Democracy vs Totalitaranism

Clive,



Be my guest.....but ask a "good" opening question.

And see if you can get people to stick to da pint.



All the best,

Darrell

Yep,



It has all gotten side tracked quite a bit.

Why not drop it now, and start up a fresh thread?

What say, - "Democracy vs Totalitaranism 2" ?????



All the best,



Darrell

According to Wikipedia (confirmed by a google search as well)



"Moffie is a derogatory word for homosexual used in South Africa. It literally means ’glove’ in Afrikaans, and originated from the idea that men who wore gloves were homosexual.



The term is considered as offensive in South Africa."





I apologize for the derisive tone I took in my most recent post. I momentarily lost my temper and resorted to the very tactics I have been criticizing.



My sincere apologies to the can openers as well. Some of them are quite well spoken.



Larry

oooh philip if only my gramar would allow me to be likened to a can opener

oh dear dear

Some contributing members of this discussion thread seem to assume that if you are talking about censorship, then you are exempt from the rules of this organization concerning profanities and personal attacks. Let me assure you that this is not the case. No extra allowances are made here. This particular forum can and will be closed and deleted in its entirety if this sort of behavior continues. The participants causing this deletion may not be allowed to remain as members.

I believe that the moderation was done equivocally, without prejudice to the South African slang or my penchant for comparing people to small appliances.



At this point, I would like to see the matter dropped, as it’s a waste of valuable screen space.



Larry

[Deleted by Moderator.]



As far as eschewing obfuscation, if expressing myself at a level above 3rd grade insults and blather is obfuscation, then I proudly plead guilty.



Now go away, the adults are having a conversation.



Larry

..or perhaps, if the member acquired a total (cumulative) of say 5 posts edited by the moderator then the member will blocked automatically for a certain period.

Stacey/Larry,



Another option is to blocked the member from posting for a certain period of time, say a month for the first offense, 2 months for the 2nd, etc. To avoid any personal interest or abuse, only PP admin can do the blocking functions. Members will be the one to recommend, say if there are 10 recommendations then the member will be blocked.



This is just a suggestion.



Regards.

Sen

Philip,

If you expect people to take you seriously, it’s helpful to comment on the content of what they said and either agree or disagree using logic.

Engaging in ad homeneim attacks (name calling) simply leads others to believe that you don’t have the verbal or mental capacity to respond to the facts or logic of their argument. This is something I would expect on a primary or elementary school playground, but not in here.

As I’ve said in another thread, if I want immature name calling, I’ll visit UseNet.



Larry

I’m with pmkb on this one, people generally put others down on a continual basis out of a mistaken sense of self-importance or out of a genuine sense of inferiority.



Which do you suppose is the case here?



Larry

good idea! Although that may render some completely irrelevant. Problem with that is, how would anyone know that the person learned to behave themselves?



Larry

Perhaps the PP can implement an "ignore list" like we have at the PMKB. Members can then block out posts from members that they don’t fancy.



Stacy

Participate in the Project Management Knowledge Base!

Moderators / Philip



Personally don’t fell da nead for a spell chequer.

By all means, make your own informed decisions on this "big issue". Perhaps a "name spell chequer" wood b more appropriate.



To me, some of your comments smack of steriotyping, which of course as an individual free person you can do, without anybodys permission. Suppose that is real democracy.



Each of us thinks we see ourselves as the world & others see us.

Each of us, also has a face or facade that we put on, or maintain for any give point in time or circumstance.



Deciding that perhaps "site people swear like troopers, because they have to get the job done" might be true of some "site people". The vast majority of "site people" that I deal with anyhow, swear very little to get the job done. Swearing gets no job done. Its work that gets a job done generally. And conversley some "office people" that I have had the pleasure of dealing with, would make you vomit violently, not only with their swearing (which doesnt bother me), but also with their diminituive (hope I spelt dat rite) attitude, towards the people around them, and the people actually doing some work "the sweary site people".





Also, the only time I really feel the need to swear generally, is when I am on planning planet, although their is no real f***ing point as the moderators tend to be on the ball. I am a site person, if only part time, but day to day don’t swear that much, but that is relative, because this is Ireland (see, more steriotyping).



The moderators I think are usually pretty fair, from what I have seen to date, but that is only my opinion, after all I think I have them in my pockt.



