HB, there was no offence taken (I don't really care what people say to me ), it was more of an example of of the idiocy of some of things that have been said about his whole thing. :) The main point is where to draw the line :)
Printable View
HB, there was no offence taken (I don't really care what people say to me ), it was more of an example of of the idiocy of some of things that have been said about his whole thing. :) The main point is where to draw the line :)
But Honeybee you're missing the point - the expression of opinion where most people disagree and, in your words, 'gang up on' the people they disagree with is democracy in action. The majority rules. If a lot of people disagree with someone else, why shouldn't they let everyone know it?
If the person who gets ganged up on can't handle people disagreeing with them, then they are the ones with the problems and we should not be penalised for it.
here is my opinion on the subject. I also posted this on the vote for moderators thread.
I think the whole idea is dumb. Now Chit-Chat is going to suck because we can no longer do the things we could to before, and no longer make fun of kovan (and his mom). I am thinking about just quitting this forums because it is going to lose more members because a lot of us were on here chatting and having a good time. If we took away the moderation then more people would come here to help, because they can just sit back and have a good time. I for one am against chit-chat moderation, unless it is Katie doing it because she will take her authority seriously (yeah right!). I understand John not wanting the forums to go even more out of control then they already are, but its no longer fun. Post Race has been closed so there goes one of the major threads a lot of people were involoved in. I also understand John not wanting threads like the Pissing Sheep thread, but the comment(s) about rape were only joking, and everyone knows that they weren't serious. All of the comments made in this forums are all in good fun and i don't believe that too many people are offended. If they are then i think that they can take the responsibility upon themselves to ignore it. It doesn't help any to have a lot of people constantly whining that so and so made a name that offended them. No one has ever made a gay_skitchen8 name because i try to not offend people. If someone wanted to make a gay_skitchen8 name i really wouldn't care though, because I can ignore the person that made it, or just laugh with everyone else. Anyways thats just my opinion, not that anyone cares or anything though.
You're joking, right?Quote:
Originally posted by Beacon
2) Megatron hardly ever is on!
Well, lately, we haven't seen you around too much.
Not in Chit Chat anyway.
John - no problem. I know you know who we were and we weren't trying to disguise that fact to you, because you'd know anyway without any proof ;) We decided that without a confession and explanation of some sort we'd probably REALLY piss you off.
I don't see how people complain about the whole "calling people's mums' *****s" thing. It's all a joke, lots of people do it, and I don't take offence if someone I know like Dennis, Katie, SD, kovan, etc. calls my mum a ***** or something. If someone I don't know does, then they can expect something very verbally painful.
Parksie, thanks for the confession, but it's still apparent that recent posts are considered unacceptable to certain people on the boards if they are being reported to John. Without knowing which threads have been complained about it's very difficult to draw the line. Is it religeous intolerance, or intolerance to gays, or is it swearing (there has been a proliferation of this recently).
I find it amusing that Honeybee complains about finding threads offensive when he is (in my opinion) one of the most bigoted individuals on the board. I would never complain about his comments as I feel it is more constructive to make a reasoned argument and to try to change someone's view point.
As for the free speech issue, it doesn't really apply here. I've said it before, but we are allowed to use this board because John and Co. have kindly set it up. This also gives them the right to decide what sort of content they wish on their site, and I fully respect that view. If they are unhappy with our chit-chat posts, then thats fair enough, it's been fun, but it's time for us to call it a day and move on. I do not want to repay John's good work in running this board, by posting nusance threads or trying to "get back" at the moderators. That would just be lowering ourselves to the level of Nukem.
I would also like to say that I disagree with all the "Gay_MartinLiss" stuff. I think Martin was very wrong to wade in throwing his newly aquired weight around. The impression I got was that he was trying to show everyone who was boss, but I think he realises it back fired, and we have to give him a break as it was his first day on the job. Everyone makes mistakes, and we should just forgive, forget and move on.
However it is apparent that the way in which chit-chat has evolved, was not the way John envisoned it, and I don't want to ruin it for him. I will revisit the board from time to time, but under a new Username/Avatar, and I think I will restrict my answers to the actual forums (I do enjoy helping people out there). Don't worry SurfDemon will pop in every month or so to say hi and catch up on gossip, but I don't think it's wise that I try to be "funny" anymore as I'm pretty certain my version of humour is not globally appreciated.
Thanks again for a wonderful time.
SD
P.S. I thought I'd better post this so that Mike etc. realise that I'm not just leaving because of the Gestapo_John thread (though that did get my blood boiling - I can see their reasons for doing it - and hell, it was even quite funny after the event).
