Improving Site Moderation and Guidelines


I’ve received some concerned messages from users regarding site moderation, the use of flags, and penalties for users who violate the rules and/or engage in personal attacks.

Here is a site-wide warning that will only be made once: the personal attacks are over.

Politiforum is a free speech political forum that is open and welcome to all views. It is not a place to wage personal attacks against other members. The majority of you wouldn’t walk up to a stranger on the street and start verbally bashing them, so you are not welcome to do it here. Admittedly, I let a lot slide during the election as emotions were running high. Now, the election is over and this community will return to civilized, free, and open discourse.

I know that we can get things back on track and engage in more productive discussion. For those of you who need a refresher, please see this useful graphic and think through your argument before you decide to post. Be sure to click on the image or download it to view in maximum resolution.

As part of this effort, please take the time to familiarize yourself with the flagging system. It has been completely revised and there are detailed explanations about how each flag work functions and the actions that are taken after a flag has been raised.

Finally, I’d like your feedback. This is your community. So please take the time complete the polls below and tell me how you would like site moderation to be improved or adjusted. All votes are cast via secret ballot. So please participate.

##Do you want Politiforum moderation to get more or less strict?

  • Much more strict
  • More strict
  • Unchanged
  • Less strict
  • Much less strict

0 voters

##Do you think Politiforum needs more or less moderators?

  • A lot more mods
  • More mods
  • Same amount
  • Less mods
  • No mods

0 voters

##Do you think Politiforum needs harsher or softer punishments?

  • A lot more harsh
  • More harsh
  • Same amount
  • Softer

0 voters

##Do you believe we should update the guidelines?

  • Yes
  • No

0 voters

If you have not read our FAQ/Guidelines in a while, please do so.



sometimes those wanting the most restrictions are the biggest violators. And I know I can be someone with the least patience.

now I can get heated and I don’t suffer fools gladly in real life as well and I make no apologies for that in fact I have been told by some who have reported to me over the years that I have made them better because I demand everyone have at least some knowledge of the topic they are talking about and above all…don’t promote garbage. I am a perfectionist…and I acknowledge my faults.

**in my experience boards that go the route of more monitoring and more rules soon end up just being repositorires for whatever political bent they ultimately support to begin with…**liberal or conservative beause the opposing view is squashed or just leaves fed up with one sided treatment. they become wastelands, like Thunderdome…everyone thinks the same, no oxygen gets in.

I am seeking a place to go that challenges me mentally…makes sure I am on point and if I am not, calls me out to defend what I said…THAT makes me better…using facts and data, a site that posters does not completely use cartoons and fake crap that a 12 year old knows has no intellectual value…a place that allows some level of hard hitting debate…no insults of family or lineage, or kids or sexual orientation etc., pretty much the “protected classes” should ever be allowed and those violators should be warned and repeated violators suspended.

But boards who go overboard on controls lose their identity…and value as idea centers and just end up becoming bitch centers for whatever group takes over. IMO, that doesn’t really help educate or stimulate anyone.

this is a very good board with diverse views, I think the Leadership is very attuned to the members as evidenced by this very thread and others always asking and working to provide more value.

I think adding restrictions goes totally against any conservative or libertarian views that say they promote LESS Government and lets face it… @Patriot …YOU are the Government here. so the question is do we want MORE or LESS or the SAME of YOU? (or your policy by adding moderators) lol.

**This board is a really good place that provides knowledge and opinions that span the spectrum…**only free expression ( with the extreme limits of family, etc., protected classes excepted) of debate and outright argument at times provides the opportunity for ALL of us to learn perspectives we may never have had the chance to hear in our daily lives due to our environments of family, work, location, etc.

It would be a shame to lose that.

Thank you so much for including the membership @Patriot and thank you for creating this wonderful platform for all of us to post, and play, and learn, and grow, and hear views from around the world.

What a wonderful opportunity this board provides for us to connect and grow with each other.


I say this with all the kindness in my heart — please don’t change a damn thing!


So, will ending one’s comments with patronizing, or a veiled insult like “try to be better” still be OK? Just curious; I hear that a lot ;0)

Another question, is this not an opinion forum as well as a place to trade essays? Humor usually requires a bit of hyperbole to make a point that might otherwise escape any notice.

