Coulter Chat Rules

[King of the Americas]

This was taken from ancoulter.com, the chat section. Not that I would ever leave THIS place for someplace like that. I just have this friend who thinks she is a Blonde Conservative God, and he knew that I message boarded, so he sent me an invite.

I registered, but I don't think I can jive with these rules.

I mean someone gets booted, and the community can't even talk about it!?!?

Somehow, I think that there might be a little censorship potential in these rules, but you tell me what you think...


These regulations are as follows:

-New applicants for membership: due to the large volume of membership requests we receive, we require an ISP-based (internet service provider) e-mail address for approval, to help reduce the strain of superfluous accounts. Registrations with free email accounts (Yahoo, Hotmail, Gmail, etc.) will be deleted. Thank you for your cooperation.

-Ann Coulter is our hostess. You may agree or disagree with her positions, but any disrespect towards Ann will be grounds for immediate removal.

-All debate must be honest and fair.

-Obscene, profane, vulgar, or threatening posts will not be tolerated.

-Any other inappropriate behavior (as determined by the moderators) may be cause for warning or removal. A poster's removal is not a topic for open discussion.

-The moderators will determine the interpretation and application of the rules, and their decisions are final. If you have a question about whether something is appropriate, or about any of these rules, feel free to ask any of the moderators via private message. Use your good judgment when posting, and you should have a long and enjoyable stay here.

Avatars:
* no moving avatars
* size requirement of no bigger than 120x120 pixels
* nothing obscene or offensive.

Also, no thread lasts forever. Threads will be pruned at admin's discretion and threads over 7 pages are subject to being locked. All posts and accounts remain the property of Ann Coulter Official Chat.

[Dr Adequate]

-All debate must be honest and fair.

-Obscene, profane, vulgar, or threatening posts will not be tolerated. http://www.fstdt.com/funnyimages/uploads/359.jpg

[Chaos]

"All debate must be honest and fair"?

On an ANN COULTER site?

My oh my oh my oh my...

Do we have a "head spinning" smiley?

[Schneibster]

:hypnotize seems most appropriate to me.

[King of the Americas]

I just made my first submittion, under the "SiCKO" thread.

I'd post a link, but you wouldn't even be allow to view it, unless you were a registered user.

I feel like a hooded black man, at a KKK rally.

[King of the Americas]

Threads you could read on the Ann Counter Chat Board:

Would You Be Treated By a Muslim Doctor?

Who's children need to die?

Religion of peace, at it again.

Poll: Dems think their candidate will be a white male

---

Admittedly, there are other threads with normal titles.

Those were just the juicest from the "In the news" section, page one.

[Segnosaur]

Somehow, I think that there might be a little censorship potential in these rules, but you tell me what you think...

I think you may be overreacting.

The term 'censorship' gets tossed around far too easily. Keep in mind that the right to 'free speech' does not guarantee you a forum for your opinions. People running that forum have every right to determine what is appropriate and what is not.

Every on line forum has rules... even this one. Ideally you want to keep the signal to noise ratio as high as possible, while at the same time providing 'useful' discussions. Most of the rules you posted seem perfectly reasonable, although admittedly it depends on how the actual moderators interpret things.


-New applicants for membership: due to the large volume of membership requests we receive, we require an ISP-based (internet service provider) e-mail address for approval, to help reduce the strain of superfluous accounts. Registrations with free email accounts (Yahoo, Hotmail, Gmail, etc.) will be deleted. Thank you for your cooperation.

And what's the problem with that? Many forums have problems with spammers and/or trolls. Ensuring people have a 'proper' email address will hopefully limit those problems.

-Ann Coulter is our hostess. You may agree or disagree with her positions, but any disrespect towards Ann will be grounds for immediate removal.

Ok, the wording of this is vague, and yes, it could mean that people end up getting banned for simple disagreements. However, given the fact that Coulter is hosting the site, expecting people not to post things like 'Coulter eats babies' should be the norm. Given the fact that she tends to be such a polarizing figure, I can see them wanting to avoid having people join up with the sole purpose of insulting her.


-All debate must be honest and fair.

Ok, nothing wrong with those ideas. Admittedly, its not much fun getting involved in a debate with someone only to figure out later that they were just a troll.


-Obscene, profane, vulgar, or threatening posts will not be tolerated.

I think JREF has similar rules on those.

-Any other inappropriate behavior (as determined by the moderators) may be cause for warning or removal. A poster's removal is not a topic for open discussion.

Is this where you get the idea that a banned poster can't be talked about? I'd have to see how this rule is actually used. Yes, not allowing people to even mention the banned user is going to far, but so is expecting the moderators to have to debate with people over their decisions.

