A discussion On What Constitutes Abuse And What Should Be Done About It
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
The whole point of this discussion is censoring me from expressing a view
Because you didn't follow rules. Views should be expressed within limits. It should not break the rules. You did because your generation believes in crossing boundaries,right?
As others have pointed out it was the content rather than the fact it was political that caused a stir. Many posts of a political nature have been made in the lounge before without upsetting anyone. The only limits we abide by, in the UK, are those set down by racism, hate speech laws. Many other countries don't have such rules and speech is truly free. SO tell me, what rules does your country have regarding freedom of speech?
-
I agree. Look at this chap: http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/4986659/Re-A-discussion-On-What-Constitutes-Abuse-And-What.aspx[^] See how he claims he has the right to express himself yet has decided others don't? With people like him around how can you expect fair play?
Munchies_Matt wrote:
With people like him around how can you expect fair play
Everyone is having fair play even if i am here since 2 years 3 months. If you are not able to, thats your personal problem i think.
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
With people like him around how can you expect fair play
Everyone is having fair play even if i am here since 2 years 3 months. If you are not able to, thats your personal problem i think.
And I have been here for what, 8 years? And in that time I have seen plenty of mobocratic behaviour. --edit-- make that almost 19 years.
-
And I have been here for what, 8 years? And in that time I have seen plenty of mobocratic behaviour. --edit-- make that almost 19 years.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
And I have been here for what, 8 years?
Looking at your profile, soon it will become 'i was there for 8 years...' :laugh:
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
And I have been here for what, 8 years?
Looking at your profile, soon it will become 'i was there for 8 years...' :laugh:
This isn't my first account by the way. My original one was created in 2005.
-
What did I succeed at? I didn't intend for sigs to be disabled, just for CP to maintain its lively character. Chris asked the community what it thought and it said my sig was OK. Clearly Chris is planning something for sigs, perhaps enabling them only in SB and BR, perhaps something else. Perhaps he wants to punish the community for not agreeing with him and has thus turned them off completely. Don't know, what do you think?
I had to admit that sigs has been disabled due to a bug. I apologise for presuming that yours leads Chris to disable them.
-
I had to admit that sigs has been disabled due to a bug. I apologise for presuming that yours leads Chris to disable them.
Well that's very good of you to apologise, thank you. (And I couldn't quite believe Chris would just disable sigs. More like he would close my account. :) )
-
We got rid of disco didn't we? :) (and prog rock).
Hey, what's wrong with prog rock. I'm not saying punk was bad, I have plenty of punk in my collection. Prog rock is still going too. Yes has just released a new album and Rush (not as big in the UK, but icons in Canada) a couple of years back. The Moody Blues toured recently .... Disco on the other hand. X| Ya young whippersnapper!
-
Hey, what's wrong with prog rock. I'm not saying punk was bad, I have plenty of punk in my collection. Prog rock is still going too. Yes has just released a new album and Rush (not as big in the UK, but icons in Canada) a couple of years back. The Moody Blues toured recently .... Disco on the other hand. X| Ya young whippersnapper!
Oh come on, Genesis, all that other pretentious garbage? Punk was pure, fresh, honest! Thank god it came along when it did, it blew all the old crap away overnight!
-
Rohan Leuva wrote:
Everyone is free to express their views
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: That is so deeply amusing. The whole point of this discussion is censoring me from expressing a view because, as some have pointed out, that view is an unpopular one with some people, including you, and now you say you have the right to express your opinion. So what gives you the right to express yours and not others?
Munchies_Matt wrote:
The whole point of this discussion is censoring me from expressing a view
Time to stop playing the victim, Matt. The whole point isn't censoring. There is no censoring. The point is: we have rules we ask our members to abide by in regards to posting the appropriate content in the appropriate forum and you think you're above those rules. You are showing absolutely no desire to get this sorted out, reach an agreement, or even acknowledge that we have the right to have Terms of Service on our privately owned website. It's not about censorship. It's not about politics or religion. It's about you wanting to be right, and posting false statements to support your argument.
-
I saw too much support from the community, that's why I didn't remove it. Whoever runs the site, without members, without the community, CP wouldn't exist, so its always the opinion of the majority that should be considered.
Ah - the "12 people voted for me and that makes a majority" argument again. Just to summarise for those who are still reading: 1. Most people on the site don't care. The vast, huge, 99.9999% don't even know about Matt. Sorry. 2. Of those who expressed support, the majority expressed support for freedom of expression. 3. Of those who expressed an opinion I did not see a single voice saying "you should be able to post whatever you like in whatever forum you like regardless of the forum topic or rules".
