Project Alberta

Rule #1: Respect Project Alberta

This site has no views, if you disagree with someone's personal opinion -- it is not Project Alberta, but an independent member that you disagree with -- Don't take it out on the site by calling it down.

Rule #2: No personal attacks

a) Independent threads about individual members accomplish nothing more than starting another flame war and they will be deleted on sight. In ordinary threads, we don't demand absolute perfection, but get a grip and be careful what you say.

b) Attacking a member's religious convictions or personal character or integrity is not allowed. A reasoned argument trumps a flame, no matter how well crafted and brilliant the flame. If you have to resort to personal attacks you have already lost the argument. Conceding the point will preserve a lot more of your dignity than resorting to juvenile and self-defeating personal attacks.

c) Attacking political figures is fair game to a point. Dealing with their actions, behaviors and the issues they support or oppose is reasonable, but commentary on appearance, physical characteristics and personal beliefs is out of bounds.

d) Discussions can get heated and personalities can clash...this is human and the moderators have a reasonable tolerance for this. Usually a cautionary note is all that is needed to reestablish decorum (see rule #7). However, an established history/pattern of consistently turning threads into personal grudges or sniping matches or inflammatory personal bombast will put your account in review

Rule #3: Don't Spam

Don't spam or flood the forums. Don't create multiple threads with the same topic.

Rule #4: Avoid vulgarity and swearing

We are all tempted to use @#&%&$# or derivatives thereof to express ourselves. English is a very diverse and descriptive language. Please accept the challenge of finding the right words to describe the situation. Use of a dictionary and thesaurus is allowed (even encouraged). Vulgar posts are subject to immediate deletion.

Rule #5: Keep threads clear and on topic

a) Keep your arguments on one thread. If you are debating someone on an issue or point, don't take the same debate over to another thread. No one wants to watch you debate something on every thread they click on.
b) Do not change the thrust of an issue thread because the argument raises another issue for you. Open a new thread on the separate issue. Quote from the old thread if you must, but do not disrupt the original thread to make a point outside the ongoing discussion.
c) When a member posts an article from other media for review and discussion, do not attack the poster for the content of the article. Confine you attack or commentary to the author of the articles not the messenger who brought it to your attention.

Rule #6: No stalking

No stalking of members is allowed. If you are so focused on someone that you have to chase him or her around the forum, you should question which of the two of you is the most troublesome. Don't try to read any grey area into this rule, you stalkers know who you are and so does everyone else.

Rule #7: Respect the moderator
Moderating decorum and enforcing the House Rules, in a cyber space teeming with venomous political deviants, is a necessary evil but thankless task. We realize things can get heated and egos will flare as is human when defending personal convictions, so, we do cut members a fair lot of slack, but when a moderator does issue a cautionary reminder it should be respected. Members who publicly demean, ignore or question the integrity of Moderators will have their account posting privileges open to review.

Rule #8: Forgiveness -- we all make mistakes, please forgive people whenever possible. In the heat of the moment sometimes we all say things and do things that we regret -- please wake up each morning refreshed and don't drag disagreements out for extended periods of time -- YOUR HEART CAN'T TAKE IT. Moderators should be flexible and forgiving as well.

Rule #9: No multiple aliases

Once a member on Project Alberta makes a post, any member of the Moderator Team is able to view the IP address from which the post was made. A list is generated to show any other members posting from the same IP address.

If there is more than one user posting from the same IP address, the new alias will be asked, via PM, to provide details of exactly who is posting from this IP address. THIS INFORMATION WILL NOT BE SHARED WITH ANYONE. If you know that a family member or colleague will be registering and posting from the same computer, you can help us out by providing this information in advance -- Private Message one of the moderators to let them know.

Generating multiple aliases, or sock puppets as the case may be, will result in having the additional aliases, or if warranted, all of the aliases, posting from that IP address, disabled. As a last resort, the IP will be banned altogether.

We give credit to Free Dominion for giving us a starting point with these rules.

These rules are now opened up to the floor for review - Please give me feedback and debate on what should be added, deleted or modified.