Here's my suggestion... if you are truly concerned about that forum, try reading it for a week or 2 and see just how well it is moderated. If the moderators allow plenty of opposing viewpoints, then what is the problem? If indeed all reasonable dissent is closed off, then you may have a point. However, in that case the 'rules' will not be at fault, but the people who interpret them.

[Upchurch]

Ok, nothing wrong with those ideas. Admittedly, its not much fun getting involved in a debate with someone only to figure out later that they were just a troll.


I think JREF has similar rules on those.
Nothing wrong with those rules on the surface. I think the concern comes from the fact that the rules will be enforced by surrogates of a woman who considers calling for the assassination of political opponents, for example, "honest and fair".

[Segnosaur]

Nothing wrong with those rules on the surface. I think the concern comes from the fact that the rules will be enforced by surrogates of a woman who considers calling for the assassination of political opponents, for example, "honest and fair".

I know, that's why I specifically suggested reading the forum for a while to determine if debate IS allowed. However, KotA seemed willing to condemn the forum simply on the basis of its rules which, from the looks of things, don't seem very far out of line. (Not that I'd ever bother reading Coulter's web site to begin with.)

[Kerberos]

Nothing wrong with those rules on the surface. I think the concern comes from the fact that the rules will be enforced by surrogates of a woman who considers calling for the assassination of political opponents, for example, "honest and fair".

Well it's certainly honest...

[gnome]

1000 points to anyone who can get banned with Ann Coulter's own words :)

[UnrepentantSinner]

One thing that bothers me about forum rules is the flip-side of what some folks complain about here (favoritism) and that's moderator caprice. They might just have a bug up their butt that day and zap you like a bolt from Zeus.

I hate that sort of moderation.

1000 points to anyone who can get banned with Ann Coulter's own words :)

That would be priceless.

[King of the Americas]

This rule is the one that bothered me:

"-Any other inappropriate behavior (as determined by the moderators) may be cause for warning or removal. A poster's removal is not a topic for open discussion."

I understand Moderators not wanting to have to defend every single banning, but that "a poster's removal is not a topic for open discussion", even among other posters???

It seems to me that you could be banned, for whatever reason that Moderator chose, and then everyone would be disallowed from asking or talking amongst themselves as to why it happened.

Getting banned using Coutler's own words...'against' her?

I think this would violate this rule:

"-Ann Coulter is our hostess. You may agree or disagree with her positions, but any disrespect towards Ann will be grounds for immediate removal."

If you've read any of Ms. Coulter's books you know that she doesn't just disagree with 'liberal' positions, but she is in the business of disrespecting, name-calling, and out right slanderizing those who oppose her.

[Snide]

I think you may be overreacting.

...Here's my suggestion... if you are truly concerned about that forum, try reading it for a week or 2 and see just how well it is moderated. If the moderators allow plenty of opposing viewpoints, then what is the problem? If indeed all reasonable dissent is closed off, then you may have a point. However, in that case the 'rules' will not be at fault, but the people who interpret them.I think you may be overreacting to this "concern." I took it as KoA being entertained by the irony of it all, like most of us are. I don't think anyone thinks the potential of "censorship" on the forum is something to be concerned about, but rather something that would be fun to watch, as in how quickly certain posts would get removed because they make Coulter and her type look bad (regardless of the truth).

I could be wrong though...

ETA: KoA's latest post indicates I could be wrong. KoA: Don't sweat it...laugh with us! :)

[King of the Americas]

I too found irony in someone who makes a living disrespecting others, disallowing anyone to do so on her board, although it would be expected.

Maybe censorship wasn't trhe right word...

---

Well, I just made my first post. It has had several hits already, but it is 'locked', so no one can post a response, yet.

I titled it "Blonde Bomb Media God".

[Cleon]

Unfortunately, it appears that you can't read the forum unless you have an account. Since they won't accept Yahoo email for validation, and there's no way on Earth I'm going to give someone connected with Ann Coulter any information that could possibly result in them knowing who I am, I'm going to have to remain in the dark.

King, let us know how it goes. :D

[King of the Americas]

Well...

My first post is locked, and I was P.M.'s saying it will soon be deleted completely, hence it is a "smarmy hit piece".

Here it is:

"Blonde Bomb Media God"

Ann Coulter is brilliant. She knows how to stir the pot, and have every camera pointed at her spoon.

She is a success in the book world, any way you look at it, and when she is on any given TV talk show, there IS a ratings spike.

People tune in to watch her or listen to her, a lot.

