Warning: This forum operates on the principles of truth...

[Teal Lantern]

It's all within reason. There aren't taboo topics. It's more like basic civil behavior. There is a thread of forum rules. Here it is:

viewtopic.php?t=12500

I'll sticky it.

2. No posting pictures of anything excessively obscene, graphically disturbing or revolting. We are not here to repel people or gross them out.

Does this break rule #2?

[Rich]

Rock, you're such a clear thinker and I mean that sincerely. You're an asset to this forum. I hope you never get banned.

Zboy: I know you are unhappy with Rock's comments, but please don't ban him, like you did with Cornfed and thePrimeBait. He is one of the few people that actually travels on this forum and his comments are always interesting and well considered.

[Winston]

It's all within reason. There aren't taboo topics. It's more like basic civil behavior. There is a thread of forum rules. Here it is:

viewtopic.php?t=12500

I'll sticky it.

2. No posting pictures of anything excessively obscene, graphically disturbing or revolting. We are not here to repel people or gross them out.

Does this break rule #2?

To me that's revolting. Why do you ask? Why would you ever need to post that?

I would post such links or images sparingly. Not too often.

Rock, you're such a clear thinker and I mean that sincerely. You're an asset to this forum. I hope you never get banned.

Zboy: I know you are unhappy with Rock's comments, but please don't ban him, like you did with Cornfed and thePrimeBait. He is one of the few people that actually travels on this forum and his comments are always interesting and well considered.

LOL You're missing something obvious. Rock is immune from banning because he's a close friend of mine, in person not just online. He knows this and so does Zboy. It's one of those obvious but unspoken things around here. lol. So you don't need to worry about that.

You are right that Rock's knowledge experiences are very invaluable here. He is also a very interesting and unique person as well.

[Winston]

You're a fan of the bigger picture right? Well it's not about those four specific posters but rather the general actions executed by this forum's only acting moderator - bogus public vote followed by across the board permanent bans with no warnings or justification other than vague references to PM complaints. I really hope that kind of thing doesn't happen again here. That's my reason for suggesting at least a mandatory warning system be implemented for non-spammers.

Ok, as you suggested, I will post in the forum rules thread a rule about giving warnings and temporary bans before banning. We can make it sort of our HA constitution or bill of rights. lol

I'm sure Zboy was telling the truth when he said he received a lot of PM's complaining about those members. He doesn't usually lie about stuff like that. He's usually pretty honest.

As for those particular posters, I do believe at minimum, one or two of them contributed valuable content in recent past. The one who sticks out most in my mind is ThePrimeBait. One area this forum lacks in it's collective knowledge base is specific insights and detailed information on the Arab world and middle east including the types of women there. He seemed to have a lot to offer in that regard. I thought some of his other stuff was interesting too. It sure beats "Oh how American girls suck so bad" or "The economy is going to crash on (fill in the date)" or even "Oh gee, look at these hot Chinese women to die for" lol. So I resent his summary dismissal. Perhaps he could have been managed. Perhaps he could have been warned not to do whatever he did (I still don't know what that was) to break the forum's guidelines. He and the others banned this round deserved a second chance I believe. Didn't you once say, "everyone deserves a second chance"? Doesn't that apply to them too?

Ok I'll look at their posts and see if they're worth giving second chances too. But not Mr. Darcy. He started the most inane threads with very short sentences to start them that were often written in bad or incomplete grammar. Really weird.

And you make an interesting point when you say, " Perhaps they were banned for reasons other than behavior?" So what else besides 'bad behavior' (going against forum guidelines) would be a reasonable and fair grounds for banning them? Doesn't that smack of subjectivity?

Maybe their posts were of crappy quality? So it was a culling of low quality posters? That's what I suspected. They probably said a lot of racist things too.

I'm not asking you to micro manage your mod(s). But if you could just take a bit of time to implement some simple and I believe reasonable due process restraints on them such as a 3 strike rule along with clear publicly stated rational for each strike, that would be most appreciated, at least by me.

Ok we will make such a rule and add it to our forum rules thread. It can be our HA constitution or bill of rights. lol

[davewe]

1. No posting pictures with nudity in them, such as images of private parts fully exposed. Personally, I don't mind them, but they are not safe for those browsing this forum from work. Plus, such pictures get us blocked in certain countries and public library terminals.

2. No posting pictures of anything excessively obscene, graphically disturbing or revolting. We are not here to repel people or gross them out.

3. No unduly disruptive behavior that would cause us to lose other members.
4. No harassment or unnecessary hostility toward other members without valid cause.

5. No lying or presenting blatantly false information with an intent to deceive.
6. Posting links is permissible as long as they are useful and relevant to the discussion. No spam links by hired internet marketing contractors.

