Home › Blogs › GOP_Rebel's blog ›

Next Right Netiquette Guidelines - Your Input, Summarized

by GOP_Rebel | June 21, 2008 at 12:07 PM
in

This is a response to a thoughtful post titled About This Web Site.

Experience with The Next Right moderators indicates that they all promote freedom of expression and are never heavy-handed in censuring content.  Since regular contributors have frequently called for moderation, I imagine that Patrick, Soren and Jon wouldn't have any objection to netiquette guidelines culled from The Next Right mission statement, and user input.  In other words, we’re all adults here (heh), and we ought to be able to moderate ourselves for the most part.  Here’s a summary of what you said you wanted in terms of Next Right Netiquette:

  • Content should forward the common goal of  providing resources that conservatives can use for grassroots activism such as
    • Recruiting conservatives
    • Getting conservatives elected
  • Before posting, consider whether the post passes the recruit and elect test.
    • Satire can be a useful tool in this regard as long as it is done with decorum and good taste, and is, of course, actually funny. 
  • The Next Right embraces all types of conservatives, including
    • Social
    • Fiscal
    • Neocons
    • Libertarians
    • Independents and Democrats who share a common cause with our goals to recruit and elect Conservatives
  • Recommended method to deal with content we don’t agree with:
    • Ignore (highly recommended for application toward partisan opponents who are obviously trolling the website)
    • Post one response at the most per thread (highly recommended for application toward disagreements between debating Conservatives)
    • Avoid reaching a position of weakness and/or desperation with multiple divisive responses
  • Avoid highly charged terminology such as Nazi, RINO, McInsane, Moonbat, Tinfoil-Hat-Wearing-Ron-Paul-Supporter, etc. 
    • In other words be professional. 
    • Think of The Next Right as a public strategy room rather than a frat house, and review the content to see if it passes the not-a-frat-house test.
  • If you have documentation (a post from another site, for example) that someone is a partisan activist for an opposing party, then produce it but please do not merely allege/accuse.  Alternatively, just ignore.

    Additionally, we have a request to the moderators to please keep the blog posts visible for up to 25 posts, which is the standard on an opposition website.

To summarize the Netiquette guidelines:

  • Review content to ensure that it passes the test to “recruit conservatives, elect conservatives, in a professional manner”.
  • Join the fight against desperation and weakness and limit responses to 1 per thread whenever possible
  • Refrain from name-calling and accusations 

One suggestion is that if you feel the urge to continue a debate and have exceeded a reasonable number of responses, perhaps it’s time to restate your position by posting it in a separate article?  Just a thought...

HTH,

Reb

3.666665
Your rating: None Average: 3.7 (3 votes)

Comments

Sounds like. . .

Submitted by Walt Gilbert on Sat, 06/21/2008 - 16:51.

. . .a perfectly reasonable set of guidelines to me.  Although, it would admittedly be tough to limit myself to a single reply in reaction to the critiques that some of my blog posts tend to draw.  I suppose it's something I would have to work on.

 

It's just a suggested guideline

Submitted by GOP_Rebel on Sat, 06/21/2008 - 17:50.

Sometimes there needs to be some back-and-forth in the replies, so that's a common-sense thing.  On the other hand, when the back-and-forth gets 7 or 8 layers deep, well maybe that's when it's time to do the sanity check.  Heh.  I'm using the word loosely in this election year!  ;-)

I object.

Submitted by davidfarrar on Sat, 06/21/2008 - 21:49.

First off, I don't take instructions from someone who hides behind a moniker. If he, or she, wants to issue edicts, at least do it in person.

Secondly, I read the "About us" message. It doesn't mention anything even remotely similar to what you have stated: It says, "The Next Right is the place for wired activists to build a new Republican Party and conservative movement. As a community-driven grassroots action website for the right, we'll feature in-depth political analysis, on-the-ground reports, and strategic discussion and debate." That's it. Nothing about,  "recruiting conservatives or getting conservatives elected."

This website is devoted to establishing a political basis for the "Next Right", where conservatives can come and freely discuss important political issues of the day, and, perhaps, if we are lucky, build a new conservative Republican Party.

These "Progress" Republicans and Independents haven't even won the election yet and they are already acting like liberals...trying to create law where none is required.

ex animo

davidfarrar

Would I violate the netiquette guidelines if I say you sound

Submitted by lagomorph on Sun, 06/22/2008 - 01:41.

like a biggie?  Ok, well maybe so, in which case I'll just say it once in this thread.  Your objection is duly noted.

I don't think that "guidelines" are the same as a set of "instructions", and frankly you don't exactly sound like someone who would take instructions, suggestions, or advice from anybody with or without a moniker. 

Judging from the original, this list looks like a collection of what Bradley Tank, you, Jeff Roberts, me, Walt Gilbert and Daniel Ruwe all wrote in the About This Web Site thread.  What part of "here's a summary of what you said" - you being the people on that thread - isn't clear? I asked Bradley Tank (I love that SN) to articulate the common goals, and so he did.  I think Bradley's opinion that grassroots activism usually means recruiting conservatives, and getting them elected is probably well within the spirit of the About paragraph.  But perhaps I'm missing something and if so, I'm sure you'll be the first to point it out.  You seem to lead the way in instructive and corrective discourse on this site.