What people dislike is how she has made it to where she is today, and what she does to stay there.

That aside, 'I' think she is as smart as they come. She knows that the American Media Market is the Colosseum of old, and the crowd loves fresh blood.

Ms. Coulter, as many of us know her, is a product of her own design. Bill Maher once noted that she doesn't really believe the things she says, but that she is just doing it because it is a ratings draw. He also offered that she is noting like she is in public, in a private setting. Well duh, who IS the same in public as they are in private!?

My point?

Love her or hate her, she is what she is, and there seems to be no stopping her.

My question for her, and the rest of you for that matter is:

When will we hear her begin present real solutions to actual problems, and stop blaming other people for the ills of society?

I mean, I get it, she is a paid critic, but when will all that insight begin to pay 'us' dividends? She gets paid to bash liberals, and 'we are the one footing the bill. When is she going to try helping us, to help ourselves?

WHAT IF, Ann Coulter's next book was called "Solutions", and the entire thing was dedicated to offering specific instructions as to how to fix various problems facing our nation. Moreover, it was void of ANY personal attacks...

Nah, forget it, such a book wouldn't see the light of day from her publisher, and the likely hood of seeing Ms. Coulter on TV discussing serious issues while presenting actual fixes to problems is slim to none.

That kind of goodie-goodie stuff just doesn't sell.

Which brings us full circle. The Ann Coulter that we know and love, IS what the screaming masses want. Everyone 'says' they don't like 'attack ads', but in the end they win elections far more often than 'good platforms' do.

People like blood, and Ms. Coulter delivers, period.

I came to this conclusion, while I was actually writing this:

Ann Coulter is a bonefide 'hit', but she is a one-trick pony. She has to be what and who she is, because this is what the market demands.

If she were to change, and stop all the personal attacks and whatnot, she lose her microphone & spotlight.

That's my two cents on the matter, but I'd like to hear what some of you think about the notion of a 'Leopard changing its spots'.

What would happen to Ms. Coulter and her empire if she took another course, and decided to become a policy proposer?

(*Is there ANY chance of Ann Coulter reviewing this post?)


---

And now it's gone.

:)

Should I be surprised?

[Segnosaur]

This rule is the one that bothered me:

"-Any other inappropriate behavior (as determined by the moderators) may be cause for warning or removal. A poster's removal is not a topic for open discussion."

I understand Moderators not wanting to have to defend every single banning, but that "a poster's removal is not a topic for open discussion", even among other posters???

It seems to me that you could be banned, for whatever reason that Moderator chose, and then everyone would be disallowed from asking or talking amongst themselves as to why it happened.

Again, you'd probably have to see how this rule is actually used to figure out if it was a problem.

The rule could mean that moderators don't want the decision to 'ban' someone based on popular opinion (in which case you might be able to dis. It could also mean they don't want the board to be cluttered with multiple 'why was X banned' threads.

[Snide]

Well...

My first post is locked, and I was P.M.'s saying it will soon be deleted completely, hence it is a "smarmy hit piece".

...

And now it's gone.

:)

Should I be surprised?As much as I enjoyed the effort, I think they were able to see through it. I think it would be a better test to start out as a fan, then gradually, in future posts, push the envelope, and see how the mods react. For a first post, this probably just looked too suspicious.

[King of the Americas]

I told you I felt like a black man at a KKK rally, and I think I just snagged my robe.

I really didn't think the post was 'that bad', in fact I tried to compliment Ms. Coulter at every turn.

I submitted another:

"Dear Ann,"

It is unlocked, and receiving responses.

Here IT is:

I think you are great. I try to watch you every chance I get.

As a 'goof' would you write a book on "Solutions", wherein you propose the 'perfect' policy to fix the problem at hand, sans-personal attacks of any kind...?

One book tour, where you say NOTHING about anyone's inability or insufficiency.

You have this huge microphone and spotlight on you where ever you go, why NOT take a swing at that hanging fast-ball, and try just for one book to deliver "Better Days Through Better Ways"?

I know this is just a pipe-dream, and this post will probably be deleted, but maybe an echo of it will reach your ears...

Thank you for your time and consideration.

King of the Americas

[Upchurch]

I told you I felt like a black man at a KKK rally, and I think I just snagged my robe.

I'm surprised you haven't been banned yet, you troll. ;)

Can you give us non-members a sampling of your responses?

[gnome]

As much as I enjoyed the effort, I think they were able to see through it. I think it would be a better test to start out as a fan, then gradually, in future posts, push the envelope, and see how the mods react. For a first post, this probably just looked too suspicious.

