Printable View
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