What would ever make you think you're being told what to do when the comment above specifically says these are suggested guidelines is beyond me.  But I'm sure you'll have plenty more to say about it, and of course I look forward to reading your rant screed tirade invective harangue lecture diatribe reply shortly.  Actually that's not true, I lied.  It's gotten to the point now that when I read your name on a post or comment that is inevitably going to turn out to be a crashing bore, I'm becoming conditioned to just drive through. 

You are welcome to ignore this post.

Submitted by davidfarrar on Sun, 06/22/2008 - 08:02.

But you and I both know you won't.

I guess to you the words: "grassroots activism" can mean "recruiting conservatives, and getting them elected," but not necessarily, especially when you look at the whole quote, and not just take out the section you believe will support your point: "The Next Right is the place for wired activists to build a new Republican Party and conservative movement. As a community-driven grassroots action website for the right, we'll feature in-depth political analysis, on-the-ground reports, and strategic discussion and debate."

Call me what you will, but this paragraph reads to me like the authors want a website devoted to "wired activists" who are interested in building a "new Republican Party" around a "conservative movement". It goes on to describe the kind of participants they envision would be interested in participating in this website, "a community-driven grassroots action website for the right." And, finally, they inform us,"we'll feature in-depth political analysis, on-the-ground reports, and strategic discussion and debate."

It is clear, this website isn't about electing John McCain,  it is about re-establishing the conservative ideals the Republican Party, through its adopted political platform, once stood for and from which direction the campaign of John McCain has far taken it.

ex animo

davidfarrar

I think what David is saying is. . .

Submitted by Walt Gilbert on Sun, 06/22/2008 - 15:23.

. . ."Have you heard the good news?"

Don't you think

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Sun, 06/22/2008 - 12:16.

that building a new Republican Party and conservative movement might involve, you know, recruiting and electing conservatives?

 

 

The Republican Party and conservative movements...

Submitted by davidfarrar on Mon, 06/23/2008 - 08:22.

...certainly do, but we are talking about this website and its objectives. As we have just seen, while we are talking here about rebuilding the Republican Party and the conservative movement, John McCain is busy selling us and the country out on Immigration simply to garnish a few Hispanic votes....some conservative, some Republican.

Mr. Sandor, the very reason we why are now in a position of having to "rebuild" the Republican Party and having to "rebuild" a conservative movement in the first place is because we, as conservatives, have allowed ourselves to fall prey to this kind of political blackmail over and over again for the past twenty years  -- and the political elite know it. They know we conservatives aren't politically important because in the end, they know we will always vote the way we are told to vote, because the other guy is a lot worse. 

But now more and more conservatives are beginning to see the real cost of allowing this kind of political blackmail to occur isn't just to conservatives, it's also to the public, who is denied the opportunity to learn why conservative values are so important to the Republic and the country. Without grass-roots support we won't be able to do any "recruiting and electing conservatives".

So the authors of this website got it right, before we can go out and do any recruiting and electing, let's make sure we first set our values down and lead instead of follow. After all, isn't that what a political party is supposed to do.

ex animo

davidfarrar

Madam GOP-Reb

Submitted by Czarmangis on Sun, 06/22/2008 - 02:27.

I would like to direct you to THIS DIARY at the DailyKooK. After you have read it I would like you to offer me a word, any word that better describes this D***** better than the word MOONBAT.

Netiquette rationale

Submitted by GOP_Rebel on Sun, 06/22/2008 - 11:23.

I think everyone here knows me well enough to know that I don't speak for the moderators, and I hope I didn't present myself a way that was arrogant and overreaching.  This post was never meant to be a set of instructions or an edict to limit your expression.  From the time the site was launched, users have been posting comments asking the moderators to monitor the posts, and it was quite very easy for me to collect the gist of these requests and summarize them.

David, since your writing frequently indicates that would like to elevate the Republican Party to a higher standard, it seems ironic that you object to a collection of suggestions from frequent users who would like to elevate the exchange of ideas to a higher standard here.   I'm not sure whether you're objecting to your constituents for expressing their opinions, or to me for summarizing their opinions, or to me for not using my real name as a byline. 

Ever since the 2004 election in which personal property was destroyed and swastikas were burned on lawns displaying GOP lawn signs, GOP headquarters were trashed, cars were keyed that displayed Bush/Cheney bumper stickers and people were physically attacked by thugs who hate Republicans, I've made a conscious decision to maintain my privacy as a Republican blogger.  This year could make 2004 look like a picnic in terms of the hostilities that may well ramp up between partisans, and I expect fellow Republicans to understand and respect my right to privacy and not diminish it on this site.

Of course you guys are free to write anything you like!  And of course others are free to critique and disagree with the style as well as the content we all write.  I'm amazed that the moderators haven't deleted some of my posts yet, so obviously no one's going to limit your free expression. 

On the other hand, as this website gains tremendous visibility with the Left and we are now on the critical path of the run-up to the election, I see nothing wrong with asking myself before I click "Save" whether my very public discourse helps us, or whether it could be used by the opposition.  I thought Bradley's post was timely and I took it in the positive manner in which it was intended. The list was meant to be helpful to anyone who can use it. If you don't feel you can use it, then don't? 

Slàinte mhor,

Reb