The Cowboy Who Wasn't There: E-book Companion Site

Thursday, June 18, 2009

Rules Policy

Recent notable controversial feuds which have taken place here on Debunking Loftus have made it more of an urgency to develop a democratic-means of establishing rules of conduct for this blog's guests and staff.

As founder of the blog, I will make it clear that in no way, shape, or form will Debunking Loftus model itself after the policies of Debunking Christianity. Censorship is a common theme found on John's blog because he is able to control the input of what commentators have said on his blog in order to escape public embarrassment and fatal flaws to his reputation (even though by matter of simple searching, he already has a track record rife with them). Here, at the Debunking Loftus blog, I welcome any guest who wishes to provide their thoughts and opinions on matters even if they are highly disagreeable in the perspective as viewed by myself and the fellow contributors to this blog. 

However, it should also be noted that each and every contributing author to the blog has administrative rights. They are capable within their own discretion to remove comments that they find are endangering or grossly inappropriate towards others in a way that reflects badly upon this blog and causes meaningless disputes. It is with this in mind, that instead of providing a long list of dos and donts, of which, a small specific list has already been established by myself, as indicated in the description above the 'Comments' box, the policy regarding proper protocol to the blog will be determined by means of popular vote and suggestions from authors and guests alike. In other words, this sticky post shall be used as a medium and as a reference, for implementing new rules and or emphasizing already existing ones. Anyone authorized to comment on here is given the option to throw out suggestions and ideas for what may be acceptable and or inacceptable. This can be something as simple as specifying what should be within boundaries and what certain behaviors violate them, to listing the name of a specific blogger with a formal complaint. All suggested ideas will go into consideration and will be listed in a voting poll where commentators and non-commentators alike can help determine where the majority vote leans. So even if there is a doubt in your mind if what you have in mind is worthwhile and or sensible, feel free to post it and see where the votes will get you.

Voting polls shall be open to public vote for a total of seven days duration time or an entire week once a suggestion has been inputed. This should be enough timing for regular readers to reach a verdict in correlation with the verdict of the blog administrators, not excluding random or in-and-out guest readers. 


  1. Because of recent comments, some objections have been made to the toleration of "vile language" made by guest posters. Being that a major outlet for this blog is on TheologyWeb, which usually prohibits to sites with excessive or noticeable profanity, a voting poll has been created in favor of this complaint. The results of the voting poll will be posted once its time duration has expired for future reference.

  2. TBT - you should probably define "vile language" really... sexual swear words? Racist or sexist language? Blasphemy? Whose interpretation?


    Why not suggest that if someone politely requests that a certain word not be used within an argument, along with their reasons why this certain word might make them upset - their respondant should attempt to consider the other person's feelings?

    (If sockpuppet had requested that I stopped swearing, and explained how the "vile language" was obviously affecting him, instead of apparantly taking it in his stride; I might have modified my approach to spare his feelings.)

    It's your blog to censor as you wish though, obviously.

  3. I should have thought of that, actually.

    I have just been getting complaints from people about "vile language", something, which you've pointed out, is rather ambiguous in meaning.

    We can probably best define "vile language" as sexual references and racist terms. "Blasphemy" is something that I consider to be so incredibly petty that there is no point in even considering it as an option, or as part of the "vile language" definition. TWeb has had yet to report the issue or make note of it, so until they do I think we can ease on the reigns a bit and not take everything so seriously.

    And because I'm not eager on censorship, should the vote pass in favor of banning "vile language" from the comments, I will allow for certain things like this to be cited or quoted without censorship, and so on. So long as it is not used as a derogatory fashion against other people intended to incite divisiveness.

    But this is all yet to come. Even when this poll goes through, that doesn't mean that they're can't be reappeals and so on and so forth.

  4. Are the correct physiological names of body parts and functions still allowed?

    For instance, could I make a sentence including these words?

    Syphillis, speculum, urethra, your mother, kangaroo, fecal matter, divorce, fifteen times, webcam.


  5. (I could make an autobiography out of those words - but that's a different story for another time.)

  6. Pssssh......of course those words are NOT allowed. Are you kidding me????

  7. Mmmm that's some hardcore censorship going on right there TBT.


  8. Well the results are in for the first poll. *Drum Roll*

    Total votes counted: 16

    Yes: 4 votes

    No: 7 votes

    It depends: 1 vote (a vote was changed)

    It's a matter of personality: 4 votes

    So there you have it. The majority vote rules in favor of prohibiting "vile language" in the 'Comments' section. But due to the ambiguity of such, as Codeword had pointed out earlier, and the tie between the two alternatives, "vile language" will be judged solely at the discretion of the person who made a certain post which created a great deal of comments in following.

    And as I have also stated, citing or quoting "vile language" is not a violation of this newly elected principle. If that too should become a problem, post it here as a suggestion for a new voting poll.

  9. TBT -

    You should have just made it Yes/No.

    I actually voted for "personality and context" because I believe that it is the implicature of a statement, not words themselves, that are actually injurious.

    If it had been yes or no then I would have simply and obviously voted "yes".

    Also, you should have each of your authors state what they consider to be "vile" somewhere - so that people know exactly why someone's knickers are in a twist when they get shouted at or modded for something that is perfectly acceptable on a different thread.

    Cheers :)

  10. Alright, second poll goes up by Codeword's request.

  11. The new poll (which I have procrastinated posting) voted in favor of "All of the above" meaning that most visitors prefer that any language that could be construed as "profane" be prohibited.

    I did not let the poll last for a week's time because I could already tell what direction the poll's results were heading in.


If you are unaware of the rules on comments, please consult this post for more information.

Complaints and suggestions about the blog's comment moderation policies should be addressed here.

READ BEFORE POSTING: Do not post comments if they do not deal with the topic addressed in our posts and ESPECIALLY if they deal with pointing out the hypocricy of Christians and the flaws of the Christian religion. This is not about issues of sensitivity but maintaining an atmosphere of freshness and relevant discourse. ANYONE posting these comments (in the event they do NOT deal with the topics we have introduced) will have their comments deleted without warning. Post with care and attention to this simple request, thank you.

NOTE: This blog mirrors Debunking Christianity in that we allow only registered users of Blogger and Google accounts in commenting on our web pages. Anonymous commentators are not permitted.