Rules - Revision history

DaveLeach at 11:11, 24 June 2021

2021-06-24T11:11:18Z

DaveLeach: /* Personal Attacks vs. Criticism */

2021-06-24T03:30:18Z

‎Personal Attacks vs. Criticism

DaveLeach: /* What you CAN'T do is what you wouldn't do anyway */

2021-02-18T18:43:16Z

‎What you CAN'T do is what you wouldn't do anyway

DaveLeach: /* What you CAN'T do is what you wouldn't do anyway */

2020-04-05T04:21:32Z

‎What you CAN'T do is what you wouldn't do anyway

DaveLeach: /* What you CAN do */

2020-04-03T04:17:03Z

‎What you CAN do

DaveLeach: /* What you CAN do */

2020-04-03T04:12:57Z

‎What you CAN do

DaveLeach: /* Personal Attacks vs. Criticism */

2019-05-10T02:17:40Z

‎Personal Attacks vs. Criticism

DaveLeach: /* Personal Attacks vs. Criticism */

2019-05-10T02:15:32Z

‎Personal Attacks vs. Criticism

DaveLeach: /* What you can't do is what you wouldn't do anyway */

2019-05-04T03:32:57Z

‎What you can't do is what you wouldn't do anyway

DaveLeach: /* Promotion of illegal activity. */

2019-05-04T03:30:35Z

‎Promotion of illegal activity.

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 |[[Rules]]
 |[[Tips]]
-|[[FAQ]]
+|[[SaveTheWorld:FAQ]]
 |[[Begin!]]
 |[https://www.paypal.com/donate/?token=G3A8DgIJOtxZ3zn7_1cVGnF-lRSUzXCVpSf30Q7Gd_zLYTBERe7VSt2YrZSlihtU6K4lYW&country.x=US&locale.x=US Donate]

@@ Line 95: / Line 95: @@
 :"Not all ad Hominems are fallacious. In some cases, an individual's characteristics can have a bearing on the question of the veracity of her claims. For example, if someone is shown to be a pathological liar, then what he says can be considered to be unreliable. However, such attacks are weak, since even pathological liars might speak the truth on occasion.
-:"In general, it is best to focus one's attention on the content of the claim and not on who made the claim. It is the content that determines the truth of the claim and not the characteristics of the person making the claim." [http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html Nizkor.org]
+:"In general, it is best to focus one's attention on the content of the claim and not on who made the claim. It is the content that determines the truth of the claim and not the characteristics of the person making the claim." [http://www.nizkor.com/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html Nizkor.com]
 Wikipedia has a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks long article] about personal attacks which warns us not to be simplistic:

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:43, 18 February 2021
Line 32:		Line 32:

	These conditions are subject to change, depending on future abuse of this internet resource. I expect that requiring a real, checkable real name, not allowing an active link, especially, will turn off spammers. Honestly, 12,000 spam accounts during three unwatched months! My goal is to do good; theirs was not.		These conditions are subject to change, depending on future abuse of this internet resource. I expect that requiring a real, checkable real name, not allowing an active link, especially, will turn off spammers. Honestly, 12,000 spam accounts during three unwatched months! My goal is to do good; theirs was not.
		+
		+	===Uh, you can't post illegal stuff either===
		+
		+	You won't care about these restrictions unless you are a criminal. The following is copied from [https://spreely.com/signup Spreely.com]'s legal page. Actually Spreely has a lot more big words, which I hope I never have to think about.
		+
		+	Stuff you can't post:
		+
		+	You aren't allowed to post anything that
		+
		+	- Is sexually explicit or pornographic, exploits or presents minors in a sexual way, or promotes adult sexual services.
		+
		+	- Creates a genuine risk of physical injury or property damage, credibly threatens people or public safety, or organizes, encourages or celebrates harm.
		+
		+	- Promotes self-harm, eating disorders or hard drug abuse.
		+
		+	- Infringes anyone's intellectual property, privacy or other rights. (That is, you can't violate copyright laws.)
		+
		+	- Is fraudulent or deceptive.
		+
		+	- Is someone else's personal information or requests a minor's personal information.
		+
		+	- Contains any information or content that’s illegal.

	==What you CAN do==		==What you CAN do==

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 That's about all that you ''can't'' do.
-(*Actually we will allow a bit of advertising, in your personal page, limited to a 25 word description and a link, provided the link is to a legitimate product or service that you provide and not to subjects rife with fraud, lust, and spam.)
+*Actually '''we will allow a bit of advertising, in your personal page,''' because we would ''like'' to know about your business as well as your political life. But after dealing with about 12,000 incoherent spam posts that existed only for a link, here are some rules:
 ==What you CAN do==

