Does sciforums, need more rules?

[Shadow1]

.

What was that about Patti Labelle in Tunisia, spidergoat?
Oh, that's good.

Ha Ha Ha!
You want Shadow to be,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,?


I wish you could read this Shadow.
It's really good.

WHAT? lol
tell me, who's patti labelle? and what's shadow ,,,,,,,,,,,,??
oh i'm dying to know!

 

[Shadow1]

.

Well I think the guide of our freedoms and that would include our freedom of speech would be; that we are free to do / say anything we like, so long as it doesn’t impede anybody else’s freedom to do the same.

yup, and what i meant, i accept every thoght and every idea, but it should be respectfull discussion, not insulting discussion or a hypocrite discussion, mockery is ok, but, not if it is off limit or not in it's time, to be free, doesnt mean to do everything bad an uncivilized, but to have the freedoem to do anything, and to be aware of the good and bad, and to do good, effcorse everyone makes mistackes and do bad things, but not making those bad things a part of that person, a part of every discussion, so i think you understood what i mean. the freedome, is a responsability, not a game or a uncivilized acts.

 

[Shadow1]

To consider a common process at Sciforums: Start with the extreme example of a crack-crazed person with a gun. What courtesy do we owe him? That is, should we politely allow him to fire off rounds indiscriminately because we don't want to hurt his feelings? In such a case, the answer seems pretty clear: No. But little, if any, of what goes on around here bears implications of a similar magnitude. Thus, what of ideas, some of which can spread like a slow cancer, and if adopted harm us all?

i think you can the difference between dangerous and not dangerous, don't you?but i don't think you know the difference between good and bad.
i'm not talking about those situations, i'm talking about discussin, and respecting other's colour, culture, and relegion, and ideas, mockery of those can be of if it is a light joke, joke that don't hurt, or a light mocke, that don't hurt.
ps: i don't mean you, you personnaly, it's jut "you" in generale for sciforums memebers.

 

[Pinwheel]

One rule we need: to ban the word Tunisia from the internets.

 

[Shadow1]

.

One rule we need: to ban the word Tunisia from the internets.

lol, ok, fine with me
i can call it, "kairouan, tunis, sousse, monastir, jerba...(and the rest of the 24 state in the country)"

 

[NMSquirrel]

um..this thread turned into a left handed insult contest.

.....

Hmmm, so the tone is what offends, not the content?

hmm..shh..he can hear you...(tone)

Mockery, insult, public humiliation should be directed only to those that break the public rules in a tone that is unacceptable to?...to whomever is maintaining the rules.

moderators should be the example of how NOT to Flame..

Tell me, if you find yourself in an Islamic nation surrounded by Muslims telling you about Allah and how killing infidels gets you a first-class ticket to heaven, dozens of stewardesses included, what tone would you use to answer them, if you will at all?

God has a sense of humor..
ive never heard it say they get to touch the virgins..

the flip side...
you will go to the place where every other muslim that killed themselves for their 7 virgins were..but there are no virgins..unless you count all the guys that killed themselves as virgins...
or worse yet..
there are millions of terrorist there for their 7 virgins..thats all that is there..just 7..

I tell you we need more rules.
Free-speech must be protected, with more censorship.

What if you find yourself in Medieval Europe where the idea of ghosts and evil spirits and a flat earth is a matter of "common sense", enforced by administrators that keep you in-line, if need be, what tone would you adopt?

common sense can't be legislated..
moderators need to learn how to moderate..
moderation is not just about enforceing the rules.
the rules are there for those who argue about the letter of the law..
if you understand the spirit of the law, you won't need the letter of the law..
(well..in most cases anyway..some ppl refuse to get a clue..)

how would you legislate "NO SLAMS,watch out for 'never' and 'always'"
(just an example of common sense stuff)

See? that's the freedome of speech.

speech require you having something to communicate..
that stuff doesn't communicate anything..

also..
i came into this area of the forum to find where i could ask the powers that be, if they can put a button on the bottom of the page that takes you to the top of the page..
um..nevermind..just found it..its ALL the way at the bottom of the page..

 

[Captain Kremmen]

How now?

I don't know where you are headed on this, but I'll go along with it:
Brown Cow.
Over to you.

 

[Tiassa]

Nowhere particular

I don't know where you are headed on this, but I'll go along with it:

Not headed anywhere, in truth. Just having a chuckle at an embarrassing performance before the amusement bleeds away and I'm left reflecting on the tragedy of it all.

 

[hypewaders]

An excellent exposition of why we need rules here. I wish I could suspend everyone posting here for a while, so that we can all come back with some clearer thinking and discussion. Here's my quick summary of what I gleaned skimming down through this- and my reactions:

Too many rules- too little attention to the rules.
Too much sensitivity about Islam- a culture war is raging, shaking our windows. Rattling our walls. We can hide, or we can be part of the solution.
Too much censorship of free expression, especially mockery and derision- Fuck you, stupid cunt.
Too much insincerity- absolutely. Sincere people set up no straw men. Those who come here just to play-act at respectful and thoughtful discussion do not belong here.
Too many suspensions, bannings, too much intolerance of sock puppets- when appeals to personal integrity fail, this is the only leverage the moderators have left.