Regards,



Darrell

Hi edgar,

I think he over excited cause getting new PC machine... as u recommended

Bernard,



A bit like Gerrymandering......?

Folks,



Perhaps the plot was lost a long time ago.

Werent we discussing Democracy & Totalitaranism?



Just a note, for those interested.

Have been moderated upon (see below), and don’t even remember why.



Typical "Demontarianism" in action.

A democratic moderator exorcising totalitaranism control.

Probably not allowed to say that either?



A way 2 get round dis.

On sum radio shows in Ireland, DJs will often read out texts or mails that they have recieved throught the day.

Not unusually, in Ireland, people use swear words etc.

So to get round not getting the sack, DJs are allowed to paraphrase or quote others. Manys the time Ive had a near death experience, creased up with laughter in the car.

As they quote others messages about, all manner of subject matters, and topical events of the day.



Its [Deleted by Moderator] and harms nobody.



Best wishes,



Darrell

Flaming is the act of posting messages that are deliberately hostile and insulting, usually in the social context of a discussion board (usually on the Internet). Such messages are called flames, and are sometimes posted in response to flamebait. Flaming is one of a class of economic problems known as The Tragedy of the Commons, when a group holds a resource (in this case, communal attention), but each of the individual members has an incentive to overuse it.

flaming

In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who posts inflammatory messages on the internet, such as on online discussion forums, to disrupt the discussion or to upset its participants. The word, or its derivative, "trolling", is also used to describe such messages or the act of posting them.

trolls



You may also find the troll subtypes identified in this thesis paper of interest: A Psycho-Sociological Discourse on Internet Trolls



Bernard Ertl

InterPlan Systems

he’s risen from the dead....he’s immortal...but he is not Irish

Edgar



Don’t worry



I think OSCAR become WILDEEEEEE?



Why? I don’t know.



but I think its his nature is to become aggresive at the spot.



Be cool

feelings....nothing more than feelings...trying to forget my feelings of ....(do machines have it?)



What are you planning to do here?

Sorry

Forum rules rule 2

also postings are to be in English

So we best stop now

Oscar

Darrell read the posting rules

Oscar

No. You have lost me now, & that is easy to do.

Darrell

When we post we agree not to flame so what is flaming

Oscar

Oscar,



Did I rite "flaming", if I did watt was the context?



Like, could it be that "the flaming ting wont work"?

[Deleted by Moderator]



And as far as agreeing when u dont understand, makes no flaming difference to me anyroad nohow.



Gudluck,



Darrell

So Darrell what is flaming

Is it still ok if i dont understand the words when i agree to them

not english law here please

osacr

Oscar,



I believe ’flaming’ refers to personnel attacks on other forum members.



Regards,



James

Oscar,



"Hell hat no furry"



Suppose my opinion wood be that, perhaps den dere is no difference between "Democracy & Totalitaranism"?

Because both impose sensorship & control.



All dependant upon the leadersip, to what extent this is extended.



Good pint doh.



Darrell

So

Censorship or self censorship

Imagine you are in China do you criticise

or do you tow the line

If you can criticise you should even if this offends

If you cant then you live in a poor society and maybe you cant change it

Free speech whether agreed or not is ok

Nipples in some places are banned but people photographed dying in road accidents are acceptable who says so

Free speech is absolutly free if you dont like it dont read it BUT DONT CENSOR IT

If you think somebody talks BS you stop reading

As for killingh people where did that come from

[Deleted by Moderator]

I hate Politicians

[Deleted by Moderator]

But I would not think that they should be constrained

Hitler Mao Stalin and every other dictator survived by limiting free speech either by bullying or killing

FREE SPEECH A HUMAN RIGHT

NO TO CENSORSHIP MODERATION OR CONTROL

as for flaming what ever is that???

I only speak english???

I ghave no computer dictionary.

Philip/Larry



I think we are all agreeing here. The film analogy Philip used is a good one I feel because films are prone to active censorship.



They are also classified so that people can know what they are likely to be subjected to. This means that a commonly held notion of what is and is not appropriate is held. As Larry points out this can often be implicit as well as stated.



In the case of a forum like this the stated understanding would be the site rules that we agree to. The implicit is a mixture of common courtesy and the fact that as planners we are all vaguely like minded, plus I would imagine that this is an environment that is unlikely to attract much trolling.



