Democracy vs Totalitaranism

Moderator,

If you are looking for assistance in moderation, I think you will not have to look very far. Some on this posting, are suggesting or nominating themselves, which is a healthy thing of course.

Personally I think that, to date the forum(s) have been pretty well moderated & tolerated, but that is me. Others of course will not concurr.

We have a vast cross section of opinion and views.

And on fishing, it is easy and fast to learn to fish.
I learnt most of what I know about fishing in a day.
From making a fishing rod, putting together a line, and actually catching a fish. The object being, that you catch a fish, kill it, get & clean it, cook it and eat it.

Was never really into fly fishing, but a couple of friends of mine learnt to tie a fly in a day, and handle a fly rod the following day & were catching trout by the third day.
They must be "the three day experts".........

Am not percieved as a fast learner or anything, in fact in school I excelled at very little, and was held back for a year, because my work was viewed as being poor.

All the best,

Darrell

Quote from Philip:
"...when it comes to fishing, you need experts, and never believe you know it all."

Philip, even children can fish successfuly. ;-)

And as for knowing it all, the quality of your numerous posts belies your shyness and modesty!!



Stuart

www.rosmartin.com

Hello Stuart

For consistency you need practice, i.e. you need a "gillea" and you have to do the job, you have to know what your point of reference is, i.e. what is the job about.

What democracy is about is that you can think freely about what you are suppose to do and not worry about the politics of the situation and do not worry unless you have a bunch of idiots working for you.

In the Midwest, where I am, we say
"Give a man a fish, and he’ll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he’ll sit in the boat and drink beer."

Now Iowa sounds like a great place

skip the fishing drink the beers

No worries mate

Is this a single slab fishing trip

Oscar

The point is can you relax for a day? And how would you like to do it?

Hi Oscar, you sound more like than a yank

Hi Stuart,
Your name belies your ancestry, maybe you are a sassenach, and do not understand what it is all aboout, sorry I have to speak to you in English, but you obviously understand no other language, sorry, with a name like Stuart I might have thought you originated from Scotland, the original bastion of Democracy, and had the brains to sustain the subject. Maybe, you should go out and find some other interest, like building christmas trees and not get involved with serious subjects, by the way Beethoveven would have been seriously pissed of with you, and a few others. Your lack of knowledge of history is conspicuous, and obviates you from this forum. You do not have a clue about democracy, or totarilism, so forget about your opinions, on subject you have no clue about.

Hello PPers,

Earlier in this thread the PP Admin team (i.e. not moderators) asked a couple of questions with respect to what goes on in the forum. The following issues have been raised...

If the moderators were not on the case, what should we do to stop people being rude and abusive etc? Would the whole system degenerate? i.e. some good discussion and a percentage of rude back-chat? Are we saying that if no-one removed the odd rude message, would these rude messages would not be posted in the first instance? Or is it OK to have abuse and undue rudeness etc? Or would an un-moderated society be acceptable and productive?

How should this / could this work?

If we have no rules, what would happen?
If we have rules (which we do) surely we should also have a means of making sure people abide by these rules?

Your thoughts on this would be valued.

Best Regards. Happy Planning.

Give a try for one month see what will happen? They already enough to take care them self...only thing i’m afraid is abusing on religon and political...that want very dangerous.

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

Hi PP Admin,

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

Cheers

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

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.

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

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 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

Hi PPadim,

The value of moderation has some value, but when it becomes censorship, it has no place in this world. The problem with both censorship, and moderation, is that the same ignoramuses vie for the positions, and it is difficult to select the right candidates, ie the ignoramuses versus the genuinely concerned. We live in a world where getting the job done is of the utmost importance, and do not need these extra constraints. Rude behaviour is sometimes the order of the day, to get the job done, but not always acceptable.

Why not just wait for a complaint and look at it, in contrast to these constant deletions and comments by the so-called moderators?

