PDA

View Full Version : Stance on philosophy



pp.
October 3rd, 2008, 08:59 PM
Now that the former Backyard is no more available, some nontechnical topics are reaching the Community Café. One of the more obvious examples is "What is truth?"

There are guidelines on permissible topics:


Almost any non-tech-support topic may be discussed here. Discussions on religion and politics is not allowed, except for politics directly related to free and open source issues. Any topic or discussion that causes problems or drama will be closed. This area is intended for fun and community building, not arguments.

I can carefully peruse the said thread but I fail to detect any violation whatsoever of those injunctions.

However, the thread has been closed, shortly after LaRoza posted

This thread is possibly violating the Cafe topic limitations. IMO, it is, but I am going to ask the other staff.


The biggest problem is that it restricts people from discussing things. Some of the statements are interesting and invite responses, but I can't because of the religious nature of my view of parts of the subject.

I can not really understand the reason why this thread has been closed.

Closing on account of LaRoza being inhibited from responding does not seem a very plausible explaniation. Neither does closing on account of my posting the obvious answer "42".

This is not a protest against closing that thread, although I must admit that this thread yields much food for thought.

This is a polite inquiry into the rules of this forum.

LaRoza
October 3rd, 2008, 09:02 PM
I asked other staff about it and someone didn't think it was in violation, but agreed with closing it.

It wasn't just my view, but everyone else who would be restricted.

Here is my final post (with a tiny edit):


Well, that illustrates it. I can't put forth my point of view, because although it may not be specific to a specific religion, it would be religious in its nature. It excluded, unfairly, a bunch of view points from the discussion.

Now, if one wanted to be a PITA, one could say any discussion has potential for religious (or political) opposition or view points (like say, music, which although widely accepted by almost all societies, is not acceptable to some of the more extreme views of certain religions). So in judging, we should go with reality. Does the discussion most likely invite religious views on the subject?

A discussion on wave/particles or the Copenhagen interpretation (for those geeks among you that wonder about such things...) would has a small overlap. Sure, one could have religious ideals creeping it, but it deals with physics primarily and is something that can be discussed and tested without any conflict from religious views. However, if one wants to say "Is Evil Objective?" that would be clearly leaning towards the religious views, as science rarely has such input (and in fact, it wouldn't be a factor in science for the most part).

LaRoza
October 3rd, 2008, 09:06 PM
I can carefully peruse the said thread but I fail to detect any violation whatsoever of those injunctions.


No, it didn't violate it exactly. However, it invited it. It would be like not allowing discussions on the colour black, and someone makes a thread about "What is your favourite colour?". Some people will be able to give their views without violating the rule, but some will be restricted. That particular rule is very black and white for an example. The differences between "religion" and "philosophy" are blurry, too blurry for such an open ended question as was posted.



I can not really understand the reason why this thread has been closed.

Closing on account of LaRoza being inhibited from responding does not seem a very plausible explaniation. Neither does closing on account of my posting the obvious answer "42".

I just quoted it, as it was the last post. I didn't close because of it...

The reason it was closed will be seen in the last two paragraphs of my quote in my post above.

koenn
October 3rd, 2008, 09:06 PM
Closing on account of LaRoza being inhibited from responding does not seem a very plausible explaniation. Neither does closing on account of my posting the obvious answer "42".

My thoughts exactly.

to reinforce your point :

- philosophy is not related to religion. Anyone with 2 cents of knowledge on the subject can tell you that. It'sd not politics either
- there was not even a hint of drama or other problems in that thread. The only post that might possibly interpreted as causing trouble or being "dramatic" was LaRoza's complaint that she couldn't post in this thread because of the religious nature of what she apparently wanted to post.

LaRoza
October 3rd, 2008, 09:09 PM
My thoughts exactly.

to reinforce your point :

- philosophy is not related to religion. Anyone with 2 cents of knowledge on the subject can tell you that. It'sd not politics either
- there was not even a hint of drama or other problems in that thread. The only post that might possibly interpreted as causing trouble or being "dramatic" was LaRoza's complaint that she couldn't post in this thread because of the religious nature of what she apparently wanted to post.

