship should also be known for its abuses as much as its' protections, both tactics being used.

Also, what shall be 'offensive', 'racist', 'negative'? Who shall say? Is there to be a list of FCC type words we may no longer use? A political party that is not acceptable for its opposition to anothers. I've seen blogs titiled with words such as terrorists endorse Bush and find it offensive. Does this mean they will be censored for this? I think a blog that says, 'I dis-like Pakistani's" is less offensive than one saying our President is endorsed by a foreign organization that wants us all dead. Who shall decide and on what ground?

I've had problems with any form of censorship since the day I arrived. I admit that I am a Justice, Hugo Black type of activist FOR freedom of expression. I hope this does not turn into another political expedient for those whose views are not strong enough to muster an argument for. Saying one has a political opinion and blocking another from disagreeing, then not letting people know it is the only reason the opinion isn't being refuted, is a form of moral cowardice to me. That the outside world isn't told and is led to think there is no dissent, only endorsement, is shameful. C'mon, it's a slippery slope, to say the least.

If one can attack Al Franken and use his name in a blog, then why can't another defend him and use the name of the offensive blogger who does it? Slippery INDEEEEED.
Reply #14 Top

WA, the TOS has been available since the beginning of the sight.  You can read it at: https://www.joeuser.com/terms.asp

It states in it: "You acknowledge that Stardock does not pre-screen Content, but that Stardock and its designees shall have the right (but not the obligation) in their sole discretion to refuse or remove any Content that is available via the Service."  So, that explain "who" determines what is considered what ;)

Reply #15 Top
That's nice Brad, but I have a feeling you're gonna need to go into more detail on exactly what is/isn't acceptable here. If saying that teens act a certain way because of their parents is not acceptable than i would have to get rid of my favorite personal article. I really don't want to do that but I will if it's not acceptable by your standards. And believe me, if I ever say anything degrateing to an individual i will gladly kick myself off of here from now on. I know I was kinda harsh with a certain people and I'm sorry. I will try to keep my opinions general in who it's directed to. Hopefully this will stop others from saying rude things towards others wich will make it that much easier for me too. Thanks for looking out for the rest of us here. I really apreciate it, and good luck on the 'censorship' thing.

Capt. over and out! ™
Reply #16 Top
Captain you can criticise me all you want old chap, in fact anyone can. If I annoy someone I fully expect to see an article written by them either mocking or critising me. Maybe that's just me as some people are more sensitive I suppose.

So everyone feel free to say whatever you like about me, I don’t believe you should be censored as you all have your own mind and are free to express your opinions – with me at least.
Reply #17 Top

Cornbread, did you read the policy?  Please read it as it states what is acceptable.  Nobody will get "kicked" without fair warning, either.

Reply #18 Top
I think a big part of this issue is protecting people from having negative stuff pop up about them when someone goes on google and types in their name. You can certainly get your point across without naming names. You can link to the offending blog. You maintain your freedom to express your feelings. You just have to do it in a reasonable manner. I certainly don't see that as too much to ask.
Reply #19 Top
I think the rules are pretty clear.
if you feel the need to spew venom, check yourself into the nearest restroom and don't forget to flush.
if you have an opinion about something, choose your words to have the most positive support of your opinion. keep the names of others out of your comments , as the words become slandarous instead of supporting your point.
you feel the need to disagree? do so, in such a way that you are not targeting the person,people, race,religion etc, you disagree with.
and bottom line. if you feel the need to act like a child, expect to be treated like a child, don't act so surprised when your words are discounted in the future.
Reply #20 Top

It's pretty clear cut at one edge of things: Avoid making critical blogs of individuals here with their names in the title.

At a secondary level, please avoid making personal attacks on fellow bloggers in your post. Personal attacks meaning things like "Brad Wardell is a bastard fool jerk moron facist communist!" (to use one example that will not promptly become part of Google no doubt). 

