The following constitution is a code of guidelines for the proper use of the Quoteland.com User Groups. The following rules and guidelines are equally binding to guests, members and moderators. The objective of these rules is to foster a pleasant and productive atmosphere for the learning and betterment of the "QLUG" community.
<font size=+2>Acknowledgement</font>
The following occasionally makes use of <a href="=http://arstechnica.com/forum/postguide.html">"Posting Guidelines & FAQ"</a> (v.09a) by Ars Technica, LLC, 2002. It also draws upon Quoteland posts. All quotations have been cited.
<font size=+2>Preamble</font>
<small>The following is a quotation from Declaration of Policy (David, 19 Jan 2001).</small>
<blockquote>
Quoteland.com began as a source of entertainment and inspiration. Sporting 83 quotations and turquoise buttons, The Land of Quotes made its humble beginnings as my personal web page.
Three years and seven months have passed. The site has attained its own domain name, a corporation status, and an internet-wide linkage that ranks it among the top ten thousand web sites.
Each week, Quoteland.com attracts enough unique visitors to fill Fenway park to capacity two and a half times.
But it is the people who return -- the loyal constituency -- that make this site so special. Every week, thousands of people return to the site's discussion groups. Here they have found a source of knowledge, inspiration, and friendship.
A community has been formed here; one of freedom, of scholarship, and of mutual respect.
This community has had leaders, but not enforcers. It has had guidelines, but not bylaws.
Yet as the site grows in renown and popularity, it begins to face a new problem: as new friends come to us every day, it has become more and more difficult to manage the onslaught of information.
Indeed, the very bounds of the site's integrity have been challenged by those who abuse it -- be it out of ignorance or greed.
This level of activity is the bittersweet product of a beautiful cause; it is the cost of success.
And so, with bittersweet sentiment, I announce today that Quoteland.com will feature regulations which enforce the values of respect and scholarship which we hold so dearly.
It is my firm belief that each of these rules existed, unwritten but accepted, before their proclamation today. It is my utmost hope that this proclamation serves only as a reminder.
</blockquote>
<font size=+2>Social organization</font>
The Quoteland community shall consist of administrators, moderators, members, junior members and guests. The entire community, including the administrative hierarchy, shares a responsibility to adhere to these guidelines and to maintain polite decorum at all times. All users are entitled to an equal level of respect from all other users, regardless of rank or other circumstance.
<big>Guests</big>
Non-registered users are indicated as "guests." Guests share the same rights and responsibilities as the rest of the community. They may not post to any of the forums. Registered members whose access rights have been restricted are effectively "guests."
<big>Junior Members</big>
All registered users begin as "Junior Members." Junior Members share the same rights and responsibilities as the rest of the community. Junior Members are supervised carefully to make sure that their posts adhere to the rules and regulations of the site. Junior members often violate rules unintentionally; on these occasions, they have the right to be treated with respect and the responsibility to correct their mistakes.
<big>Members</big>
When a registered user has posted 25 messages, he becomes a Member. Members share the same rights and responsibilities as the rest of the community. Members are assumed to have knowledge of the QLUG's rules and social dynamic commensurate with their posting experience. They have a responsibility to set a positive example for new users.
<big>Moderators</big>
The moderators are unpaid volunteers who serve the community by enforcing its rules. It is the responsibility of the moderators to support the community by providing clear guidance to the other users. Moderators are human beings, and they deserve recognition for their selfless dedication to the community. Moderators are role models for the rest of the community, and as such must demonstrate exemplary conduct at all times.
Moderators have the power to edit, delete, lock and move posts at appropriate times. They may also restrict a user's access to the site temporarily. Moderators have an obligation to provide an explanation of their actions at the request of the users, but they need not change their minds. In taking such steps, moderators have an obligation to maintain respect toward all users, even if the user has violated the same obligation of respect.
<big>Administrators</big>
Quoteland's administrators, "Adam Lewis" and "David," are the highest ranking users of the Quoteland community. David was the site's founder, and Adam joined a year later. The Administrators are dedicated to maintaining the integrity of the community. They are supervisors for the moderators. David and Adam have the same powers as Moderators, as well as the power to restrict access rights indefinitely.
