Discussion in 'Help and Rules' started by woweed, Nov 24, 2018.
Grover stores are an example. I meant more in the sense of "this forum is a business, not a nation."
Unless Ian is going to imprison you to work in the Maple mines, the only punishment is loss of access to a niche website. Big deal.
This forum is, first and foremost, the solely owned private property of Ian. It would be hypocritical for me, as a Republican-in-all-but-name, to assert anything less than “Ian’s site, Ian’s rules,” even if the actions being taken have a negative impact on me. And he has made blatantly and repeatedly clear that the smooth running of the forum and protection of certain groups is far more important than any commitment to freedom of speech. We may take it or leave it.
What? No, it means they don't get to hang out on that website. They are not dead or locked in a cell. If it feels that important to post, then maybe they need to get outside more.
You're misinterpreting me - I'm not literally suggesting that being banned from a website is in any way equivalent to incarceration or death. My point was that - going by your definition - freedom of speech denotes freedom from punishment, and a kick/ban is a punishment.
I personally don’t think we need to make this forum an even stronger echo chamber than it already is.
Of course, it’s not my call as it’s not my forum, but that’s my opinion.
Got it. You think websites should be like Pinocchio’s Pleasure Island where you can speak whatever you please.
If you actually didn't quote mine the guy, you would see that he said in the "context of the site". And in the context of the site he is 100% correct! Kicks and Bans are equivalent in the world of the forum
That's a Logical Fallacy and you know it. That is not what he's saying at all; he's simply saying that blatant censorship is wrong.
Did you read the Ts & Cs when you joined.
If you did, you wouldn’t be making such an argument. The Owner of this site has the right to do as He pleases by modifying or removing content or by taking action as He wishes. Logic issues begat logic issues.
Appeals to authority do not work on me and I will not abide to them. Sure at the end of the day Ian would love this sort of thing, it fits his characters as seen by his past action. But that simply does not mean that he can ban anyone for any reason, that is entirely why there are a list of rules. Did you read them? If you did, you might notice that what you said makes no sense.
Please point out where above Ian says "I am god, I can ban for any reason, never question me and never have debates or discussion". Because I don't see it. In fact all I see are things related to content and copyrights of said content. The only thing that comes close is the site's right to remove content, but that is not what we're discussing. Removing a post and banning a user are NOT the same thing.
Next time you try to bluff, do it right.
No! That is 100% incorrect. [facepalm] The artificial world of this forum is optional. Nothing that Ian or the other mods do to users here is equivalent to the government oppressing people in the real world.
If it feels like it is, you're too invested. There are plenty of other forums and real-life gatherings you can choose instead.
Yes, there are other sites, but there are also other countries. Would you say China's freedom of Speach violations don't count because you can live in another country? Even giving you this is generous IMHO because this site is a monopoly, show me one site that comes within a country mile of this site's popularity. This is like saying Twitter, Tumblr or YouTube are optional; while correct, these sites have an undeniable monopoly. Also, if these sites are the pedestal we want, then we have fallen far from grace.
Also, because I just read this part of your reply and it's really dump, of course nothing that Ian or the other mods do to users here is equivalent to the government oppressing people in the real world! Have you ever heard of analogy? Do you really think he was saying a ban is literally equivalent to death? Surely not
[ What exactly do you want us to do, anyway? Tell you that Ian is mean and wrong for having rules on his website that he pays for, and lets us use for free? That he owes you whatever it is you think "Freedom of Speech" means, because this site is somehow a "monopoly". That everyone else on the site is mean and wrong for supporting those rules?
Don't hold your breath. ]
‘We reserve the right to take action against any account with the service at any time’ addresses the right to apply Actions to user accounts which, in Forum speak, are warnings, kicks or bans. And it doesn’t say that the Owner has to have cause to take action either. My post wasn’t an appeal to authority-it is basic comprehension of what the Terms mean. Sorry, no bluffs here just facts.
I'm not saying that at all. I'm just making sure that when Ian eventually see's this dumb idea, he will see that most people [going by likes to the various arguments in this debate] are against it. Like I said, Ian likely will implement this, but that doesn't mean I should give up and surrender without even trying; I am not saying Ian has to listen to what the users want, I'm saying he should care what they want. What's up for debate here is simply a bad idea and should be addressed as such.
Where does it end? Are we going to ban those who admire Robert E Lee, but not his policies? What about Napoleon, definitely caused more havoc and death than Trump, but people say they admire him all the time. I'm against this idea not because the rules say it cannot be put into place, I'm against this idea as a whole, regardless of any outside source.
I'm getting a lot of Deja Vu for the reaction of some people when we banned Gamergate support.
Yeah, that's weird! It's almost like most people are against the revocation of Freedom of Speech or something dumb like that.
Are you implying you were against that too?
So far there have been about 9 users who have posted in this thread and maybe 20 people who have participated between posts and likes. There isn’t a landslide of opinion for or against anything based on the nattering of users here - and I count my participation as natter.
It is up to the site Owner to decide on whether to react to this thread or not-or He may have already made his decision prior to this teapot tempest. It is up to the site Owner to make changes in the Terms or the Forum Rules and Guidelines.
Separate names with a comma.