Yes, it's his board. Yes, it's his rules. If he wants us to tone it down, then he can ASK us - we're all perfectly reasonable about this! If John asked me, for example, to stop making jokes about people's mothers or swearing, then fair enough, I'll stop. If one of the moderators asked me - same result. What I don't like is a sudden crackdown - it makes me feel like I'm TOTALLY unwanted and seen as unable to change.
John
is there DEFINED rules for chit chat?
as far as i was concerned, it was "say absolutely anything"
i think there should be explicit rules
as i said before, i respect those choosen to moderate
but i dont want them deciding what is right and what is wrong
there should be explicit rules
if we break them
THEN they can step in and take it fromt here
but making their own rules as they go along is not right
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Everyone else: is anyone REALLY offended by what i say so much that they would rather me just leave chit chat for good?
or is there anyone here that i have offended so much that they couldnt eventually get over it?
its all about humor
if you dont share the same sense of humor i have
do let me know
until then
i will say what i want on chit chit,
the Gay thread i started..
everyone i mentioned were people i joke around with on the forum, and i dont think i really thought any of those peoples were actually gay
anyways, enough of that
either leave chit chat ON, or OFF
Matthew: Thank you for the support. I also think you have a point when you said that I should not have attempted to close that post. I did that more in response to parksie's comment which was
"I am so gonna kick your arse if you're serious. C'mon, this is CHIT CHAT for crap's sake!" than because of the topic, even though I still believe the topic is offensive even when it's put in a joke context. Thinking about it now I realize that I probably over-reacted and I apoligize. However, it is my responsibility as a moderator to keep chit-chat and other forums clean and inoffensive and that may involve future closing and deleting of posts or threads.
At the time I was temporarily insane having just found out that my second home was about to become a commercial speech zone (get it? ;)). I shouldn't have reacted like that and I apologise for it. However, at the time I didn't realise you were SERIOUS about it - I thought you were having a joke with your new "community helper" thing.
You may consider jokes about rape offensive, but does that give you the right to impose your own sensibilities on others?
Quote:
Originally posted by Megatron
You're joking, right?Quote:
Originally posted by Beacon
2) Megatron hardly ever is on!
Quote:
Originally posted by spetnik
Well, lately, we haven't seen you around too much.
Megatron is right on that one. I post everyday and so does Megatron. If I ever caught up to Megatron, you can then say, "Megatron is hardly ever is on!" :rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally posted by Bonker Gudd
Sounds like a good idea to me, anyone who immediately changes his title to "Guru and Forum Moderator" is probably not the right choice.
Why are you all targetting MartinLiss? He's a good guy. He wanted to stay a Guru and he had to show that he's the Forum Moderator as well. Look at my title..I mean, it's the truth of course, but I'd probably put something like, "Master and Moderator" or something, lol.
Just back off of Martin guys, John had his reasons for choosing him, and he may have made the right choice, you must give him a chance to get the feeling of moderation. Especially through the moderating of Chit Chat posts. Respect him more, he's givin' you all a lot of respect and he didn't even bother to say anything after someone, rudefully created the name "Gay MartinLiss". That was completely uncalled for. Especially if it was someone in their 20s that did it. Very immature to do such a thing. And you know that John could easily ban you from the boards, from your original name as well.
It's only been a day since the moderators, give it a few weeks and we'll see how it turns out. John needs help on these boards, he's got a life, and other stuff to do. He had to choose people he could trust because he can't keep checking up on a moderator that he's unsure of, when he's busy and can't keep moderating the boards in the first place. So he chose 4 good dedicative people. And 4 great decisions he has made.
So everyone, just relax, see how it all goes, I'm sure it will work out.
parksie: Thank you for the explanation - I can certainly understand being stressed.
You asked "does that give you the right to impose your own sensibilities on others?". That's a tough question. We certainly have free speech in this country but there are generally accepted bounds where speech becomes offensive or even illegal like falsly yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre. John's and my and the other moderator's aim is to try rain in some of the "speech" in these forums that is out of bounds and someone has to make a stab what those bounds are. As I said, I probably over-reacted, but hopefully you agree that there needs to be some bounds. If you do agree, I would appreciate your input on what kind of comments, etc should and should not be allowed in the forums.
A response to that is quite complex.Quote:
Originally posted by MartinLiss
... but hopefully you agree that there needs to be some bounds. If you do agree, I would appreciate your input on what kind of comments, etc should and should not be allowed in the forums.
I have a simple question.