While all the rules seem reasonable, most are written with caveats:
1. No posting nudity - though personally I don't mind it.
3. No disruptive behavior - that would cause us to lose members. So disruptive behavior that gains members is OK?
4. No harassment or unnecessary hostility - without valid cause.
5. No presenting blatantly false information - with an intent to deceive.
6. Posting links is ok - as long as they are useful.

All the caveats make the rules even more subject to interpretation. So I can attack a member as long as I have valid cause? That makes the rule meaningless. Anyone can say, "Sure I attacked him. I had a good reason."

But even if you get rid of these loopholes, it is still up to the owner/mod(s) of a forum to decide who broke the rules and how to handle it. We don't own HA and it shouldn't be a democracy.

[Winston]

Rock,
Ok I added your proposed three strike rule into our basic forum rules. See here:

viewtopic.php?t=12500

What do you think?

I'll let Zboy know about it too.

Hey I have another idea. What do you think about having a judicial committee here? It could be comprised of you and other senior members of solid credibility. The committee or panel could vote on who gets banned, maybe as part of the third strike. And it could decide which troublemakers are redeemable and which are worth keeping around.

What do you think of that idea?

[davewe]

Rock,
Ok I added your proposed three strike rule into our basic forum rules. See here:

viewtopic.php?t=12500

What do you think?

I'll let Zboy know about it too.

Hey I have another idea. What do you think about having a judicial committee here? It could be comprised of you and other senior members of solid credibility. The committee or panel could vote on who gets banned, maybe as part of the third strike. And it could decide which troublemakers are redeemable and which are worth keeping around.

What do you think of that idea?

If you do that there is no point in having a mod - you would have totally eliminated his authority. You have to either live with a mod's decisions - or not have a mod. A committee would be even worse IMO.

My recollection is you got a mod to avoid making some of these hard decisions solely yourself. Either stick by him, give him your feedback about future events, or get rid of him. Don't eliminate his authority.

[Winston]

1. No posting pictures with nudity in them, such as images of private parts fully exposed. Personally, I don't mind them, but they are not safe for those browsing this forum from work. Plus, such pictures get us blocked in certain countries and public library terminals.

2. No posting pictures of anything excessively obscene, graphically disturbing or revolting. We are not here to repel people or gross them out.

3. No unduly disruptive behavior that would cause us to lose other members.
4. No harassment or unnecessary hostility toward other members without valid cause.

5. No lying or presenting blatantly false information with an intent to deceive.
6. Posting links is permissible as long as they are useful and relevant to the discussion. No spam links by hired internet marketing contractors.

While all the rules seem reasonable, most are written with caveats:
1. No posting nudity - though personally I don't mind it.
3. No disruptive behavior - that would cause us to lose members. So disruptive behavior that gains members is OK?
4. No harassment or unnecessary hostility - without valid cause.
5. No presenting blatantly false information - with an intent to deceive.
6. Posting links is ok - as long as they are useful.

All the caveats make the rules even more subject to interpretation. So I can attack a member as long as I have valid cause? That makes the rule meaningless. Anyone can say, "Sure I attacked him. I had a good reason."

But even if you get rid of these loopholes, it is still up to the owner/mod(s) of a forum to decide who broke the rules and how to handle it. We don't own HA and it shouldn't be a democracy.

I've already changed the wording of some of them. See the new version. Of course there are caveats. Rules should not be written in stone. You gotta consider the situation. Most things are situational. No the valid reason will be determined by moderators with sound judgment.

When I said "valid cause" I meant like if someone attacked you first, and you attacked back, you would be retaliating and not the violator that started it. Most people are not Zen masters and cannot turn the other cheek like Jesus.

Maybe instead of rules, you can see them as guidelines.

Yeah a real democracy is a bad idea. History shows that democracies always fail and never work. A democracy has never worked or been stable. That's why the Founding Fathers said America was a Republic. They never said it was a democracy. That's just a myth that the elite today use to give people an illusion of power and control.

[gsjackson]

History shows that democracies always fail and never work. A democracy has never worked or been stable. That's why the Founding Fathers said America was a Republic. They never said it was a democracy. That's just a myth that the elite today use to give people an illusion of power and control.

Oh? What are these historical examples of pure democracies that didn't work out? What is a pure democracy -- every voter going online to vote on every issue of public policy, or showing up at the agora to do so?

Once again: Democracy and a republic are not alternative forms of government. A republic is a form of democracy, in which the rule of the people is (supposedly) effected by elected representatives. Alternative theories to democracy would be a monarchy or an oligarchy (which we have in the US, though it is nominally a republican form of democracy).

