You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
--Tech & Moderator Notes
Civil discourse on the Burg
2010-02-08
To all readers,

We've had a few problems lately with civil discourse here on the Burg. Nothing we can't handle, but allow this post to serve as a gentle reminder of the bright lines we mods draw on comments:
  • Racist and racially provocative language on the Burg is banned. Regulars who engage in this will be redacted as a warning. Further offenses lead to banning. For visitors, banning is the first step.

    Many different people read the Burg. Some are in governance or the military. Some are outside the US. The Burg punches above its weight. We are read by people who matter. No one wants to read racist garbage. So don't do it.

  • Likewise, frank misogynist language and images are banned. We at the Burg enjoy our cheesecake images (beefcake for the women regulars also is fine), but there's a difference and any reasonable person knows what that limit is. Don't cross it.

  • Anti-religious bigotry gets you into trouble real quick. It's okay to be against Islamicists; those folks are thugs and a threat. It's okay to be against Christian Identity types who want most all of us dead or in chains. But don't confuse such groups with the larger groups of decent, civil people with religious belief -- or no religious belief. Our beef is with the terrorists and their sympathizers.

  • Threats against American citizens and law-abiding, civil Westerners are banned. Regulars who engage in this will be redacted as a warning. Further offenses lead to banning. For visitors, banning is the first step.

    Threats made against Americans, and civil Westerners in general, are one of the things that can get the Burg into trouble. That creates problems for Fred. Don't do it. This rule does not extend to jihadis, thugs and general miscreants around the world -- if you want to double-tap Osama, I'll spot for you.

  • Abusive language towards others on the Burg will be redacted. Sometimes tempers flare, and we mods have an understanding and tolerance for the occasional dust-up. There are limits. The Auto Bartender will bring out the clue bat when needed.
As always, we thank you for reading the Burg. It's our pleasure and privilege to make it available.
Posted by:Steve White

#25  Sinktrap is fixed
Posted by: badanov   2010-02-08 22:34  

#24  Steve, you seem to be prescient. ;-)
Posted by: gorb   2010-02-08 21:51  

#23  Ah good- a mod replied (in-comment) to #10. Who posts in pink again?

(*ducks*)
Posted by: Free Radical   2010-02-08 19:11  

#22  My own research includes computational linguistics/natural language processing

What a fascinating crew here! Does this mean we will eventually see an automated SnarkBot?

As a side note, I used to suspect Joseph Mendiola was a Markov chain until I learned JoeSpeak
Posted by: SteveS   2010-02-08 18:18  

#21  I am Iblis, and I approve this message.
Posted by: Iblis   2010-02-08 15:57  

#20  There are enough people in Washington that deserve to be introduced to a rope and lamp post that any such comments could well take over the Burg and turn it into a semi-conservative Puffington Host. That would be a great loss to all of us who visit here regularly. I know I press the line quite often, but if I ever slip OVER it, I expect to be sink-trapped, and deservedly so.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2010-02-08 14:45  

#19  I'm just a programmer so one-token (word) should do one thing in my book.

My own research includes computational linguistics/natural language processing and all I can say is, good luck with that! ;-) The fancy word is 'polysemy' ... and that doesn't get near the issues associated with irony, metaphor and snark .....

The Chomsky hierarchy is a poor fit for natural language, which is pretty clearly not context-free. FWIW ;-)
Posted by: lotp   2010-02-08 12:46  

#18  but not to make unsupported snarks about his loyalty to the nation.

I was not aware that such comments were out of bounds. The 'Burg is certainly not a conspiracy site (nor should it be) but our chief executives associations with people who are self-identified anti-Americans and communists are a matter of the public record.

Such comments may not be especially helpful, however, and I do try to stay relevant and on topic, FWIW.
Posted by: Free Radical   2010-02-08 09:17  

#17  Pebbles, in this case, the post is preserved, though in the sinktrap area. There are posts that are removed for real, usually signified with a state patrol officer stating the reason. ;-)
Posted by: twobyfour   2010-02-08 08:07  

#16  Thanks. I'd rather keep it a mystery in this particular case. ;-)
Posted by: twobyfour   2010-02-08 08:04  

#15  
#pedantic.

