|
0 members (),
60
Murran Spies, and
3
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
 Previous Thread |
|
Next Thread 
|
|
 RULES! Updated.
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,869
Wanderer
|
OP
Wanderer
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,869 |
Many of you have already registered and may not be aware of this but the rules have been updated. Here they are as of now: I would love to say that there are NO RULES. As I don't like the idea of censoring other people's thoughts. However, due to the events which helped to create this message board, the following applies:
RULES
1. RESPECT. Show it. Use it. You should at least respect the opinions, works, and posts of others, and the others themselves at ALL times. I'm not saying that you have to agree with everyone and everything or that you have to like everything...just understand that it is someone's work or someone's thoughts that you're commenting on or disagreeing with.
2. No Flame Wars. No personal attacks of any kind will be tolerated. This should go without saying, due to rule #1, but just in case, here it is. In plain english.
3. Think before you post. You should always reread what you're planning on posting at least once before you post it. Make sure it says what you mean it to say and try to make it an intelligent and contributing response to the discussion. Also, try to get all your comments up to that point in the discussion into your one post instead of posting after yourself multiple times. Don't be afraid to go back and add to your post later if you think up something new.
4. Be Patient. Sometimes there isn't anyone else on for HOURS at a time...and sometimes there wont be a response to your thread for days after you post it...but be patient, no need to spam your own topic.
5. Rumors and Fact are different things. Please don't state rumors as fact...and really all you have to do is qualify your statement with an "I heard that..." or a "I think that maybe..." Believe me, it'll save us some confusion.
6. LOOK. READ. Look for other threads that may already be discussing what you'd like to discuss and give 'em a read through before you go off making a topic on the same topic. (See how redundant even the RULE is?)
7. Try to put 'em in the right category. It's not always obvious where you should start your thread, but usually it is. And those categories are there for a reason, people.
8. Smilies and Attachments. The limit to smilies per post is tentatively set at 8, but this may change as we experiment with it.
9. SPAM will not be tolerated. Administrators and Moderators can and will delete any duplicate posts or topics. People who habitually violate this rule may be banned from posting.
Well, that's that. We don't wanna be modding with an iron fist, as I don't think that that encourages a healthy board, but sometimes it helps to actually have the rules and consequences for breaking said rules written out.
So there you go.
These rules are subject to change without notice. Please check back often.
Thanks!
|
|
|
 Re: RULES! Updated.
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,471
Legionnaire!
|
|
Legionnaire!
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,471 |
Let the Fun Begin!
|
|
|
Re: RULES! Updated.
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,869
Wanderer
|
|
OP
Wanderer
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,869 |
Originally posted by icefire:
Is this my fault???? This had nothing to do with you, icey. The rules have been in effect since the great blackout a few weeks back (and implied since the very beginning). I just hadn't bothered to post them here until now.
|
|
|
Re: RULES! Updated.
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,471
Legionnaire!
|
|
Legionnaire!
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,471 |
Let the Fun Begin!
|
|
|
 Re: RULES! Updated.
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,869
Wanderer
|
|
OP
Wanderer
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,869 |
Only people who recently registered would have seen them. I forgot that fact and had to have it pointed out to me.  If they seem familiar to anyone, then you've been to/registered at Nightscrawlers.com and/or X-Fan. That's where I ripped them off from. I had to modify them a bit to fit our needs though. 
|
|
|
Re: RULES! Updated.
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 46
Honorary
|
|
Honorary
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 46 |
Some commentary on these rules follows. My point in commenting on all of these is to show that hard and fast enforcement is detrimental and relies on arbitrary distinctions.
1. RESPECT. Show it. Use it. You should at least respect the opinions, works, and posts of others, and the others themselves at ALL times. I'm not saying that you have to agree with everyone and everything or that you have to like everything...just understand that it is someone's work or someone's thoughts that you're commenting on or disagreeing with.
While respect for other people's opinions is well and good, there are some opinions I should have no respect for. An example would be if someone posted something clearly racist. But by these rules, I would be banned if I showed such an opinion no respect.
2. No Flame Wars. No personal attacks of any kind will be tolerated. This should go without saying, due to rule #1, but just in case, here it is. In plain english.