Exactly where should we formally discuss these suggestions,
How many of the High Five will actually be there to discuss things,
What Time Frame are we talking about, Shouldn't an e-mail notification be forwarded to All Members announcing this Policy "Meeting", what kind of rules will moderate this discussion,
etc...
I think if you are going to ask for input & ideas, a formal agenda
should be set up, or else furthur turmoil might arise.
Along with a congestion of not-so-serious suggestions that would
slow this whole process up.
-Lou
NotLKH: Thanks for the suggestion, I'll bring it up with John and the others.
I have been sitting back reading all this since day one, or since it has started. And I think Mike has a point. if John would have just gave us a warning about the offensive comments and such then maybe we could have toned it down or just stopped all together, on our own, But a sudden punsihment was a low blow. I agree with you John about the moderators, but we should have had a warning first that it was/is getting out of hand. when you are having fun, you don't realize that you might have offended the other person since you think it was a joke to begin with.Quote:
originally posted by Parksie
Yes, it's his board. Yes, it's his rules. If he wants us to tone it down, then he can ASK us - we're all perfectly reasonable about this! If John asked me, for example, to stop making jokes about people's mothers or swearing, then fair enough, I'll stop. If one of the moderators asked me - same result. What I don't like is a sudden crackdown - it makes me feel like I'm TOTALLY unwanted and seen as unable to change.
If you are around these guys (chit chatters) and you can see that they take control of the chit chat to a point where if something like Nukem, DBC, SmashtheQube, or any others, came in and did what they did, you can see that they have taken care of them as far as putting them in their place and telling them what they were doing is/was wrong.
how is porn obscene... a general rule is to mention something sexually related in EVERY post.Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
I think the only purpose behind moderating Chit Chat posts is to stop it from turning into a porn or even more obscene place. .
We don't mention sexual things in EVERY post, except for the ones involving Simon's mum, a selection of whips, and people being held upside down wearing interesting leather clothes ;)
Oh I see your point now :D
don't forget our beotch kovan's mom (***** hes knocking at my door threatening to kill me)
O yea :p :pQuote:
Originally posted by Skitchen8
don't forget our beotch kovan's mom (***** hes knocking at my door threatening to kill me)
I think its a good idea. We should all be responsible in all of the forums (except chit chat). I think that chit chat would be our free speech forum. We should keep the other forums clean.
Still, there should be responsibility to the users in the chit-chat. I mean, there should be no porno stuff, and other illegal activities. Besides let's all be happy that vbforums exist.
CHEERS.
RIVES
Would you justify the 'majority' actions such as gang-rapes by extending the above piece of logic?? Obviously if four men think they must have a particular woman, and the woman disagrees, the majority rules, isn't it??Quote:
Originally posted by HarryW
But Honeybee you're missing the point - the expression of opinion where most people disagree and, in your words, 'gang up on' the people they disagree with is democracy in action. The majority rules. .... If the person who gets ganged up on can't handle people disagreeing with them, then they are the ones with the problems and we should not be penalised for it.
I don't believe in majority. I believe in right and wrong. And though majority rules, there is no reason to believe that majority is always right. What you call democracy in action is actually hooliganism in action.
There has been a lot of arguing about the Chit Chat moderation in particular, and the so called 'Germans' or humour-bypass or whatever, some of it aimed directly/indirectly at me because I seem to be the only member apart from the top five to publicly support moderation. I still maintain that moderation is necessary. I still also maintain that it need not take the form of showing members who is the boss. If any of members can't see beyond their own freedom of speech and expression, whether in jest or whatever, I do not have any intention of convincing them. With this I am withdrawing from this debate.
.
***?:confused: That is completely ridiculous! Rape has been made highly illegal because the majority rules. There are a few people who would do it if it wasn't for the majority of society strongly objecting to it. The majority want it to be illegal in their society, so it's illegal.Quote:
Would you justify the 'majority' actions such as gang-rapes by extending the above piece of logic?? Obviously if four men think they must have a particular woman, and the woman disagrees, the majority rules, isn't it??
What you are equating here is just completely..... I can't believe you think that's a fair comparison. Good grief.
I'd just like to make another point, about this quote. You believe in your right and wrong. Your right and wrong is not quite the same as everybody else's right and wrong, although there will be a lot of overlap. Why should everybody abide by your rules? Surely the fairest way to do things is to abide by the rules that most people want.Quote:
I don't believe in majority. I believe in right and wrong
It's true there's no guaranteeing the majority will be right about something, but what guarantee do we have that anyone's opinion is right? This is especially true of anything to do with morality, it is an entirely subjective subject. Entirely subjective. There is no 'correct' set of morals to have, but we all have more or less the same morals because if we didn't we'd probably kill each other even more than we do already.Quote:
though majority rules, there is no reason to believe that majority is always right. What you call democracy in action is actually hooliganism in action.
