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 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.


Comments (Page 2)
6 Pages1 2 3 4  Last
on Mar 24, 2004
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.
on Mar 24, 2004

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

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

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.

on Mar 24, 2004
i just tried it. no results, but google complained about a misspelled word.
on Mar 24, 2004


on Mar 24, 2004
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.
on Mar 24, 2004
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.
on Mar 24, 2004
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.
on Mar 24, 2004
Yeah, they got a big stick. Have the kahoonas to call it what it is if you're so powerful then. This hiding behind the supposed villany of others to censor is a sham. That's the chilling I spoke of BakerStreet. "Watch out because they might get mad... after all they have ALL power." So what?
And Brad let me save you the keystrokes, "Wahkonta: If you don't like it you can leave the site."
After all "I'm on thin ice here"
on Mar 24, 2004

Wahtonka, it ultimately doesn't matter what you think is right. It's our site. It's really that simple.

If people can't understand why it's not cool to write articles slamming other individuals in which the actual artice title contains the name of the JoeUser user that they're slamming, then tough for them.  "The left" is not the name of an individual on this site. And whether you think having an article entitled "The left and hatred" and "Bill Johnson is a hateful man" is equivalent isn't relevant because you aren't the one who gets to decide. We do. And we do not view that as equivalent.

on Mar 24, 2004
Wow, someone needs to lay off the peace pipe.  A bit of paranoia there.
on Mar 24, 2004
Yes but Wahkonta simply wants the right to decide what is insulting to him. I could write an article called "Wahkonta is a paranoid peasant" after he claimed that Brad Wardell was both myself and GemCityJoe. But under these rules I would not be allowed to write that article.

But i can get by without naming names in articles so i'm not that bothered to be honest with you
on Mar 24, 2004
Wahkonta: I can just imagine what your reaction would be if someone came into your living room, sat down to have a cup of tea and started calling your wife or kids hurtful names. Would it matter to you that you "have all the power", that you "wield the big stick?" No, I think free speech wouldn't enter into it. I've personally never seen you act this way, so I don't know what you are taking it so personally for. Personal insults aren't neccesary to make points. No one is saying people can't say whatever they believe. They just have to say it tactfully.
6 Pages1 2 3 4  Last