LOGIN
User Name
Password
Remember me


Register...Forgot password?
Main menu
Leagues
Gonzaga
Blue Max
Cartagena
Wooden Ships...
King Me!
VampiRing
Forum Message
Previous messagePost a replyNext message

City:Capital District, NY US
HomePage or other cool site:http://www.swa-gaming.org
Membership18years 323days ago.
Last Login1year 190days ago.
Last Move4years 208days ago.
TXWard is currently Offline!Send a mail to TXWard


Message header
Area/Game:General
Topic:General
Subject:Re: on boardgames, politics, and tolerating the intolerants
Posted by: TXWard - 17years 347days ago.
Message text
flying_neko wrote:
I would like to start a new, flame-free thread. Let us see if we can start over without insulting each other

TXWard wrote:

Many American veterans, when asked about the fact that neo-Nazis and Ku Klux Klan groups are allowed to hold demonstrations in the US, defend such demonstrations. Their point - THAT is what they fought for! Not for the statements that are made, but the right and freedom to make them.

[...]

For the record, I think the only thing worse than a Nazi is a neo-Nazi. The Nazis did not have the benefit of hindsight.


Let me be a smart-ass for a second.

It seems that, apart from sub-flamewars, there is one main issue at stake here: whether intolerance should be tolerated. This has been a hotly debated topic by many philosophers (Voltaire, Popper, Rawls...) for the last few centuries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolerance#Tolerating_the_intolerant

Rawls (who is just as American as those veterans cited by TXWard) for example says that (source: wikipedia)

1) the intolerant must be tolerated, but only insofar as they do not endanger the tolerant society and its institutions.

2) other members of society have a right, perhaps even a duty, to complain on their behalf, again, as long as society itself is not endangered by these intolerant members.

I think these two points are accepted by everyone (TXWard, DBurke, Tornade, Zif, SteveMartin...) of us. In addition, I think we all agree with the additional statement:

3) Neo-nazis, for example, are tolerated in different degrees in different places around the world, for example USA and Germany. So what? YouPlayIt is not USA, or Germany. YouPlayIt is a website for online boardgames.

So, the only point at which we seem to disagree is: when should a behaviour be considered disruptive of the YouPlayIt boardgaming society, and therefore be censored?

My opinion is that the YouPlayIt society should mainly, but not exclusively, be concerned with boardgames. Some positive political threads occurred on this forum, every now and then. For example when messages of solidarity were posted after the Madrid bombings of 2004. I think this was good, and should be accepted. That is, as long as the conversation stays general and polite, because even that topic could potentially lead to flames.

On the other hand, links and references to (even mildly!) controversial historical and political factions and figures should be avoided and removed on request. We do not want the website to be populated by "Adolf Hitler", "Stalin", nor even "George Bush" or "Al Gore" pilots. This is because such accounts inevitably lead to flaming, and this makes them disruptive of the YouPlay society. In fact, offending is what these accounts are created for in the first place!

These accounts are created with the clear aim of disrupting the YouPlayIt society, and this is why I think that they should not be tolerated.

Just my two (currently euro)cents,

neko
--- Message edited by flying_neko

Excellent post Neko. Thanks for taking the time to do the writing and research that you did and for understanding the points I have been making.

On the point of disagreement, you must back up to your third point, and in particular the "So what?" part of it. That statement indicates to me that the cultural differences in those two countries, or any two countries for that matter, do not matter in an online community. But they do. If we were all of the same mindset and cultural backgrounds, we wouldn't be in disagreement over such things as how tolerant to be. Each country has it's own tolerance of such things as Nazis, and the peoples of those countries are expected (or even legally bound) to live to that level of tolerance. Each country establishes it's own laws outlining their freedoms and the limits thereof based on the cultural and ideological beliefs in that country. The United Nations does not require each country in the world to be of the same tolerance.