Again, if for example someone posted a racist comment, or something equally offensive, it may well incite a flame war. Would both victim and racist be banned or warned? That would seem to me to be patently unfair.
3. Think before you post. You should always reread what you're planning on posting at least once before you post it. Make sure it says what you mean it to say and try to make it an intelligent and contributing response to the discussion. Also, try to get all your comments up to that point in the discussion into your one post instead of posting after yourself multiple times. Don't be afraid to go back and add to your post later if you think up something new.
Much of the discussion here is not "intelligent": a great deal of it is silliness, for which the LMBP is famous. A stricture on silly posts would stifle the ethos of the boards.
4. Be Patient. Sometimes there isn't anyone else on for HOURS at a time...and sometimes there wont be a response to your thread for days after you post it...but be patient, no need to spam your own topic.
Bumps are prohibited?
5. Rumors and Fact are different things. Please don't state rumors as fact...and really all you have to do is qualify your statement with an "I heard that..." or a "I think that maybe..." Believe me, it'll save us some confusion.
I think this is a great idea, but I don't think someone should be warned about it or banned for it. Another message board I frequent, at www.straightdope.com, has a Great Debates forum where posters must validate facts with a source. Even there, though, its not a banning or warning offence, just a point of logical debate.
6. LOOK. READ. Look for other threads that may already be discussing what you'd like to discuss and give 'em a read through before you go off making a topic on the same topic. (See how redundant even the RULE is?)
7. Try to put 'em in the right category. It's not always obvious where you should start your thread, but usually it is. And those categories are there for a reason, people.
8. Smilies and Attachments. The limit to smilies per post is tentatively set at 8, but this may change as we experiment with it.
I don't have any real issue with these, although again I don't think someone should be banned or even warned for repeatedly making threads on a board which mirror the topic on earlier threads (especially when that other thread may have gone off on a tangent), or for repeatedly making threads in the wrong category.
9. SPAM will not be tolerated. Administrators and Moderators can and will delete any duplicate posts or topics. People who habitually violate this rule may be banned from posting.
One man's spam is another man's art. By spam I gather you mean a succession of silly posts in a board. But again this cannot be a hard and fast rule. I see on the Mission Monitor Board that Danny Blaine-Starman has posted a succession of posts, each of which seem silly in topic, and which have grown quite long. By these rules, that poster should be banned, or at least warned. The rules do not fit the board's up-beat and nonsensical culture. You'd be better off calling them guidelines. If someone is causing trouble, you should just ban them, rather than look for a rule to fit the crime.
|
|
|
Re: RULES! Updated.
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 6,078
Wanderer
|
|
Wanderer
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 6,078 |
Originally posted by Computo:
While respect for other people's opinions is well and good, there are some opinions I should have no respect for. An example would be if someone posted something clearly racist. But by these rules, I would be banned if I showed such an opinion no respect.
Well and good not having respect for an opinion, but another to show it. Isn't it just as well to give a counter opinion or ask for clarification without commenting on the quality of the comment to which you object? Perhaps the original poster poorly stated an opinion, or you poorly interpreted? Why risk a confrontation before clarification? Maybe it was intentional. Why feed the troll? Why help start the flame war, most of which seem to happen on the thread of an innocent? Around here that all seems unlikely but if the original comment was intentional AND clear, what would we accomplish in counter-attack other than giving that poster the vicarious thrill of being noticed?
|
|
|
Re: RULES! Updated.
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 16,853
Time Trapper
|
|
Time Trapper
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 16,853 |
Most of the laws in our society become guidelines. Judges use case law/precedent, experience or (unfortunately) respond to powerful interests in their interpretation and application of the "law". (Just an observation, I'm not a lawyer.)
Interpretation and application of rules or guidelines, especially in matters of expressing opinions and ideas, seems to be subjective. I don't see any way around it. It's not usually a yes/no issue, such as "You may not use the word "cat" on this board". Or starting a thread on Batman comics in the Legion forum - its place is in Dr. Gym'll' Cultural Rarities, that's clear cut.
Questions of respect are seldom so easy to deal with - however, I think we have to deal with them, even if we muddle through subjectivity.
Holy Cats of Egypt!
|
|
|
Re: RULES! Updated.
