Topic: FED UP

[StoneCut]

Aha, because I am of a different opinion than you? And how come the restricted "free speech" implemented in Germany is based on propositions made by Brits? And how come there's a speaker's corner if "free speech" is implemented everywhere in the UK? The UK does not have "free speech" per se - why should this forum do?

I think you live in an ideological dream world.

What you fail to appreciate is that in your new, prissy, Utopianly-moderated forum, the above response wouldn't see the light of day. Well, it would, for the few minutes it would take for a mod to spot it and delete it.

Be careful of what you wish for, you may just get it!

I fear you only see Black & White - no nuances of grey inbetween. I don't want a totalitarian forum, I want a moderated one. One, where personal attacks get deleted but where constructive criticism remains. Yes, there's a fine line to draw and it's hard to do. I'll admit that. There's no need for you to get personal, btw.

[Secret Santa]

There's no need for you to get personal, btw.

I'm not getting personal. That's you putting your own slant on what I'm saying and is a clear illustration of why you (wrongly) appear to believe moderation is a necessity.

[StoneCut]

I like these rules, am I against "freedom" now ?

Yes you are. And you're just the sort of down-at-heel lapdog that dictators drool over.

Q.E.D.

[George]

Insulting another member
Belittling another member
Ridiculing another member
Derogatory comments to another member
Vulgar, obscene, or otherwise objectionable comments to another member
Questioning in an insincere manner
Deliberately annoying or irritating another member

Just my tuppence worth and the end of it for me.

Rallim, I can't see many members disagreeing with your comments and observations.  I think you've summed it up quite succinctly.

Yes, few people would disagree with the sentiments behind that list but drafting a list is only the start of the beginning in terms of moderation. Implementation and how it's executed in practice is a hundred times more difficult and likely to upset a lot of people, like happened before. If you'd been 'persecuted' like SS and me,  a couple of years ago, then perhaps you'd understand.

EXAMPLE

Someone comes along and mentions a product they hope to launch.
One group of members express great hope and say they're almost certain to buy it.
It's all positive so far.
Then one or more 'wise owls' come along and express doubt.
Should those posts be deleted to 'nip problems in the bud? Yes, they could be seen as negative comments but they may well be right. Only time will tell. As long as vulgar words are avoided, I see it all as acceptable free speech and don't want to delete anything.
It would be a minefield to moderate, as if the moderator knows best (which he doesn't) and it's where previous moderators have gone wrong, and why certain other forums are such awful places.

[StoneCut]

Very reasonable response, George. But what about those incidents where UK law demands action? Please read the 'free speech' article on Wikipedia and the restrictions for the UK in particular to see what I mean.

[Secret Santa]

I like these rules, am I against "freedom" now ?

Yes you are. And you're just the sort of down-at-heel lapdog that dictators drool over.

Q.E.D.

So you take the view that an attack on your views is a direct attack on you? That's unfortunate (for you).

[PaulP]

SS - "Yes you are. And you're just the sort of down-at-heel lapdog that dictators drool over."

That sounds pretty insulting to me!

[Secret Santa]

SS - "Yes you are. And you're just the sort of down-at-heel lapdog that dictators drool over."

That sounds pretty insulting to me!

Read the post that that was in response to. It was just a statement of fact.

[Peripatetic Phil]

I like these rules, am I against "freedom" now ?

Yes you are. And you're just the sort of down-at-heel lapdog that dictators drool over.

Q.E.D.

So you take the view that an attack on your views is a direct attack on you? That's unfortunate (for you).

No, Santa, because the message did /not/ attack anyone's views.  It attacked the addressee personally : " You are just the sort of down-at-heel lapdog that dictators drool over".  That is an attack on a person, not an attack on any views that he or she might hold.  It is no different to (say) "You are just the sort of pervert that would drool over images of naked children" or any similar statement.  If you want to attack the views, then you need to separate them from the individual, as in (for example) "In my opinion, anyone holding such views is just the sort of down-at-heel lapdog over whom dictators drool" -- that clarifies that it is the /views/ that are at the root of your position, not the individual who might (or might not) hold such views.

** Phil.

[Secret Santa]

I just love these threads. They could go on indefinitely with all the people who are claiming this is the sort of thing that should be curtailed actively joining in. You couldn't make it up!  ;D