Will all sources be on a level playing field? Breitbart is known by liberals as a lie machine, but so on the right are Huff post and Daily Kos- what sites are considered bogus, and which not?

Patriot, I’m delighted you are willing to moderate, and I’ll be happy to abide by the rules, yet we don’t want our sandbox to become a boring exchange of Soviet style bland prose, chock full of cherry picked (we all do it) examples and devoid of humor.


As far as I can tell, no one is barred from speaking their mind. No change is necessay


Sounds to me like we are a bit too hardcore for some. Why should we have to change? I like this place the way it is. I’m comfortable here. I think we should have less moderation, not more.


I say no change, but I do appreciate your willingness to ask us first before doing something. That’s how it is supposed to work. I read your post on the new flagging system and I think that is helpful for really bad stuff but I have yet to see anything here that is really bad. Annoying, yes. Snarky, yes. Rude, yes. Out of line? No.

I don’t generally agree with @SteveSPHR but his post is accurate. I also agree with @docgreen2010 - his post is accurate too.

One thing I do think we should do is be better about keeping the threads on track. As a group, I can honestly say we all break that rule. Maybe that is just how the natural flow of discussion works, but when you are searching for a topic and get halfway through and see it is no longer about what it is supposed to be about - that is just annoying.

Maybe we can make another polling question for the group. Something like:

Should we focus on keeping threads on track?


Should we just let the conversation go naturally?


As a former /pol/ack I have found this place to be similar in “low mod” experience, but better in conversation, and WAY better in terms of functionality. The old /pol/ is dead and if it weren’t completely anonymous, I would tell everyone there about this place - the new POL.

@Patriot I don’t know if you ever spent any time there, but I have a feeling you did because that poster is a familiar sign. Maybe I’m wrong. All I’ll say is that if you did spend time there then make this place like the good old days of /pol/ - those who can’t take it will leave. Those who can will flock here. My two cents.


Agree. The more open we are the more people will feel want to express their opinion.

Agree to a point. What does and does not have intellectual value is completely subjective. It doesn’t mean that something should be restricted or shunned.

I see your point, but I am not totally with you here. I think racial and social issues are hot topics and many of those issues center around protected classes. There needs to be open debate about those things. Not safe spaces.

Pretty much every other political forum that I have been to is like this. I registered for one a few months ago and you can’t even start posting until you jump through all of these moderator approved hoops. Those places deserve to die a slow and painful death - and by the look of most of those site, they already are. Look at 1999 called and they want their forum back. That place is all about the mods.

Now you are back on track.

Right on. I’m thankful that we get the chance to speak openly about how the rules should be applied. @Sarah made a good point. I have never been offended by anything here. I’ve been pissed off, but not offended.

Correct - I would like to see us experiment with zero regulations. Even if there was a section of the site that was invite only. That would be good.

Yes, we all hear that a lot from a certain Patriots fan (who will remain unnamed).

Well put, I didn’t infer that from @Patriot’s post but you make a good point. I don’t think any of that should be restricted here ever.

I don’t think any sources should be restricted - but all sources should be subject to assessment and criticism.

Judging by the way the polls are looking, I don’t think that is going to happen.


I have a simple solution.

  1. Create a premium members-only section of the site
  2. Charge a small amount for access either monthly/annually
  3. Make it completely moderator free

I was a paid member of Something Awful for years. They screwed up by over moderating because a few whiners kept complaining. Don’t fall into the trap. Leave this place the way it is.

This is what Something Awful does when you try to get to one of their paid sections:


I don’t see a need for moderation based upon the premise of the forum.

I think NoSleep has the right idea.

My recommendation is to eliminate moderation, eliminate advertisements, and use an alternative method that you control to fund the site. You already have ads disabled for members. Disable everything else.

Create a Patreon page and add a login API.


I don’t think that there should be any adjustments. Like many, I actually believe there should be less restrictions. Whoever is complaining should watch this video of “Antifacists” attacking a man for believing in open discussion:


I like the concept of a trusted member section of the site. The snowflakes who can’t handle un-moderated debate could stay in the moderated section. For those of us who don’t want to deal with moderation or restrictions, then we can move to the un-moderated side of the house. @Patriot - it doesn’t really create more work for you since you won’t have to worry about the complaints there. Problem solved.