@@ Line 35: / Line 35: @@
 These rules were created especially for the kinds of issues that people care about so much that disagreement makes people emotional: especially political issues, and those issues where political positions are affected by religion, especially by the Bible. Other subjects are not welcome on this website at this time; this can change when at least one or two people with expertise in an area are willing to monitor contributions in that area to keep conversations honest and remove spam.
-'''Sign your contributions!''' At the end of the section containing your contribution, enter your RealName, your political party abbreviation, your state abbreviation, a phrase about yourself, and the time and date. You can do this automatically by simply typing four "tildes". (You have to register with that information before you can post. "FAQ's", above, explain why this is important.)
+'''Sign your contributions!''' At the end of the section containing your contribution, enter your RealName, your political party abbreviation, your state abbreviation, a phrase about yourself, and the time and date. You can do this automatically by simply typing four "tildes". (You have to register with that information before you can post. "FAQ's", linked above, explain why this is important.)
-A tilde is that little squiggle (~) in the upper left corner of your computer keyboard. On smartphones, on the "numbers" screen, there is a "symbol" symbol that is three characters squeezed into as much space as is elsewhere occupied by a single character . On android phones it is #\=. On iphones, it is #+=  Press this, and you get lots of weird symbols.
+A tilde is that little squiggle (~) in the upper left corner of your computer keyboard. On smartphones, on the "numbers" screen, there is a "symbol" symbol that is three characters squeezed into as much space as is elsewhere occupied by a single character . On android phones it is #\=. On iphones, it is #+=  Press this, and you get a tilde along with lots of other weird symbols.
 :<code>Can wisdom become, once again, as interesting as war?</code>

@@ Line 89: / Line 89: @@
 (Only do it if you are very sure the matter is a true "personal attack". False accusations create another obstacle to reasoning that must be dealt with.)
-(For more babbling about Personal Attacks: see [[http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/Tips#No_.22personal_attacks.22]]
+(For more babbling about Personal Attacks: see [[Tips#No_.22personal_attacks.22]]
 ==Possible problems==

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:15, 10 May 2019
Line 88:		Line 88:

	(Only do it if you are very sure the matter is a true "personal attack". False accusations create another obstacle to reasoning that must be dealt with.)		(Only do it if you are very sure the matter is a true "personal attack". False accusations create another obstacle to reasoning that must be dealt with.)
		+
		+	(For more babbling about Personal Attacks: see [[http://savetheworld.saltshaker.us/wiki/Tips#No_.22personal_attacks.22]]

	==Possible problems==		==Possible problems==

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 |}
-== What you can't do is what you wouldn't do anyway ==
+== What you CAN'T do is what you wouldn't do anyway ==
 Rules (that are conditions of participation) are simple and short:

@@ Line 102: / Line 102: @@
 ==Promotion of illegal activity.==
-This wiki focuses on politically related issues. All political issues involve questions about what should be legal. Every position taken on what ''should'' be legal is literally a promotion of things that are ''not already'' legal. This makes a simplistic prohibition of "the promotion of illegal activity" technically meaningless if not ridiculous in any political forum.
+Many website managers assert their right to censor any promotion of anything illegal, even though our laws and courts don't criminalize "incitement to violence" unless violence is actually inspired by the speech within a very short time. [https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/444/ Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)] It is possible that some post here might rise to a level of such gratuitous incitement that it should be banned here, subject to public discussion on the talk page, so that possibility is listed here.
 This is complicated by conflicts that often occur between laws; such as between local and federal laws. Sometimes what is legal under one jurisdiction is outlawed in another. For example we often see law-abiding people violate what they consider an unjust, unconstitutional law in order to "test" the law in court. Sometimes we even see elected officials going to jail for upholding the Constitution as they understand it, while arguing in court that it is the court orders which are unconstitutional. This is actually a correct procedure for correcting incorrect laws, that is provided by our legal system, since courts will not review the constitutionality of a law unless there is a "case" before it, and a "case" has to have a defendant accused of violating a law or a plaintiff claiming to be harmed by a law.
-Serious, passionate disagreement about which policies are right and wrong are usually stirred by perceived conflicts between human laws and God's Laws. Ideas about the right thing to do in that situation are all over the map. These disagreements can't be resolved without discussing not only what the law ought to be, but how we ought to respond until it is. In that situation it is uselessly simplistic to attempt to identify "promotion of illegal activity", since the central disagreement is over what is legal. When a law or court order conflicts with the Constitution, and/or with the Bible, which authority tells us which is legal? Is it then "promotion of illegal activity", to argue the other side?
+Serious, passionate disagreement about which policies are right and wrong are usually stirred by perceived conflicts between human laws and God's Laws. Ideas about the right thing to do in that situation are all over the map. These disagreements can't be resolved without discussing not only what the law ought to be, but how we ought to respond until it is. In that situation it is uselessly simplistic to attempt to identify "promotion of illegal activity", since the central disagreement is over what is genuinely legal. When a law or court order conflicts with the Constitution, and/or with the Bible, which is legal? Is it then "promotion of illegal activity", to argue for the other side?
 How about when some judge takes a position that defies the Constitution, local and federal laws, all court precedent, and the Bible, but he still has the power to order the police to put you in jail? Are you allowed to present legal arguments for your innocence? Defending yourself either in court or in the court of public opinion would be "promotion of illegal activity" by the simplistic notion of "promotion of illegal activity" which the rules on several websites authorize administrators to arbitrarily censor. Martin Luther King Jr. continually "promoted illegal activity", these administrators would all have said had they started their websites a couple of generations earlier.