Where moderation becomes too harsh it usually painfully apparant IMHO. If this were to happen here I am sure the moderator(s) would rapidly be made aware that all was not well. I really do not see it as much of a problem here.



Andy

Censorship and moderation are all in the eye of the beholder and the community.



A community agrees to a certain set of behavioral norms that will allow that community to function most effectively.



Sometimes these norms are spelled out explicitly (i.e. the Forum Rules) and other times, they are spelled out implicitly, (i.e. traditions, beliefs, corporate cultures)



To the extent that they are laid out explicitly, people who want to participate in that community should be aware of those rules, and the moderators should be allowed to take action as needed to see that all participants comply.



To the extent that the rules are inmplicit, and require time and experience to learn, the moderators should wait for the person to learn the rules and other members of the group should be so kind as to educate the newbies.



For example, I was in one forum where the term coworker was often misstyped as cow orker. I made the error of making a joke about orking cows. There was no explicit rule saying I couldn’t do that. However, one of the other members let me know that the cow orking joke had been done to death and wasn’t necessarily appreciated. That’s an example of an implicit rule that gets learned informally.



I find this whole discussion rather fascinating, in part because Totalitarianism and Democracy both enforce rules on the community. The difference is that in a Democracy, all members of the community have an opportunity to have some influence, however small, on the rules, and agree to live under those rules as a condition of belonging to the community. In a totalitarian society, only a small group of the community set the rules for everyone else and living under those rules is an enforce condition rather than a voluntary condition.



This is a democracy, in that if you don’t like what the moderators do, you are perfectly able to find a different forum. If, on the other hand, you were not allowed to join any other forums and had no input to this forum’s rules, then it would be totalitarianism.



Philosophically yours,



Larry

I am a former moderator on a Christian message board. Believe me some of the posting was very near the knuckle, and to disagree or criticise somebody often equated to a damnation of their very core beliefs, the most deeply held and personal feelings.



We had some posters who were atheist, some agnostic, some Catholic and some Protestant, from all corners of the globe. We had some who deliberately tried to disrupt the board, either because they felt it was God’s duty or they felt aggressive towards the Christian faith.



It was a nightmare to moderate, we had a moderation team of 5-10 volunteers who had guidelines to adhere to, which were publicly advertised. More often than not we simply asked whether someone was in breach of the rules they agreed to adhere to when they registered (much like here) or if they were damaging to the overall welfare of the site (much like here).



For me it is all a question of integrity, I agreed to certain conditions when I signed up to PP, if I fail to live up to them I would expect to be admonished.



PP needs moderators, but the best moderation is done when nobody realises that anything has been done. PM’s can be used to good effect I have found, if a mod PM’s you pointing out a problem you are most likely to do what you can to put it right.



Can we edit our existing posts? That might be a useful tool.



[edit] just realised we can :-)

Larry



You make some good points.

But does a child come out of the womb, "with that intrinsic knowledge" of knowing right from wrong. Some one argue either way, and either way it is difficult to prove or disprove. Every culture that has existed, has had its time, and has died or not survived, that is another arguement.

Some cultures last longer than others. Some have adapted and changed. So when is a culture not a culture any longer?



For example, lets take "the steriotype" of "the irish culture". Drinking & fighting? might have been percieved as part of, or the culture. We might take it now, that this is changing. Thus has the culture died or been lost? or is it just changing? Don’t really know how this is measured.



Although "fighting & drinking" may have been taken as social norm. and a way of life. But believe me, as a child although it may have been tolerated, I knew as a child, as young as 5 that is was not "right", well for me anyhow. Many of / if not all of my "Irish peers" would agree with me.



Good discussion though,



All the best,



Darrell

Right and wrong are only absolutes within a context of personal belief or societal norms. Some societies (the US is one) don’t hold children responsible for their actions for some crimes as they are believed to be unable to understand the difference between the two. If right and wrong were absolutes, then any child would come out of the womb with that intrinsic knowledge. Right and wrong are not instinctual, except to the extent that humans are social animals and will generally find the most advantageous societal norm that allows the culture to grow and flourish. Societies and cultures that don’t succeed in that process generally don’t survive. A culture where might makes right, and killing others was not considered a problem wouldn’t survive, simply because people would tend to leave that culture at the very get go for their own safety.