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 46
Honorary
|
|
Honorary
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 46 |
Originally posted by Fat Cramer:
Most of the laws in our society become guidelines. Judges use case law/precedent, experience or (unfortunately) respond to powerful interests in their interpretation and application of the "law". (Just an observation, I'm not a lawyer.)
I am. I disagree with your observation...respectfully, of course.
Interpretation and application of rules or guidelines, especially in matters of expressing opinions and ideas, seems to be subjective. I don't see any way around it. It's not usually a yes/no issue, such as "You may not use the word "cat" on this board". Or starting a thread on Batman comics in the Legion forum - its place is in Dr. Gym'll' Cultural Rarities, that's clear cut.
Questions of respect are seldom so easy to deal with - however, I think we have to deal with them, even if we muddle through subjectivity.
You correctly point out that subjectivity is the problem in such rules. Its better just to have an authoritative person who simply bans or deletes a clear trouble-maker. Or, even better, does nothing at all, since the best deterrent to most trolls is for nothing to happen in response to their trolling.
Well and good not having respect for an opinion, but another to show it. Isn't it just as well to give a counter opinion or ask for clarification without commenting on the quality of the comment to which you object? Perhaps the original poster poorly stated an opinion, or you poorly interpreted? Why risk a confrontation before clarification? Maybe it was intentional. Why feed the troll? Why help start the flame war, most of which seem to happen on the thread of an innocent?
If someone makes a cearly racist remark, I'm not going to wait for a clarification - I'm going to make it very clear that such conduct is not socially acceptable. Silence allows such attitudes to perpetuate.
Around here that all seems unlikely but if the original comment was intentional AND clear, what would we accomplish in counter-attack other than giving that poster the vicarious thrill of being noticed?
On that point, why have rules at all? The rules are the vehicle or excuse for reacting to a troll, and giving him the (usually negative) attention for which he was fishing. Dave
|
|
|
Re: RULES! Updated.
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 16,853
Time Trapper
|
|
Time Trapper
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 16,853 |
Ah, Dave - you must frequent better quality courts than I do in this provincial backwater I live in!
The question of silence vs action regarding a troll - or any "offending" post - is a difficult one for me. Silence can become a form of shunning, which can be a powerful deterrent in some societies, particularly closed ones (such as a religious community). However, I think I prefer the action approach; let people know that you consider something wrong or inappropriate - because silence can imply complicity or indifference.
I was called to account here on a post, which I didn't mean to be offensive - but it came out that way. Thread deleted, and I try to be more careful since then.
Holy Cats of Egypt!
|
|
|
Re: RULES! Updated.
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 11,185
#deleteFacebook
|
|
#deleteFacebook
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 11,185 |
Originally posted by Computo: 2. No Flame Wars. No personal attacks of any kind will be tolerated. This should go without saying, due to rule #1, but just in case, here it is. In plain english. No it wouldn't. Countering the idiot's opinion wouldn't constitute a flame war, and given that a flame war is when all reason and point to a debate is lost in favour of mindless insults, yes, all participents should be at the very least warned, if not outright banned. Originally posted by Computo: 9. SPAM will not be tolerated. Administrators and Moderators can and will delete any duplicate posts or topics. People who habitually violate this rule may be banned from posting.
That's not what is meant by spam here - posts by those who have become known here as the "Nature Boyz" of a certain picture, or blatant "Buy my endless Viagra" supply. "Silly" posts, with the unheard-of-so-far-exception of the same thread being posted and reposted so far as to go beyond accidental double-posting into a deliberate attempt to clog up the board, aren't spam, and I fail to see why you think they would be. Originally posted by Computo:
You correctly point out that subjectivity is the problem in such rules. Its better just to have an authoritative person who simply bans or deletes a clear trouble-maker. Or, even better, does nothing at all, since the best deterrent to most trolls is for nothing to happen in response to their trolling. Here I disagree - clear trolls should have their threads deleted at the first opportunity (or posts, in otherwise civil & on-topic threads) and be warned or banned forthwith. Besides, your "doing nothing is best" here seems to contradict what you say elsewhere.
|
|
|
Re: RULES! Updated.
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 57,030
strange but not a stranger
|
|
strange but not a stranger
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 57,030 |
Re: Responding to a "racist" post.
