PDA

View Full Version : please reopen this thread



chucky chuckaluck
August 17th, 2008, 03:52 PM
jesus is a public figure, theoretically, and should be fair game in the same way that other public figures are in these forums (you know, ballmer, gates, microsoft, mccain, etc.).

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=892433

KiwiNZ
August 17th, 2008, 09:06 PM
That read has a very clear intent. That is to entice a destructive debate. Or in other words a flame bait.

The closure and jailing of the thread was appropriate.

chucky chuckaluck
August 17th, 2008, 09:23 PM
That read has a very clear intent. That is to entice a destructive debate. Or in other words a flame bait.

The closure and jailing of the thread was appropriate.

it wasn't closed because it was viewed as flame bait, which i would understand, as the forums have been consistent in not wanting flame bait. it was closed because the mod who closed it viewed it as disrespectful. it's the reason, not the closing that i disagree with. here's why: it is one thing for the religious to respect their icons. it's quite another for them to insist that others do the same. i hope you can see the distinction in my complaint.

KiwiNZ
August 17th, 2008, 09:37 PM
From the code of conduct...

"
If the thread is flame-bait (appears to be intended to start an argument or is likely to cause an argument rather than enhance discussion), it will be locked or removed without notice. Individual flame-bait may be deleted or edited at the moderators' discretion. Any users who continue to post in this manner or engage in other questionable practices, like trolling (posting in an attempt to engage people in arguments) may be subject to more serious sanctions. "

It is very clear the the statement made by the poster was inteded to start an arguement and not intended to promote or enhance discussion.

The thread will remain jailed.

chucky chuckaluck
August 17th, 2008, 10:01 PM
you missed my point. if the thread had been closed because it was determined to be flame bait, i wouldn't be objecting. i'm complaining about the reason given by the mod who closed it, not that it was closed. do you see what i'm saying?

LaRoza
August 17th, 2008, 10:13 PM
you missed my point. if the thread had been closed because it was determined to be flame bait, i wouldn't be objecting. i'm complaining about the reason given by the mod who closed it, not that it was closed. do you see what i'm saying?

I was explaining why it was flamebait. You are right, I should explain my reasoning more. I will do so in the future. That is something I lack, being able to explain my actions the first time around.

KiwiNZ
August 17th, 2008, 10:14 PM
This is semantics. The thread could well have been jailed for the reasons staff have stated. refer clause 1 and 4 of the code of conduct.

chucky chuckaluck
August 17th, 2008, 11:41 PM
This is semantics.

i disagree. my point is that laroza closed it because he felt it was disrespectful to jesus. he never said anything about flame bait. he may have revised his reasoning, which is fine, but it brings up an important question: is it in accordance with the rules of ubuntu forums to ridicule public figures, or is it against the rules? or, is it ok to ridicule some public figures, but not others (for example: nail pres. bush all you want, but leave jesus and stallman alone)? at the very least, i'm asking for a clarification on the rules, so please don't just dismiss it as semantics.

KiwiNZ
August 18th, 2008, 12:12 AM
The thread would be dealt with the same if it were rediculing ANYONE

be it Mohammed , Bhudda , Mary Smith.

It was flame bait , pointless and disrespectfull not only to the named entity but to any that affiliates.

I have not dismissed this purely as semantics as I have given reasons and examples referring to the relevent sections of the COC.

chucky chuckaluck
August 18th, 2008, 12:39 AM
The thread would be dealt with the same if it were rediculing ANYONE

be it Mohammed , Bhudda , Mary Smith.

It was flame bait , pointless and disrespectfull not only to the named entity but to any that affiliates.

I have not dismissed this purely as semantics as I have given reasons and examples referring to the relevent sections of the COC.

is ridiculing a public figure against the rules of these forums?

KiwiNZ
August 18th, 2008, 12:46 AM
Please refer to the COC , I have attached a portion below. This has already been answered.


Forum Threads and Flaming:

Flaming and condescending messages: Flames are messages that personally attack, call people names, or otherwise harass another forum member (or any person). These, along with any generally condescending posts will be moved or removed at the moderators discretion.


If the thread is flame-bait (appears to be intended to start an argument or is likely to cause an argument rather than enhance discussion), it will be locked or removed without notice. Individual flame-bait may be deleted or edited at the moderators' discretion. Any users who continue to post in this manner or engage in other questionable practices, like trolling (posting in an attempt to engage people in arguments) may be subject to more serious sanctions.
If the thread turns into an argument, it can be locked or removed without notice. Sometimes a moderator may split the thread or delete certain portions in order to keep the discussion going, but that is not always possible.

chucky chuckaluck
August 18th, 2008, 12:58 AM
Please refer to the COC , I have attached a portion below. This has already been answered.