<big>Special titles</big>
As a result of various circumstances, some users receive special titles. Former moderators are always offered a special title. Other users, as a result of conduct worthy of distinction, may receive a special title. Special titles are purely honorary; they do not alter a user's rank. A member or moderator with a special title still retains his original role within the community.
<font size=+2>Authority</font>
Moderators and administrators have the power to make reasonable demands of the users, and the users have the right to expect an explanation where one is needed. The decisions of the moderators and, where appropriate, the administrators are final and binding. Users who are in violation of them have an obligation to abide by them.
The moderators and administrators have at their disposal various remedies for inappropriate conduct. Technical remedies include post deletion, post editing, post relocation, thread locking, access right removal and IP banning. Personal remedies include private reprimand and a request for public apology.
Amended 3 August, 2003
If a post is deleted, its contents shall be copied to the 'Trash' forum. The subject lines of the Trash forum are visible to all registered users, but only the administration may view its contents. If you wish to appeal a deletion, please do so privately.
Total Moderation status, also known as 'Moderation Queue', will not be announced. When a user is under Moderation, all of his posts are reviewed by the administration for appropriateness and compliance with the rules. All acceptable posts will appear normally.
Only administrators have the authority to effect limited or indefinite account suspensions. Such suspensions will be announced on the 'Updates & News' forum. If announcements are left unlocked, they are to be used only for question-and-answer; appeals and objections should be made privately.
The administration may grant a "second chance" before imposing an indefinite ban, although they reserve the right not to do so in case of serious infraction or extenuating circumstances
It is expected that moderators will exclude personal feelings either in favor or against any user in making disciplinary decisions. If a moderator feels that his impartiality is clouded by personal sentiment, he should consult the other moderators.
<font size=+2>Abuse and legal violations</font>
If a user's conduct compromises or threatens the personal, economic or general secuirty of a user or non-user, or if a user's conduct represents a serious abuse of the Quoteland.com community, the issue may be brought to resources outside of Quoteland. In the past, users have been identified and reported to Internet Service Providers and law enforcement agencies. The administration of the community reserves the right to take such measures when necessary.
In the USA, "cybercrime" is handled through the Federal Bureau of Investigations. For more information, visit cybercrime.gov. At least one arrest has been made and several users have had internet service suspended for abuse.
<font size=+2>Appeals & Enquiries</font>
The administration of the Quoteland.com community consists of volunteer and semiprofessional members. Sometimes, they are forced to make decisions without sufficient time to examine the scenario. Users may request an explanation of a moderator's actions, and they may appeal those decisions. Such requests should never be posted publicly.
The appeals process applies only to decisions made after the introduction of this constitution.
Both forms of requests should be conducted through e-mail. The e-mail should be respectful and reasonable, as should the moderator's response. Should the moderator uphold his original decision, the decision may be appealed to the community's administrators. Should both the moderator and the administrator uphold the decision, the user must abide by that decision.
Should a moderator or administrator overstep the boundaries of respect and reasonable authority, junior members and members may request an enquiry. All enquiries should be privately requested through e-mail. To request an enquiry, send a letter to one of the administrators; the moderator in question need not be contacted. If the enquiry concerns an administrator, contact the other administrator.
Taking into consideration the fact that moderators work very hard without receiving compensation, each situation will be handled with appropriate measures. Such measures may include, at the sole discretion of the administrators:
<ul>
Private apology to the offended user
Public apology to the community
Obligatory resignation
Temporary or permanent removal of access rights </ul>
Except for private apology, all of the other remedies are reserved for the most extraordinary of circumstances.
Posting to a public discussion forum any request for an appeal or an enquiry will be considered a breach of this constitution, and will be subject to disciplinary measures.
<font size=+2>Forum-specific rules</font>
Since each forum has a different purpose, there are forum-specific rules listed on each forum's table of contents. These rules are binding. Penalties imposed for violation of forum-specific rules are still site-wide in scope.