I think it is possible to respond to such a post respectfully. i.e. pointing out how the original post is offensive, refuting the assertion of the post, and/or ignoring it.
The respect part is to NOT launch a personal attack against the poster (aka a flame war)
IMHO
Big Dog! Big Dog! Bow Wow Wow!
|
|
|
Re: RULES! Updated.
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 46
Honorary
|
|
Honorary
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 46 |
|
|
|
Re: RULES! Updated.
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 24,141
Not much between despair and ecstacy
|
|
Not much between despair and ecstacy
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 24,141 |
Well, Dave, the above may have been your last post on the subject, but you've opened the floodgates of discussion, so I hope you won't mind if I put in some belated two cents.
Your argument seems to focus on one question: Should we go back to anarchy, a la Rob's Damn Board, or should Scott and Gary impose martial law on Legion World? You seem to be arguing for the former. In reality, the latter is closer to the truth -- this is Scott and Gary's board. We're their guests. All they've done is ask us to play nice. They have even codified what playing nice means to them. Call them rules, call them guidelines -- it's the same difference.
You find fault with their efforts and point out that anyone "with half a brain" can get around their standards. You are probably correct, but if you are advocating anarchy as a viable alternative, then I disagree. I experienced anarchy before on RDB. I prefer these "rules," thank you.
You see no distinction between what the Nature Boyz (the preferred spelling, apparently) did on RDB and the silly threads that have been posted here? Come again? The Nature Boyz posted the same picture of one of their members sleeping in EVERY THREAD on the Legion board at RDB. They posted it multiple times in each thread. They did this despite repeated requests for them to stop. They made it clear that they were going to exercise their will against those who didn't find their joke funny, and do it continuously. When the Moderators attempted to delete those posts, the Nature Boyz retaliated by flooding the board with several pages of WE WIN AGAIN threads -- just to let the rest of us know who's boss.
Nothing that has been posted on these boards compares to that wanton display of arrogance. Most silly threads here do not go on forever. Silly posts do not invade other, non-related threads. (Threads do tend to veer off-topic, but that's another matter entirely.) As others have said, this has been a very pleasant environment in which to post. I hope it continues to be such.
|
|
|
Re: RULES! Updated.
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 46
Honorary
|
|
Honorary
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 46 |
You find fault with their efforts and point out that anyone "with half a brain" can get around their standards. Sorry, I said I had nothing more to say, but I need to clarify or, rather, correct this. Its not "their" standards, or rules. Its anyone's standards/rules. I was one of the guys appointed to be in charge at Athanon, towards the end. We had rules on what people could and couldn't do. They failed entirely, and after a period of siege by the Nature Boys, the board shut down, for much the same reasons and with the same melodrama as the abandonment of Legion HQ at Rob's boards. Its a shame because Athanon was a particularly good board. Same goes at Joe Quesada's boards, except that instead of shutting down, they apparently spent a lot of cash to keep the Nature Boys out (by the way, definitely "s", not a "z" - the "z" version were in effect a failed "second generation" group which I was a part of). I don't fault anyone's efforts here (or query anyone's motivations. Its clear that the rules here - or at least their severe imposition - are a reaction to the laissez-faire attitudes at the RKMBs). In saying that anyone with half a brain can dance around rules, I'm certainly not criticising anyone's drafting skills. I'm speaking from experience. The Nature Boys are clever and persistent, and they love the sort of reaction that they're fed here. Perhaps in a month people will point and say, "Ha! Naysayer! Our rules worked!" I will tip my hat if that happens. I just doubt it will. And, to be honest, it will trouble me to the extent that I won't even have the inclination to say "I told you so." In any event, I've said what I wanted to say. I could answer you further on the benefits of "anarchic" moderation, but getting involved in such debates is a bit pointless, especially when you all have entrenched positions derived from your own rather unfortunate experiences at Rob's boards. I've rambled on enough about a subject which, as I've said, the outcome of which I don't care about one way or the other. Hopefully it has been at least marginally insightful. Cheers Dave
|
|
|
Re: RULES! Updated.