It wasn't closed because I couldn't post.

Philosphy is not related to religion? Someone quoted Saint Thomas Aquinas quite early in it.

That thread was reported several times, by the way.

Het Irv
October 3rd, 2008, 09:09 PM
All right here is my suggestion for all of this: (note: I wasn't in OPP much so, grain of salt)
Because of the large number of people that were in the Backyard, OPP, and whatever other forms it had, there has been alot of uproar over the closing. Would it be possible for someone to start a forum, using one of the free hosting sites, and just have a 3rd party link like UGA? It doesn't have to be moderated or anything. If I were to open it, I would probably ignore it and let people do whatever they wanted.

I realize that Ubuntu forums may not want to attach itself to something like that, but word of mouth should popularize it enough. I think there needs to be something that allows people to argue points, but I think it just needs to evolve its own moderation style. The style used for the Forums doesn't translate well to OPP

But like I said, I never spent much time there, so I don't think I am the best to be suggesting ideas.

LaRoza
October 3rd, 2008, 09:10 PM
All right here is my suggestion for all of this: (note: I wasn't in OPP much so, grain of salt)
Because of the large number of people that were in the Backyard, OPP, and whatever other forms it had, there has been alot of uproar over the closing. Would it be possible for someone to start a forum, using one of the free hosting sites, and just have a 3rd party link like UGA? It doesn't have to be moderated or anything. If I were to open it, I would probably ignore it and let people do whatever they wanted.

I realize that Ubuntu forums may not want to attach itself to something like that, but word of mouth should popularize it enough.

But like I said, I never spent much time there, so I don't think I am the best to be suggesting ideas.

http://grubbn.org/omgpp/index.php

Het Irv
October 3rd, 2008, 09:13 PM
http://grubbn.org/omgpp/index.php

I knew it was to good of an idea for me to come up with it first.

:lolflag:

LaRoza
October 3rd, 2008, 09:19 PM
I re-opened the thread for the duration of the discussion.

I want you all to know I acted after discussing it with another mod, and the thread has reports.

The problem may be that it was left alone (it was reported quite early in its life) too long.

Remember, this forum does not go by common law, precedent, but by statutory law, the Code of Conduct.

A food for thought, the thread quoted Saint Thomas Aquinas, a well known Catholic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas . Now, was that not religious, the quote? How about if one quoted the Code of Canon Law or the Catholic Catechism? How about the Bible?

We can't, IMO, play the game of calling relious works "philosophy", the quote of St. Thomas didn't say he was a Catholic Saint. Shall people post their religious beliefs without religious terms?

pp.
October 3rd, 2008, 09:25 PM
Philosphy is not related to religion? Someone quoted Saint Thomas Aquinas quite early in it.

I find that kind of reasoning a bit disturbing.

Quite a few religions discuss topics which are philosophical in nature. That's in the very nature of a formal religion, to reconcile everyday live with the (perceived) spiritual nature of man.

But please consider that the early philosophical movements which largely influenced modern philosophy were mostly of a secular nature. It is indeed possible to do philosophy without doing religion, while it seems impossible to do religion without philosophy.

Quoting an accomplished philosopher which happens also to be a stronghold of Christianity does not automatically make the discussion biased for or against Christianity.

If that was the case, it would really become impossible to discuss any topic at all without seeming to run foul of the "no religion" rule. Practically every part of human knowledge and skills has been explored and expanded by eminent members of an impressive array of world religions, from Arabs to S.J. and beyond.

Again: would it be possible to formulate a bit clearer which kinds of discussions UF will tolerate in the Café?

koenn
October 3rd, 2008, 09:45 PM
Philosphy is not related to religion? Someone quoted Saint Thomas Aquinas quite early in it.

That thread was reported several times, by the way.

In short :
Philosophy seeks to understand, seeks knowledge, or truth (I don't remember all the fine points)
Religion seeks to provide meaning.