<font size=+2>General guidelines</font>
Quoteland.com makes no guarantee regarding the nature of posts on the Quoteland.com User Groups. It is impossible for Quoteland to actively police every post. Registration on the site implies consent to the community rules.
"You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use the [User Groups] to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, hateful, harassing, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. You will not post commercially oriented posts to promote your own commercial interests. You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by" Quoteland.com. (User Agreement, Ars Technica, LLC, 2002.)
<font size=+2>Account status</font>
Users may keep only one account on the Quoteland.com community. Users may request a new password. If the need arises, users may request that their old username be deleted so that a new one may be created.
Every user must list a legitimate e-mail address for moderator use, although he need not disclose it publicly. (Users may disclose their e-mail address through the optional "display e-mail" field in the user profile.) If the user does not list a legitimate e-mail address, the administration has the right, if necessary, to chastize the user publicly.
If a user abuses the Quoteland.com discussion groups, his access rights may be restricted. Quoteland.com reserves the right to restrict the access of any IP address.
<a name="signatures"></a> <font size=+2>Signatures, profiles and avatars</font>
<small>This section amended by Adam L. Lewis, 6/12/2003</small>
Signatures and avatars are a medium for expressing one's identity on the user groups. They can also be misused such that they become distracting or disruptive. The combined text and graphics used in a signature must fit within a 85 x 450 pixel box, illustrated below.
The combined file size of all graphics within the signature must be 15 kilobytes (15,360 bytes) or less. Avatars must conform to the same size requirements. Graphics used on the site may not depict sexual or hateful imagery.
Signatures and profiles may not contain links to illegal, sexually explicit, hate-related or unethical websites. Signatures and profiles must conform to all other rules regarding posting.
Amended 3 August, 2003
The maximum length of a username is 15 characters, including a maximum of two non-alphanumeric characters. Usernames created before 3 August, 2003 have until 17 August, 2003 to choose a shorter username; usernames will be shortened by the moderators thereafter.
Obscene or hateful usernames are prohibited.
Users whose signatures, usernames or avatars violate any of the above guidelines (in practice or in spirit) will receive a warning, by email, from one of the site moderators or administrators. The user will then have 72 hours to bring their username, avatar and or signature into compliance. Failure to correct all violations within 72 hours will result in deletion of any offending signatures, avatars and username.
<font size=+2>Personal attacks and defamation</font>
Absolutely no defamatory posts shall be tolerated. Criticism is acceptable as long as it is respectful.
If one is capable of disproving someone's point objectively, it is appropriate to declare that the person is wrong. Outside of "Who Said It?" and the debate forum, objective statements rarely have a place.
Criticism is key in the pursuit of excellence. While respectful criticism is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. "I dislike..." is an appropriate way to begin a response, while "You are a fool because..." is not.
Criticism and rebuttals can sometimes be painful to receive, and users are expected to be mindful of others' feelings in their choice of words. Appropriate ideas can be worded inappropriately. In such situations, the post is considered defamatory and will be subject to remedy.
If a user takes offense to an otherwise appropriate post, the matter should be handled privately. Involve the moderator if necessary, but do not mock one another publicly!
Absolutely never divulge personal information of any kind about another user or non-user without explicit consent, even if the information can be found elsewhere on the Internet. Such behavior will result in immediate remedy and, in some cases, legal action.
Threats of any kind are to be taken seriously. If it is unclear whether a remark is a joke or a threat, or if someone posts an offensive joke, report it immediately. If a moderator is in violation of these rules, report them to the administrators.
Criticizing a person, as opposed to that person's work, is a personal attack. Criticizing someone's actions, beliefs or character constitutes a personal attack. Criticizing the moderators publicly constitutes a personal attack.
<font size=+2>Hate</font>
Messages shall not be tolerated that pass any prejudgment on a basis of gender, race, religion, political affiliation, sexual preference, age, nationality or family lineage.
