The Rules. Why the usual set?

Post Reply New Topic

Why does a place like this have such entirely mundane rules?

"Offensive material"?
Personal attacks?

Is the grovelling before the altar of the socially dependant REALLY necessary? Rules against ILLEGAL matter I can understand, for purposes of self-maintenance, but within the bounds of legality I fail to see why such pointless restrictions should be put in place to protect the weak?

When will the world learn that verbal sparring is a means of maintaining one's edge in quick-thinking processes?


I do hope that such rules are not enforced as strongly here as they have been at most online communities I have frequented. The number of times even that I have been banned simply for treating staff as their attitude warranted is surprisingly high. I do not acknowledge authority because there is no such thing as authority; simply other collections of carbon-based molecules... every bit as squishy as myself, and usually mentally inferior to boot.

Of course, my expectations are another matter. Expecting a community primarily populated by fellow Aspergians and Autistics to be different is one thing.... but expecting it NOT to be a totalitarian regime operating under the particular standards (and whims) of the administrative staff is another entirely.
I suppose the question is.... how long can I get by without clashing with the wrong people?


I've said my part.

*Bows out*

If you can't acknowledge authority, you won't get anywhere in life. It's just that simple.

Personal attacks are wrong in any case, and if you think about it you'll understand why. When you have an argument about something, the point is to understand and compare each other's viewpoints. There needn't be a winner and a loser; but if there is, then the loser should have lost only that argument and not his reputation--because otherwise that same person will have also lost the other potential points he could have made, some of which could potentially be quite valuable. When an argument gets personal, it devolves into a "who can make the other person sound worse" fight; and that sort of sophistry doesn't do anything to enlighten anyone about the actual subject matter of the debate. That means it's pretty pointless--and harmful, as I said. So generally something that does harm and no good is a no-brainer to ban. Anyway, it doesn't stop you from attacking something a person did or said. If somebody kicked a puppy, then you can say that kicking said puppy was a really evil thing to do, and get your point across without having to say anything about the guy who did the puppy-kicking. Forming an opinion based on just one facet of a person ends up with inaccurate opinions, anyway... also known as prejudice, especially if that person's a member of a group and you generalize.

Offensive material? Probably just because if somebody posted porn or whatever, there would be almost guaranteed to be an eight-year-old who has to raid the family bleach stash. Not to mention the very real harm you can do by posting things that are deliberately meant to offend--not just the NTs who visit the site, but the Aspies, many of whom have had to spend a lifetime listening to people deliberately offend (i.e., bully, abuse, tease) them. A site bans those things which both offend people and don't have much redeeming value. The point is to create an environment which is hostile to the lowest number of people while still being realistic and allowing free discussion of any valuable topics. Naturally "valuable topic" is a judgment call; and there's always a balance; but the balance point is always the greatest possible freedom of expression and the least possible amount of harm. Going too far to either extreme will cause problems.

It's not too bad, here, at the moment. If you're the person I'm thinking of, from elsewhere several years back, I'm sure you'll fully test my assertion over the coming weeks.

Oh, watch out for the mod Quatermass, he's got a thing for torture...

I have a regular job and I haven't been fired in several years. Well-paid. And all without having to treat the "boss" as a superior. My co-workers understand, to the necessary extent, that I don't let my attitude and my opinions get in the way of my practicality... I do what is necessary for me to earn money. They do what they're paid to do and I do what I'm paid to do... and matters of worth or supposed social station don't come into it past that.
As such, I'm inclined to disagree with you.



That is all fine and well if you are debating something...
... But I view certain measures of personal attack and how others respond to them to be a test of their character and their will. It isn't for the purpose of actually bringing them to my way of understanding, as a completely different tactical approach is needed for that (and I don't tend to do that with strangers, since they're only objects until they prove themselves subjects).... but rather a means of determining their weaknesses by trial, in case those weaknesses ever need to be exploited for the eradication of potential opposition.



Much as there might be things that are "meant to offend"... it is important to note that being offended is ultimately the choice EXCLUSIVELY of the potential offendee; not the offender. Afterall, what is likely to offend a particular person is dependant entirely on their own opinions of their surroundings... and their own experiences.
I've known people who are offended by almost anything... and will become outraged if you so much as call them "silly" out of context....... and on the counterside you have people like me who, despite all our bluster, rarely take anything personally and prove to be very difficult to actually offend.
It is a matter of personal strength...

... and as it happens, I have a bugbear regarding weak-willed people.
Personally I believe that I'm doing people a favour when I offend them, as only by being offended as much as I was when I was younger will they ever learn resiliance and personal strength. People who are constantly protected from "offensive material" remain easily offended and perpetually weak.

Running a BBS is legally CONFUSING! Technically, it is IMPOSSIBLE! AOL got sued for not moderating, and for moderating! CONFUSING? Well, if you DON'T moderate, you could conceivably be held to allow illegal content/treatment. If you moderate stuff that is deemed protected or moderate stuff that is offensive, and leave some offensive stuff up, the same is true.

That is just ONE example of how lawyers think. It is best, and safest, to treat this board like any other board. A deviation one way or the other could leave a hole that Alex shouldn't have to contend with.

It is SAD that the "US", of all nations, allows such garbage, but it does. Technically, the country that helped fight/win WWI and WWII and setup so many things, etc... just doesn't exist anymore. WWIII may even become such a war BECAUSE of the "US".

