I think we need as many as 12 judges with different view points to make a majority decision on the acceptability of controversial posts.

TR

TR,
Is there a specific controversial post that you feel has not been dealt with? Have you presented your request to Mog and has he refused to do anything?

I have only seen a couple of discussions that regarded controversial posts and none seemed to be asking for a specific action to be considered or taken.

There are some borderline cases, but mostly anything directly insulting an individual or violating the stated rules for posts are handled under the current system...often by the players themselves with an apology or an edit.
Cheers,
H.

Hwatta
not intended to be rude but this is the suggestion area and I have made a suggestion.
I think we Americans are well aware that we can say anything we want about anything (i.e. if we are prepared for the consequences).
For example I have even read somewhere that we can be held liable for calling a person a certain name that I don't even care to use if that person can prove financial loss because of it.

There are over a billion Catholics in the world and the Vatican has been known in the past to list things like certain movies and literature as restricted for Catholics and I'm sure that just as there are anti-semitic groups there are Catholic groups like the Catholic league that can get quite indignant if something nasty enough and especially unfounded is said about Catholics in general.

Yes I have been quite unhappy about some posts in the past that because of the nature of personal ridicule in the posts and the repeated ridicule with even some folks joining in the ridicule IMO those posts could be considered harassment and IMO every person who has not been deleted is entiled to not be harassed for any reason.
I have not made an issue of my past unhappiness with certain posts because admittedly since it has been announced that we have a moderator I see that folks are being more careful of their choice of words.

However, I have asked the question,
"Am I to understand that anything at all can be said about any topic that is mentioned as long as we don't say anything obscene or make a personal attack?"
The question has not been directly answered yet so I'll ask you Hwatta for your answer to that question and anyone else who cares to offer their opinion. There's quite some territory covered by that question.
Maybe we should even get the opinion of some organizations also but suffice it to say that I've made a suggestion because I'm still not quite happy with the system even though I admit there has been some improvement in that I don't see as many personal attacks especially together with "name calling".

TR

There's no need to have a panel of 12 judges to paralyze what is now a pretty good system capable of taking quick action.

TR, I think Mog has already answered that question in the thread you first brought this up in.

Basically, yes we can discuss any idea and it's merits (or lack thereof), so long as we don't personally attack anyone.

Now for example, if you're catholic (which I take it you are) and someone argues against catholicism being right, that's perfectly OK to me. As long as they argue against the ideas and don't personally insult you or anyone else using this forum. The same thing holds true for muslims, conservatives, baptists, liberals, atheists, etc.

Just because you happen to identify yourself as one of these, doesn't mean no one can discuss the merits of that religion/ideology.

Card

Last Edited : Sunday, 10 July 2005 - 12:31

If you view my question where I have asked it in that thread, I have asked it followed by some references to anti-defamation for purposes of clarification;
and I am still not clear that we can say anything at all on any topic as long as we don't make personal attacks, especially in as much as I see frequent references to "hate" concerning certain topics.

The "goose and the gander" comes to mind and IMO "it just ain't so" that we can say anything we want about any topic because some organizations IMO would get quite perturbed about it.
Are things only considered hate from certain perspectives?
That's what this suggestion is about (i.e. to stifle hate from all perspectives).

TR

TR,
My short direct answer to your question is: yes.

Anyone can advance or refute any idea. Obscenity and personal attacks are out of bounds. If someone makes a claim that one of us does not agree with, we all have the ability (and even the responsibility) to challenge the claim with evidence, logic, or both.

If the post is obscene or attacks a specific person, that is what the moderator is for. (Although more often, the players themselves correct the situation.)

There are certain views and ideas that offend me...they are contrary to my belief system, offend my sense of justice, or are offensive to logic or history. I am certain there are ideas of mine that offend others. The only way we know this is to present the ideas, argue it out, and see if we can come to an agreement. Often, the offence is only due to a misunderstanding or a difference in perspective. Despite our deep political divisions, I have seen a great deal of movement in opinions at times. That is what these forums are all about.

I personally enjoy the forums almost as much as the game itself.
Cheers,
H.

TR,

I'm pretty lenient when it comes to hate speech (directed at groups). Censoring it doesn't do much good.

Let's take racist for example.

The people who think it don't learn anything from the censoring except where they can't say it. So, basically you just have the rasicts (for example) keeping quiet for the most part and only discussing it in closed groups that already agree with them.

I think it's much better to have these ideas out in the open where they can be attacked by reasonable people using logic and argument. Some of the more reasonable racists (for exmample) might actually start questioning some of their own beliefs, etc. This is also good for any rasict-in-training that might be reading, whose parents have taught him/her to be racist, but they're not quite there yet. In my opinion that's the only way we're really gonna fight the hate.

I think some of the comments in the London thread fall into this category. Except it's people hating muslims.

Card

Well anyway I think you are getting the drift of my meaning now. How many issues come under the heading of racism now which has been a definite NO NO in this forum. Why should bigotry toward one group be considered racist when it has nothing to do with race yet bigotry toward another group be allowed?

I can't help that a certain religious group has committed acts of terrorism in current events that have aroused the wrath of Americans and some of our allies but that doesn't mean that a religion of a peaceful people needs to be falsely accused based on medieval history when one was no better than another IMO.

TR

Last Edited : Sunday, 10 July 2005 - 13:59

Well, I was just using racism as an example.

Many forums on the internet just censor it completely.

Now, I agree with you there's not a whole lot of difference between racist comments and some of those directed against entire religious groups.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the medieval history thing though. I don't see how pointing out historical facts could be described as hate speech, no matter how offensive those facts may be.