More interesting would be to gradually start cheering some of her more outrageous statements, expand on them, and see how long it takes for someone to say "Hey, waitaminute"... Like Billionaires for Bush...

[Lurker]

I too am curious as to what sort of person would dwell at coulterchat.

By the way, I did not think your first post was all that bad. Hardly worthy of being censored.

Lurker

[King of the Americas]

Well, my second post was locked, unlocked, then moved, then moved again to the 'irrelivant section'.

Insert roll eyes icon here

A sample?

I really need to save it, because it is all about to disappear.

[King of the Americas]

I think you are great. I try to watch you every chance I get.

As a 'goof' would you write a book on "Solutions", wherein you propose the 'perfect' policy to fix the problem at hand, sans-personal attacks of any kind...?

One book tour, where you say NOTHING about anyone's inability or insufficiency.

You have this huge microphone and spotlight on you where ever you go, why NOT take a swing at that hanging fast-ball, and try just for one book to deliver "Better Days Through Better Ways"?

I know this is just a pipe-dream, and this post will probably be deleted, but maybe an echo of it will reach your ears...

Thank you for your time and consideration.

King of the Americas

---

Chestertonian

Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

***INSERT popcorn eating emo-cons here***

dkelly



Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are an idiot. You already had this thread locked once today. Wow! You really had us all going

I'm sure you agree with Ms. Coulter.

How in the heck did Ms. Edwards get a password for this site? kingoftheamericas? Come on Liz, don't you mean 'queen'?

---

King of the Americas
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I 'tried' to clean up the unacceptability of the previous post...

At least this one is unlocked.

I am NOT Mrs. Edwards.

I do have a message board of my own, and have had it a while.

Here, I thought I was a known Internet entity.

(*P.M. me if you want my website info.)




Summiter



Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

kingoftheamericas wrote:

Here, I thought I was a known Internet entity.



Perhaps an Internet enema is on the way.




dkelly



Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

kingoftheamericas wrote:
I 'tried' to clean up the unacceptability of the previous post...

At least this one is unlocked.

I am NOT Mrs. Edwards.

I do have a message board of my own, and have had it a while.

Here, I thought I was a known Internet entity.

(*P.M. me if you want my website info.)


Is this the same 'kingoftheamericas' who has claimed all of the following on various message boards?

1) I ran an unsuccessful bid for mayor in a North Central Texas town... to save the Boys & Girls Club

2) I paid off a guy that did bodywork on my car by working under the table below minimum wage $3500.... I got f' ed.

* Which begs the question of where you got the money to launch your Mayoral bid since you are so destitute. Further, I'd say it calls into doubt the veracity of your financial plan to save the boys and girls clubs in North Central Texas. Anyway... back to you.

3) I feel your pain... I too had a spinal injury and am confined to a wheelchair... I smoke a little herb to ease the pain... blah blah blah.

* Which I'd say is the sickest, lowest form of low. Claiming to be confined to a wheelchair? For what purpose? To get some sympathy on a message board. You are disgusting.

kingoftheamericas@hotmail.com

Screw off.

[Lurker]

More interesting would be to gradually start cheering some of her more outrageous statements, expand on them, and see how long it takes for someone to say "Hey, waitaminute"... Like Billionaires for Bush...

I think it would be good to use some of the language she uses and see how the people react. For example, I would liberally use "camel jockeys", "rag heads" and other choice phrases Coulter has used in the past. See if the readers object to that.

Lurker

[King of the Americas]

Well, my second post was locked, unlocked, moved, and then moved AGAIN to the "You've got to be kidding" Section, and now it is again, locked, and will likely soon be deleted.

245 views with 43 responses, in less than 4 hours.

Only ONE of them actually addressed the point I made, and then the thread was locked.

[Segnosaur]

More interesting would be to gradually start cheering some of her more outrageous statements, expand on them, and see how long it takes for someone to say "Hey, waitaminute"... Like Billionaires for Bush...

As much as I think extremists of all types deserve a brick upside the head, is that really an appropriate thing to do?

After all, I personally think its wrong to 'troll' a forum. (Its very annoying to have an online debate with someone who you find out later was just 'yanking your chain'. Similarly, we'd be irritated if we found out someone was coming on here to 'pose' as either a skeptic or believer, and then later on said 'Ha... I fooled you'.

The people on Coulter's forum might be right wing zealots (although we still haven't actually seen if "real" input from the political left is tolerated), but does that make them any less deserving of honesty?

[King of the Americas]

I don't think I am a 'troll'.

I enjoy good honest exchanges of ideas, and I almost always get someting out of it that I didn't have to start.