I just think if you remove all the content of a post then the word "remove" is more apt than "redact". They're not really synonyms, and it's nice to try and prevent word-meanings from sliding.

I'm just a programmer so one-token (word) should do one thing in my book.

/#pedantic.
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2010-02-08 08:02  

#14  but not to make unsupported snarks about his loyalty to the nation.

....to the "loyalty" suggested amendment, might we add as "off-limits" his lofty chin, condescending lectures, telepromptitis, narcissism, strange friends, and veracity.
Posted by: Besoeker   2010-02-08 08:01  

#13  The mods and their colors are identified on the front page of the Burg to answer just such questions. ;-)
Posted by: lotp   2010-02-08 07:52  

#12  I recall only one post of mine "redacted". It was this light green-blue color background colored. I wonder who was it...
Posted by: twobyfour   2010-02-08 07:42  

#11  Bright Pebbles, we use the term 'redact' because what we do with comments is indeed to 'edit/revise' them rather than simply remove them.

2x4 and others - this is how you know if a comment of yours was redacted. Instead of what you wrote you will see the following text (or something close to it):

Redacted by moderator. Comments may be redacted for trolling, violation of standards of good manners, or plain stupidity. Please correct the condition that applies and try again. Contents may be viewed in the sinktrap. Further violations may result in banning.

This replacement text is highlighted by the color of the mod who took the redaction action.
Posted by: lotp   2010-02-08 07:31  

#10  Well said, Steve White. And you might have added something like, "It is fine to take issue with the foreign or domestic policies of the United States of America or with the wisdom of our president in making these decisions, but not to make unsupported snarks about his loyalty to the nation. That is disrespectful to the office and to those who do not share your political opinions but are as concerned as you are about national security."
Well no, I won't go that far. Most readers respect the Office of the Presidency. Those that don't are welcome to their beliefs. Those that think that the current President is somehow disloyal to the country can defend their statements -- they'll have to be good at it or suffer the humiliation that comes with saying something that one can't support.

An American politician, any office, either party, is fair game for what they say, do, and don't do. Ditto for non-American western politicians. Snark as you like. Just don't threaten their lives.
Posted by: Thrineper Bluetooth8235   2010-02-08 07:16  

#9  That would be 'grammar' #7

/ducks !

Thanks Burg - This site makes my day, every day
Posted by: Oscar   2010-02-08 06:49  

#8  To make ready for publication; edit or revise.

That seems appropriate semantics to me.
Posted by: phil_b   2010-02-08 06:30  

#7  See, only on Rantburg would this thread suddenly turn into proper grammer and definitions of words. It's part of why it's so amusing.

I also really like the particle physics discussions but they can get over my head.
Posted by: Silentbrick   2010-02-08 05:49  

#6  It should be "removed" not re·dact (r-dkt)
tr.v. re·dact·ed, re·dact·ing, re·dacts
1. To draw up or frame (a proclamation, for example).
2. To make ready for publication; edit or revise.
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2010-02-08 05:33  

#5  OK Dude.
Posted by: Dave UK   2010-02-08 03:34  

#4  Were going to check if I were evah sinktrapped, but the thing is stuck on the current date. Maybe I nevah were... easy to assume now! ;-)
Posted by: twobyfour   2010-02-08 02:39  

#3  seems to me the comments form yesterday were more of the 'poor taste' than 'malicious intent'. that is not however the issue. people come to the 'burg to read insightful and educational discussion that cannot be redily found other places. the decor of the place and overall quality needs to be maintained, and i thank the mods for the work they do. gonna hit the tip jar on payday as this is one of the very few places i have on my 'must read' list. i have crossed over to the dark side once, and been gently reminded of the boundaries and appreciated the guidance.

thanks for keeping the burg a place worth coming to.
Posted by: abu do you love   2010-02-08 01:48  

#2  I tried to look in the sinktrap to see who has been offending, but I couldn't access old st'ed comments.

A bug? or a feature?
Posted by: phil_b   2010-02-08 01:10  

#1  And if you don't get it after all that, we'll take Dave D off his meds and let him chew thru the straps.
Posted by: OldSpook   2010-02-08 00:21  

00:00