Forum Threads and Flaming:

Flaming and condescending messages: Flames are messages that personally attack, call people names, or otherwise harass another forum member (or any person). These, along with any generally condescending posts will be moved or removed at the moderators discretion.


it hasn't really been answered. this rule seems to be addressing ridicule of forum members. the inclusion of "or any person" is a bit vague, so one has to look at how the rule is implemented in practice. i see plenty of posts bashing president bush, bill gates, ballmer and others, so i have to assume that the rule does not protect public figures.

KiwiNZ
August 18th, 2008, 01:07 AM
This is going in circles

The thread in question was reviewed by a staff member and jailed. It has been reviewed here again and the decision to jail the thread has been deemed appropriate and in accordence with the code of conduct.

The action taken is not ultra vires the authority granted pursuant to the Code of Conduct.

It is not going to change the decision by examining each and every word of the code of conduct.

chucky chuckaluck
August 18th, 2008, 01:10 AM
This is going in circles

The thread in question was reviewed by a staff member and jailed. It has been reviewed here again and the decision to jail the thread has been deemed appropriate and in accordence with the code of conduct.

The action taken is not ultra vires the authority granted pursuant to the Code of Conduct.

It is not going to change the decision by examining each and every word of the code of conduct.

can you get past that, please? i'm not asking about that stupid thread anymore. i'm asking you a direct question about the rules. is it against the forum rules to ridicule president bush, bill gates and steve ballmer?

KiwiNZ
August 18th, 2008, 01:17 AM
Each and every one would have to be taken in the context in which they are posted .

E.G a post saying the George bush is an idiot in the way he managed the Russian crisis and all people that support him are idiots. That would be contrary the rules

But if worded . George bush could have handled the russian crisis in a better way by reducing tensions etc , and his supported would be well placed to bring this to his attention and lobby their representatives to do same.

chucky chuckaluck
August 18th, 2008, 01:21 AM
Each and every one would have to be taken in the context in which they are posted .

E.G a post saying the George bush is an idiot in the way he managed the Russian crisis and all people that support him are idiots. That would be contrary the rules

But if worded . George bush could have handled the russian crisis in a better way by reducing tensions etc , and his supported would be well placed to bring this to his attention and lobby their representatives to do same.

clearly, example number one is insulting, while example number two is a criticism. thanks for clarifying that for me. it clears up what seemed an apparent inconsistency.

LaRoza
August 18th, 2008, 12:00 PM
i disagree. my point is that laroza closed it because he felt it was disrespectful to jesus. he never said anything about flame bait. he may have revised his reasoning, which is fine, but it brings up an important question: is it in accordance with the rules of ubuntu forums to ridicule public figures, or is it against the rules? or, is it ok to ridicule some public figures, but not others (for example: nail pres. bush all you want, but leave jesus and stallman alone)? at the very least, i'm asking for a clarification on the rules, so please don't just dismiss it as semantics.

Now that this issue was resolved, I closed it because it was offensive to Christians and Muslims mostly. Jesus doesn't need me to defend Him (this would make sense to anyone, whether you believe He was anyone special or not) Also, it wasn't closed because it could be offensive, but because it was by nature and design (the thread about Constantine could be offensive to some, but it deal with an actual researched document)

If someone did the same but using Bush's name, because of the flamebait nature (just asking for flames about Bush), it would likely be closed and jailed too. There are many posts probably in the OPP which knock Bush, however, I don't know of any threads specifically for it.

chucky chuckaluck
August 20th, 2008, 01:56 PM
Now that this issue was resolved, I closed it because it was offensive to Christians and Muslims mostly. Jesus doesn't need me to defend Him (this would make sense to anyone, whether you believe He was anyone special or not) Also, it wasn't closed because it could be offensive, but because it was by nature and design (the thread about Constantine could be offensive to some, but it deal with an actual researched document)

If someone did the same but using Bush's name, because of the flamebait nature (just asking for flames about Bush), it would likely be closed and jailed too. There are many posts probably in the OPP which knock Bush, however, I don't know of any threads specifically for it.

you closed it because you didn't like it. it hadn't gotten offensive yet.

KiwiNZ
August 20th, 2008, 08:26 PM
This has been finalised. There is no need to continue this