Debating issues and offering new ideas to new people is what the Internet is all about for me.

I havew never, and would never present myself as something I was not. I have only ever been 100% honest about who and what I am, and what I do.

What exactly is 'trollish' behaivor?

[Snide]

More interesting would be to gradually start cheering some of her more outrageous statements, expand on them, and see how long it takes for someone to say "Hey, waitaminute"... Like Billionaires for Bush...Ooh...Yes, I like that much better! It would be interesting to see how their irony meters work! :)

[gnome]

As much as I think extremists of all types deserve a brick upside the head, is that really an appropriate thing to do?

After all, I personally think its wrong to 'troll' a forum. (Its very annoying to have an online debate with someone who you find out later was just 'yanking your chain'. Similarly, we'd be irritated if we found out someone was coming on here to 'pose' as either a skeptic or believer, and then later on said 'Ha... I fooled you'.

The people on Coulter's forum might be right wing zealots (although we still haven't actually seen if "real" input from the political left is tolerated), but does that make them any less deserving of honesty?

I have a split philosophy on this...

An honest forum that allows civilized open debate (or even uncivilized open debate) is worthy of respect... I would not presume to suggest anyone should troll the board if this is indeed its character.

A forum that does not allow messages (no matter how politely worded) critical of its subject matter... I have little sympathy for. Especially if they use tactics such as banning people after one offense, or banning people that ask about the banning. I'm not saying they've done that... I'm just saying.

Now, is what I've suggested trolling? Maybe it verges on it... but I would consider it instead a refined form of irony. Posting messages in SUPPORT, and causing people to think about what they're going along with.

[gnome]

Ooh...Yes, I like that much better! It would be interesting to see how their irony meters work! :)

My only fear is that they may have no irony meters, and would gleefully follow along anything that was said... until the provocateur realizes that he's just whipped them up into a frenzy about something he is diametrically opposed to...

[King of the Americas]

Well, 'I' seem to have been ruled unacceptable under this rule:

"-Any other inappropriate behavior (as determined by the moderators) may be cause for warning or removal."

None of the Moderators I have dealt with have been honest, forthright, or fair in their treatment toward me. NONE of my posts or responses have broken any posted tenet, and upon requesting what I did 'specifically' to warrant this attention, I got nothing in response, but a locked thread.

There has been nothing Free, Fair, Open, or Honest about how my material was handled by Ms. Coulter's chat site.

---

Responses from Moderators:

kingoftheamericas wrote:
Could you tell me what specifically I am doing, to get it 'locked', just so that I can avoid any such behavior...?

RESPONSE: Usually, we like to let you know what you did after the infraction. There's a whole host of things that can get a thread locked; name calling, off-topic posts, inappropriate content (images or comments), etc. The list is endless.

kingoftheamericas wrote:
I believe I am being mis- or poorly treated.

My post, has now been moved TWICE, even though it has received numerous views and responses.

Please tell me what specific policies I have broken in order to receive this kind of attention from Moderators.

I have attacked no one, and offered only potential solutions to the problems that now face us.

Am I out of place here?


RESPONSE: We frequently move threads as they evolve, yours seems to have gone "train wreck" and was moved to the appropriate forum.

Nothing personal.

[Cleon]

You know, from now on every time someone whines about the mods here, I'm going to point them to this thread.

Thanks, King. ;)

[Gregoire]

Thanks, King of the Americas.

I fully appreciate the irony of Ms Coulter's website.
What I wonder is what types of posts in her forum actually do not get moved. Are they just threads of everyone agreeing and patting themselves on the back? Do you notice any disagreement going on?

[Segnosaur]

Thanks, King of the Americas.

I fully appreciate the irony of Ms Coulter's website.
What I wonder is what types of posts in her forum actually do not get moved. Are they just threads of everyone agreeing and patting themselves on the back? Do you notice any disagreement going on?

That's what I'd like to know. So far, all we've had is KotA mentioning the response to his posts. Now, we here on this forum would consider it pretty mild, but basically his post was him saying nothing more than 'Why is she useless' (regardless of how many complements he threw in).

[Art Vandelay]

I think you may be overreacting.

The term 'censorship' gets tossed around far too easily. Keep in mind that the right to 'free speech' does not guarantee you a forum for your opinions. People running that forum have every right to determine what is appropriate and what is not.To some extent. But editing other people's posts, lying about them and not allowing them to respond, and moving their posts, then moving posts where they point out that posts have been moved, goes beyond free speech. Free speech does not extend to libel.

