SciForums Policy Discussion

Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by Plazma Inferno!, Jun 4, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Yes, I understood that.

    I was simply saying that, under a strict interpretation, the vast majority of those posters would be unable to continue to participate..
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2007
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Avatar smoking revolver Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,083
    Why wouldn't they? If there is no sanction, there is no action taken against such posters, therefore they enjoy the same freedoms as every other member.
    It doesn't imply enforcing any restrictions.

    You can not interpret more from a norm more than is included in the wording of the text. Interpret more and it is a creation of a new norm.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    Maybe just the flavor of the offending message, then?
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    We're beating a dead horse here but...


    Under a strict interpretation (meaning, the least possible interpretation...) coupled with an exclusive prioritization (which, admittedly, you did deny) of the stated values, theistic-based discussion would necessarily be eliminated.

    Since you've made it clear that the stated values do not exclude others, it goes without saying that anything goes..

    Fair enough.

    Although, I think the Administration is setting itself up for problems by supporting an 'anything goes' policy.....
     
  8. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    I think he is saying that a belief in religion is, by definition, irrational. Appologists of any ilk are irrational, Christians and Muslims and Hindus need not be.
     
  9. Avatar smoking revolver Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,083
    Anything goes that is in the common interests of the community. Good enough, wouldn't you say?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    If we made a policy that has no implications and no particular vision, it would be a toothless, bland text worth nothing, stating nothing and meaning nothing.

    Apart from that I just ask the members to trust us and sincerely hope that reason shall prevail. Because any norm can be interpreted radically, but they are not in civilized societies.

    p.s. It is still a draft and, considering the input of all members in this thread, I will revise it this weekend or earlier.
     
  10. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    That is correct.

    However, this doesn't mean that we cannot have intelligent discussion of a religious and/or theistic nature. It simply means that the discussion must adhere to certain constraints; sound reasoning, critical thought and an understanding of the scientific method being a few of them.
     
  11. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    Perhaps, but that opens up another huge can o' worms.
    Do we then succumb to 'mob rule'?
    Who is the arbiter of 'common interest' of the community?


    True enough.
     
  12. Avatar smoking revolver Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,083
    No, I foresaw this problem, please see clause 5 and 5.2.
    Take into consideration means that moderators have to listen and consider the voice of the community, but they don’t have to necessarily abide it.
    The main decision maker is the admin and mod team, who have to consult the community before making any such decision.
    Their duty is to stand guard and protect the vision that is enclosed in the policy.
    If an unruly mob tries to ruin this place, mods have to protect it.
    And that links back to clause 4.2.
     
  13. Avatar smoking revolver Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,083
    I think it would help if you made parallels with a constitution and the rights the executive power usually has been given in order to protect it.
     
    Last edited: Jun 5, 2007
  14. glaucon tending tangentially Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,502
    The problem being, as we've previously discussed, that vision is vaguely defined, at best.


    To be fair, I'm sure I would be unable to write up a constitution.

    I'm more of a 'potential problem finder'.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Part of my daytime job is to proof-read and critique legal documents...
     
  15. Avatar smoking revolver Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,083
    Thanks, and I appreaciate your critique.
    Yes. And that is because our community is so diverse and unpredictable and vast that it is hard if not impossible to write something that would suit all reasonable minds and still mean a damn.
    It would be easier to write for a particular nation or culture, but here we have members from the USA to Germany, to Russia, to Australia.

    If you have any ideas on how to improve the current text I'm eager to hear.
    Saying that it needs to be more concrete won't help, because there is an invisible, immaterial border that says if we go over it, we will needlessly restrict ourselves,
    but laws and policies should serve the people, not the other way around.
     
  16. darksidZz Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,923
    I do not understand :L James R says a few things, 1 of them is "please do not incite violence" to which I think it should become a rule. Anyone inciting it should be given an infraction... also umm maybe he's got a few more things he says, I don't know. Oh wait here's one Posting Violent, Abusive or Pornographic Content, ok... no porn or violent abusive content :L Also flaming is wrong he says, so make flaming bad and infraction worthy.

    I prefer out of all the things suggested the no inciting of violence be kept, I'm real sleepy so am gonna go now

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    Well, the thing is that infractions are given willy-nilly sometimes, and a clear standard doesn't seem to be applied. This is ok, because intent is much more important than content, most of the time. Applying a hard line standard to all posts wouldn't be fun.
     
  18. BenTheMan Dr. of Physics, Prof. of Love Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,967
    I should clarify---posts should always be taken in context. It doesn't make sense to hack someone for flaming a thread that no one is taking seriously. Those who intentionally use these tactics in threads for some other reason, however, SHOULD be penalized.
     
  19. Creative Fossil Banned Banned

    Messages:
    295
    Avatar, you are an arrogant vain tiny little prick.
    Plazma you are a weak leader with no balls.

    Note: I do assume it is now OK to insult members being as Plazma and leo were permitted to call me a bitch on this thread and Avatr has called me numerous things?

    Oh silly me, it's only OK for the chosen few. One Ban (not that it'll stop me returning....yawn zzzzzzzzz) coming up.

    That my friends is the reason YOU are the ones destroying the board.
    You are hypocrites and your ego's are not proportionate with your responsibilities.

    You are fucking unpaid mods for fucks sake. Get a job!


    Loving the colour dudes!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!




    _______________________________


    *** Administrator's Notice ***

    Creative Fossil has been permanently banned from the SciForums.

    Reason: Sockpuppet of banned member

    *Additional note: Theoryofrelativity has been allowed to continue posting after her permanent ban under the new name Creative Fossil.
    I stated then that I've banned account not a person and that banned member could post trying to avoid things that led to her previous ban.

    Obviously there wasn't will for improving.

    This time I've banned person as well.
     
  20. 2inquisitive The Devil is in the details Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,181
    I think a lot of it is according to whom you are addressing. Some of us have a pretty thick skin and hit the 'report' button rarely, if at all. Some seem to read every post with their pointer hovering over the button. They raise such a stink if the moderators don't take action, the moderators will issue an infraction every now and then just to try to pacify them.

    I personally have only ever reported one post, and it was not directed at me.
    I also have only ever recieved one infraction and can't complain about it. Instead of hitting the 'report' button concerning a post I felt very insulting, I decided to insult back. I tried to be sneaky and used the words 'nonentity' and 'it' so the insult would not be 'personel', but forgot I was using the 'quote post' function. Duh!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  21. Plazma Inferno! Ding Ding Ding Ding Administrator

    Messages:
    4,610
    Administrator's Notice:

    Off topic warning for shorty37 and Roman!

    Back on the topic!
     
  22. Oniw17 ascetic, sage, diogenes, bum? Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,423
    Is there a rule that you can't start a thread on the same subject twice? There should be.
     
  23. Nickelodeon Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,581
    What do you mean?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page