So in an online community, who establishes the level of tolerance and extent to which something or someone is considered offensive? Is it the members of the community, whether all of it or just a vocal portion of it? No. It is the Webmaster(s) of said communities who establish the rules, laws, expectations, etc. that are to be abided by, wouldn't you agree? If a webmaster states that it is to be a French speaking site only and all non-Francophones are to be punished in some way, that is the webmasters right and those wishing to abide by it can choose to stay and those who do not are expected to leave. That is a choice for the webmaster(s) to make for any particular site.

As posted by our YPI webmaster:
webmaster wrote:
Hi,

I'm not against anyone because of his political ideas.

I'm against every one who insult others with no reason.

I've tried to start a dialogue with the 'banned user', but I got no reply. He just ignored me and continued to misbehave.

I just wanna everyone to have fun, regading his ideas.

That's all, folks!

Nick.


In your opinion, establishing a "controversial" user name is unacceptable because it is a clear attempt to disrupt the community. Controvery, however, is highly subjective. For those familiar with the Roe vs. Wade decision by the US Supreme Court in 1972, essentially legalizing abortion in the US, will surely agree that it is controversial from a neutral point of view or for abortion opponents. Abortion proponents, though, may find it lacks controversy because it is clearly right from their point of view. Using Chairman_Mao as a username might be insulting to many, but it might be an honor to others. Who draws that line?

You use clear examples of likely flame-bait user names, but the one in question was not an offensive name at all. A user had to go out of their way to be offended by clicking on his profile. What of the many other user names currently on the site which are likely to offend someone (and some which were obviously intended to push that envelope), for example:

Ray_Collishaw - might be offensive to relatives of the pilot who feel the online user's skills are an insult to their ancestor;

DirtyFoker2 - clearly an attempt to push the envelope and likely to offend, or have offended, someone who has seen it;

Buttgravy - seriously, do you not think that this could offend someone reasonable?;

SteveMartin - likely to offend anyone who has seen The Pink Panther or The Absent-Minded Waiter.

Should they all be banned because of using a user name that some may find offensive?

How about the users who have aliases here that do not intend to offend, but they spend most of their time in the community throwing matches at the gasoline, fanning the flames, and just plain calling names and insulting people. They are clearly here just to disrupt the community and thrive on it, getting their kicks at watching the fallout from their handiwork.

According to your definitions, these folks who more or less just troll here, should be banned or censored. They even violate the webmaster's decrees for tolerance and restraint from personal insults. Yet you defend them instead. You presented a fine rational argument in your post. How then do you rationalize your double standard? How do those in the chorus of support for your post rationalize this double standard? Are we to accept or tolerate those who have a penchant for muckracking, or do we abolish all of them from the site (or, more accurately, plea to the webmasters for their abolishment)? I don't think any of us users can justly pick and choose who's sensibilities determine where the line is the sand is drawn.

BTW, your first two points are right on the nose, and your choice of Rawls is also excellent. Let's hope the discussion can remain civil in this thread.

Back to the messages list
Messages thread
Posting elapsed timePosted bySubject

17years 348days flying_neko on boardgames, politics, and tolerating the intolerants
17years 347days SteveMartin Re: on boardgames, politics, and tolerating the intolerants
17years 347days imdog Re: on boardgames, politics, and tolerating the intolerants
17years 347days TXWard Re: on boardgames, politics, and tolerating the intolerants
17years 347days Tornade Re: on boardgames, politics, and tolerating the intolerants
17years 347days Zif Re: on boardgames, politics, and tolerating the intolerants
17years 347days TXWard Re: on boardgames, politics, and tolerating the intolerants
 17years 347days Zif Re: on boardgames, politics, and tolerating the intolerants
  17years 346days SteveMartin Re: on boardgames, politics, and tolerating the intolerants
   17years 345days TXWard Re: on boardgames, politics, and tolerating the intolerants
    17years 345days SteveMartin Re: on boardgames, politics, and tolerating the intolerants
     17years 345days TXWard Re: on boardgames, politics, and tolerating the intolerants
      17years 345days Zif Re: on boardgames, politics, and tolerating the intolerants
      17years 344days SteveMartin Re: on boardgames, politics, and tolerating the intolerants
17years 344days Ray_Collishaw Re: on boardgames, politics, and tolerating the intolerants
17years 347days gugliandalf Re: on boardgames, politics, and tolerating the intolerants
17years 345days DBurkeG Re: on boardgames, politics, and tolerating the intolerants
Next thread
Posting elapsed timePosted bySubject