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,699
Leader
|
|
Leader
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,699 |
[Computo] {[...] Whether you like it or not, so long as this place tries to inhibit free discourse, of whatever variety, and reacts with emotional posts of the kind posted by Greybird on the xlegionx thread, you're going to get attacked. } You may have missed my comments in the thread here on "XlegionX", but I'll note the gist of it again: I posted nothing on Rob's board in the "XlegionX" thread, nor have I posted anything there since I left in mid-June. Whoever re-posted my words on that thread did so without my consent and against my (admittedly unexpressed) wishes. I'll note, all that being said, that my response that was linked here, not posted -- made for the benefit of those here at LW.net in the wake of Rob's drunken on-line rant -- was not at all "emotional." It did make harsh judgments of Rob, but that was out of a sense of justice, not simply emoting. It also dissected your (and his) nonsense about "inhibiting free discourse." This board does nothing of the kind. Its founders and mods remove spam and other elements that interfere with genuine discussion. Inlookers shouldn't take my word about that essay. Read it here .
|
|
|
Re: RULES! Updated.
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 46
Honorary
|
|
Honorary
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 46 |
My "nonsense"? I do believe I've just been flamed. This is despite putting my case on unregulated posting in a very polite and hopefully fair and reasoned manner. I certainly don't agree that its a nonsense - too many other places work perfectly well on that principle. You'll note my restraint in not responding in kind. A note to the moderators: despite your stated position on the rules, and anticipating that there are no exceptions to the rules, I nonetheless request that you don't censure or ban Greybird. There is no need to make an example of him. I'm sure he didn't mean it personally. Your sense of justice is my sense of histrionics. It wasn't necessary, and, self-evidentally, combined with everyone else's melodrama, it was inflammatory. You could have just left. After all - and we all forget this, including me - it is only a message board. "Justice" rarely comes into these things. Its usually just self-indulgence. At Athanon, when I was getting riled by the Nature Boys and things were getting very bitter, someone sent me a terribly politically incorrect e-postcard. "On-line debates are like the Special Olympics: no matter who wins, you're still a spastic." I took the hint too late, unfortunately.
Whoever re-posted my words on that thread did so without my consent and against my (admittedly unexpressed) wishes.
This is getting off-track: to your credit, that's an honest admission. xlegionx, or whoever, could not have known you didn't want your post repeated. That's the risk of posting these things on a message board - they fall into the public domain. Still, you must have known that risk. I seem to have been dragged into this debate again...  Oh well. At least for the most part people are being level-headed about it. Dave
|
|
|
Re: RULES! Updated.
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,793
Leader
|
|
Leader
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,793 |
Just out of curiosity, since when do new members require approval of adminstrators?
It's really putting a cramp in my alt ID count ya know....
|
|
|
Re: RULES! Updated.
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 6,181
Wanderer
|
|
Wanderer
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 6,181 |
Sometimes having a target painted on your butt is the price you pay for doing what you think is right.
In this case, I'm perfectly willing to accept being a target. If the board gets spammed, whatever. We'll deal with it. Unregulated forums aren't my cup of tea. Sorry. Tried it. Bought the T-shirt.
As far as the rules, this MB isn't a democracy. This is personal property. What the owners say goes. This includes enforcement of the "rules." Capriciousness is only capricious when the person in charge is capricious. Benevolent monarchy CAN be the best form of government, under certain circumstances. I trust Scott and Gary. I trust the two of them to make good decisions about the operation and future of this message board. And that's my final word on the subject.
White. A blank page or canvas. His favorite. So... many... possibilities.
|
|
|
Re: RULES! Updated.
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,699
Leader
|
|
Leader
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,699 |
[Computo]
{[...] My "nonsense"? I do believe I've just been flamed. }
Not at all. Everyone on the Net, including me, is capable of utter nonsense. The way you apparently construe "inhibiting expression" or "freedom of speech" (in a manner quite similar, from where I sit, to that of Kamphausen) IS nonsensical.
As Kid Prime observed, this board is private property (via contract) -- as is Rob's. "Freedom of speech" doesn't apply. We are using it by Gary and Scott's leave and under their rules, however benevolent. (Fully so thus far, as I see them.)
Or, in Rob's case, where rules are unexpressed and unwanted, and where he is being misleading, by suggesting that he wants discussion -- when, at the core of things, he clearly does not.
You'd do well to develop a tougher net.hide. You took offense where none was intended, and where I was assessing arguments and allusions.
