Civil War -- Part Deux

[The Observer]

Again, there is a need to advise that this dicussion is political and is in violation of the rules for the site. Please check the banner of the "Gambling and Quatloosia Good Life" where it says in part, "...[Political and religious discussions and the like should stay off-site.]".

Locking the topic and deleting the posts.

[AndyK]

Since Potpourri has been shut down, where then can posts regarding state legislators (1) instituting their own currency, (2) attempting to usurp or deny (please reference Sovereigns) federal authority and jurisdiction, (3) trampling on voters' rights, ... be posted?

Has Quatloos been restricted to a blinders-on, narrow set of topics strictly related to financial and tax fraud? How then do we continue to allow ongoing discussions of the Illuminati, NESARA Vogons, Birthers, and so on?

Or, are specific subjects to be restricted and deleted at the whim of a single Moderator?

[wserra]

Since Potpourri has been shut down, where then can posts regarding state legislators (1) instituting their own currency, (2) attempting to usurp or deny (please reference Sovereigns) federal authority and jurisdiction, (3) trampling on voters' rights, ... be posted?

Has Quatloos been restricted to a blinders-on, narrow set of topics strictly related to financial and tax fraud? How then do we continue to allow ongoing discussions of the Illuminati, NESARA Vogons, Birthers, and so on?

Those two are fair questions. Answers as I see them: (1) while reprehensible, none of those are financial frauds. Moreover, to some degree or another, how one characterizes the particular actions in question - and the degree to which one finds them reprehensible - depends on one's politics. We had this conversation in detail some months ago, and Jay and Demo made their feelings clear. Not everyone agreed, but that was the decision.

(2) The NESARA forum is, by apparent tacit agreement, sui generis. The Illuminati, Vogons, anarcho-syndicalist communes, etc., are not topics subject to politics (except, of course, for the violence inherent in the system).

Or, are specific subjects to be restricted and deleted at the whim of a single Moderator?

Assuming the "single moderator" is The Observer, that's not a fair question. In each case that I've seen - including this thread - it has appeared to me that Obs has in fact enforced the "no political subjects" rule appropriately - IOW, as Jay and Demo intended. As for the idea of a "single" mod - well, I probably should have as well, but didn't. I don't like deleting non-spam - and, having met Obs, am pretty sure he doesn't either. He's just made of sterner stuff than I. If you don't like it, take it up with Jay or Demo.

[AndyK]

Thank you. I appreciate your comments and analysis.

Although I don't believe my posts were of a poliical nature (other than the inherent politics of any legislature), I will defer to the judgement of the senior members -- should they decide to grant cert to my appeal.

[Burnaby49]

Just for clarification. What was the banned topic?

[Pottapaug1938]

Essentially, it had to do with a state legislature trying to enact laws which would nullify federal laws to the contrary, which was a political question arguably settled by our Constitution and the Civil War.

[The Observer]

For further clarification, in addition to what Wes explained, is the fact that I did not lightly - nor at a whim - lock the topic down and delete posts. I considered carefully the intent of the original post, which I took to be only for the purpose of reporting on a legislative action and not necessarily to be slanted at one political philosophy or party. Anyone with a familiarity of the politics of the given state and its legislature could have made a reasonable assumption at who was responsible for the legislation without a need to have it spelled out for them. As such, the original post I saw as being within the bounds of the nonpolitical discussion policies, if only barely and did not need to be moderated.

However, what followed was the succeeding posts that went across the line, including news commentary that reported the party affiliation of the legislators involved, and other commentaries drawing a parallel between legislators now and legislators in the antebellum period. In other words, the topic was heading down the slippery slope.

Look, I don't like censorship any more than the next guy but I also have a responsibility here as a moderator to enforce the rules as well as set an example that I follow the rules as well. This would all be easier if we just remember the rules and avoid trying to get as close to the line as possible without crossing it. Invariably someone is going to trip over it.

In regards to the some of the non-scammer topics emerging in the NESARA forum, I don't try to moderate the forum since it is under the supervision of Deep Knight. Most of the time the threads there do center around the scamming being done in the name of NESARA, the RV of the Dinar/Dong and other assorted crackpot swindles. And at other times the threads tilt off into some rather surreal moments or nonscamming topics like Orly Taitz, Birthers, etc. I don't particularly believe that those topics should be appearing on the site but I am not going to step on Deep Knight's toes trying to clean up the site as I see fit. Demo has commented in the past that if the NESARA forum is getting out of hand, then that will require a careful review to determine if the forum needs intervention. I interpret that to mean it is the responsibility of the admins here to make that determination.