Different things entirely.




A food for thought, the thread quoted Saint Thomas Aquinas, a well known Catholic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas . Now, was that not religious, the quote?
Being a catholic (or of any other relgious denomination) doesn't exclude one from the possibility of practising philosophy. As a matter of fact, the only people in medieval Europe (Thomas Aquinas's context) who would have had the required educational background (and the luxury of free time) in order to practise philosophy, would be the clergy.

As for the actual quote being religious - it does mention "divine" twice, illustrating the mental model of a 13th century European intellectual.

LaRoza
October 3rd, 2008, 10:02 PM
Again: would it be possible to formulate a bit clearer which kinds of discussions UF will tolerate in the Café?

I'll leave that up to the FC.



As for the actual quote being religious - it does mention "divine" twice, illustrating the mental model of a 13th century European intellectual.

No, there were many various philosophies back then, just as there is now. There were atheists, pagans, various monotheists, etc. Humans aren't any different, just more technologically advanced.

koenn
October 3rd, 2008, 10:03 PM
Remember, this forum does not go by common law, precedent, but by statutory law, the Code of Conduct.

I asked other staff about it and someone didn't think it was in violation, but agreed with closing it.

Am I the only one to think this is a contradiction ?

LaRoza
October 3rd, 2008, 10:06 PM
Am I the only one to think this is a contradiction ?

What?



Remember, this forum does not go by common law, precedent, but by statutory law, the Code of Conduct.

I hear a lot of "precedent" when discussing actions (in this particular case, in PM's). I was merely reminding everyone that there is no such thing.


I asked other staff about it and someone didn't think it was in violation, but agreed with closing it.
This means that I asked another staff member (actually, all of them, but only one did I discuss it with) about it. People seem to think mods should discuss things, and I agree, most of the time it is helpful in making a decision. He had a different view than me, but also agreed it should be closed after our discussion.

matthew
October 3rd, 2008, 10:17 PM
Again: would it be possible to formulate a bit clearer which kinds of discussions UF will tolerate in the Café?
How about this? If it causes serious controversy and requires taking staff time away from the main purpose of the forums (tech support for Ubuntu), closing it is acceptable. Light-hearted, enjoyable, even serious non-religious and non-political discussions (with the exception for open source/free software discussions) are welcome within the usual limits of the Forum CoC.

koenn
October 3rd, 2008, 10:20 PM
No, there were many various philosophies back then, just as there is now. There were atheists, pagans, various monotheists, etc. Humans aren't any different, just more technologically advanced.
you're summing up religions and/or believe systems.
I was talking about philosophy, and explaining why it's not surprising that a 13 century scholar would happen to be a member of the catholic church. Given that, it is also no surprise that his view of the world includes something like "divine intellect". There were very few secular scholars in those days.

LaRoza
October 3rd, 2008, 10:21 PM
you're summing up religions and/or believe systems.
I was talking about philosophy, and explaining why it's not surprising that a 13 century scholar would happen to be a member of the catholic church. Given that, it is also no surprise that his view of the world includes something like "divine intellect". There were very few secular scholars in those days.

I think you are over simplifying the time period ;) It was just as diverse as it is now.

mips
October 3rd, 2008, 10:26 PM
I say close the Cafe! Keep the forum purely technical and don't deviate from it.

This would hopefully minimise anything becoming slightly political or religious because lets face it, most topics have that potential.

koenn
October 3rd, 2008, 10:28 PM
What?



I hear a lot of "precedent" when discussing actions (in this particular case, in PM's). I was merely reminding everyone that there is no such thing.


This means that I asked another staff member (actually, all of them, but only one did I discuss it with) about it. People seem to think mods should discuss things, and I agree, most of the time it is helpful in making a decision. He had a different view than me, but also agreed it should be closed after our discussion.

Obviously, I wasn't referring to the content of PM's - how could I ?