I understand Moderators not wanting to have to defend every single banning, but that "a poster's removal is not a topic for open discussion", even among other posters???Here, if posts are moved out of a thread, you're not allowed to discuss the fact. Is that any better?

If you've read any of Ms. Coulter's books you know that she doesn't just disagree with 'liberal' positions, but she is in the business of disrespecting, name-calling, and out right slanderizing those who oppose her.Slandering, not slanderizing.

As much as I enjoyed the effort, I think they were able to see through it. I think it would be a better test to start out as a fan, then gradually, in future posts, push the envelope, and see how the mods react. For a first post, this probably just looked too suspicious.Yeah, that will show those dishonest Right Wingers!

Well, my second post was locked, unlocked, then moved, then moved again to the 'irrelivant section'.Your spelling or theirs?

The people on Coulter's forum might be right wing zealots (although we still haven't actually seen if "real" input from the political left is tolerated), but does that make them any less deserving of honesty?More importantly, what grounds does one have for criticizing Coulter, if one is just as dishonest?

You know, from now on every time someone whines about the mods here, I'm going to point them to this thread.

Thanks, King. ;)Is that going to be the new motto here?
"The JREF Forum. We're slightly better than Ann Coulter."

[Art Vandelay]

1. If we post a vague warning, and you ask for clarification, we can suspend you. If you complain about such behavior, we can lie and say we didn't.

2. We can remove posts from a thread, deny that we did so, then, if you point out that we did, we can suspend you.

3. We can post lies about you in special threads that only moderators can post in, so that you can't respond.

4. We can move one of your posts from one thread to another, not mentioning in either thread that we did so, and when you point out that, in moving your post, we have edited it in a manner that changes its meaning, we can insist that the fact that it is not labeled as "edited" proves that it hasn't been edited.

5. We have rules requiring "civility", but they are so vague as to be meaningless. We will ignore some instances of blatant insults, while deleting others, with no apparent rhyme or reason.

6. We will remove a post from a thread, then claim that moving a post out of a thread is completely different from deleting it from the thread, and if you point out the absurdity of our argument by quoting one of our posts and moving one of the words in the quote, we will swear up and down that you deleted the word, and call you a liar for insisting that you moved it rather than deleting it.

[Art Vandelay]

And I wouldn't be surprised if I got suspended for criticizing the mods here.

[Gurdur]

And I wouldn't be surprised if I got suspended for criticizing the mods here.

Considering, IIRC, that you were expressly warned against doing what you just did here -- posting bitching about the JREF board policy / modding inside a thread in the wrong forum -- then, yes, it would be utterly unsurprising if you got suspended.

You DO know it begins to look like suicidal spam, yes? Hell, you coulda easily posted this in Forum Management, and only had the usual flame war, but you just HAD to do it in a totally unrelated thread in Politics.

Dude. From now on in it's all so predictable.

Anyway, naught to do with me. I won't report your posts, since I never report posts as per a decision some fair time ago. But someone is eventually going to stumble over it, and it will get split and moved, and most likely acted upon, and yes, your behaviour is just waaaaaaaaaaaay over the top. And utterly senselessly and ineffectually so at that.

[strathmeyer]

And I wouldn't be surprised if I got suspended for criticizing the mods here.

Why would you make a statement like this? You know what's going to happen, and then you're just going to end up looking like an idiot. Your ability to forget your past actions is staggering.

[Art Vandelay]

Considering, IIRC, that you were expressly warned against doing what you just did here -- posting bitching about the JREF board policy / modding inside a thread in the wrong forum -- then, yes, it would be utterly unsurprising if you got suspended.I was suspended not for bitching about moderation, but for mentioning that moderation action had occurred. I said "I have had posts removed from this thread." That's it. Merely a factual statement. Absolutely no commenting on the action, just mentioning that it occurred. And now, since you have discussed moderator actions, they will have to either leave me alone, suspend you, or show yet again their hypocrisy.

Hell, you coulda easily posted this in Forum Management, and only had the usual flame war, I am not the one who chose to start a thread about forum management (albeit a different forum) in Politics. I have every intention of starting a thread in Forum Management. I have PM'ed Darat regarding a false statement he has made, and I am allowing him an opportunity to retract it, so that I can take his response into account in my thread.

but you just HAD to do it in a totally unrelated thread in Politics.:confused:

Are you seriously so deluded as to argue that the managment of this forum is an issue totally unrelated to the management of another forum?

But someone is eventually going to stumble over it, and it will get split and moved, and most likely acted upon, and yes, your behaviour is just waaaaaaaaaaaay over the top.MY actions are way over the top? I was suspended for mentioning that posts were moved. If you think that *I* am the one being unreasonable, then you're simply showing once again that your opinion is not worth listening to.

