[quote=“tmwc”]
I believe in the right of self-expression, which includes the right to tell Vincent - and several other people here - what I think of their absurd opinions. They tell me what they think, and hopefully we can all benefit from the experience.[/quote]
Umm…I am all for freedom of speech and people not being banned unless they are purposely posting garbage just to get a rise out of people or are posting the same thing over and over (Aristotle), but tmwc, what you are proposing is the same formula that made tealit.com’s forums the steaming pile that it is today.
Well! If nothing else come out of this we will have all had a jolly good opportunity to think, reason, question, and air our views - without having to go to all the trouble of putting up with Vincent as we go along!
In all honesty, had we been talking about someone esle and had to put up with interjections of “hare hare rama” or “yeah, demod that maoman dude 'cos he’s a …” then I for one would be pretty sick of it by now. So, really I don’t think much of the argument that we need to keep anyone around as a topic for discussion.
But what is the difference between espousing the idea of a white homeland (or white superiority) and passionately defending other beliefs that some people find equally repugnant?
I’ve been pretty upset by some of the things that people have said to me in certain forums here - but on the other hand they have made me think about my arguments. I hope (against hope) that my replies may have influenced the people that I find to be bigoted, racist and/or dangerously arrogant. I’m not going to call for anyone’s banning, even if they are openly advocating what I believe to be an unjust war, or terrorism. I would prefer dialogue, so that people don’t resort to other means of expressing their dissatisfaction.
Yes, ImaniOU is right about maintaining the standard of the site.
Yes, the virtual world (like the real world) would be a much better place if people didn’t have such extreme views. But people do have extreme views and we just have to deal with it.
(Yes, locking people out IS a valid way of dealing with this crap. You can’t fight every battle!)
In real life I have had to deal with aggression from people who dislike me due to the colour of my skin, my supposed religion, my accent, my schooling, my passport, my gender, and other meaningless circumstances of my birth. It’s not PC to say so, but white middle-class males take a lot of shit from everyone with a chip on their shoulder. The idea of ‘a place of our own’ is no less valid than the idea of a Jewish homeland while people persist in forcing their own values on others. Vincent may have been somewhat tactless in the way he brought this up, but was he banned for being tactless or for saying the unthinkable?
Personally I’m in favour of a world where we all live together, and I don’t have to argue with people who promote violence (or segregation) as a solution to violence. Maybe we should just prohibit all discussion of politics or religion, and turn segue into a sort of tea party?
Just scanned through this and it’s plenty confused. But then so am I!! I’m not trying to push for V’s return, but am interested at what people have to say about this topic.
Finally, Twinkie and Excelsior are right:
“All that is necessary for the forces of evil to triumph is for enough good men (and women) to do nothing.”
Really finally, The mod’s decision is final. Right?
It’s not like having a few beers in the park. Occaisional out of character statements are often forgotten amongst the chatter and a few Kirins after work. Stuff posted here is permanent - well until it is deleted - and as such it is likely to be pored over for days. Whilst Vincent may have posted out of character and been misunderstood (the best possible interpretation) his posts were the only basis on which a judgement could be made. Unlike the “beers in the park” scenraio, an immediate elucidation of the true meaning of his statements was impossible.
I hope if he posts in future, or if he is posting now, that he will explain himself more fully in his posts so that we are not left guessing.
Poor little guy. After earning his village idiot status last week, he’s plucked up his courage, posting 38 times in the last 24 hours. I’m giving him a well-deserved sleep. He’ll “wake-up” again when his posting average drops to 15 a day.
[color=#F06060]Should take just over 6 days if he doesn’s post[/color]
Just install a mod that restricts the number of posts a person can make per day.
I know its one of the rules… but I don’t feel very good about him being suspended due to the quantity of his posts. The quality of his posts should be an issue… but the quantity?