[Winston]

History shows that democracies always fail and never work. A democracy has never worked or been stable. That's why the Founding Fathers said America was a Republic. They never said it was a democracy. That's just a myth that the elite today use to give people an illusion of power and control.

Oh? What are these historical examples of pure democracies that didn't work out? What is a pure democracy -- every voter going online to vote on every issue of public policy, or showing up at the agora to do so?

Once again: Democracy and a republic are not alternative forms of government. A republic is a form of democracy, in which the rule of the people is (supposedly) effected by elected representatives. Alternative theories to democracy would be a monarchy or an oligarchy (which we have in the US, though it is nominally a republican form of democracy).

A historical example is Ancient Greece. Democracy was tried there and utterly failed. Another example are the Salem Witch Trials which were like mob rule. This topic has been elaborated on already, and there is a great video about it.

A pure democracy is rule by majority. It means that a mob can vote you to be hanged without a good reason. A republic is rule of law. You are referring to a democratic republic. But that is just playing with semantics. We don't have a true democracy for many reasons. Our candidates are chosen for us by the system. We get two candidates from the same cabal. America is a dictatorship of corporations, not of a single person. Elections are just a puppet show. Policies are decided by the elite, not the common people.

[gsjackson]

A historical example is Ancient Greece. Democracy was tried there and utterly failed. Another example are the Salem Witch Trials which were like mob rule. This topic has been elaborated on already, and there is a great video about it.

A pure democracy is rule by majority. It means that a mob can vote you to be hanged without a good reason. A republic is rule of law. You are referring to a democratic republic. But that is just playing with semantics. We don't have a true democracy for many reasons. Our candidates are chosen for us by the system. We get two candidates from the same cabal. America is a dictatorship of corporations, not of a single person. Elections are just a puppet show. Policies are decided by the elite, not the common people.

Huh? You're the first "historian" I've ever heard of who regarded Athenian democracy as an abject failure. It's much more likely to be seen as the apex of human history. It lasted for centuries, until the oligarchs undermined it, and produced so many contributions of thought in any number of areas that no other civilization in history really can stand comparison. Schoolboys in the west were required for hundreds of years to learn the Greek language, because it was considered so important to understand what those people thought and did. It did, however, depend on a very homogeneous population, as Momopi's point about the ruthlessness of ostracization illustrates.

Whether or not it's an exercise in semantics, the definitions used in political theory are what they are. A republic is a form of democracy. Rule of law is no more characteristic of a republic than whatever purer form of democracy you have in mind. Witch trials, lynch mobs and such are not forms of government, though they are examples of the will of an ad hoc majority run amuck.

With your last six sentences I am in complete agreement.

[Rich]

It's all within reason. There aren't taboo topics. It's more like basic civil behavior. There is a thread of forum rules. Here it is:

viewtopic.php?t=12500

I'll sticky it.

2. No posting pictures of anything excessively obscene, graphically disturbing or revolting. We are not here to repel people or gross them out.

Does this break rule #2?

To me that's revolting. Why do you ask? Why would you ever need to post that?

I would post such links or images sparingly. Not too often.

Rock, you're such a clear thinker and I mean that sincerely. You're an asset to this forum. I hope you never get banned.

Zboy: I know you are unhappy with Rock's comments, but please don't ban him, like you did with Cornfed and thePrimeBait. He is one of the few people that actually travels on this forum and his comments are always interesting and well considered.

LOL You're missing something obvious. Rock is immune from banning because he's a close friend of mine, in person not just online. He knows this and so does Zboy. It's one of those obvious but unspoken things around here. lol. So you don't need to worry about that.

You are right that Rock's knowledge experiences are very invaluable here. He is also a very interesting and unique person as well.

Thank you Wu, I feel much better about things. Wu! can you use your powers to get thePrimeBait and Cornfed back. Firstly let me say that I am 100% pro Israel and pro jewish. While Cornfed's anti-semitic and many other unsettling views made me cringe, the forum was still better off with that kook. Why? Because he understood the calculus and could explain difficult scientific concepts. ThePrimeBait, well, as I recall, he was knowledgeable about ladyboys. I have no interest in such matters but chances are, someone does. This resource has now been lost "like tears in rain".

[Winston]

What do you guys think the forum rules should be for annoying posters like AdmiralofBlacks, who is now back as ChampionKaji? Should annoying posters be banned for being annoying too? What about their free speech rights?

[Teal Lantern]

What do you guys think the forum rules should be for annoying posters like AdmiralofBlacks, who is now back as ChampionKaji? Should annoying posters be banned for being annoying too? What about their free speech rights?

Blatant trolls should always be banned.