:DQuote:
Originally posted by parksie
We don't mention sexual things in EVERY post, except for the ones involving Simon's mum, a selection of whips, and people being held upside down wearing interesting leather clothes ;)
Oh I see your point now :D
I know the comparison was far-fetched. It was just to illustrate that group actions cannot be justified as democracy in action. Just because four people want something and one does not, while there are 100 people in the society, does not prove the four people are being democratic.Quote:
Originally posted by HarryW
***?:confused: That is completely ridiculous! Rape has been made highly illegal because the majority rules. There are a few people who would do it if it wasn't for the majority of society strongly objecting to it. The majority want it to be illegal in their society, so it's illegal.
What you are equating here is just completely..... I can't believe you think that's a fair comparison. Good grief.
Consider the number of active members on the VB Forums and consider how many of them have NOT participated in the moderation debate. So you still don't have majority when you say that you don't want moderation. On the contrary I would think you were in minority as many of the members had resorted to reporting objectionable posts to John. That would mean that a majority of the members actually want Chit Chat moderated.
It's of course my opinion. And I have posted this just to clarify that I am not as dumbheaded as some of the other members would like to think.
.
We have no idea of the exact quantity of posts that have been reported, over what timescale, or by who. I suspect they are mainly from the same easily-offended people if they're about posts in chit-chat. I fully understand the moderation of the other forums, chit-chat is the issue people are concerned about I think.
You think the majority of chit-chat posters want moderation huh? I suggest you go to the chit-chat forum and look at the poll asking if people want it moderated. Last time I looked it was roughly 9 against and 2 for.
I don't understand why you think people get victimised in some threads. People make fun of each other, there's nothing wrong with that, but you are talking about people ganging up on other people purely out of spite. When has that happened? Please, tell me. If 4 people 'gang up', as you put it, on one (although to me that just means there were 4 opinions versus 1 different opinion), that suggests that they had no reason to disagree with that person. When someone turns up and states a controversial opinion, they can expect some kind of strong response. What on earth is wrong with people expressing their opinions? If someone provokes a conflict, they are liable to be ganged up on. It's their look-out. I don't remember any case where someone has been 'ganged up on' without some kind of provocation.
Why don't you guys just think first about..."What if your son or daughter read this?" That's it. No more comparison. Finish it now. I mean this freedom of speech is very vague. I mean we were able to overthrow a president because of this. I think at times democracy should also be controlled. But then again, its a sensitive subject and its not about Visual Basic at all. So guys, CUT IT OUT!
Why don't you guys just think first about..."What if your son or daughter read this?" That's it. No more comparison. Finish it now. I mean this freedom of speech is very vague. I mean we were able to overthrow a president because of this. I think at times democracy should also be controlled. But then again, its a sensitive subject and its not about Visual Basic at all. So guys, CUT IT OUT!
I think everyone's just eventually just gonna calm down and accept it after a while. I'm just waiting it out.
I don't really like the fact that John got moderators, either, but I'll live.
There should be clearer rules on what's allowed and what's not, and the moderators should make absolutely sure somebody broke the rules before taking action. I also think the offender should be warned before action gets taken.
People should just carry on posting as they always have. Don't worry about someone looking over your shoulder. The worst that can happen is a thread can be deleted, so what? If you don't like it, let the moderator(s) know and maybe something can be worked out. The moderators aren't supposed to be deleting/closing threads, etc based purely on personal opinion, only if you preak the rules..
RIVES, since I'm not American (not everybody is you know) I don't know what you're talking about with the president thing.
So, what if they did? Well? Big deal is it?
HarryW,
I only meant to say that freedom of speech without responsiblity is not good. That's it.
Also, I ain't American.
RIVES
All this while, just one thread was closed by the newly appointed moderator, Martin Liss, and members have been acting like they are going to be strangled or shot down with a bazooka for posting in Chit Chat. I don't know who is acting immature now.
It's high time we realized that Chit Chat is not going to be censored, just moderated.
.
Sorry RIVES, I should have seen that in your location (was it there before?), I just assumed you were American because you talked about a president, and also because your English is pretty damn good.
Anyway you're right, but I don't think it justifies removal of free speech. I'm not talking about the forums particularly now, just free speech in general.
Honeybee, people are concerned that a trend has been set for the future and they are understandably narked about it.
HarryW,
No offense taken man.
RIVES