I would suggest you all watch a movie, " Il Nuova CINEMA PARADISO" to get a grasp of the problem.

Regards

Philip

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

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 :-)

Hi guys,

I have a problem here. The terms Moderation and Censorship sounds different, but are essentially the same. So lets say a local parish minister/priest is censoring movies to be shown, and he does not like scenes with kisses, he will remove them, firstly because he has no experience of these things (mainly because of his vows of chastity), so the local boys being denied these pleasures, as was their fathers, go out and drink and fight (the Irish example). I come from a country with a long history of censorship, where it was run by small minded people, who included small minded politicians. If this minister/priest had a happy life with his wife and family, and was an example of how things should be, he probably would have left the kisses in and taught people the bad things about fighting, drinking is not the main problem, as most people who are normal can do it without fighting.
The point of good experience is the key factor, as we all have a choice about who we would like to be, and if left to our own devices, we would choose the non-fighting route, ie we have to learn about love, without the minister/priest cutting the scene. You cannot shield children from life, but they have to learn what it is all about, the way to do this is to rather teach the difference between right and wrong, and this can only be done through education, not only at schools but at home, and by example.

The relevance of all this in this discussion, is that the person who does the moderation, must have the experience, and not piety, to see the discussion in the relevant way, without being pernicious. The nature of projects normally lends itself to some serious discussions, and the saying is "If you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

Regards

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

Hi Larry,

You are totally right. Stay within the rules, but, when the rules are wrong fix them

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

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.

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 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,

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

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

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

Darrell read the posting rules
Oscar

Sorry
Forum rules rule 2
also postings are to be in English
So we best stop now
Oscar

Oscar,

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

Regards,

James

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

What are you planning to do here?

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

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

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

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

Bernard,

A bit like Gerrymandering......?

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

Hi guys,

In my experience, flaming is a very polite way of using the [Deleted by Moderator] word. We can go to internet dictionaries and try and find the root of words, but at the end of the day, the vernacular (the way language is spoken, is important), and herein lies the answer.

If 60% of the people is site related, 20% is design office related, and the balance belongs to the client or other parties, what is the chances of the moderators getting it right. People speak different languages for several reasons. The site related people swear like troopers, because they have to, to get the job done. The design people speak very politely, because they work in a normal environment. The rest uses a different vernacular, suited to their needs, ie a claims person would be very polite and use words like "your honour" which is totally out of the scope of the site person.

The point being is that planning spans all these disciplines, within planning, and as such you have to understand them all before you try and moderate, or censor.

I suggest that there is very few people within the PP society, who fully understand the full scope, and as such very few has the right to moderate, maybe moderation should be a comitee thing, and any "offenders" should be brought to task and disciplined in this way, not by the whim of an individual moderator.

By the way PPadmin, I still think a spell checker is a good option [Deleted by Moderator. Offense taken.]

Regards

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 Darrell,

Very well put, but do not group me with the moderators.

You must read things from the perspective they are written, and I like pulling your [Deleted by Moderator.]

Regards

Philip

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!

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

Hi Darrell,

As a matter of interest, Billy Conelly is Irish, he swears like a trooper, and grew up in Glascow. Maybe the capitol of Ireland is not Liverpool any more, but Glascow. My grandfather alway had this joke (by the way he was of scottish extraction),about the Irish giving the bagpipes to the scottish as a joke. He had another joke about why the thistle became the national flower of Scotland, but it is not suitable for the forum.

The first comment I always get when I refer to the movie "The boondock Saints), is that those Irish guys can swear. The norms we have to live to sometimes eludes us.

Regards

Hi Pmkb,

At least we found out who Stacy is, please put me on your ignore list, and hope you succumb to boredom, or a simular problem like ignorance.
Regards
If you want to get in the boxing ring with Muhammed Ali, make sure you can duck well, or have a good punch. ie if you cant stand the heat get out of the kitchen

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

Hi Larry,

[Slur deleted by Moderator.]

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