Card

Card
you're misinterpreting that part about medieval history. I can handle medieval history and dish it right back but I can't handle IMO contemporary hate remarks that have no basis for at least 600 years when IMO one religion was no better than another;
and also a billion Catholics can't be held responsible for a corner of Europe that IMO is a throw back to medieval times nor can a billion Catholics be held responsible for the infiltration of pedophiles into the priesthood which is a handful considering that there are over 40000 priests in America alone.

PS:
I have to go now.

TR

Last Edited : Sunday, 10 July 2005 - 14:26

Well, as I understood those comments, the point wasn't so much as to say that all catholics/christains are evil, etc.

It was more to say that there certainly are some and they do indeed and have in the past tried to justify their evil actions by their religion.

This is similar to what those terrorists are doing.

But instead of recognizing that it's only a few muslims doing it many people claim that the entire religion is evil.

That was the context as I remember those comments appearing in. And there's nothing wrong with that. Nor is it hate speech.

Basically the point as far as I can tell of bringing these things up is that it is just as ridiculous to condemn all Christians for the actions of a few crazies as it is to condemn all Muslims for the actions of a few terrorists.

EDIT to Add:

In any case, if anyone did go too far on this, then you have the ability to argue back against it. Just as some people did against trying to portray all muslims as evil.

Card

Last Edited : Sunday, 10 July 2005 - 14:34

With all my desire to plunge into this debate, especially as one of my favourite sparring partners are involved , this is not so much a suggestion discussion any more.

Could we please keep it on what TR started with, "Panel of Judges" rather than the merits of one religion or another.

TR, I understand you and others are upset by comments made in certain threads. Many people including myself, are upset by other statements in various other threads. Erecting a panel of judges is IMO, a cumbersome mechanism and a futile effort to do, what Mog's common sense and this community's overall influence can do just as well. Not to mention that you'll never be able to find a group of 12 (monkies) that everyone agrees on.

I realise that saying "Mog's common sense" is somewhat of an oxymoron but a "panel of judges" will be even more inefficient. We need something light enough and easy to handle rather than a large and heavy instrument. A sabre rather than a halberd.

Cheers

Last Edited : Sunday, 10 July 2005 - 15:20

I think we're still more or less on topic, insofar as we're dicussing the need (or lack thereof) for more moderation on this forum...

Perhaps I should clarify my last post. I wasn't trying to say that one religion was better than another, nor even that the argument I presented was true. Merely that it shouldn't be censored. And that I think was more or less what TR had in mind when he started this topic.

Card

Card,
one last attempt concerning medieval times ... "that was then and this is now". You can't hold a billion people of the 21st century responsible for supposed atrocities that happened 500 to 600 years ago and as I have said many times they burned witches in Northern Europe and Salem, Mass only as long ago as 350 years ago;
and the Crusaders did defend Europe from the Saracen invasions, So please let the past lie.

Now commenting on that "London" thread, if you re-read my posts you will find that I just barely said Iraq in them. I made no mention of religion but we are speaking in that thread of fundamentalist people who are enemies of America and who are homicide bombing even their on people and even children and I consider that to be incorrigible and in need of measures like a police state to segregate the bad from the good.
Catholicism is not an enemy of America and I don't even like to have to say that but So I see no basis for making remarks as if we are an enemy of America. The truth of the matter IMO is that I think Catholicism is a hate target for various groups including ... well whoever.

PS:
Anyway whether or not this is a good suggestion or not, I have made it and I really don't want to have to defend my posts in threads that are closed. I have stated the way I feel an incorrigible enemy needs to be treated and I have not advocated to exterminate them. I repeat that Catholicism is not an enemy of America or anyone else for that matter.

*(edit)* was to change whiches to witches

TR

Last Edited : Monday, 11 July 2005 - 11:12

Hi Cardfan, do you still think we're still on topic?! Are these still suggestions? Maybe you have not fully realised who you're arguing with here.

Same like those noobs posting 'How i play dis game?' in the Notice Board. Here, let me make it very simple for you TR;
t h i s__i s__t h e__s u g g e s t i o n__b o a r d.
Unless you have a suggestion for the game or the community, keep your ideas, views and such as interesting as the are ... in the general chit-chat forum, or just ignore me and prove your age again.

BTW, I have been appointed as the second of the 12 judges panel. How's that?!

Last Edited : Sunday, 10 July 2005 - 23:42

Hwatta
I like the discussions in the forums also and I don't really mind historical references to my religion good or bad because I feel that I can make a fairly good defence. I don't even mind the truth based on facts where I can only defend based on facts and make excuses or apologies and still insist that the fault is not with my religion.

I admit that I don't like wild, adlibed and unfounded accusations about my religion or about many other things that I hold dear to me past or especially present and I have a fairly good store of "biting remarks" that I can make about many things that others hold dear to themselves;
but is that the kind of atmosphere we really want in the forums (i.e. for people to start making group insults that are not directly personal but unfounded and just plain generally offensive)?

TR

Last Edited : Monday, 11 July 2005 - 10:44

PS:
I have answered Hwatta privately still not making an issue of anything but I did acknowledge his participation here and it was appreciated.
Also I have already said something in a previous post where I may have indirectly offended friends and acquaintences and I intend to remove it.

This suggestion was made because I took offence at IMO an unfounded present day insult to my religion and that's why the discussion of the pros and cons of the suggestion led to the history of my religion which I feel that I did manage to refute as being a valid argument to excuse a present day unfounded insult.

I repeat that it has been standard procedure to argue the pros and cons of these suggestions and I understand that it has even been appreciated when folks have given valid reasons why a suggestion is unacceptable.

TR