rEvolutionist wrote:Audley thinks limiting certain types of hate speech equates to "safe space". His view is just as extreme as the other end of the spectrum at A+. A middle ground seems like a decent compromise to me.
Ah right. The initial idea for banning 'hate speech' was simply pragmatic in that it wasn't conducive to any kind of intelligent discussion so it was easiest just to cut it out, rather than there being a political motivation behind it, which still seems reasonable to me (especially when the distinction is made that this doesn't cover things like scientific discussion of racial differences or whatever).
rEvolutionist wrote:Trolls in the feedback forum? There's a couple of obvious ones. Both former mods at either ratskep or rd.net.
Former mod? Nah, THWOTH is still a mod..
DaveDodo007 wrote:I have never read a FUA in my life. I just post bollox and ignore any mod notes that come my way. It's the fucking internet, how does anybody take it that seriously. I get the spam/trolls and you have to follow the law of the land where the forum is based in but everything else is a power wank.
Eh, different communities have different aims and goals, and different rules are required to get there. Sometimes rules can be arbitrary and more of a powerwank than serving any real purpose but usually I think rules on most forums are there for practical reasons.
Audley Strange wrote:@ Samsa
My main point was that the rules were unclear and should either have been definitive and adhered to or more lax, one or the other.
I was definitely leaning towards the former.
Audley Strange wrote:I think we may have discussed this before but the main issue I had became glaringly apparent when Dawkins sued Timenon and those who strongly defended the "don't attack the person" rule (many of whom did nothing but) wanted the rule bent so they could all abuse him when he became a member. The crass and blatant hypocrisy of that position sickened me and I left shortly after, realising the place was not best served by its members and some staff.
The behavior of the members was pretty disturbing there to me as well but I thought that was a pretty decent example of how the rules were strictly enforced by the mods as they didn't cave and allow personal attacks against Josh, even if the members wanted to bend them for ridiculous reasons.
Audley Strange wrote:I have to admit, I still find it astonishing that THWOTH is so unreasonable, he seemed (heh "seemed") one of the more reasonable members.
Yeah I really don't know what happened there, I think there was just a collapse in balancing views when a bunch of us mods left within a short period of time and they made ridiculous choices when hiring new mods, so the place just became this fucked up echo chamber. All of it must have gone to his head and seemingly with LIFE out of the picture, the forum is his to rule as he pleases regardless of what the members want.
rEvolutionist wrote:The members are sticking up for you, Samsa. I wanna see some good feedback thread action over this when you get back!
That's good to hear but I'm not sure I have the energy to comment in feedback threads any more. Like I say above, they all end the same way, with THWOTH concluding: "The mods agreed with the decision so it stands". I started a thread a while back after THWOTH tried to warn me for referencing an official PM that I'd received from a mod and I think literally everyone in the feedback thread agreed that there was no reason at all why PMs made by mods in their official capacity should be prevented from being referenced or quoted by members. His conclusion was that the mods disagreed, thread closed. No explanation, no reasoning, no attempt to deal with the arguments.
“The real question is not whether machines think but whether men do. The mystery which surrounds a thinking machine already surrounds a thinking man.” - B. F. Skinner.
