I went out this morning, and just returned, and opened PDF to find three sets of fires burning away merrily. The other two need to be responded to (by me personally) differently; as far as posts in this thread are concerned, these are my personal views. Some general comments:
- This is a voluntary code. We can do NOTHING if someone breaks it, or any one or several of us think that someone is breaking it.
- We can't enforce even these recommendations, because they are that and nothing more. We can't say that we have bound ourselves to it.
- We can talk to the member direct, on that thread; nobody stops it. We can talk to that member on this thread; expect to see a lot of it. We can talk to the member on personal messaging; that is something that only one or two of us can do, so it is a special case.
- We cannot report any violation; this code is a code of conduct for ourselves, formed by consensus among ourselves, not attracting any penalty or social boycott.
- We can and should report violations of the Forum rules; those override everything else, and the Moderators override everybody else.
I was sad to see that reference to 'Sanghi'. That is one of the strongest words used against one side in the Indian political spectrum, and can't be justified in any way. I have no idea what Shantanu_Left was thinking about when he used it, and it is for him to justify it (he explained it a few posts later, but an explanation and a justification are two different things, and in any case, he is not required to do either).
I believe the CoC refers to it as specific Indian members, as in say shantanu ought not to call say me a Sanghi.
Here he is referring to a larger body of "sanghis", rather than any specific member.
No, that is incorrect. We agreed not to use these flagged words, in either direction of the spectrum.
Actually I just read some of the earlier replies preceding to that... its not looking good in implication. Shantanu must do better.
In blunt terms, that term was not to be used according to our code; it was used, and it is being defended by the user.
Nothing we can do about it, except to roll our eyes.
Do you really think he takes this seriously lol? Look at the posts
@jamahir has quoted in this very same thread and don't tell me you were just oblivious to that.
The likes of him and
@xeuss, the so-called members of this grand COC are jokers to be honest.
Anyway, it also means that you yourself haven't read the 1st point of COC lol.
@TheGreatMaratha
I might have used more respectful language but you are right, and there's nothing much to be said. It is not clear why you brought
@xeuss into it; if he offended, had you brought it up? To him, or to anybody else? Or has it been nursed within and festered within you?
I'm itching and trigger happy to throw "S" word. When I signed in on this thread, I've decided not to use it at all.
Moving forward I'll be bit lenient on myself.
@sms
I was very sorry to see the way you were treated, but I ask you to remember - ask, nothing more - two wrongs don't make a right.
Hmmm I didn't read that stuff till you mentioned it just now.
@jamahir called it out, I can see what he means...though I dont think its that serious (
abhi none done jibe).
Putting it bluntly,
@Nilgiri, insulting a soldier, alive or dead, is unacceptable.
Personally, I have never, ever, even as an aside, denigrated a member of the Pakistani military. Not even close. I expect the same chivalry towards our own soldiers, sailors and airmen. What
@Shantanu_Left did deserves a kick on his backside.
I myself probably have some violations in point number 5 (regd other countries)....but it does say "refrain"....and I do refrain as much as I can....so people will simply have to post instances and call me out etc... if they want to and they feel its serious enough etc.
You will all just have to post code violations here as you guys see fit and over time, pressure accumulates on the violators (who have signed up to it)....as judged by the peers. Violators can also offer their account of it.
It is only way I see it working, there is no delineated court-room resolution/process here.
A multiple flagrant violator (which I have yet to see) if it happens, I dunno, do we remove them from the CoC by simple vote or something?
I say give it some time, its early days.
@Shantanu_Left cmon you can do better man.
There has been one single multiple-instance violator. I cannot remember a single other who even made a single violation, except perhaps myself, and I say that as a catch-all phrase, in case I did something that I myself did not remark upon.
Like I guess if you want, its up to you whether anything defeats the spirit/intent of the code. Past the 7 main articles ,its largely suggestions too.
Even the seven main articles are suggestions.
Yeah, I guess it's ok to just casually disrespect a soldier who was willing to give his life on the border.
Lol, no pressure accumulates on the violators. If you introduce some point system, then it will. A point will be added for every violation, something like that. Even then, it won't amount to much.
That will be better. At least, deserving members will be a part of this. No point in taking in clowns.
If you advocate this idea, pass it around, if the majority vote for it, it gets included. For what its worth. But then you have to take the distasteful step of joining the code yourself. For somebody who was so reserved about it, you certainly don't hesitate to associate with it.