Anyway, hopefully your statement is simply a rant saying that aspies and auties should have tougher skins and police themselves better. If so, I agree. I STILL believe Alex should keep this forum on a legal status quo.

Operating freedom of speech, as is generally the legal way in the real world of most first-world-countries.... IS an option online, yet one most staff will not tend to make use of. I see no reason why any aspect of it should be illegal in that respect. Though even in the real world the freedom isn't as all-encompassing as I'd like, it still tends to work better than most online communities.

And that is the tragedy: That it could be done but nobody ever does.
It is because people are programmed to be more concerned about protecting the weaknesses of others than encouraging strength and promoting freedom and individuality.

Personally, I fully intend to express my freedoms in any way I see fit.... legal or otherwise....... and inevitably I can do no other but to accept the consequences when they come. I won't allow it to manipulate my behaviour though. I will never change who I am to suit ANY society. I will fight tooth and claw against any such manipulation.

But why in the world would you want to "eradicate" someone, anyway? Why do you need to know their weaknesses? And couldn't that be determined in normal discussion, if you wanted to know it?

The trouble with absolute freedom of speech is that it creates a society in which those who can speak the best become dominant. Those who are most intimidating, who can most easily cause others to back down, essentially become the new rule-makers. The end result is less freedom, and the environment becomes hostile to those who are not good at verbally defending themselves. We end up losing their contributions. Haven't we had enough of the dog-eat-dog world out there? Why bring it here?

Better to say: You can say anything you want, as long as you do not intentionally hurt anyone else. That is the gist of most sensible sets of forum rules.

Not efficiently, no... and it certainly isn't so entertaining to determine it in normal discussion.
My wanting to eradicate someone else? ... Technically, I don't really need a reason... but if you want one provided, then the simple answer is their agenda clashing with my own. That generally results in competition of some sort, and I respect their equal right to attempt to defeat me, much as I will seek to defeat them.


You speak of the ways of mundane people... those who cannot seem to survive unless they are led by others... socially dependant and mentally weak. They see social influence as a strength, and while I can see it is a valuable tool when already IN such a society.... I personally have no interest in such things and will tend to think less of those who do value it. Domination is irrelevant to me; I seek independance... and that is no easy task.


People need to be hurt or they never learn anything... never strengthen. I was taught that the hard way, and I see it is the only way.

So you are saying that the only ability that matters is the ability to resist intimidation? What if there were a person who could be very easily intimidated, but who had important, interesting ideas which could be useful to all? In your society, he would not be able to state those ideas.

There are other ways to grow stronger than to be hurt. Self-knowledge... protecting one another... a certain sort of inner calm. Being hurt may make you stronger, but it also makes you more brittle. Enough pain, and one becomes unable to do any more than just survive; and simple survival without anything else is worthless.

I agree, Callista. I don't want WP to become a predatory environment. That's not what it's for. I'm pretty sure this new guy's a sociopath. And pretty cold-blooded, as well. Like a crocodile. I'm just glad no one can actually harm anyone else online.

My favorite quote from Nietzche (did I spell his name right? It's been a few years since I read his books) is "I am a birdbrain!"

A system of respect helps keep a stable society. If you can not respect other peoples differences then why should they respect yours? It is not like you can not disagree or express your views. I do not see much of a benefit from attacking other people based only on who they are. As for censoring swearing that is the same for most places, it is pretty much a standard. If you do not like certain aspects of the forum you can always bring up how you feel about it.

The part I highlighted above is BULL! I wasn't speaking theory, or anything of the sort. People have ACTUALLY sued and sometimes WON! The US is VERY litigious.

If his own weakness prevents him from expressing himself, he is to blame for his own failure.
As has occurred on many occasions throughout evolutionary time, attributes which could be considered "practical" have often been driven to extinction due to the inability to effectively self-express. A strength is no strength at all when overshadowed by a greater weakness.



Protecting others is taking the pain and the learning FROM them.
And leave the brittleness to the glass. Even objective meaninglessness hasn't changed the scope of my life. My existence is repurposed beyond mere survival.



Correct observations, though I should probably point out that I am quite used to people considering those attributes negative; I do not. Society is a beast that seeks to consume us, and I defy it. How can sociopathy be a bad thing? To me it cannot.



They do not, and I do not expect them to. A mutual lack of respect works just fine for me.


Based on who they are? Based on what and how they are perhaps, but not "who". It is nothing personal for me. I just adhere to certain standards of behaviour quite different to those of the Mundies...
And bringing it up is basically what I am doing.
I know it will change nothing, statistically speaking, but keeping silent bares an even lesser chance of change... and I don't fear futility.



They can try me.
They will fail.
My will cannot be broken.

As you yourself have said, these rules are pretty common on message boards. I don't see why this one should be exempt.

Freedom of speech vs. infringing upon others' rights.

In terms of the US Bill of Rights, it was meant to give the people the right to speak their opinions of government officials without fear of persecution. I'm sure our forefathers would've worded it much more specifically had they known we would reach such moral decline today.

Freedom of speech does not give you the right to throw photos from Rotten.com at us (or whatever it is you're plotting). It does not protect you from public outcry or bans.

Don't forget, there are underage children on this board as well. Show respect.