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
The whole point of this discussion is censoring me from expressing a view
Time to stop playing the victim, Matt. The whole point isn't censoring. There is no censoring. The point is: we have rules we ask our members to abide by in regards to posting the appropriate content in the appropriate forum and you think you're above those rules. You are showing absolutely no desire to get this sorted out, reach an agreement, or even acknowledge that we have the right to have Terms of Service on our privately owned website. It's not about censorship. It's not about politics or religion. It's about you wanting to be right, and posting false statements to support your argument.
Chris Maunder wrote:
The point is: we have rules we ask our members to abide by
And as others have pointed out many political posts go by unnoticed in the lounge and it is more the content of my sig that raised objection.
Chris Maunder wrote:
and you think you're above those rules
No I don't.
Chris Maunder wrote:
You are showing absolutely no desire to get this sorted out
I have already changed my sig even though the 'community' in the main didn't object to.
Chris Maunder wrote:
It's not about censorship. It's not about politics
It is about both actually. as others have suggested.
Chris Maunder wrote:
It's about you wanting to be right
I dont have to want to be right Chris, because I know I am right. :)
-
Ah - the "12 people voted for me and that makes a majority" argument again. Just to summarise for those who are still reading: 1. Most people on the site don't care. The vast, huge, 99.9999% don't even know about Matt. Sorry. 2. Of those who expressed support, the majority expressed support for freedom of expression. 3. Of those who expressed an opinion I did not see a single voice saying "you should be able to post whatever you like in whatever forum you like regardless of the forum topic or rules".
Chris Maunder wrote:
1. Most people on the site don't care. The vast, huge, 99.9999% don't even know about Matt. Sorry.
Why do you even have to say that? Do you really think I am looking for attention? You are miles out. Really. I am surprised.
Chris Maunder wrote:
Of those who expressed support, the majority expressed support for freedom of expression.
Which is what I said.
Chris Maunder wrote:
Of those who expressed an opinion I did not see a single voice saying "you should be able to post whatever you like in whatever forum you like regardless of the forum topic or rules".
I never claimed they did. What I did say, as many others did, is that a sig is not a post and thus shouldn't be subjected to the same rules. But anyway, I am bored with this. I have changed my sig so when you get it working again no one need have their tiny little world disturbed by a few words.
-
Chris Maunder wrote:
1. Most people on the site don't care. The vast, huge, 99.9999% don't even know about Matt. Sorry.
Why do you even have to say that? Do you really think I am looking for attention? You are miles out. Really. I am surprised.
Chris Maunder wrote:
Of those who expressed support, the majority expressed support for freedom of expression.
Which is what I said.
Chris Maunder wrote:
Of those who expressed an opinion I did not see a single voice saying "you should be able to post whatever you like in whatever forum you like regardless of the forum topic or rules".
I never claimed they did. What I did say, as many others did, is that a sig is not a post and thus shouldn't be subjected to the same rules. But anyway, I am bored with this. I have changed my sig so when you get it working again no one need have their tiny little world disturbed by a few words.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Which is what I said
You said "it is clear the community want the sig to stay Chris" and "The community clearly wants freedom of speech Chris, and my sig to be allowed" Freedom of speech, yes. And everyone has that. Posting messages that include politics and religion in the lounge? (and yes, a sig is part of a message). Show me the majority support for that. Please stick to the discussion (though I know you won't) and have another crack at this simple question: Do you feel you should respect the community and the site, and myself personally, and keep discussions in the appropriate (yet still very public) places we've asked you to?
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Which is what I said
You said "it is clear the community want the sig to stay Chris" and "The community clearly wants freedom of speech Chris, and my sig to be allowed" Freedom of speech, yes. And everyone has that. Posting messages that include politics and religion in the lounge? (and yes, a sig is part of a message). Show me the majority support for that. Please stick to the discussion (though I know you won't) and have another crack at this simple question: Do you feel you should respect the community and the site, and myself personally, and keep discussions in the appropriate (yet still very public) places we've asked you to?
Chris Maunder wrote:
Posting messages that include politics and religion in the lounge? (and yes, a sig is part of a message). Show me the majority support for that
I didn't claim that. I merely stated what others have said, the posts in the lounge about politics go un noticed, it is only when it contains a sensitive subject that some people start getting upset, as has been stated by others here.
Chris Maunder wrote:
keep discussions in the appropriate
As I have always done. Show me where I have discussed Israel in the lounge? Or any politics for that matter.
-
Chris Maunder wrote:
Posting messages that include politics and religion in the lounge? (and yes, a sig is part of a message). Show me the majority support for that
I didn't claim that. I merely stated what others have said, the posts in the lounge about politics go un noticed, it is only when it contains a sensitive subject that some people start getting upset, as has been stated by others here.