The contradiction is :
"this forum [goes] by statutory law, the Code of Conduct."
"this thread is not in violation [of the CoC] but we agreed to close it anyway"

koenn
October 3rd, 2008, 10:31 PM
I say close the Cafe! Keep the forum purely technical and don't deviate from it.

This would hopefully minimise anything becoming slightly political or religious because lets face it, most topics have that potential.

I say that's another discussion.
I kinda like the idea of a water cooler / coffee corner, but if the only (off-topic) topic of conversation allowed there is the weather or something equally shallow, I'd rather do without.

mips
October 3rd, 2008, 10:33 PM
...but if the only (off-topic) topic of conversation allowed there is the weather or something equally shallow, I'd rather do without.

Well that is essentially what it is.

matthew
October 3rd, 2008, 10:35 PM
I say close the Cafe! Keep the forum purely technical and don't deviate from it.

This would hopefully minimise anything becoming slightly political or religious because lets face it, most topics have that potential.While your use of intentional overstatement is effective at demonstrating your point, I really don't think there needs to be a significant change in how things are run. I consider the cafe an important part of the forums. It can be a fun way to "chat" on non-tech-support related topics with people you "see" on a regular basis in a community of common interest. That is valuable.

What is also valuable is the time and resources of the forum and its staff.

This is like anything in life, it has potential for abuse, but that doesn't mean we need to overreact, or even react, unless that abuse actually occurs.

Now, let's all move on to more interesting discussions, shall we, and quit beating the same dead horse that sent the backyard into a free fall? Thanks.

pp.
October 3rd, 2008, 10:40 PM
How about this? If it causes serious controversy and requires taking staff time away from the main purpose of the forums (tech support for Ubuntu), closing it is acceptable. Light-hearted, enjoyable, even serious non-religious and non-political discussions (with the exception for open source/free software discussions) are welcome within the usual limits of the Forum CoC.

I lack the experience to enjoy such a pragmatic approach. Being something of a purist, I think the phrase

If it causes serious controversy and requires taking staff time away from the main purpose of the forums (tech support for Ubuntu), closing it is acceptable.
is not useful as a yardstick for members posting in the forum. It might be perfect for ex-post reasoning why closing a thread was consistent with your wishes or even your mission, but that is not quite the same.


even serious non-religious and non-political discussions (...) are welcome
I rather fancy the thread under discussion was exactly that. No one objected visibly to opinions of leading Christian philosophers being posted.

If the kind of friendly discussion the thread under discussion is an example of is bound to "cause serious controversy" and/or to "take staff time away from (etc)", then I'd advise to redesign the terms of use for the Community Café.

mips
October 3rd, 2008, 10:40 PM
What is also valuable is the time and resources of the forum and its staff.


Hence my above statement. You would not have threads like this one 'about threads on philosophy'.

koenn
October 3rd, 2008, 10:45 PM
I think you are over simplifying the time period ;) It was just as diverse as it is now.

well, if i was to write an in-depth socio-cultural study of 13th century Europe, this wouldn't be the place to do it, so yes, it's a bit simplified,
but, for instance, just how many secular schools and universities were there in that time period ?

koenn
October 3rd, 2008, 10:51 PM
this is like anything in life, it has potential for abuse, but that doesn't mean we need to overreact, or even react, unless that abuse actually occurs.

qft

Forrest Gumpp
October 7th, 2008, 01:44 AM
[QUOTE=LaRoza;5901371]I asked other staff about it and someone didn't think it was in violation, but agreed with closing it.

In juxtaposition with the now closed thread titled "what is truth?", just too funny.

Is somebody trying to take an oblique swipe at Future Pilate?

Anthony.L.Jones
October 9th, 2008, 10:09 PM
Being a new memeber and all, I would just like to ask a question to the forum staff or, if possible, the adminstrator:
In such a day and age of progressive thinking not only spiritually (through philosophy, politics and so forth) but scientifically, ethically and morally, why is there a need for the Ubuntu forums to seclude any form of opinion on any subject? Freedom of speech is something that democracy fights for yet you are censoring it, for the only reason I can gather to be the avoidance of controversy.