{[...] it is only a message board. "Justice" rarely comes into these things. It's usually just self-indulgence. }
Justice comes into all human relationships. Only a small subset involves legal matters. (Lawyers, in my experience, tend to make it a far larger subset {rueful smile})
My assessment of Rob built upon an earlier one that also criticized the LHQ board's moderators -- wherein I put more blame on them, and less on Rob, than either deserved. My own sense of acting in a just manner required putting my new views on record, as I reconsidered what had happened.
|
|
|
Re: RULES! Updated.
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,971
Wanderer
|
|
Wanderer
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,971 |
Originally posted by Computo: My "nonsense"?
I do believe I've just been flamed.
This is despite putting my case on unregulated posting in a very polite and hopefully fair and reasoned manner. I certainly don't agree that its a nonsense - too many other places work perfectly well on that principle.
You'll note my restraint in not responding in kind.
A note to the moderators: despite your stated position on the rules, and anticipating that there are no exceptions to the rules, I nonetheless request that you don't censure or ban Greybird. There is no need to make an example of him. I'm sure he didn't mean it personally.
Your sense of justice is my sense of histrionics. It wasn't necessary, and, self-evidentally, combined with everyone else's melodrama, it was inflammatory. You could have just left.
After all - and we all forget this, including me - it is only a message board. "Justice" rarely comes into these things. Its usually just self-indulgence.
At Athanon, when I was getting riled by the Nature Boys and things were getting very bitter, someone sent me a terribly politically incorrect e-postcard. "On-line debates are like the Special Olympics: no matter who wins, you're still a spastic."
I took the hint too late, unfortunately.
Whoever re-posted my words on that thread did so without my consent and against my (admittedly unexpressed) wishes.
I seem to have been dragged into this debate again... Oh well. At least for the most part people are being level-headed about it.
Dave Huh?
Just an Old, Broke-Down, Drunk, Bum!!
With a Power Ring...
|
|
|
Re: RULES! Updated.
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,971
Wanderer
|
|
Wanderer
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,971 |
Originally posted by Greybird:
[Computo]
{[...] My "nonsense"? I do believe I've just been flamed. }
Not at all. Everyone on the Net, including me, is capable of utter nonsense. The way you apparently construe "inhibiting expression" or "freedom of speech" (in a manner quite similar, from where I sit, to that of Kamphausen) IS nonsensical.
As Kid Prime observed, this board is private property (via contract) -- as is Rob's. "Freedom of speech" doesn't apply. We are using it by Gary and Scott's leave and under their rules, however benevolent. (Fully so thus far, as I see them.)
Or, in Rob's case, where rules are unexpressed and unwanted, and where he is being misleading, by suggesting that he wants discussion -- when, at the core of things, he clearly does not.
You'd do well to develop a tougher net.hide. You took offense where none was intended, and where I was assessing arguments and allusions.
{[...] it is only a message board. "Justice" rarely comes into these things. It's usually just self-indulgence. }
Justice comes into all human relationships. Only a small subset involves legal matters. (Lawyers, in my experience, tend to make it a far larger subset {rueful smile})
My assessment of Rob built upon an earlier one that also criticized the LHQ board's moderators -- wherein I put more blame on them, and less on Rob, than either deserved. My own sense of acting in a just manner required putting my new views on record, as I reconsidered what had happened. Double Huh??
Just an Old, Broke-Down, Drunk, Bum!!
With a Power Ring...
|
|
|
Re: RULES! Updated.
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 46
Honorary
|
|
Honorary
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 46 |
Originally posted by Greybird:
[Computo]
{[...] My "nonsense"? I do believe I've just been flamed. }
Not at all. Everyone on the Net, including me, is capable of utter nonsense. The way you apparently construe "inhibiting expression" or "freedom of speech" (in a manner quite similar, from where I sit, to that of Kamphausen) IS nonsensical.
As Kid Prime observed, this board is private property (via contract) -- as is Rob's. "Freedom of speech" doesn't apply. We are using it by Gary and Scott's leave and under their rules, however benevolent. (Fully so thus far, as I see them.)
Or, in Rob's case, where rules are unexpressed and unwanted, and where he is being misleading, by suggesting that he wants discussion -- when, at the core of things, he clearly does not.