Please check the wording and offer up alternative suggestions.

This is your site too!!!!

I have some problems with Rule #2. In my view, it amounts to overpolicing. The very term personal attack is imprecise, and no two people would define it the same way.

In a courtroom, which is a forum that emphasizes decorum, people are personally attacked all the time. Their motives are questioned, their backgrounds are brought up, and their integrity is challenged. How a person responds to these sorts of things can tell you an awful lot about their character. If a member of this board is a serial liar, and comes here and uses this forum to spread and repeat his prevarications, why shouldn't that member's character and motives be attacked? That member has a full opportunity to respond.

On this board, we have an Alberta Alliance leadership race being played out. Anyone familiar with the Alberta Alliance knows their entire communications strategy is based on personal attacks on the Progressive Conservative Party of Alberta and its members, including Ted Morton. My party has been accused of conduct tantamount to a complete betrayal of Alberta's interests time and time again on this board by members of the Alberta Alliance. I take these attacks personally. Some of the people making these attacks have zero credibility, and a history of false and deceptive statements. Why shouldn't these people be challenged here? What are they afraid of? Why can't I call a spade a spade?

I was planning on starting a series of posts after the Alberta Alliance leadership race is over called "The Alberta Alliance lie of the day". I was planning on being very specific. Will I still be allowed to do that?

These are just guidelines and a last resort - Rule #8 should trump it when cooler heads prevail - I would not worry about the small banter and none of your posts would even be considered.

How would you phrase it???

You will have a hard time enforcing 2 (c). Martin, Klein, Cretein, etc. are regularly personally insulted.

I've been on here for long enough to voice my opinion. Simple rules for the site result in a point-counterpoint? If you have a problem with rule #2 or 3 or 87, too bad.

It is self-explainatory IMO. No personal attacks. No name calling. Blame the politics, not the person typing the words.

Sheesh! Let's get on the same bloody page for once.

...and...as far as public figures (Chretien, Martin, et al), I believe that they are fair game - the are the creators of the crappy nation we are stuck in.

Then drop 2 (c).

I agree with GoTedGo. Let's let it be a free for all. He will post his Alliance lie of the day and I am not intimidated by that I will merely disprove his comments.

GoTedGo wrote:



I think GoTedGo is on to something here. Why don't we treat this like a courtroom where:

- You have to prove your allegations.

- You have to respond to a question regarding your allegation.

This would make this forum open, honest and above reproach.

Could be fun - we'll only invoke that rule if they come on here and complain about being mistreated.

OK on rule 2c...

Paul Martin is a less than perfect liar when it comes to "body language".
If I were to comment on his physical behaviors that give away his lack of honesty (eg. too much blinking in front of a camera), would that be a violation of rule 2c? How about if I were to comment that Ralph doesn't "appear" to be tightening his belt the way he wants Albertans to?

For the most part the rules sound good and reasonable. In a nutshell "be civil and act like an adult" suits me fine.

You'll be fine - basically common sense, we only need these in extreme cases and I think the admin can be fair.

I propose a Rule #9 banning multiple aliases.

I suspect that such would drop the membership list considerably considering the number of "new" signups this week.

I would think the individual/individuals should be able to get their point accross with only one identity.

Wouldn't this discriminate against the schitzophrenic?

Seriously, though, some bulletin boards allow (truncated?) IP addresses to be posted with messages. This would give the readership a way of identifying the multiple-personalities. (I have no idea whether this is practical.)

Give me a minute.... I will ask <the voices in my head>



Ok, if they have a doctors note....we will let it go....

I would like to propose rule # 9.. or is it 10 we are on now?


If linking to other forums is done only to entice a web war; that the moderators have full power to delete such links.

Maybe you should make that a rule that addresses the freshness of posts at ProjectAlberta,
since I've posted on some of the biggest boards on the net and they don't have a problem with this... you may be confusing city slickers like myself?

How about this:

Rule: 11

Do not post to any thread older than a few days else the smell from it being so old will infect the website.

What do you think?

Most of the posters don't need a rule to govern a common sense approach to rehashing dead issues.