Suggested duties for Indian members of this forum

[jamahir]

Yah but CoC is not about "bad taste"

Then I should ask you what it is about ? A sincere question.

 

[sms]

Honestly, I didn't read far enough up the first time....shantanu owes sms an apology. That stuff was very foul.

@sms next time tag at place where the personal attack starts, because I didn't look through in detail at first glance, so I didn't see lot of the worst stuff.

The sanghi thing has also been cleared up by Joe.

No worries I can take insults!
I picked up and highlighted obvious.

 

[Nilgiri]

Putting it bluntly, @Nilgiri, insulting a soldier, alive or dead, is unacceptable.

We should add this to the code at some point then I would say then. Its part of my honour code already, just wasnt sure if there was already a debate concerning this in the code formation.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Honestly, I didn't read far enough up the first time....shantanu owes sms an apology. That stuff was very foul.

@sms next time tag at place where the personal attack starts, because I didn't look through in detail at first glance, so I didn't see lot of the worst stuff.

The sanghi thing has also been cleared up by Joe.

I am SO GLAD you are here, you S...oops! never mind.

 

[Krptonite]

1. @TheGreatMaratha
2. @Nilgiri
3. @sms
4. @The BrOkEn HeArT
5. @jamahir
6. @meghdut
7. @KhanBaba2
8. @Krptonite
9. @The_Showstopper
10. @jbgt90
11. @Mad Scientist 2.0
12. @xeuss
13. @Dustom999
14. @Syama Ayas
15. @Joe Shearer

Gentlemen,

Two questions have been asked:

• Can we give a breach of the code a negative rating? //Obviously, some sort of an internal rating is being suggested, not the forum's rating system.
• Can we invite a frequent offender to leave?

These are drastic steps. Please think about how to implement these if carried.

Any response on either question with a vote of 8 will be considered agreed. We can allow each other 24 hours - until 17:30 HRS tomorrow August 2 for votes to come in.

1) Actions without consequences will not amount to anything. If the negative votes do nothing, why should/would they bother anyone.
2) Expulsion should have its own indetail discussion, else I fear @Joe Shearer is going to have the pleasure of being badgered by almost everyone who feel they've been wronged.

 

[Nilgiri]

Then I should ask you what it is about ? A sincere question.

I dunno to be honest, I wasn't part of much of its creation. I have interpreted it so far as complete robust way to stop personal attacks on each other and other members too....i.e identity politics based attack on individuals or insulting them in whatever way. It just denigrates the whole conversation totally...and puts a firm lid on any actual reason to be at a forum.

Above that I am pretty free speech kind of guy myself...but I have certain things I don't like to do....that stuff is all up for a code too if people agree etc.... but I don't really push it myself on others.

 

[Joe Shearer]

We should add this to the code at some point then I would say then. Its part of my honour code already, just wasnt sure if there was already a debate concerning this in the code formation.

No, no, no, no....that's part of my personal value system. We have a mention of something similar in the code, but I have no intention of pushing this down anybody else's throat.

The point is, to answer @jamahir's question about what the code is about, if not about bad taste vs. good, if we use an expression or a line of argument that seriously upsets another member, we need to think about whether we really sincerely must continue with it. It is voluntary; if the Forum (=Moderators) doesn't object, neither can we, as individual members subscribing to the code.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I dunno to be honest, I wasn't part of much of its creation. I have interpreted it so far as complete robust way to stop personal attacks on each other and other members too....i.e identity politics based attack on individuals or insulting them in whatever way. It just denigrates the whole conversation totally...and puts a firm lid on any actual reason to be at a forum.

Above that I am pretty free speech kind of guy myself...but I have certain things I don't like to do....that stuff is all up for a code too if people agree etc.... but I don't really push it myself on others.

Isn't that exactly it?

@jamahir, compare his post to mine, and tell me/him/us if you find a difference (forget my laboured English and his breezy way of writing).

 

[Nilgiri]

@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.

To be clear I am not ok with it. There is lot I am not ok with in the forum in general, and stuff not covered by the code. At the time, there is nothing about military/soldiers in the code.

Problem is slippery slope with code expansion. This is the common minimum stuff.

If we all agree as large enough group, we can add soldiers (say of any side) who served honourably to not be disrespected. That is totally something I do already.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Calling Abhinandan as Abhi-none-done got me expelled from a CoC

That is gross misrepresentation.

You walked out with a fine operatic flourish of your cape. Nobody expelled you, for the simple reason that nobody can expel you.

So don't try that con game. Don't play the victim card.

 

[Joe Shearer]

At the time, there is nothing about military/soldiers in the code.

Problem is slippery slope with code expansion. This is the common minimum stuff.

If we all agree as large enough group, we can add soldiers (say of any side) who served honourably to not be disrespected. That is totally something I do already.

I believe it shouldn't be in the code. It should be in the complaints we make to each other about each other. I believe these things should be evolved, not announced.

 

[Nilgiri]

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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).



No, that is incorrect. We agreed not to use these flagged words, in either direction of the spectrum.



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.



@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?



@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.



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.



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.



Even the seven main articles are suggestions.



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.



Totally. You have the essence of it.



Taste is a matter of opinion.

I think it was in the foulest of taste. That's my opinion.



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 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.



Gratifying.



In very bad taste.



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.



Two things: you never formally joined. You made a huge issue of not joining.

Second, I walked in about an hour ago.



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.



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.



It has to be voted upon. The Code 'belongs' to nobody. It belongs to all of us subscribing to it.



Unfortunately, as one of the 'kids', I don't agree.







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.



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.



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.



I flatly don't agree. if that is to be a proposition, I see no value in the Code.



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.

OK Joe, sorry I just read this now haha, these order of alerts and split replies confused me.

 

[Nilgiri]

I believe it shouldn't be in the code. It should be in the complaints we make to each other about each other. I believe these things should be evolved, not announced.

Yep this is what I was saying...this place is a good arena for general matters too outside of the code for conflict resolution in general.

 

[Nilgiri]

1. @TheGreatMaratha
2. @Nilgiri
3. @sms
4. @The BrOkEn HeArT
5. @jamahir
6. @meghdut
7. @KhanBaba2
8. @Krptonite
9. @The_Showstopper
10. @jbgt90
11. @Mad Scientist 2.0
12. @xeuss
13. @Dustom999
14. @Syama Ayas
15. @Joe Shearer

Gentlemen,

Two questions have been asked:

• Can we give a breach of the code a negative rating? //Obviously, some sort of an internal rating is being suggested, not the forum's rating system.
• Can we invite a frequent offender to leave?

These are drastic steps. Please think about how to implement these if carried.

Any response on either question with a vote of 8 will be considered agreed. We can allow each other 24 hours - until 17:30 HRS tomorrow August 2 for votes to come in.

I vote yes for both.

 

[jamahir]

Can we give a breach of the code a negative rating? //Obviously, some sort of an internal rating is being suggested, not the forum's rating system.

Can we invite a frequent offender to leave?

As far a I know, among Indian members only you and milspec have authority to start a PM conversation.

Maybe every offender can have a PM for the offense which will have a count of the offense. At a certain count the forum management can be notified for some action ( what ? ).

@jamahir, compare his post to mine, and tell me/him/us if you find a difference (forget my laboured English and his breezy way of writing).

Umm, for some reason the below post comes to mind as a way to answer your question.

1) Actions without consequences will not amount to anything.