22 Sep 03
As you all know there is freedom of speech in a lot of countries. However there are countries that do not have that fundamental liberty for all.
How do you deal with this on the internet, an international meeting place of all people in the world ? How do we deal with that in our own community, the Red Hot Pawn community ?
Should there be limitations on this Civil Right ?
Should there be some rules on how to deal with it ?
Any opinions ?
22 Sep 03
Thankfully our community has a moderator. Freedom of speech is everybodys right, but there are those who will always push the boundaries or just simply abuse it, in the short time I've been here I've seen too much of this.
I myself am a devout christian, but this is the first time I've mentioned it; why? because I'm playing chess. IMHO there are too many threads already that cover religion, or maybe as someone else suggested we should just have one religion forum.
Don't get me wrong, I'll happily discuss issues with my opponents while playing and would most likely join the discussions if they were put in their place (forum as above) but at the end of the day you are judged by your actions - some deliberately seek out confrontations; me I prefer them across the board or in a sporting scenario.
22 Sep 03
1 edit
Originally posted by derek9037Firstly, if I understand you correctly you don't mind people discussing things
Thankfully our community has a moderator. Freedom of speech is everybodys right, but there are those who will always push the boundaries or just simply abuse it, in the short time I've been here I've seen too much of this.
I myself a ...[text shortened]... ions; me I prefer them across the board or in a sporting scenario.
they want to discuss, but you want more structure in the Forums in order to avoid too much mixing the subjects people want to discuss.
Secondly, you see a problem with the way some people are talking or debating (depends on the forum or thread)
in a way that is abusive and disrespectful towards other RHP members.
I agree with you on both points.
You mentioned the role of the moderaters of the site. Who knows what kind of abuse and lack of respect they encounter. They are doing a good and necessary job in my view.
22 Sep 03
Originally posted by ivanhoeCorrect 😉 I'll add it's not for any one person to decide what other members can say or do, we all rely on common sense and decency.
Firstly, if I understand you correctly you don't mind people discussing things
they want to discuss, but you want more structure in the Forums in order to avoid too much mixing the subjects people want to discuss.
Secondly, you see a problem with the way some people are talking or debating (depends on the forum or thread)
in a way that is abusive ...[text shortened]... and lack of respect they encounter. They are doing a good and necessary job in my view.
I have a problem with people who try to influence others to their way of thinking, be it religion or otherwise. As for the moderators, I do this job myself on our club messageboard, it's not always easy 🙂
24 Sep 03
Originally posted by ivanhoei monitored a story on that a few hours back...the idea is to stop paedophiles from 'grooming' children over the internet. apparently these monsters pretend to be younger than they are to lure children into meeting them. 😠😠ðŸ˜
I just heard a news report on CNN that Microsoft is closing down chat rooms all over the world. Except for the U.S. I'm not sure about that because the report drew my attention when it was practically over.
Maybe they are only closing down unsupervised chatrooms.
24 Sep 03
Originally posted by ivanhoeI agree, but i think the rules about what is and is not aceptable should be explicit and posted somewhere, to avoid arbitrary or idiosyncratic moderating decisions.
You mentioned the role of the moderaters of the site. Who knows what kind of abuse and lack of respect they encounter. They are doing a good and necessary job in my view.
24 Sep 03
Originally posted by dfm65Well I strongly disagree!!! If a person cannot distinguish between what is acceptable behaivour and what's not then I personally have no problem in moderating their posts.
I agree, but i think the rules about what is and is not aceptable should be explicit and posted somewhere, to avoid arbitrary or idiosyncratic moderating decisions.
You cannot ask moderators to work to a set script, I'm sure they try to be fair and neutral, only stepping in when the situation is clearly getting out of hand. To lay down rules for moderators would cause untold problems, I have no doubt people wishing to cause a ruckus would find 'loopholes' to exploit. 😳
24 Sep 03
1 edit
Newspapers must encounter more or less the same problems deciding what letters from the readers are to be published yes or no. Of course in a chatroom that's even more difficult because the posts are being published immedately on the net and they can only intervene by moderating or deleting them.
