A discussion on the rules.

OK, firstly guys...this isn't really a thread for re-hashing the arguments, nor for venting steam that <thing> really bugs you, but you accep that you'll have to live with it.

If you've a problem with something, please consider what you'd like done - or what you think should/could be done - about it yourself....don't just be chiming in with examples or defences of posts unless they're asked for by a mod please.

irish1 wrote:

I have done a few so called tests in the past, and people here are more interested in bashing SF than discussing governments issues such as health or the jailing of a former Minister for Justice.

And only recently, we had another poster making a remark that Irish issues weren't discussed enough at all....and on-cue (as if planned, which it obviously wasn't), the main focus of the board shifted to being predominantly about Irish issues.

The thing is, that people are entitled to discuss whatever political issue they see fit. One thing is, though, that it takes two sides to have a long-running discussion. Those threads take people's interest because both sides see putting their case forward in that thread as being worthwhile or somehow necessary.

If you look at the trends over a period of time, you see a large number of posters (of which I am possibly currently one, or becoming one) who post less and less often - mostly because its the same stuff over and over and you tire of saying the same thing ad nauseum. They do still chime in with salient points when the feel necessary, and typically do not re-engage in the ensuing to-and-fro's once they quickly settle down (as they generally do) into repetition-mode.

If you are interested in continuously voicing support for or defending SF, its a bit unfair to suggest that others should not be interested in - or allowed to express that interest in - their side.

I'm all for debate pitty people care more about the rise of SF than other issues, but hey thats their right.

Glad you believe that

If they are more numerous, and some/many/all are less or differently informed, or of illogical opinion...I would draw a comparison to the fact that in a democracy, those of differing, less-informed, illogical and downright wrong opinions have just as loud a voice as each of us here, should they choose to use it....no matter how numerous they may be.

How you react to them is your choice. And here, as in a democracy, as long as each person remains within the relevant laws, they should not be prevented in any way from voicing their opinion.

Having said that, I am considering discussing with the other mods that we may consider being more ruthless in terms of how we handle close-to-carbon-copy threads running simultaneously. I'm becoming less and less sure that they serve any beneficial purpose....although I do recognise that taking the wrong approach could risk stifling genuinely seperate discussions.

jc

Necromancer wrote:

what I would like specifically done is

So you're not actually looknig to discuss the rules at all....but rather you want us to do something about a poster which you believe is breaking the existing ones. So, in simpler terms...you're reporting a poster for what you believe is behaviour in contravention of the existing rules.

Again, this is not the place. Why would we create a stickied thread who's purpose is to duplicate functionality which is built into the system (the "report this post" button for a start).

If people continue to show an inability or unwillingness to use this thread for what it is intended for - discussing/suggesting/advocating/opposing changes to the rules - then we will have no option but to close the thread, thereby removing any input any of you may have into the betterment of this forum's policy.

jc

Necromancer wrote:

That problem was libel law, his misunderstanding of it.

I don't see how an uninformed, misinformed, or ill-informed opinion is a problem, nor how a refusal to accept that ones own opinion is un-/mis-/ill-informed is one.

Indeed, I would have said that the rules explicitly allow people to maintain that stance.

I just don't get it. If there were other people partaking in the thread, you could have continued your disucssion with them, and simply made a final "you're still ignoring fact, so there's no point in discussing this line further with you" post to end the whole libel Punch-n-Judy show. I would have seen the continuation of hte discussion (which takes both parties) as the problem...not that one side in the discussion was refusing to accept the other side's reasoning.

My suggestion is a sticy of irish libel law or an inclusion of it in the "useful links thread" so it could be easily linked to.

Write it up, send it to us.

Second that ignoring how it works/acusing a poster of inventing it/elements of it be made against the rules.

Why? You point out that the person is simply making sh1t up / that their link doesn't back their argument. As far as I can see, that pretty much scuppers their argument. Exactly what does continuing the discussion gain you?

I'm beginning to get the feeling that you want to come out of these discussions feeling you've "won" it, and that the rules should force someone to concede "defeat" if they lose the run of themselves.

If you tear someone's argument apart....why do you need the rules to bakc you up? Why can't you leave it at that, knowing that you've done so? Don't you believe other readers are intelligent enough to see that you've done this? Why do you need the person who still disagrees to be forced to stop arguing their side? Why not simply make your killing blow and then leave it at that?

Third that a general policy be set out as to whether the logic "failure to sue=guilt" is acceptable or not.

There is a general policy. It says that you are entitled to your opinion, whether it is incorrect or not. The general policy, therefore, is that people most certainly can hold this view. They're wrong, but thats not my problem.

Is this thread the right place to make these three suggestions?

Most certainly...and feel free to differ with my initial responses. THe one thing I'd ask is that you consider the general implications which arise from specific cases.

You're suggesting we need to deal with a specific issu8e concerning a specific piece of knowledge, and whether or not it is ok to post stuff where you state something other than what that specific piece of knowledge should allow you to.

For us to do this, we either accept that our rules must either start expanding to include "case by case" stuff, or that we write a general rule to cover what you're looking for. From what I can see, there already is a general rule there to cover it....and it says you're allowed to be wrong, stupid, and illogical.

It seems to me that ultimately what you're proposing is that we change or do away with this rule, and start saying that people are not allowed to be incorrect in certain ways. I'm not sure thats a path we want to go down...so you'll have to try and convince me.

It was in response to the part of your post ecksor highlighted that I made the post you found a problem with. I thought you were asking me for a specific problem and my desired remedy.

I was...but its the problem with the rules I meant, not the problem in the forum...

My bad...I wasn't clear. Apologies.

jc

New Rule Suggestion: Tinfoil-hat conspiracies will only be tolerated in threads of their own, specifically started for the purpose of discussing them. They should carry a [THC] tag in the thread-title to clearly identify them.

<edit> determination of what is, and is not, a THC will be the sole domain of the moderators</edit>

Reason for suggestion: It feels like they're crawling outta the woodwork, Jim.