There is lot of not-ok things that are not covered by the code imo. The code is just a very basic bare minimum (focused on personal attacks on forum members and identities) while keeping large contour of free speech in play (for stuff like military etc that many often feel should be beyond reproach too).
There is lot of common sense stuff that will never be covered by it, that largely comes with character of the person (and you make impression on that as you personally choose to)....we cannot micro manage that....where does one bit start, where does another bit end etc....
I also didn't make this code or play much role in shaping it...but I read it over and it seems to ally with a larger ideal sense (I stress the larger) I set for myself already....thus I decided to join it too. I think everyone has larger codes in operation internally, so finding and expressing the minimum common root is what this was supposed to be.
Well keep reporting violations here (if they are esp flagrant) and it can be done...even retroactively later if we go for some points tabulation if anyone is really becoming a problem.
This is all somewhat a work in progress.
Totally. You have the essence of it.
Yes, you got that one right. Jamahir was overreacting to that Abhi-none-done jibe. Sure he may have felt bad about it which is something I don't rule out. All he should have done was express his views once, and change the topic. There's no point in him trying to convince me that the Abhi-none-Done jibe was in poor taste (as a matter of fact, it wasn't.)
Taste is a matter of opinion.
I think it was in the foulest of taste. That's my opinion.
I would like to respectfully draw our entire CoC team's attention to something that is usually not taught in an Indian school syllabus. It's called reading someone's subtle intentions: reacting only after you assess the overall damage to a situation.
There are Indian members here who are pretty much what you'd call
"anti-national"/desh-drohi in Indian parlance (I will only speak for myself...see that's being subtle too). We have some views that you will find very disagreeable. But you will need to learn to stomach them, if not already.
I am going to react very vociferously every time I find a story of mob lynching in India due to someone allegedly carrying beef. Those are the kind of issues I feel very strongly about: I am going to lambast everything about that country because of the insult and genuine hurt I feel due to a story of that nature. You don't like the way I express my views? Fine....
that's why we have a CoC in the first place. Agree to disagree, and move on.
A CoC comes into picture only when I'm repeatedly harassing any Indian members here, or preventing them from expressing their views.
Verbal disagreements =/ harassment. @sms told he didn't want to discuss that topic any further and we ended it right there.
Although I find his views extremely odious, as he's a member of CoC, so I will not force my views on him. See those posts once again...I was only defending my views. That is allowed within the ambit of CoC.
CoC should not be invoked for every personal insult, whether perceived or real. These are general guidelines that prevent us from abusing each other's mothers (these are the genuine areas where we ought to draw the line, which are actually part of CoC), not actual forum rules.
Short summary: CoC is about preventing any Indian member from being harassed here in this forum. And to encourage them to contribute their views freely. It's not about settling scores, righting the wrongs, or speaking for Bharat Mata etc.
Every one of us must bring our own interpretation to these suggestions. But to verbally assault another member of the forum, his being Indian being irrelevant, his being a subscriber to the Code being irrelevant, is in very poor taste. SOMEONE MAKES AN OBSERVATION ABOUT ONE OF US, AND THAT ONE LAUNCHES A VIOLENT ATTACK IN RETURN, IS PRECISELY A CONTRADICTION OF WHAT YOU THINK SHOULD BE OUR POSITION ON THESE THINGS.
I'm extremely pro free-speech....so yeah this is more a reply for others in this thread heh.
I really mostly operate on my own set of principles (this code stuff is largely subset of it).... but I think this code thread will be good arena for any resolution of persistent issue that enough people bring up etc....that's really my whole understanding of it.
Not everyone shares same idea of what a nation is (or any larger concept like that), so thats why I agree there is no need to put that in the code in some way....the code is simply to prevent personal level attacks....everything else is in free discussion space...and its indeed good to have as different robust views on matters among a forum as possible.
i.e Intent is not one of micromanagement .... but a membership core that does better, sets a basic decent example and improves with time....and we just agree personal attacks are the common minimum thing to be dissuaded in that larger interest.
I also dont think this is a day to day...week to week thing but lot more long term.....so really only if people tag me in here, I will have a look....and maybe we have a jirga every few months for any larger suggestions/changes etc.