This is a nature vs nurture argument, and I’m inclined on the side of nurture from a strictly logical/empirical viewpoint.



Personally, I do believe that there are absolute rights and wrongs, but I also recognize that those are a function of my upbringing, rather than any intrinsic knowledge on my part.



Larry

Larry



Take your point.

But cannot concurr, that right and wrong are a societal construct. Breaking "the law" of "a societal construct" is not necesarilly right or wrong. If we say that to break the law of a society is wrong, then that is a societal construct. "The society" concerned have deemed that breaking "that law" is wrong. But breaking the law as far as right or wrong in itself is concerned, is a different issue.



For example Planning Planet may have "Laws or Rules", but is breaking those "Laws or Rules", right or wrong?

I might suggest that, if one did break these "Laws or Rules", it would have very little impact upon ones conscience (However that might be defined).



Killing someone or lets say, even executing or torture for that matter are looked on by some societies as just social norm. or a social construct?



I might suggest that, although the law might not persecute those participating in such acts, that perhaps their conscience may tell them something different. And I am not saying that doing the above is either right or wrong.



But that every Sentient being knows right from wrong.



But I suppose something like this is very difficult to get a grasp on, on a global scale?



Has this confused the issue?



All the best,



Darrell

Right and wrong are a societal construct, however. There are very few behavioral norms beyond sheer survival that occur in every human culture.



Killing another human being is generally considered wrong, but every society has exceptions to that rule, and those exceptions differ from culture to culture.



Stealing is considered wrong, but only in cultures with a concept of individual property.



There are many other examples, and some may be more minor than others, (for example, in some cultures it’s considered rude to eat in public, in others, it’s no problem)



A culture, (and I think that applies to forums, also) cannot function without an agreed to set of rules or norms of behavior that allow it to most effectively function for the majority of its members. Without rules of some sort, the members of the culture have no idea how to act, and will simply act according to their upbringing, etc. which may not agree with that of others, especially in a forum like this, where we draw from many places and cultures.



That being said, if we have all agreed to abide by the Forum Rules, we can correct the person who is not abiding by those rules, and then appeal to authority if that person is not getting the idea that their behavior is not acceptable to the culture at large. It isn’t that difficult to say to someone that they are being offensive, you just have to be somewhat assertive about what you want without being emotional or stooping to the same tactics.



Larry

PP Admin,



My view would be that, water can find its own level, given the "freedom" to do so. (Perhaps gravity to is a restriction). Societies are and can be self regulatory. Every sentient being knows the difference between right & wrong. But that of course is a level of utopia (whatever that means).



Politics / Religion / Superstition (Not that these are bad),

can tend to socially distort acceptance & toleration of something that does not feel right or correct to sentient beings.



Thus to me, is hard to distinguish the differences between Democracy & Totalitaranism. A clear or agreed definition of the two, to start with is difficult to establish. And which is better or worse may depend on application as much as intepretation.



Peace,



Darrell



ps. Also have to concurr with Stuart. Although some of my own mail may have been taken in a bad light. Have to admit though, some of this stuff is quite thought provoking & some is just pure shite. But it takes all sorts.

I think that those who make rude and offensive posts ultimately loose themselves credibility. This is a work/profession related site where participants look for genuine assistance on a number of wide ranging topics.



Therefore – unlike the more general type of chat board or blog – there is a certain amount of professional or business respect amongst us all. In my view, those who frequently post rude or offensive messages loose the respect of their peers on PP, as a result of which their posts – even their meaningful ones – are never taken seriously.



If – taking a random example and speaking hypothetically – someone was to accuse me of not having the brains to sustain a subject, decry my Scottish Ancestry and accuse me of not having “…a clue about democracy, or totarilism, (sic)…” , then I would just ignore such ranting because in my view the post itself says more about the intelligence and integrity of the author than I could ever write.



My view is that those who are continually rude and offensive to others on PP simply do themselves a disservice, and they should not be surprised when no one responds to any of their posts. Let them fall into outer space (where they belong) so that the rest of us can benefit from being on Planning Planet!! ;-)



Cheers,



Stuart



www.rosmartin.com

Hi PP Admin,



You are doing a good job as it is. We appreciate your perseverance in doing it.



Cheers

on second thought i have to agree with u "to prevent is better then cure"