Unless there is some technical reason to restrict or limit the number of posts per day, it smells like censorship to me…
… and I know, Maoman, you do not seek to restrict his posts based on political reasons…
but, I think it will probably appear that way to many people…
BUt imagine the frustration he’ll be feeling if he can read but not respond. The temptation is great – especially since I’m convinced he’s interested ONLY in baiting other, equally tunnel-visioned people cough Hobart cough.
He’s a “Comatose Overposter”! Nice one!
I don’t like it. I would be pretty upset if I were suspended due merely to the number of my posts.
I understand that a few people may disagree with the rules, but I think that’s natural.
I’m acting in what I see is the best interests of the website. I created the rule in order to deal with posters who flood the boards. This board is supposed to be a place of many voices, not a place where one voice shouts over everybody else. Obviously there has to be a limit, and that has to be defined somehow. The average number of daily posts of our top ten most prolific posters is less than four. ac has a posting rate of ten times that. He has been repeatedly warned, and has promised on many occasions to stop posting incessantly. He’s not banned, but he’s suspended until his posting rate is down to 15 posts a day, almost quadruple that of our busiest posters. I don’t feel he is being treated unfairly.
How can he have an average if he is unable to post?
So if you turn him back on and he posts another 38 in 24 hours, he is turned off until the average comes to under 15/day; you turn him on, he batch posts, is turned off…cycle.
How can he have an average if he is unable to post?
So if you turn him back on and he posts another 38 in 24 hours, he is turned off until the average comes to under 15/day; you turn him on, he batch posts, is turned off…cycle.[/quote]
That’s the point - 6 days of silence… 2 hours of posting, then another 6 days of blessed silence… Ahhh.
How can he have an average if he is unable to post?
So if you turn him back on and he posts another 38 in 24 hours, he is turned off until the average comes to under 15/day; you turn him on, he batch posts, is turned off…cycle.[/quote]
[color=#FF8080]Maybe he will learn to slow down…
Who am I kidding ? 
[/color]
I strongly agree with this decision. AC should be banned not because of his politics, but rather because the volume of his posts is hurting the quality of our discussion. The Taiwan Politics forum, for example, is a unique resource where a fairly in-depth discussion of Taiwan politics can take place.
Before AC arrived, I think the discussion was at a high enough level that people who don’t know much about Taiwan politics could probably have learned something. After AC arrived, the forum degenerated into a shouting match because AC is unable to engage in reasoned discussion. The volume of his posting is also unacceptable because it breaks the flow of discussion between other posters.
Most succesful web communities are self-regulating since the problem with speech on the Internet is that it is unlimited by the community mores that regulate it in ordinary life. If we do not regulate it, we will be overwhelmed by sociopaths like AC. We are not denying his right to free speech. He is free to establish his own web community where like-minded fools can post.
AC’s politics are not the problem. We could learn a great deal from a committed pro-blue person who supported her conclusions with reasons or taught us things that we didn’t know. People from the “other side” are often serious students of the ideas and movements they oppose.
Well said Feiren. Saw this on another list talking about a totally different person just the other day, had to think of AC right away.
“Not only that, but I’m tired of dancing with “Vince”. He argues
based not on logic or opinion, but on whatever keeps a debate going.”
You could also limit him to 5 posts per day, if possible.
The problem is that he posts that much and that he does not reason in a way making debating in the normal sense of the word possible.
I have stopped replying to any posts made by him in the Taiwan Politics forum.
His lack of reason has recently been evident in the Taiwan stock discussions thread as well.
If you don’t like what he/she has to say, don’t read it. Simple.
I’m not convinced that the average number of posts is the correct reason for putting him to sleep. I would have thought a more sensible reason/rule would be the number of his posts that get floundered. After all, it isn’t really how much he posts that’s a problem - it’s really that he consistently leads threads into off-topic pointless arguments.
The off-topic aspect is more annoying to other ordinary posters, and also must take quite a bit of work from the mods to sort out.
Leading discussions OT and causing work for moderators are pretty clearly problems which need to be addressed … posting enthusiastically is less so.
Don