Future of the DP Part 3: Guidelines & Enforcement

the factor that may make this site most distinctive, Michael, is your own positive presence and loving embrace of the individuals in this disparate freedom movement. You set the tone here, just as Dr. Paul set the tone of positive, loving, gutsy honesty and courage in his leadership of the Ron Paul rEVOLution.
You and Dr. Paul attract freedom people who themselves tend to be respectful and open to individual differences and challenging insights on the road to understanding the basic foundation blocks needed to build a world of free, peaceful communities.
Freedom does bring people together, as it has brought us all here. Our mission is to support each other, to help each other grow, examine our assumptions, and be more powerful advocates for freedom in the bigger world.

On picking moderators.

Anyone who volunteers should be immediately eliminated from the running. ( you have to be crazy to want to do it, or you've never done it before)

Then make a list of people you think would be good and beg them to help you out ;-)

-----
Only dead fish go with the flow...
Get Prepared!

All during the campaign I kept hearing that the message was Bigger than the man. Well, I think this site is more than just Ron Paul. This site from the beginning was different and that is what keeps me coming back. Everyone knows things are not going well and that the plug could be pulled on this site at anytime and not by your own choosing.

You should not have to make major changes except stepped up protection in the area of security for the site.

My advice DON"T change anything. If people do not know how to click out of a thread that bores them or they find makes them uncomfortable then maybe they should not come here but go somewhere tamer. Geesh!

Freedom means taking responsibility for Yourself. Michael you should not have to babysit this site. Thanks, for listening and do what YOU think is best. Peace Patriot

“No free government, or the blessings of liberty can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, MODERATION, temperance, justice, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.”

I am convinced the moderation to which Patrick Henry exhorted in his famous affirmation, and which became the cornerstone of the Virginia Declaration Of Rights ( and many state constitutions), was intended to be as much a personal maxim as a guide to ideal substantive limitations on power. It should never be regarded by students of the Freedom Message as empty platitude.

To your great credit, Michael, you correctly acknowledge this gem of a site “ has very little to do with me”. But you don’t give yourself credit enough. Nearly all of us here recognize you have had the understanding, sound judgment and humility to implement the hands off freedom philosophy of our hero Ron Paul in the administration of this site. His confidence and yours has been vindicated in the result. But Ron Paul is also a Constitutionalist which means he has faith in principles and design – laws, not men. Don’t stop following his advice now. I suggest the moderation you cry out for be mostly exercised at the design stage.

I was there fighting for these principles in the trenches of this site during the Flag Wars, even when you were largely distracted, Michael. Your original design had everyone deputized, armed and authorized to use deadly force, to their discretion or whim. So please understand why I flinch at the chilling thought of a return to destruction of freedom ( and it’s defender -- ideas), however well meaning, under the ominous subtitle: GUIDELINES AND ENFORCEMENT.

Michael, I trust your judgment and instincts, but it was a poor design and your unavailability that unnecessarily lead to the permanent loss of worthwhile content and participants during that era. Now design issues are being revisited. I agree the format can be improved. The process you are engaged in to receive input from those who have made this site worthy of herculean effort to foster is what I’ve come to expect from you. I am inclined to accept whatever emerges of the consensus as to how to break down the discussion into sections. This is long overdue and would only facilitate freedom in the communication. There have been many good suggestions to enhance the community aspects as well. I won’t be lazy here and will chip in my dos centavos of illegal tender, as to how layout changes might facilitate our goals:

 CLASSICS ( Best of, duplicates of timeless threads and posts selected by moderators or acclamation)
 FREEDOM MESSAGE ( Classical Liberalism 101, and Advanced seminars)
 ACTION
 NEWS
 ECONOMICS
 LIVING ( Survival, Health, Food, Barter, etc )
 DEBATE
 BARROOM CHATTER ( Humor, Human Interest,…)
 OUTSIDE ( as in ‘… take it outside…’ , few topics will probably start here)
 Finally, rather than deletion, I suggest a RECYCLE BIN of post purgatory to allow for a cooling off period and further review. I have seen too much unnecessary escalation of resentment and collateral damage as good babies are thrown out with a few chunks of backwash to think we can’t allow a few minutes sit in the penalty box or, ‘ upon further review, your post still sucks’… In any event, amputation with a machete from the neck down is usually careless surgical technique.