I don't think we would need many rules here, if we all would be more accountable for what we post. Imagine that all you say and do will come back to you. Understand that you are living in a fast-developing information age still in infancy or adolescence, and that most of what we all say and do actually is going to come back to us all- even those of us lost in the masquerade.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Sciforums needs new rules like an Octopus needs new paws.
Sciforums is fine. Leave it alone.

 

[Spud Emperor]

The rule of thirds, can we introduce that?

 

[Spud Emperor]

Sciforums needs new rules like an Octopus needs new paws.
Sciforums is fine. Leave it alone.

So ahh....'sciforums rules O.K'

 

[GeoffP]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodies ipsos custodies?

Too much insincerity- absolutely. Sincere people set up no straw men. Those who come here just to play-act at respectful and thoughtful discussion do not belong here.

Agreed; but who decides what is "insincere"? Who decides what a straw man even is? I could say easily enough, but no sensible person would want some individuals - including several moderators - running around deciding what is "dishonest".

Then again, there's always reference to the levels above them, true.

 

[hypewaders]

Scientific method: If I habitually make extraordinary claims, and refuse to back them up with verifiable evidence and rational explanation, then I should be called on the mat; challenged to stand and deliver. If I refuse to modify my behavior, either by making fewer brazen and unsubstantiated posts, or by increasing the value of what I contribute here, then I should seek (should be compelled if necessary to seek) conversation elsewhere.

As to the authority of the staff, live with it, join in even. If you are truly frustrated at your lack of influence here, or with a lack of responsiveness by the volunteer staff to your concerns... of course anyone may start their own message board.

 

[GeoffP]

Haw! Love it or leave it. I haven't seen that one used on me yet. I salute you. (Also for the "volunteer staff" point tossed in at the end; my guilt overwhelms me.)

Here's the thing: the charge of intellectual dishonesty is a very simple one to make. Some of these are testable; some are not. It depends entirely on the user, the situation and the nature of the accused; what do to when the accuser is an intellectually dishonest moderator? How shall I "modify my behavior" when it requires no moderation? As I said, there's always the admins and owners, I guess, but I hate to go that route. You know?

 

[(Q)]

you people are sick

why you people are so barbaric???

you always try to force your ideas

so, does scifoums have to start making rules against insulting and mocking othere's beleifs

why there's no rules against all that, why there's no rules.

Just can't get enough of ramming your beliefs down our throats, now you want rules for us to shut up and allow you to ram your beliefs down our throats.

Me thinks the Muslim doth protest too much.

 

[hypewaders]

Haw! Love it or leave it. I haven't seen that one used on me yet. I salute you. (Also for the "volunteer staff" point tossed in at the end; my guilt overwhelms me.)

I didn't present leaving as the first and best recourse, but instead as a last resort should you find the community unreasonable. I don't count you among them, but I won't lose much sleep over the departure of dissatisfied members who rarely contribute anything here that stimulates interesting thoughts and discussions. I'm glad you're around, and it seems to me that you have some influence in the trajectory of Sf- I know that I value and enjoy what you have to say in this and many other threads.

Here's the thing: the charge of intellectual dishonesty is a very simple one to make.

Agreed. But I think that it will be beneficial if we sharpen up our focus on that in the rules, and how we enforce them. I hope that all interested members will participate in clarifying what the minimum standards of intellectual honesty should be here.

Some [charges of intellectual dishonesty] are testable; some are not.

I don't think it would be helpful for such charges to become more frequent. The idea is to put to trial any member who is often so accused in this community.

It depends entirely on the user, the situation and the nature of the accused; what do to when the accuser is an intellectually dishonest moderator?

We would need to agree on the pertinent rules first, and then work together to see that they are applied equitably.

How shall I "modify my behavior" when it requires no moderation?

As a moderator I try to only intervene in upholding the letter and spirit of the Forum Rules. But members who rarely if ever run afoul of minimum standards can still contribute to higher standards. Those who enter discussions prepared to take the time and effort to back up any challenged assertions display a higher level of regard for this community than the least common denominator now requires- and such participation does consistently raise the quality of discussion here by example, and as an intellectual challenge to those who see things differently.

As I said, there's always the admins and owners, I guess, but I hate to go that route. You know?

I don't have any idea (or care) how or why one might do that. I know that there is much to do by participating here in raising community standards, that very few vocally disappointed members regularly trouble themselves with. I don't recall anyone who has departed in disappointment (or sought the intervention of the domain owner) who had set a memorable example of excellent, thought-provoking, sincere/intellectually-honest participation- or who had taken a notable sincere interest in initiatives such as the discussion in this thread.

 

[GeoffP]

Ok.

 

[Mr MacGillivray]

Ok.

You probably broke 3 rules in that post.

 

[GeoffP]

One per character, I think.

I'm working under a new efficiency model now, you see.