24 Sep 03
Originally posted by derek90371. what is 'acceptable' varies from person to person. this is not to deny that there can be a community standard, but it does raise the question: why should the moderator's opinion count for more than the posters? if everyone agreed on what is acceptable, there would be no need for moderators in the first place.
Well I strongly disagree!!! If a person cannot distinguish between what is acceptable behaivour and what's not then I personally have no problem in moderating their posts.
You cannot ask moderators to work to a set script, I'm sure they try to be fair and neutral, only stepping in when the situation is clearly getting out of hand. To lay down rules f ...[text shortened]... oblems, I have no doubt people wishing to cause a ruckus would find 'loopholes' to exploit. 😳
2. of course we can ask moderators to work to a set script. in society, this is called the law, and it defines acceptable behaviour and penalties for unnacceptable behaviour. now, clearly we need the moderators (police, legal system) or there would be a free for all. But equally clearly, the law must be explicitly stated, and available to every one (ie not secret). you must be able to know what the laws are, not just be left in the dark to stumble across them blindly. This is because it leaves the way open for those in positions of power to arbitrarily define the law as they wish, a clearly undesirable result. This is called 'the rule of law'.
3. the way to deal with people using loopholes to get around the rules, as in the case of tax avoiders and the like, is to change the rules in an ordered democratic way to close that loophole - not to throw out the rule book.
4. i agree with you at least that moderators should have some discretion in their interpretation of the rules, as judges do. but even judges must work within the legislation.
24 Sep 03
Originally posted by dfm65i`m unacceptable plenty common sence but no decency.😕
1. what is 'acceptable' varies from person to person. this is not to deny that there can be a community standard, but it does raise the question: why should the moderator's opinion count for more than the posters? if everyone agreed on what is acceptable, there would be no need for moderators in the first place.
2. of course we can ask moderators to work t ...[text shortened]... eir interpretation of the rules, as judges do. but even judges must work within the legislation.
24 Sep 03
The question is the rule of law of what country, since the internet is a international phenomenon. The technical developments are going at such a pace, national and certainly international law cannot keep up with this. Maybe a job for the United Nations. Yeah, I can hear you laugh. The United Nations are so divided and powerless. A tiger without teeth.
24 Sep 03
Originally posted by ivanhoewe make up our own RHP posting law. eg article one: a list of naughty prohibited words maybe; article 2: personal abuse is disallowed; 3: no spamming; 4. blah blah blah...
The question is the rule of law of what country, since the internet is a international phenomenon. The technical developments are going at such a pace, national and certainly international law cannot keep up with this. Maybe a job for the United Nations. Yeah, I can hear you laugh. The United Nations are so divided and powerless. A tiger without teeth.
you get the idea...
24 Sep 03
Originally posted by dfm651.its ok to slag people.
we make up our own RHP posting law. eg article one: a list of naughty prohibited words maybe; article 2: personal abuse is disallowed; 3: no spamming; 4. blah blah blah...
you get the idea...
2.its ok to wind people up
3.its ok to tell you we disagree with you.
4.its ok to time you out
5.its ok to tell miss hope to leave
6.its ok to agree with davy
7.blah blah blah.😵
24 Sep 03
Originally posted by dfm65
we make up our own RHP posting law. eg article one: a list of naughty prohibited words maybe; article 2: personal abuse is disallowed; 3: no spamming; 4. blah blah blah...
you get the idea...
I've got the idea. So every site his own set of rules, that is the situation now more or less. And what about Islam countries, African countries, Latino countries. In every country there are other rules.
For instance in some Islamic countries it is considered to be rude to answer a question directly by saying "no". I've had my share of difficulties with that, teaching young Maroccans and Tunesians to speak Dutch. It's difficult to pick up the subtle hints if you don't speak the language. But I guess you are right with your idea, especially for the time being. It's very difficult to draw a clear line though. I guess we would be chopping each others heads off making up our own RHP posting law ... 😵