Chris Maunder wrote:
keep discussions in the appropriate
As I have always done. Show me where I have discussed Israel in the lounge? Or any politics for that matter.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Or any politics for that matter
So this whole thing boils down to you taking the view that a signature is not part of a message or discussion. That what you include in your sig is essentially invisible, inviolate and not subject to posting guidelines. Was not me, guv'nor, 'twas my sig, the little rascal. Never know what he'll get up too next!
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Or any politics for that matter
So this whole thing boils down to you taking the view that a signature is not part of a message or discussion. That what you include in your sig is essentially invisible, inviolate and not subject to posting guidelines. Was not me, guv'nor, 'twas my sig, the little rascal. Never know what he'll get up too next!
Yes, that's exactly what I and others think, including you since you think PhilLenoirs sig is OK, yet you have asked Martin (the Australian I think he is) to moderate his language in the lounge. Clearly its a case of double standards aimed at people who criticise criticise Israel, as this CP member also attests: http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/4986823/Re-Can-someone-upvote-this.aspx[^]
-
Oh come on, Genesis, all that other pretentious garbage? Punk was pure, fresh, honest! Thank god it came along when it did, it blew all the old crap away overnight!
Quote:
pretentious garbage
Oh, you mean something with more than 3 simple triad chords? The kind of thing a 10 year old could play? Gotcha, I'm right with you man, like Beethoven was only in it for the money and Bach was just a religious nut .. and Mozart: "A Little Night Music", "A Musical Joke" - what's up with that? And jazz, jazz, just a load of drugged up ponces, right? Hey who needs 3 chords, two power chords is enough for anyone? < / SatiricalRant> Now, as stated previously, I have some Punk in my collection, I also have quite a bit of Buddy Holly (also fresh and musically naïve). I was never a fan of Genesis, especially under Phil Collins' leadership. To say that Punk killed Progressive Rock is so wide of the mark. Why?: 1) It's not dead, 2) It's actually very difficult to define: Is Pink Floyd Progressive Rock, how about Led Zeppelin? (answer: it depends on your definition and who you ask) 3) Progressive Rock was not a fashion and, for the most part, was not aimed at being popular. How many top ten hits could be labelled prog rock? How many groups could really be called Progressive Rocks bands? Punk was not only a fashion, although it was fashionable and enjoyed (suffered from) being trendy. There were lots of hits and lots of bands. Popularity has never been a good measure of quality and there were plenty of low quality (and pretentious) punks. Matt, do you even know what a 2nd or a 4th chord is? How about a 9th (a lot of guitarists don't even really know and get it mixed up with a 2nd!). How about differences between a major key and it's relative minor? Can you answer "What is Dorian Mode" or "When is a good time to use an augmented chord?" If you can, then you know more about music than most and your comment was just trolling! :)
-
Yes, that's exactly what I and others think, including you since you think PhilLenoirs sig is OK, yet you have asked Martin (the Australian I think he is) to moderate his language in the lounge. Clearly its a case of double standards aimed at people who criticise criticise Israel, as this CP member also attests: http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/4986823/Re-Can-someone-upvote-this.aspx[^]
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Yes, that's exactly what I and others think
It's certainly taken a long time to get here. So: Your sig is part of your signature. Include religion or politics in your sig and I consider it as including the content in your message. At that point I'll judge whether your trying to incite a conversation on religion or politics in a given forum and will take the appropriate action. This isn't up for debate. This is how I will run my forum. a) My discussion on language included a bunch of details you've conveniently elided. Swear words are obfuscated, most public newspapers are fine with posting obfuscated swear words, so from the point of view of propriety, I have no problem. b) Swear words are words. They aren't discussions on religion and politics that take over the Lounge and make it a place where the majority of developers no longer want to visit due to it being hijacked by those wanting to use it as a soapbox. That is the reason for the ban on religion and politics in the lounge. Two very different things.
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Yes, that's exactly what I and others think
It's certainly taken a long time to get here. So: Your sig is part of your signature. Include religion or politics in your sig and I consider it as including the content in your message. At that point I'll judge whether your trying to incite a conversation on religion or politics in a given forum and will take the appropriate action. This isn't up for debate. This is how I will run my forum. a) My discussion on language included a bunch of details you've conveniently elided. Swear words are obfuscated, most public newspapers are fine with posting obfuscated swear words, so from the point of view of propriety, I have no problem. b) Swear words are words. They aren't discussions on religion and politics that take over the Lounge and make it a place where the majority of developers no longer want to visit due to it being hijacked by those wanting to use it as a soapbox. That is the reason for the ban on religion and politics in the lounge. Two very different things.
And I have never discussed politics in the lounge, so you should be happy. :)