You'd do well to develop a tougher net.hide. You took offense where none was intended, and where I was assessing arguments and allusions.
Actually, you showed disrespect for my opinion when you labelled it with the insulting and pejorative "nonsense". That's clearly contrary to Rule 1:
1. RESPECT. Show it. Use it. You should at least respect the opinions, works, and posts of others, and the others themselves at ALL times. I'm not saying that you have to agree with everyone and everything or that you have to like everything...just understand that it is someone's work or someone's thoughts that you're commenting on or disagreeing with.
In using such belittling language, I also suspect you were trolling me and trying to goad me into a flame war. The fact that the moderators have not seen fit to do anything about it indicates to me that their application of the rules is entirely arbitrary, and that they're very willing to play favourites. So much for the rules, and their weight. In any event, it is clearly not a nonsense. The internet functions in its entirety without any policing by any regulatory body. The creative anarchy of capitalist democracies are likely to be the reason behind their economic success. Investors applaud open and unregulated economies. Taxes are criticised by many people for their distorting effects on ecnomies. The absence of regulatory intrusion, to effect the free flow of anything, is very worthwhile. The same philosophy applies equally from multi-jurisdictional down to tiny message boards.
{[...] it is only a message board. "Justice" rarely comes into these things. It's usually just self-indulgence. }
Justice comes into all human relationships. Only a small subset involves legal matters. (Lawyers, in my experience, tend to make it a far larger subset {rueful smile})
My assessment of Rob built upon an earlier one that also criticized the LHQ board's moderators -- wherein I put more blame on them, and less on Rob, than either deserved. My own sense of acting in a just manner required putting my new views on record, as I reconsidered what had happened.
Hm. Fair enough. Given you wanted them "on the record", though, its surprising that you were distressed that they were repeated.
|
|
|
Re: RULES! Updated.
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 24,141
Not much between despair and ecstacy
|
|
Not much between despair and ecstacy
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 24,141 |
Originally posted by Computo:
Its not "their" standards, or rules. Its anyone's standards/rules. I was one of the guys appointed to be in charge at Athanon, towards the end. We had rules on what people could and couldn't do. They failed entirely, and after a period of siege by the Nature Boys, the board shut down, for much the same reasons and with the same melodrama as the abandonment of Legion HQ at Rob's boards. Its a shame because Athanon was a particularly good board. ... The Nature Boys are clever and persistent, and they love the sort of reaction that they're fed here. So, if I read you correctly, you're saying the best way to beat them is to join them? Become an anarchy because they're going to win in the end, anyway? Again, I disagree. There will always be people in the world who attempt to create disorder and confusion just because they can. The worst thing the rest of us can do is give up and say, "You win!" Anarchy may have its benefits, but I didn't see very many on RDB. You're right in that my position is fairly well entrenched on this. (I cannot speak for anyone else.) Anarchy encourages bullies to be bullies because no one opposes them. Might makes right. A better way, I believe, is to try to create some standards and adhere to them. No system of standards is ever perfect. But standards can be modified as time goes on. There is no point in trying to anticipate every conceivable negative outcome that can arise from posting on message boards. We can learn from past experiences, adapt to situations as they happen, and trust ourselves to also be clever and persistent.
|
|
|
Re: RULES! Updated.
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 6,181
Wanderer
|
|
Wanderer
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 6,181 |
Originally posted by Computo:
[QUOTE]
The fact that the moderators have not seen fit to do anything about it indicates to me that their application of the rules is entirely arbitrary, and that they're very willing to play favourites.
So much for the rules, and their weight.
Your criticism of the administrators and moderators in this case is specious, grossly hyperbolic, and unwarranted. If any actual emotional hurt had been done you by Grey's use of the word "nonsense," then there would be cause for the mods to look into it. Clearly, in this case, no such hurt exists, as it is clearly your intent in posting to this thread to be an iconoclast to TPTB on this message board. That's fine, more power to you, whatever, but I do take exception to you calling the people who run this MB hypocritical favoritists. Good day.
White. A blank page or canvas. His favorite. So... many... possibilities.
|
|
|
|
Forums14
Topics21,019
Posts1,044,964
Legionnaires1,729
| |
Most Online53,886
Jan 7th, 2024
|
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
Posts: 180
Joined: July 2003
|
|
|
|