This is like anything in life, it has potential for abuse, but that doesn't mean we need to overreact, or even react, unless that abuse actually occurs.

I find that statement to be of bad taste. We're all big boys (and big girls) now, we experience life everyday. In that day to day life people abuse everything in one form or another. Yet we deal with it in our own way, using our own logic and experience to guide us as we see fit. To put it bluntly, who's going to come over and stop my debate with another person about religion or politics, saying "Whoa! Whoa! You can't talk about things like that! It is not your place to convey your opinion! Keep it yourself!"

Debate about controversial subject is healthy, and I believe should be encouraged as it progresses not only our own minds and intelligence by actually hearing what somebody else thinks, but society as a whole. If we do not express our own values and challenge somebody elses', we become stale, boring and unintelligent. You tell us what we can and can't think, or what is right and wrong. We are not all little children and some people genuinely enjoy debating or reading other peoples' debates on such matters.

There is no abuse in debate, no matter how heated it gets, but when it does spill over into it personal abuse and childish/arrogant denial, then yes, close the thread down.
You have moderators for the forum and don't want to keep them away from their real duties of supporting the Ubuntu community, not the opinions of Ubuntu users. Why not have moderators to scan the Community Cafe topics with limited powers?

In all:
(controversial) debate = progression and expansion of the brain and mind, good
censorship = encourages seperation to others and biting your tongue when there is no reason to do so

Sorry for the slightly negative first post, will make it up to you :lolflag:

EDIT: My spelling was a little suspect in places

panickedthumb
October 9th, 2008, 10:24 PM
Freedom of speech
Freedom of speech is limited everywhere. If I go to your house and from midnight to 8am recite the bill of rights over and over, you can have me silenced, because I am on your personal property. The police are there for you in this case. Freedom of speech does not extend to private property.

Furthermore, if you have children, you can ground them for saying the word "asparagus" if you feel so inclined.

Here, we're on Canonical's servers. Therefore, if there are rules against things on these forums then we as staff must enforce them. There is no rule for every situation, so a lot of interpretation goes into it.

I hadn't seen this thread, so perhaps this is a little late-- I was the mod that Laroza discussed this with before closing it. The fact that we had so many reports about the thread, and the fact that Laroza and I couldn't come up with an operational definition of terms to be used in our discussion about the thread meant that there was reason to close it.

Anthony L Jones, I appreciate your post and I agree with you, when it comes to government trying to censor. When it comes to a private forum, things must be done to keep order. It's unfortunate, it truly is, because there are many people I would love to debate on many things, but the nature of humans on the internet is such that we can't sustain it.

Anthony.L.Jones
October 9th, 2008, 11:01 PM
I can completely appreciate your stance using the private servers, I do not wish to take away from the fact that somebody else is allowing us to use their property to convey our own opinions, especially in the environment here where I feel challenged (most other forums have left me feeling slightly holier-than-thou, which is never good).

However, my point which I really waffled about and didn't get to in my last post really, is why do the Ubuntu forums limit our ability to hold intelligent debate? Your example of Freedom of Speech going too far was comical but slightly on the extreme end of the spectrum.

As for:

Furthermore, if you have children, you can ground them for saying the word "asparagus" if you feel so inclined

Once again that is an extreme example, but I would never ground my child for any other reason than to teach him what is right and what is wrong for him to grow into an adult, ready to slay the masses as a keyboard warrior. My point is we are adults mate, not kids (however much I do day dream about being a teenager again).

I live in the UK, and my country is so "politically correct" and focussed on not offending anyone that I am frustrated that I have to look over my shoulder to make sure nobody is listening to me so I can talk about what colour my furniture is.

The internet is meant to be neutral, which I know is difficult when I have to consider the server is a physical entity, but how do you define your limit, why do you cease to allow us to talk openly about subjects that matter to people? A few people may be offended, all they need do is look away or actually read and form their own opinions instead of shying away from discomfort. By putting the minority before the majority, you strip away the principles of equality.