These aren't exactly difficult things to follow.

Reply #21 Top
i just tried it. no results, but google complained about a misspelled word.
Reply #23 Top
Kharma girl: Stardock is not a person. I could care less what the 'rules' say, in face of a moral right as I address this matter.
By stating "Wherefore, therefore, heretofore, nonsense, it does not make it moral to censor under guise of a bylaw or other 'rule'. My question is to anyone as a fellow human and Citizen of America, "What gives you the right to determine who or what is hateful? "

This is an old argument, with the witch-hunters on one side and I on the other. Fine with me. I am not impressed with any majority of censors who hold up 'rules' AUTHORIZING' them to censor. I call it censorship, bullying, oppression and a chilling of freedom of expression. Sadly, it is again a group of 'conservatives', and republicrats once again holding forth that they will protect us all and decide what may be said, by whom, and when, because they control the where.

You have the 'lawful' authority to censor, but I don't give the moral right, no matter how you couch the terms. We all know it is because of the inability of some to put forth a valid point of view for their shallow opinion, as fed by the owners, boss, and 'Fox' network. People have been making attacks on a personal level as long as I've been here, including Brad (oh, am I now not allowed to say that Brad?) and they come in all degree of communicative style and sophistication. The site has survived it well.

Now, in talking of only the politics, of the bloggers, we have censorship by the Republican owners of what they deem to be 'hateful', another in a growing list of censorship moves done to a site built and which once prided itself on its fairness. Censorship is a disease and will only continue now. The solution is not more of it but more freedom of expression. Let me judge who is being slanderous or insulting to me. I don't need to hide behind Brad or 'rules' to stop dissent.

Go look at the blog by Brad on "The Left and Hatred" as example. Here we have a blogger allowed to equate all Left as hateful, and say no one he can find in the Right is so, and this isn't hate speech? Generalizing and slandering a half of all Americans, as 'insinuated by the title'? Who decides? Brad; the very person who said the left is hateful? C'mon let's get real here and call it what it is. Censorship for political purposes by abuse of power of the Republican owners who have no response to their own shallow views being fairly well hammered here. (Things sure have changed since I came here).

To all you new blogggers who are reading this, it isn' t the first time this step-by-step fall into complete control of thought has been done, . It has gone from open ended discussion, to then, blacklisting, then dividing opinion by Party as endorsed by the owners, to constant threats of banning and deletion,, to ordering no posting of factual articles to support a point of view, now we have a censor God who will arbitrarily decide what is hateful or insulting to the bloggers. The excuse is that someone may have a neg come up on a search engine outside the site??? IF it walks and talks like censorship, then it is, fellow Human Citizens and bloggers, and we are ill-using ourselves to facilely endorse the sham as a 'good' thing for all.

I could care less what anyone says about me here and it can be racist, insulting, and a lie for all I care. I am a reflection of myself here, and those who speak so are a reflectionof themselves. My blog is its own defense against anyone who seeks to create a image of me that is not true. Hell wahkonta isn't even my real name, so what do I care about another guy or gal with a alias in New Zealand who doesn't like men or 'Indians' or anything else about me. We take the world too, too serious to all run and hide behind a 'rule' and censor. Get some toughness about yourselves or get a diary book at a five-and-dime and lock your thoughts away where they are safe from dangerous people on a keyboard half a world away who MIGHT disagree with you.

Let me decide who is a threat to me Brad, I don't need your 'Big Brother' help.
Reply #24 Top
Wahkonta: The site is private property. You are in what amounts to someone else's restaurant. They serve the public, but reserve the right to refuse service. They really don't need to explain why, even though they have been gracious enough to.
Reply #25 Top
Wahkonta, we're not talking about public airwaves here, we're talkin about a damned blog site.    I think you know i'm a liberal guy.  I'm completely against censorship....but what's happening here just plain doesnt qualify as censorship.  It's just laying down rules to keep the forum friendly and mature.