What is The Podium?

The purpose of The Podium is to provide a community where controversial topics can be discussed in an environment that is conducive to open conversation. Everyone has an opinion and should be able to share it without fear of attack or reprisal.

How do we maintain this environment of open conversation?

First, some rules have been put in place below as a guideline to follow. This is just a guideline and will be updated as needed. Next, well thought out posts encourage a back-and-forth discussion. Based on previous experiences, we have found that members who continually criticize the opinions of others but rarely share their own side tend to kill off discussions. With that in mind, the moderators will remove members who we believe have a negative impact on the community as a whole. This decision will be based on a consensus of the moderators.

What makes a good post?

This is a place of opinions and not everyone will share the same opinion. To help stimulate discussion, when you post an opinion, we encourage you to include facts or experiences that enforce your opinion. If your post is an article, we also encourage you to state the reason you are posting this if it is not evident and your thoughts on the subject.

What should be avoided in posts?

Besides the rules listed below, making statements of absolutes are generally not advised. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. It is very rare to get someone to change their opinion so keep that in mind when replying and strive for clarity of your opinion, not trying to show them why their opinion is wrong.

What are the rules?

1. No personal attacks are allowed. Personal attacks will be deleted. Controversial conversations always tend to get heated, so in order to enjoy the debates, personal attacks will not be tolerated.

2. Use common sense when posting. The same rules that apply to other forums also apply to The Podium. No nudity, no heavy profanity (which is filtered anyway), no obscene photographs or pictures.

3. No complaining about politics in The Podium. That is what it is for. If you don't want to get involved in political debates, then feel free to leave The Podium and join any other forum on the site.

4. Whenever you post an article, include a link back to the original article in order to give credit to the original author and to allow others to verify the authenticity of the source. If the source requires registration, please link to it anyway, and state that registration is required. Don't post just the link, post the article as well. If you chose to post only an excerpt of the article, please state that the article is not posted in its entirety.

5. Please refrain from posting content from chain emails. Most chain email chains have been proven to be untrue in some form or fashion, and they are simply not good sources for topics of debate. If for you some reason you just feel that you have to post this kind of stuff, please verify the contents with www.breakthechain.org or www.snopes.com. If proven untrue, just don't post it. If you do post the content from a chain email, expect to be heavily ridiculed by the group. The title of the thread will be updated to express the fact that it is indeed a chain email, and not to be taken seriously.

6. No spamming of the message boards. Spamming includes, but is not limited to, starting several new threads on the same topic and bumping several threads on similar subjects to the front page. If similar threads are active at the same time, one of the threads will be left open to continue discussions and all others will be closed.

7. No trolling. There have been lengthy discussions on what is trolling. The official definition that we use is seen here. [wikipedia.org]. You can also see a short list here of what we consider trolling.

8. No post-and-run. This is directed at members who stop by The Podium only to post an article and leave with contributing to discussions in The Podium otherwise.

9. Rule violations should be mod alerted.

Ray, is this thread going to be a mod sticky or are you going to allow it to float?

Quote from paperboy05 : Ray, is this thread going to be a mod sticky or are you going to allow it to float?

Already fixed. We have an option to stick a thread when it is created but I do not think it worked

For reference, here is the last discussion thread link It was closed so we could continue discussions in one thread.

How nebulous are the rules going to be? I was warned for questioning someones courage for their consistant refusal to acknowledge and address a significant issue directly related to the premise of the thread in the first place, within a thread that specific user had created. It seems that was what was required to gain a response from that user, as after that was done, it was finally acknowledged and addressed. I think there should be a distinction between a personal attack and questioning the reasoning behind what would appear to be deceptive argument.

Quote from rayzac99 : Already fixed. We have an option to stick a thread when it is created but I do not think it worked

Thanks ray. Appearantly it was mad at you for some reason

Since the other thread was closed, is this the new discussion thread for the "Podium Renewal"?

Quote from Kamyl : Since the other thread was closed, is this the new discussion thread for the "Podium Renewal"?

Quote from rayzac99 : Already fixed. We have an option to stick a thread when it is created but I do not think it worked For reference, here is the last discussion thread link It was closed so we could continue discussions in one thread.

Yes.

A new Podium Renewal? Oh Snap

Quote from KimbersTimber : How nebulous are the rules going to be? I was warned for questioning someones courage for their consistant refusal to acknowledge and address a significant issue directly related to the premise of the thread in the first place, within a thread that specific user had created. It seems that was what was required to gain a response from that user, as after that was done, it was finally acknowledged and addressed. I think there should be a distinction between a personal attack and questioning the reasoning behind what would appear to be deceptive argument.

I understand what you're saying. But what you're talking about is a more delicate matter and one that will require much skill to pull it off w/o offending or getting a warning. Not to say that it can't be done ... but it's probably something that needs to be done artfully ... with a measure of diplomacy.

I think the reasoning behind an argument can be questioned. But I don't think that's a good habit for us. I don't think we'll often hear an answer. I also don't think that the ends justify the means in terms of getting an answer.

This may still be rather nebulous though. Not sure i've made things more clear.

Quote from Doctor_Wu : I understand what you're saying. But what you're talking about is a more delicate matter and one that will require much skill to pull it off w/o offending or getting a warning. Not to say that it can't be done ... but it's probably something that needs to be done artfully ... with a measure of diplomacy. I think the reasoning behind an argument can be questioned. But I don't think that's a good habit for us. I don't think we'll often hear an answer. I also don't think that the ends justify the means in terms of getting an answer. This may still be rather nebulous though. Not sure i've made things more clear.

How To Keep Hostile Jerks From Taking Over Your Online Community

http://informationweek.com/story/...=199600005

Quote from Cory Doctorow : In the wake of the Kathy Sierra mess, Tim O'Reilly proposed a Blogger's Code of Conduct as a way of preventing a recurrence of the vile, misogynist attacks that Sierra suffered. The idea was that bloggers could choose to follow the Code and post a little badge to their sites affirming their adherence to it, putting message-board posters on notice of the house rules. Although it sounds like a reasonable idea on the face of it, bloggers were incredibly skeptical of the proposal, if not actively hostile. The objections seemed to boil down to this: "We're not uncivil, and neither are those message-board posters we regularly see on the boards. It's the trolls that we have trouble with, and they're pathological psychos, already ignoring our implicit code of conduct. They're going to ignore your explicit code of conduct, too." (There was more, of course -- like the fact that a set of articulated rules only invite people to hold you to them when they violate the spirit but not the letter of the law).

Is politico.com a legit news source? Until yeturday the only time I heard of them was for inventing the term "slow bleed."

Their mission statement [politico.com]

"Reading a story should be just as interesting as talking with the reporter over a sandwich or a beer. It's a curiosity of journalism that this often isn't true. The traditional newspaper story is written with austere, voice-of-God detachment. These newspaper conventions tend to muffle personality, humor, accumulated insight -- all the things readers hunger for as they try to make sense of the news and understand what politicians are really like. Whenever we can, we'll push against these limits. In the process, we'll share with readers a lot more of what we know instead of leaving it in our notebooks."

I'm not sure how much I trust a "news source" that wants to have "personality" in their stories to know what is actual fact and what is their commentary (that they would tell me over a beer).

I think over the past couple of weeks we've managed to post every story that's appeared on Drudge Report. Not sure that's a good thing.

We have?

Quote from The Raddish : We have?

I was puzzled about that too, especially when looking at the archive of headlines and comparing it to threads here:

http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/dsp/links_recap.htm