This place is fantastic, where people push themselves to learn Ubuntu at the very least, some even program, some learn Hindi. It is an open source community. Open is Honest, and in all honesty, would the ethos of being a community that allows debate to flourish and develops personal growth be something to censor and shy away from?

Once again I lose where my objective is, lol.
So here it is, black and white: Why do you censor something healthy, why not be a bit lax?

LaRoza
October 9th, 2008, 11:28 PM
Once again I lose where my objective is, lol.
So here it is, black and white: Why do you censor something healthy, why not be a bit lax?

If you are new, you don't know the history of this issue.

Why not? Because it leads to pain.

Anthony.L.Jones
October 9th, 2008, 11:33 PM
Would it not be of your benefit and mine to possibly enlighten me? Sorry to be a bit inquisitive, but I am curious because it is something I believe should be talked about. Then again I am only one bloke out of a community of thousands, everyone is different and not everybody can be adult I understand.

Could you care to enlighten me?

Cheers

aysiu
October 9th, 2008, 11:41 PM
Anthony.L.Jones, you have freedom of speech.

If you want to discuss just about anything, you have the freedom to do so. You just don't have the freedom to do so here.

It's the same reason you're not going to see panels at a comic book convention about knitting, fishing, feminism, horseback riding, or S&M, unless one of those relates directly to comic books. It's the same reason you can't scream "Fire! Fire!" in a movie theater unless there's actually a fire threatening to consume the building.

There are times and places for things, and there are appropriate and inappropriate venues for things.

We started off the forums as technical support forums. That is the primary purpose of these forums.

After a while, we thought, "Hey, maybe it'd be cool to talk about some other stuff, too" and added the Community Chat.

And after a few thread closings on governmental politics and organized religion, we decided to try an experiment to see if it'd be worth exploring having a section with some more controversial issues not related to technology or Linux.

That experiment failed, and so the Backyard (OMGPP) was closed.

The primary purpose of this forum is technical support for the Ubuntu Linux operating system. If we can add additional purposes that do not detract from providing a friendly and effective technical support forum, we may do so. But if additional purposes bring a lot of negative energy to the forums, we'd rather say, "Hey, if you want the freedom of speech to talk about that stuff, talk about it somewhere else."

There's absolutely no reason political, religious, or philosophical discussions must take place on the Ubuntu support forums in order for free speech to be exercised. Think about it.

LaRoza
October 9th, 2008, 11:44 PM
Would it not be of your benefit and mine to possibly enlighten me? Sorry to be a bit inquisitive, but I am curious because it is something I believe should be talked about. Then again I am only one bloke out of a community of thousands, everyone is different and not everybody can be adult I understand.

To give you a little background:

In the beginning, this forum had similiar rules as it does now (albeit, but smaller as a forum). After some discussion, a forum was made for political and religious debates and the like, it was called the Backyard (this was before I joined).

This backyard soon became a wild area with rampant flamewars and violations of the rules. The staff seemed to think if it stayed in the backyard, it was ok (the forum required you to register to view and wasn't searchable).

An attempt to bring the rules back to the forum (I was around for this) resulted in complaints and a general agreement to follow the rules, although in practice it didn't work. Any sort of enforcement lead to headaches.

Recently, at the beginning of this month (or end of last month) after weeks of discussions, that forum was closed as a failed experiment.

Although it sounds good in theory to have such a forum, it doesn't work in practice and clear lines have to exist somewhere. They exist as stated in the Cafe's description.

Anthony.L.Jones
October 9th, 2008, 11:56 PM
Point made. Sorry to badger on, I understand the ethics behind your arguement. My point in being is that I like this forum. I used to read the backyard and never reply because I felt no inclination to do so at the time. But it seems that it is such a waste seeing that so many brilliant minds needs to defer away from such conversations and debates.

Saying that, you do have to moderate hundreds, if not thousands, of different characters and there are always a few to spoil the party for the rest of us. So in that sense I do not envy the job you have to do and I respect your decisions in doing what you see fit.