I will go even farther with my contribution to the cause. I will volunteer to participate as a moderator, a role I despise, but acknowledge might be useful to our shared values while those values are still evolving to mutual consciousness. Perhaps you would not choose to believe me, but I make this offer with barely the slightest ambition and would only accept this responsibility with a jealous attention to its limitations, and only to better secure the principles which I believe need more than mere articulation. It would be with only great reluctance that I would ever wish to see such power exercised, and never under any but the most compelling, least restrictive exigencies.

Andy Griffith was a model for the right cop on the beat of a generally polite neighborhood like Mayberry RFD (appropriately named for a libertarian haven), not Barney Fife or Otis. I say Otis because if we as individuals in a community have a say as to who might wield power, let’s choose wisely. It is an all too common human response to first indulge the heady inebriation of power and then become drunk with it as we self-justify the miscreant had it coming. If we look for personality types let’s consider the other apros pos sit com applicable to our neighborhood bar, Cheers. If Sam, who owns the joint wants a day off, Coach or Woody would probably keep things tidy and keep pouring, but Diane would probably be too school marmish; Lilith and Frazer would clear the place out of customers, that snarly, snippy waitress, Carla, should never be allowed to slap everybody around as the bouncer, nor the ever clubby, Norm and Cliff .

Ok, I understand moderators may need to strike some spambot foreign invasion .... but even the vagina dialogues I thought lead to some fun responses. Other than just straight hacking and criminal content ... even that, if it's a regular Poster, should be met with preventative detention of the thread, preceded with a courtesy of direct communication affording an opportunity to be heard. I’m generally in favor of respectful alternative dispute resolution and diversion, and certainly never arbitrary and subjective instantaneous decision making by ‘deciders’ of ‘appropriate content’, or other forms of rudely ‘enforced’ orthodoxy.

I'm sympathetic to those who have felt they at times have been given the bum rush. It may be new, but it won’t be improved if we end up with more disquietingly imposed tranquility pretending to civility.

Here is what I posted earlier in this series, the last of which, seems to sum up the alternative to blithely accepting change of management renovations to where one once felt at home:

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/77267#comment-833228

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/77286#comment-833286

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/77286#comment-833288

For those who think I am being extreme in proposing due process limitations to the exercise of power to do justice to our ideas and their proponents, may I remind you that one of this movement’s icons once admonished – permit me some license to paraphrase essentially the same gist – ‘extremism in the pursuit of justice is no vice.’

You, Michael, understandably expressed exasperation at the time and psychological costs of maintaining this precious votive stone. I urge you, in particular, and each of us, that when design changes are ultimately adopted, we accommodate, with a proper sense of humility and respect, an acknowledgement of the time and psychological investment the participants outlay to advance this mutual project. I’m saying we don’t destroy people’s work product, and we graciously involve them in an accommodation to resolve disputes, particularly if they have been a part of this community. Why would a freedom forum think it is good constitutional design and civil self-government practice, to present as the only alternative: “ supinely accept command decisions from authority or get the hell out of here, and don’t let the door hit you on the ass ( oops, a$$), you whiner, who needs you anyway, BTW, shut up, LOL…right, guys….yeah… you said it.”

