• Hanover
    5k
    Now, anyone else got two cents or are we done here?Baden

    I'd just add, consistent with what you said, is that we can no more protect our friends with relaxed rule enforcement than attack our enemies with strict rule enforcement. Treating everyone as an equal is fundamental to fairness.

    I'd also say that bannings are not difficult to avoid. The S situation was really not a complicated one from a rule perspective. When modded had he said "I'll try" instead of "fuck you," I'd expect a different outcome. This wasn't a case of simply failing to comply. It was a refusal to comply. In fact, it was contemptuous, disrespectful defiance.

    As you said, the efforts we made to rectify the situation were ignored. We tried and I wish things didn't turn out this way, but we had no other options.
  • ssu
    1.6k
    Soon we'll have gangs and factions in here.Wallows

    I blame Donald Trump.Wallows
    Gangs and factions form only in our heads. Never forget that you are talking to individuals that use their own minds. However much those minds might be influenced by the media, by present politics or by in general the outside World we live in.

    (Of course you could be talking to bots here... but perhaps AI hasn't reached that level yet.)
  • Terrapin Station
    13.3k
    Also, there are no temporary bans. That's written in the rules. Which we stick to.Baden

    An attitude I despise, because it's the source of a lot of problems in the world.

    Jamalrob and whoever else made up the rules. You can make up whatever you like. You can change the rules any way you like. Treating the rules as if they're something akin to physical law that you have no control over is ridiculous.
  • god must be atheist
    882


    I concur. Forum rules ought not to be like the scriptures or like the ten commandments: immovable, carved in stone, forever true. Instead, it should be like the constitution of the United States: amendments are possible, when necessary and warranted.

    It's about time we separated Church and State on the Forums.
  • SophistiCat
    834
    I have a vague memory of S as Sapientia on the old forum. I eventually put him on ignore, but if memory serves, that was on account of high-volume inanity, rather than obnoxiousness. He must have changed over the years that I've been ignoring him.

    I won't miss him, but I hesitate to say that I am not sorry about what happened. For someone who spent so much time on the site, it can be a hard blow.
  • Benkei
    2.1k
    An attitude I despise, because it's the source of a lot of problems in the world.

    Jamalrob and whoever else made up the rules. You can make up whatever you like. You can change the rules any way you like. Treating the rules as if they're something akin to physical law that you have no control over is ridiculous.
    Terrapin Station

    The rules do and have changed over time so zero points for you. The mods stick to the rules as they are now and they will stick to the rules when they change and not to the old rules.

    Sticking to the rules is short hand for treating equal cases equally and it's converse, to treat unequal cases differently. That's about fairness.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.3k


    That there are no temporary bans in the rules was given as a reason for not introducing a temporary ban. That's not a good reason for not having temporary bans.
  • fdrake
    2.6k


    Loyalty, familiarity and appreciation of their good points are the reasons S was treated with such leeway.
  • Benkei
    2.1k
    That's not what Baden said. There are currently no temporary bans because the rules currently do not allow them. A change in rules could make it possible and Baden did not make the argument that because we do not have them now, we shouldn't in the future.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.3k


    He wrote, "Also, there are no temporary bans. That's written in the rules. Which we stick to,"

    The response to give is, "There are currently no temporary bans, but we could change the rules to enable them. That's something we'll consider."

    You don't stick to the rules as they are and leave it at that. You change them to make them better. We can make them whatever we want to make them, at any time we want to change them.
  • Baden
    8.5k


    I'm not sure why you need extremely simple things explained to you in detail. But you're not going to be indulged any more.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.3k


    So are we going to change the rules so that there are temporary bans?
  • Baden
    8.5k


    I don't see any reason to but if you want to open a feedback discussion suggesting that, go ahead and make your case. The debate is off-topic here.
1910111213Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.