So, as a personal favour, may I ask if you can guide me in the right direction of where to go to find debates with the kind of calibre of opinions that this forum seems to possess as I am at a loss of finding one.

Any reply would be fantastic but then again, it isn't your job to guide the tourist :rolleyes:

I'm off to bed, work in a few hours. Cheers for the feedback and good night.

Ant

LaRoza
October 9th, 2008, 11:59 PM
So, as a personal favour, may I ask if you can guide me in the right direction of where to go to find debates with the kind of calibre of opinions that this forum seems to possess as I am at a loss of finding one.


Yes, not online.

The internet is full of trolls (read youtube comments), and not really fitting for forum debates except in small communities.

RedPandaFox
October 10th, 2008, 12:01 AM
http://grubbn.org/omgpp/ ?

LaRoza
October 10th, 2008, 12:07 AM
http://grubbn.org/omgpp/ ?

Last time I looked, that was full of profanity and dumb jokes and the only thread closed was one on how to improve the forum...

frankleeee
October 10th, 2008, 12:15 AM
Point made. Sorry to badger on, I understand the ethics behind your arguement. My point in being is that I like this forum. I used to read the backyard and never reply because I felt no inclination to do so at the time. But it seems that it is such a waste seeing that so many brilliant minds needs to defer away from such conversations and debates.

Saying that, you do have to moderate hundreds, if not thousands, of different characters and there are always a few to spoil the party for the rest of us. So in that sense I do not envy the job you have to do and I respect your decisions in doing what you see fit.

So, as a personal favour, may I ask if you can guide me in the right direction of where to go to find debates with the kind of calibre of opinions that this forum seems to possess as I am at a loss of finding one.

Any reply would be fantastic but then again, it isn't your job to guide the tourist :rolleyes:

I'm off to bed, work in a few hours. Cheers for the feedback and good night.

Ant

Personally I have yet to find a forum/blog online that can really address deeper issues in a coordinated and intelligent way although they probably exist. All of us will tend to one time or other, some all the time just post personal opinions which can't be correlated or proven, and are just the sort of thing you would not say to somebody in person. The anonymous nature of hiding behind a computer creates a cutting festival supported by our personal ego's.

panickedthumb
October 10th, 2008, 02:48 PM
My point is we are adults mate, not kids (however much I do day dream about being a teenager again).

That's actually a good point to bring up. You and I are adults, sure, but there are teenagers on these forums. IF everyone here were adults, the rules could be more lenient.

LaRoza
October 10th, 2008, 02:51 PM
That's actually a good point to bring up. You and I are adults, sure, but there are teenagers on these forums. IF everyone here were adults, the rules could be more lenient.

And some are as young as 9.

Also, some are in countries that have more...strict rules about what is allowed. We have people from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, China, and other firewalled nations.

We are the official Ubuntu forums, and I don't think we should risk cutting ourselves off from users.

panickedthumb
October 10th, 2008, 02:55 PM
And some are as young as 9.

Also, some are in countries that have more...strict rules about what is allowed. We have people from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, China, and other firewalled nations.

We are the official Ubuntu forums, and I don't think we should risk cutting ourselves off from users.
Indeed, pretty easy to get blocked by the great firewall.

aysiu
October 10th, 2008, 03:11 PM
Some are adults in physical age but don't act that way.

pp.
October 10th, 2008, 03:18 PM
I started this thread because a discussion about a philosophical question was shut down although it did not show any signs of violating the CoC or of the special injunctions imposed on the Café forum.

Forum 'authorities' said that that was all right, then the thread in question was reopened, and that was the last we all heard of it.

Never had I the intention to question the right of the owners of the forum to control the contents being discussed. It was a question of making the rules public and then applying the rules as published.

Since the topic of the OP seems to have stalled, I would like this thread closed, please.

Joeb454
October 10th, 2008, 03:36 PM
Since the topic of the OP seems to have stalled, I would like this thread closed, please.

Done :)