Thus, it is with great trepidation that I hear of proposals for more rules and rulers under the ironic phrase ‘increased moderation.’ ( Indulge me again the license to continue the twisted paraphrase to complete the iconic admonition: ‘moderation in defense of liberty is no virtue’… could this be what he meant?). I feel like an antifederalist railing against a call for greater concentration of central authority, but the core of my principles finds support among the same Constitutional founders we mutually revere[ And, BTW, doesn’t it seem, on further review, that the antifederalists had a point, and that their warnings about consolidating strong central authority might have been worth heeding? ….It was, after all, that cock sure Hamilton who was their chief nemesis.], nevertheless:

“The purpose of politics, [our founders] understood, was to keep government in its properly subordinate role, thereby leaving people free to build a better and more civilized world.” (William Norman Grigg, A Better World, The New American, October 20, 2003.)

Locke taught that a vigilant skepticism regarding the virtue of rulers is necessary to protect liberty: "... he that thinks absolute power purifies men's blood, and corrects the baseness of human nature, need read the history of this, or any other age, to be convinced to the contrary." Quoting the maxim that "the reigns of good princes have been always the most dangerous to the liberties of their people," Locke explained that the presumptuous acts of benevolent rulers become especially dangerous "when their successors, managing the government with different thoughts, would draw the actions of those good rulers into precedent and make them the standard of their prerogative -- as if what had been done only for the good of the people was a right in them to do for the harm of the people, if they so pleased...."
[ How many more times will your name, as owner of this site, be taken in vain, and your guidelines tritely invoked, as the reign and reins pass to your lesser vassals, who really seek to rationalize there own prejudices in the exercise of their caprice.]

The habits of thinking in a free society [and that should be, BTW, IMOHO, the primary mission of DP] should inspire caution when it is proposed we accept certain members be entrusted with the administration of that freedom, and the blessings flowing therefrom, without any barrier against the incursions of arbitrary power.
“Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.” (Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801.)

Guided by their understanding of history, and aided by the insights of Locke and other students of politics, America's Founders understood that liberty cannot depend upon the magnanimity of rulers. Thus Jefferson's admonition, "In questions of power let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution."

Let history, fundamental principles, worthy example, and your own high conscience be your guide in this constitutional exercise.

First, I want to say, one reason I LOVE Daily Paul is because I appreciate it's layout. If nothing changed, I'm fine. I would discribe Daily Paul as a Ron Paul "Drudge Report" where members can post comments on the stories. (Imagine what Drudge Report would be if it allowed posts to stories) The Grateful Dead Forum GDF was one of the best sites ever. It died shortly after Garcia passed away, but it had several features that were outstanding tools. One was a box where the "busdrivers" (monitors) were listed when they were on duty. A member could access a bus driver directly with a comment/complaint/ flag. I believe having a box that displays monitors on duty, who can and do comment, keep "trolls" off better than anything. GDF paid bus drivers in free net access. The topics on the GDF opened to live chat rooms (talk about your neighborhood bar... live action) GDF had another box, where it had created two "off topic"chat rooms where posters could have a private meeting, that was off topic. Sometimes, the off topic rooms had more people than the forum. The GDF was very popular for trading bootleg tapes, and arrangling to meet people on tour. The band set up big tents filled with computors and deadheads would wear their tied dyed GDF tee shirts and blogg about the concert to those who couldn't make it. It was allot of fun. Like Daily Paul. I'm a fan. Is there a Daily paul Tee shirt yet? I need a long sleaved one (or more). THANK YOU Michael.

I believe you should have these types of changes and guidelines.

If you set up rooms for different topics this would help stop a lot of the complaints from various people.

General forum

Strictly Politics

Work out your problems with others here :

Gardening

Home schooling

Religions topics

Comedy

9-11

Government Conspiracy topics

Survival topics

Hunting and Fishing

Just ideas so tell me what you think?

I would guess that at least half of the posts these days violate rule number 1.

"1) Even though this is an unofficial site, you are still representing Dr. Paul in the eyes of the public. Please don't write anything that Dr. Paul himself wouldn't say or wouldn't approve of, or that would reflect badly on Dr. Paul or the campaign."