Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 21:58:31 06/09/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 08, 1999 at 19:18:28, KarinsDad wrote: >On June 08, 1999 at 18:31:36, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >[snip] >>>In the case I brought up, Bruce restored the message, not the original poster >>>who made it, and said that if it was deleted again that he would repost it >>>again. Yes, he was thumbing his nose at the moderation. Assume that you email >>>him personally, and he is unwilling to relent. What will you do? >>> a) ban him >>> b) let the restored post survive >>> c) continue deleting it as many times as necessary >>> d) other? >> >>You guys are getting somewhat confused. The post you are talking about is >>*mine*. I wrote a post. It contained no offensive content. It was deleted. I >>put it back and I threatened to put it back again. > >Well, if by "You guys" you are referring to me as well, I was only responding to >hypothetical questions and did not mention any names, so how could I be >confused? > >So you think that it is perfectly reasonable for the original poster to be >allowed to make the decision on whether his post is offensive, he should be able >to decide that the post can be re-posted, he should be allowed to do that, and >he should be allowed to threaten to put it back if it is deleted a second time. There are rules/laws and there is what is right. As a free individual I have respect for order in society, and I am willing to compromise to great extent in order to get long with others, but my ultimate authority is my own conscience. I saw someone getting bashed, it offended me, and I tried to help. I don't even agree with the guy who got bashed, most of the time, but nobody deserves to feel like they are living in Kafka or Orwell. >Are you positive that this is the type of behavior that you want from everyone, >or is it just acceptable from reasonable people such as yourself? And if so, who >makes the call on who is reasonable and who is not? I hope you don't think that I'm so arrogant as to think that I'm the only one qualified to act independently. If you are making the argument that it is impermissible to challenge authority, because you may find yourself confronted with a similarly driven person when you hold a position of authority yourself, I suggest that this argument is of necessity fallacious unless you want to deny a lot of post-war positive social change. Sometimes you have to set yourself on fire in order to get people to stop and think about what kind of circumstances they are imposing or tolerating. Petitions are pretty cool, but a lot of the time all they end up doing is supplying their recipient with an ample quantity of scratch paper. Anyone is free to act according to their own conscience. Once you make the decision to do it, it is not particularly hard to do. It is much more challenging, as an ethical person, to deal with people who feel the need to challenge you in this manner, but acceptance of the freedom of others is a necessary outcome of insisting upon freedom for yourself. >Don't you think that Emailing Steve and the moderators is a more sensible course >of action than the one you took? Isn't Emailing the first course of action that >you would want other posters to take if you are elected moderator and they >consider re-posting their deleted messages? No. You really think it would have done any good to ask them to put my post back? It was very clear that no minds would be changed via a polite "pretty please". I was not going to deal with those two guys by myself and be more or less told to shut up over a period of several days. bruce
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.