Where possible members ought to just settle things in threads amicably themselves....but they also can bring stuff to attention here if they feel it needs to be. Just so one also knows they have an issue with something you are doing (in their interpretation of code in some way) , and you can take that on board for next time (esp say if its a pretty trivial thing)....your view need not change on it one bit
I agree, but you need to remember that our subscribing to this code does not mean that we leave our own value system at the door.
@Shantanu_Left reacts violently to attacks on Gandhi, I react - not very well - to jibes about soldiers, whether our own or others.
Don't worry. They will learn eventually.
Gratifying.
Though I am the most anti-war anti-military member on this forum I felt that jibe was indeed in bad taste.
In very bad taste.
It's my bad that i interpreted that we as CoC gang will not use "sanghi". Based on my interpretation, it was not in line with coc and worth reporting.
You were right, actually. It is my interpretation - I had put it in originally - that this term was NOT to be used, not just among PDF members but about anybody. And vice versa about terms relating to liberals.
@Nilgiri also seems to be ok with the way Shantanu responded filthily after you reported him over here. This is turning out be a sham tbh.
Also, the big architect
@Joe Shearer didn't bat an eyelid so we know where things are going.
Two things: you never formally joined. You made a huge issue of not joining.
Second, I walked in about an hour ago.
Your personal views are welcome but that is not a CoC violation.
I repeat, a CoC violation is trying to prevent someone from freely expressing their views which you were doing.
But all that is past, it's Eid so you should be cheerful as I am.
A CoC violation is a violation of one of the very few suggestions written down and agreed to, by implication, by all who have subscribed. It is not very useful to have afterthoughts and say that the CoC meant something else somewhere else.
@Joe Shearer, you are the co-founder of the CoC. What do you think of Shantanu's action ( you can go a page or so back ) which I think is a violation ?
I thought very poorly of it. If I had noticed it, I would have drawn his attention to my opinion that it was a breach of the code.
Yes the repeat offenders can be removed from the CoC , I like this suggestion.
It has to be voted upon. The Code 'belongs' to nobody. It belongs to all of us subscribing to it.
You kids are wasting my time here, as well as the other busy users and moderators/site admins.
CoC is a set of guidelines. People can voluntary opt-in. They can remove themselves if they can't adhere to the code. It's not a rulebook. There are already forum rules for that kind of expelling activity.
No code violations have occurred so far except in the very beginning when we were testing the waters.
Unfortunately, as one of the 'kids', I don't agree.
Fair enough. I just endorsed the suggestion. If you recall I never called you or anybody out.
I’m not in favour of public shaming. I believe we should notify the user in his wall, or in personal conversation that the CoC has been violated. In this way the user will not feel defensive about his actions. What say?
The only person off-limits is Mahatma Gandhi. He's on every banknote of India...and surely none of us disrespect money. You want to change that? Put that to vote: "I want to freely abuse Mahatma Gandhi as much as possible. Which Indian users are with me on that?"
Your opinion, and you are FULLY entitled to it. I don't think our military personnel should the subjects of jibes. I believe I am entitled to that opinion.
Hindu gods and goddesses of India are off-limits too. One should not abuse Laxmi, Saraswati, Krishna etc. as that will offend religious sensibilities. But "babas" like Asaram Bapu, Sathya Sai, Rajneesh, Ramdev are completely fair game.
Subscribers need to decide that for themselves.If anyone feels strongly about it, let him put it to the vote. Please put this proposition to the members.
Certain historical figures like Mirabai, Khwaja Moinuddin Chishti, Tulsidas, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu etc. will also be off-limits because a) they've been long dead and b) they didn't harm anyone. We will take that on a case by case basis....Akbar and Aurangzeb are definitely fair game for your Hindutvadi brethren.
Please, stop this nit-picking and this micro-management.
If you want to know what others think, ask them. If you want to get something commonly accepted, get everyone to agree.
In fact, every public figure including Abhi-none-done or the Kargil martyrs on Indian side are fair game. CoC doesn't cover them.
I flatly don't agree. if that is to be a proposition, I see no value in the Code.
Please read my earlier post which suggests that some Indian users on this forum, such as myself can be described as "anti-national." The CoC covers all categories of Indian users: desh-bhakt (you) as well as desh-drohi (me).
That is not the issue at all. It is a code that covers both, but both need to give up their pet rants and raves. Nobody can come in saying we have a code, but I continue to do whatever I like.