Why would you make a statement like this?Because the mods have a habit of moving posts, and refusing to allow anyone to mention that posts have been moved. If they were to move my second post in this thread, they would remove the meat of my criticism. Now they have to either move three times as many posts, or leave a post (in a thread complaining about the managment of another forum) that suggests dishonest moderation policies.

Your ability to forget your past actions is staggering.Unlike the mods, I don't think that the past should be forgotten.

Seriously, does no one see the hypocrisy in complaining about another forum, when the mods here move posts and refuse to allow anyone to mention that they have moved posts?

[Gurdur]

....... Are you seriously so deluded

Let me just ask my 6-ft-tall top-hat-wearing rabbit friend about that and I'll get right back to you.

as to argue that the managment of this forum is an issue totally unrelated to the management of another forum?

Well, you know, a thread about Coulter Chat in a forum for Politics doesn't quite seem the best place for another diatribe about your host, but hey.

If you think that *I* am the one being unreasonable, then you're simply showing once again that your opinion is not worth listening to.

I guess this means, um, well, what does it mean? Harvey says that you might like to stay with us in this nice little hospital with the padded cells. Harvey says there's a lot of room here. Company always welcome.

[King of the Americas]

Well, it's over.

I have been banned, completely

The kicker is that I don't even know why, and there is no way to find out.

I can't even 'view' any posts or PM's to see why or what happened.

On their front index page, there is a singular e-mail address for the "board administrator", but it only sends back an automated response.

For the most part, there is no honest, fair, or balanced debate occuring there.

My contentions or planks were met most often with redicule and personal attacks (surprise!), or no response at all. Those with 'left' leaning notions or suggestions are ignored or outright lambasted, and called "Liberal think"- Do NOT Respond.

It has been MY experience that the 'moderation' is more than heavy handed, but outright ridiculous and unexplainable.

I begged and even pleaded with a moderator to tell me what exactly I did to warrant the attention, so that I could avoid such moderation in the future. His response, "Read your post again."

On the last day I posted, I found a post, remarkably similiar to my first titled "Blonde Bomb Media God". It was a post remarking about Ann's talent, and that IF she used it to present policy fixes, rather than merely personal attacks, the world would be better off for it.

I offered my kudoes to the poster, said I agreed with him, and then noted that I too had offered up such a post for review, "but that it was... Well I won't mention what happened to my post, but my point is that I agree with you, and will be praying along side you that Ann heeds our calls."

Now, I can't see or post anything there anymore :(

Too bad too, since there was SO MUCH worth responding to. Seriously, if it gets your goat to see people post 'false' information to support a weak argument to start, then this is the place for you. However, be warned, that if you are too good at making conservative arguments look foolish, and showing them to be unfounded, you won't be there long...

Now I have to show up at one of Ann Coulter's book signings to ask her if she knows what her website engineers are doing to her "fans", when they post something not totally flattering to the conservative faith.

I am disappointed by the treatment I received, but I must say I felt this coming from the time I read their Forum Rules.

Censorship IS taking place there, of this I have no doubt.

[gnome]

Now I have to show up at one of Ann Coulter's book signings to ask her if she knows what her website engineers are doing to her "fans", when they post something not totally flattering to the conservative faith.

I have no doubt that she would applaud the moderator's actions. She's never been against being unfair to liberals. I'm sure she freely admits it.

[King of the Americas]

I am sure she'd defend such actions by saying, "It is MY website. I'll put on it, or allow what 'I' want. If you do't like it, don't go there."

To wit I would respond, "Well YOU advertise it to be a forum for 'fair and balanced discussion'." Change the advertisements to better reflect the way message board ACTUALLY operates...

If you were wondering what kind of posters and discussions occure there, review how Ann Coulter 'debates' liberals. Those on the board are her faithful minions, who walk in lock-step with her, and mimick her behavior.

---

*OH, this morning, the locks on my account were lifted, so I can post again!!!

I am still trying to figure out what I did to warrant the attention I have received from the moderators.

[corplinx]

I figured most of the threads would be about the best way to purge after a meal. Or how to make up your eyes for the best psycho-ho look.

[King of the Americas]

They have a whole section devoted to that stuff...so that it doesn't get mixed up with the political stuff.

[King of the Americas]

:) :) :)

Now I am banned again.

This is funny.

And a little sad...

[Lurker]

:) :) :)

Now I am banned again.

This is funny.

And a little sad...


What prompted the latest banning?