17years 353days saltylog [BM][OT] Blue Max boardgame
17years 352days Bramley Bomber Re: [BM][OT] Blue Max boardgame
17years 352days BazJP Re: [BM][OT] Blue Max boardgame
 17years 352days Bramley Bomber Re: [BM][OT] Blue Max boardgame
  17years 352days BazJP Re: [BM][OT] Blue Max boardgame
   17years 352days Bramley Bomber Re: [BM][OT] Blue Max boardgame
17years 352days ksnake Re: [BM][OT] Blue Max boardgame
17years 351days saltylog Re: [BM][OT] Blue Max boardgame
 17years 351days ksnake Re: [BM][OT] Blue Max boardgame
17years 344days pokerguy Re: [BM][OT] Blue Max boardgame
 17years 343days pokerguy Re: [BM][OT] Blue Max boardgame
  17years 343days saltylog Re: [BM][OT] Blue Max boardgame
Previous thread
Posting elapsed timePosted bySubject

18years 318days fmpfmp [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
18years 318days FourthApache Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
18years 318days fmpfmp Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
18years 317days BlackSheep Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
18years 317days Bombadil Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
18years 317days Crash and Burn Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
18years 317days gugliandalf Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
18years 317days BlackSheep Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
 18years 317days ksnake Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
  18years 317days Bombadil Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
   18years 314days TrevorWigwam Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
18years 317days BlackSheep Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
 18years 317days litehoof Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
 18years 317days ksnake Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
 18years 316days Bombadil Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
 18years 316days ksnake Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
  18years 316days Bombadil Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
 18years 314days fmpfmp Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
  18years 314days ksnake Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
 18years 316days BlackSheep Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
 18years 313days castiglione Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
  18years 313days ksnake Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
  18years 313days Bombadil Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
  18years 313days BlackSheep Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
   18years 313days Phil Hall Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
    18years 313days DBurkeG Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
    18years 313days ksnake Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
     17years 345days ksnake Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
      17years 345days Zif Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
       17years 345days ksnake Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
    18years 313days imdog Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
    18years 313days Phil Hall Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
    18years 313days BlackSheep Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
     18years 313days Phil Hall Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
     18years 313days Phil Hall Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
      18years 313days Hans Johansohn Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
      18years 313days Phil Hall Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
      18years 313days Tornade Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
      18years 313days BlackSheep Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
      18years 313days BlackSheep Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
      18years 313days Phil Hall Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
      18years 313days BlackSheep Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
       18years 312days Phil Hall Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
        18years 312days BlackSheep Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
         18years 312days Phil Hall Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
          18years 312days HeadMMoid Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
           18years 311days Phil Hall Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
            18years 311days ksnake Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
             18years 311days Just4Fun Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
             18years 311days Phil Hall Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
              18years 311days ksnake Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
               18years 311days Bombadil Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
                18years 311days Phil Hall Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
                 18years 311days Bombadil Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
                  18years 311days ksnake Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
                  17years 345days TXWard Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
                  18years 311days Phil Hall Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
                  18years 311days Nick Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
                  18years 311days pokerguy Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
                   18years 310days Bombadil Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
                    18years 310days pokerguy Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
17years 346days DBurkeG Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
 17years 346days ksnake Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
 17years 345days ksnake Re: [BM][RULES] Aircraft characteristics - Any comments?
Page generated in: 32.8125 milliseconds.