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.

 

[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]

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]

From the NOT-so-suprised Department:

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.

 

[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