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 5)
6 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6 
on Mar 24, 2004
Alright guys, I just re-read the policy. Does that mean "Capt. over and out! ™" isn't allowed then?

Capt. over and out! ™
on Mar 24, 2004
After much reading and soul searching, Ive determined I have no soul. As one having spouted one too many juvenile and pointed outbursts I will no longer attack anyone making a point in such a way as to appear abusive ir belligerent. I especially apologize to NickyG, who it seems, has taken the brunt of my ill-tempered missives. This also applies to anyone, who, in my muddled mind, I have possibly offended or annoyed. Henceforth I will be a good boy and constructive reply to the shiny objects that catch my attention. Ahh, now I feel better!
on Mar 24, 2004
Hurray voodoo! lol

~Dan
on Mar 25, 2004

I am confident that I am not one of the offenders from this, since I try not to insult people in my comments, but rather satiric or simply in jest. My articles are usually straight forward but left-leaning, and I appreciate that you not only allow it but with a spirit of encouragement, which, I feel, strengthens the diversity of the site. 

I agree that some bloggers do tend to be rowdy and indiscreet. 

on Mar 25, 2004

Hardly anyone is guilty of violating any of these things. Unless you've literally put "<Username Here>" as part of the actual article title, you're fine.

If someone dislikes smoeone's article they have every right to respond to it. They just shouldn't put that user's name as part of the title and if they are going to use that person's name in teh article, it should a) not be libelous and allow that person to respond.

Yesterday we had Tech-Cat, who has since been banned for writing a bunch of "Jafo is a Nazi" posts (apparently voluntarily wanting to demonstrate how to get kicked off) over on WC, writing articles about JeremyG that were libelous. Which, btw, is another reason why we have to clamp down on that kind of thing. We don't want to be held liable. The first amendment doesn't cover libel.

on Mar 25, 2004
NO WONDER I NEVER USE MY REAL NAME AT A BLOG SITE...........
on Mar 25, 2004
Wahkonta: You have to understand "freedom of expression" doesn't apply here, or in any privately owned place. JoeUser isn't a government agency or public property. It isn't "censorship" when you toss someone out of your house for behaving like an idiot, and it isn't here, either. The person who owns the site decides the tolerance level of the site. I'm not seeing the confusion. Brad doesn't want petty vindictiveness, and he can decide what petty vindictiveness is. You are liable for what you say even under the guise of 'protected speech'. You still have standards of truth and decency that you can be harshly penalized for violating.

Thanks Bakerstreet! I've been sitting here reading through, waiting for someone to say just that. Some people on the web feel that the webpages they pull up are government property and therefore subject to constitutional rights. the only right that applies in this case, and so many like it are : you have the right to choose whether or not to view this subject matter.
Though I daresay, if you surf to a government site, you're liable to be prevented from typing certain things there as well as anywhere else.
on Mar 25, 2004
hmmm... I pressed the quote button but it didn't make it a quote on my screen.... apologies bakerstreet if it doesn't look like a quote to everyone else.
on Mar 25, 2004
I'm actually quite amazed that people think that the owner of a site doesn't have the right to have rules in place! It belongs to Brad, so therefore wouldn't you expect Brad to put some rules in place?? I totally agree with not naming people in a blog title just to flame them etc. I certainly disagree with a few on this site, but try to do it without just saying "You're a bigot", although I think I may have been guilty of that once... ah, well. We learn from our mistakes!!
on Mar 25, 2004
Wahkonta, you wrote: "Who decides what is hate? or hateful? I say I decide on my own blog and you decide on yours."
You are 99% correct. You decide on your own blog SITE and others decide on theirs. This is not your site. As others have pointed out already, if you feel you are being treated unfairly you are perfectly free to set up your own server and run your own site. And it will probably be a whole lot cheaper than starting your own newspaper, for example, because the editors at the current paper won't print your letters.
on Mar 25, 2004
You decide on your own blog SITE and others decide on theirs

I think that's what Wahkonta meant. Stop villainizing her, she's not that bad. She just gets carried away sometimes.

~Dan
on Mar 25, 2004
i like ice... especially in my sweet tea... even if it's thin ice
on Mar 25, 2004
I'm actually quite amazed that people think that the owner of a site doesn't have the right to have rules in place!


Indeed. I wondered about that. Like everything else, there IS limitations on freedom of speech.
on Mar 25, 2004
If people still want to attack and flame others, they could always make a blog group called Flametopia so that people who want to see those posts can join it. I don't think that'd be against the rules.
on Mar 26, 2004
Stumbled here to JoeUser from WinCustomize, and this seems like a fun, interesting site. Being as new as I am, my 2 cents should probably be taken with a grain of salt, if I may mix my metaphors, but I wanted to comment on the article. I feel the stated rules are far from censorship, but also, a blogger who posts insipid rants, even very specific ones, usually falls on their own sword (...or mighty pen, or keyboard - metaphors getting out of hand now). I mean to say, discerning readers are able to call a greifer a greifer, and decide for themselves if an argument is well stated or nothing more than a diatribe. And readers can decide whether to return to read more installments or not.

Also, when I see warning like this, I always wish links had been included! Now I have to search for the most likely extremely rare rants so I can point and laugh.

Again, I feel a site owner has every right, and often responsibility, to monitor the site's content. In fact, I'm no lawyer, but I wonder who exactly could be held responsible if a blog was determined to be libel or slander.
6 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6