On a side note, I tried to inhabit an ultra-conservative forum for a while. It was surreal how much abuse I endured while remaining polite myself. But if I slipped even the slightest from perfect behavior they pounced on me all the while yukking it up with those who were vile and insulting from the get go.

Lurker

[corplinx]

Ann Coulter is in the comfort food business. Her and other pundits provide comfort food to various degrees of partisans to help them feel better about themelves and stay faithful. Its almost a church of politics.

That said, they don't want differing viewpoints on their forums. They are there to sing with the choir.

[King of the Americas]

I really don't know what I did to cause this latest lock-out.

2 different moderators told me in a PM that there were LOTS of things that could get me banned, and that it would take too long to list them al, so they just leave it up to the descretion of the moderators...*insert roll eye icon here*

Thie Forum Rules are sketchy at best. You can follow them perfectly, and still get moderated, then when you ask a moderator why they did it they say, "Look at your post.", as though 'you' shoulld automatically KNOW what is wrong with it, without them explaining it to you...

The place is a haven for goose-stepping Coulter followers, where no one is allowed to disagree or present facts contrary to Ann-speak.

"Fair & balanced debate"...?

That place isn't even in the same Universe as 'fair & balanced'.

[Cain]

Unimpeachable sources confirm Ann Coulter is a post-op tranny.

[Lurker]

That said, they don't want differing viewpoints on their forums. They are there to sing with the choir.

You hit the nail on the head there. In the ultra-conservative forum I tried out I learned that they really just wanted to high five each other and support each other's viewpoints. For even daring to question them and bring up alternate ideas I was immediately labeled a troll. Clearly they did not want me or any other liberal there.

Lurker

[JJR]

Ann Coulter rox. I'm gonna' check out her site right now.

Mmmmm hottie.

[Gregoire]

You hit the nail on the head there. In the ultra-conservative forum I tried out I learned that they really just wanted to high five each other and support each other's viewpoints. For even daring to question them and bring up alternate ideas I was immediately labeled a troll. Clearly they did not want me or any other liberal there.

Lurker

I think that Coulter is even worse than that. I heard a conservative call her on some radio talk show and asked her a difficult question. She immediately said, without any evidence, that the caller was really a liberal (gasp!) in disguise. :jaw-dropp She went on to be very rude in her typical fashion and never answered the question.

So not only does she only want ultrarightwingers, she also only wants those ultrarightwingers who only believe what she believes. But I guess what else could you expect from the author of the book Treason?

[JJR]

I think that Coulter is even worse than that. I heard a conservative call her on some radio talk show and asked her a difficult question. She immediately said, without any evidence, that the caller was really a liberal (gasp!) in disguise. :jaw-dropp She went on to be very rude in her typical fashion and never answered the question.

So not only does she only want ultrarightwingers, she also only wants those ultrarightwingers who only believe what she believes. But I guess what else could you expect from the author of the book Treason?

I love it. It would be cool to shave my beard and be kinda yuppie with her for a while.

I just hope she doesn't try to spank me too much! :eye-poppi

[King of the Americas]

Sign up or register as a user, over at anncoulter.com

So long as you post that Ann can and does NO wrong, they'll LOVE you.

However, they also say that any 'mistreatment' of the hostess will also get you tossed, so acting like a panting wolf, might also be deemed 'in bad taste' toward the hostess, leaving you right back here.

The friend of mine, whom I got the invite from to go there to begin with, is affraid to mention my absense, since it could get him tossed as well.

Who was it that didn't believe me when I originally posted this thread and remarked at the potential for censorship?

[King of the Americas]

---
This is my last say on this---
---

To: boardadmin@anncoulter.com

Subject: Nothing?

Text:

No explaination, no reason, no specific charge, just a perminate ban.

Funny how some people claim it is the 'Left' that acts "Un-American", and yet it is the Queen of the Right who allows daily outright censorship on her website that claims "fair and honest debate is promoted".

Ah, to live in a world where no one is allowed to challenge you...

Just imagine the intellectual growth you are keeping yourself and all those other board members from!?

By disallowing "dissent", you are only starving yourself of new ideas.

Solutions work a lot like genetics. Too much inbreeding, and unexposure to 'outside' thought pools, will ultimately lead to your intellectual retardation.

Be well, although with your present heading, I don't see bright times in your future.

-King of the Americas

---

ETA: Thanks quizotecoyote...

[quixotecoyote]

Psssst, it's "dissent".

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Isn't she HOT :p :)
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/photo.cgi?image=annblack.jpg

[King of the Americas]

Dick Cheany uses that image often, so I've heard.

(masturbatory needs)