Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Grow up or get out
Published on March 24, 2004 By Draginol In Blogging

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 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.

Comments (Page 1)
on Mar 24, 2004
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.
on Mar 24, 2004
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.

on Mar 24, 2004
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.
on Mar 24, 2004
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.
on Mar 24, 2004

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.

on Mar 24, 2004
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.
on Mar 24, 2004
That's great! It's about time you bought down the hammer.

I AM getting sick of the hate blogs.
on Mar 24, 2004
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.
on Mar 24, 2004
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.

on Mar 24, 2004
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...
on Mar 24, 2004

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


on Mar 24, 2004

on Mar 24, 2004
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.
on Mar 24, 2004

WA, the TOS has been available since the beginning of the sight.  You can read it at:

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

on Mar 24, 2004
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! ™