Any claims on these topics must be supported by valid evidence, qualified by appropriate wording, and described with the utmost respect for everyone.
The use of dysphemisms, derrogatory characterizations, personal objectifications and stereotypes are strictly prohibited. Words whose purpose is to condemn someone on these bases are prohibited.
<font size=+2>Inflammatory Posting</font>
There is an important distinction to be drawn between stirring up a controvercial topic of discussion and merely trying to infuriate people. The latter can be based on some kind of indirect personal attack or inappropriate joke. It is certainly inflammatory to rekindle a verbal battle, subtle as one's strategies may be. Complaining for complaint's sake is certainly inflammatory. However it is done, it is totally inappropriate.
Again, I want to distinguish between legitimate debate topics and obnoxious remarks. Discussing the merits of a hypothetical discussion group without moderators is appropriate. Suggesting that the moderators be removed, perhaps with a list of reasons why, is both absurd and infuriating.
One will note that specific examples are not mentioned here, although they have certainly been plentiful recently. To mention someone's specific post as an example of how not to behave would be - you guessed it - inflammatory.
In the past, such posts have often been locked after someone got mad. Henceforth, posts that are obviously intended to rile feathers will be edited or deleted immediately so that such battles may be prevented. In order to justify such action, the moderator must have a clear idea of whom the post is intended to offend.
<font size=+2>Research and quality</font>
"While skill levels vary among the members of the forum, there is an obvious difference between posting a composition and simple mental dross. The latter reduces the value of an individual's words and the attention they will receive. It is also disruptive and harmful to the discussion groups as a whole. Works which display no effort or are designed only to garner attention will be considered off-topic and treated as such." (Declaration of Policy, David, 19 Jan 2001.)
Quoteland.com is above all an academic resource, and the quality of work must reflect that. Allowing for personal skill, all posts must demonstrate reasonable effort on the part of the author to make a meaningful contribution to the community. Posts which contain unsubstantiated claims, demonstrate inadequate research, are needlessly wordy, contain lies, pass opinions for truths may be subject to editing or deletion.
<blockquote><small> Before one starts a thread, one should ask himself this: <ol>
Is this topic appropriate for Quoteland (and this particular forum)?
Considering the incredible volume of posts on the site, does this topic merit posting?
Are my words well-chosen and respectful?
Are my claims substantiated?
Am I breaking any rules or guidelines in posting this? </ol> </blockquote></small>(David, 15 Nov 2002)
All claims must be supported by research or qualified as personal experience. All research and quotations should be cited. Naturally, there is allowance for casual posting and fun. That being said, this site is dedicated to excellence, and its posts should strive toward that ideal.
<font size=+2>Proper language</font>
The Quoteland.com community is dedicated to excellence in the tradition of the English Language. Posts must be written in proper English. All posts should be composed in complete sentences, with the exception of lists and poetry.
While contractions and other colloqualisms are allowed, jargon is not. It is strictly prohibited to substitute numbers for letters (a characteristic of so-called "l33t-speak"). Acronyms are to be avoided unless their significance is perfectly clear. Punctuation and capitalization are required. Shortened words, such is "cuz" for "because," are prohibited.
While it is preferable that one use words to express emotion, "smilies" are acceptable. Excessive use of "smilies" is inappropriate.
<font size=+2>Profanity and sexual depictions</font>
The following is a quotation from <a"http://forum.quoteland.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=586192041&f=260191641&m=3341984795">"A couple of rule clarifications"</a> (David, 20 Oct 2002).
<blockquote><small>
1. Obscenity will not be allowed as a modifying device in the debate forum.
2. If you are debating about swears, or they are used as evidence, then they may be used.
3. Moderators may modify the word, as long as the intended word can still be identified by mature readers.
4. The author should warn readers at the top of his post. It is up to the discretion of the moderators to include a warning in the title of the thread.
5. On other forums where appropriate use is more difficult to determine, the distinction is left to the discretion of the moderator.
As always, moderators have the last say.
Commentary:
Including an obscene word as a metaphor or jargon is not going to prove your point. I promise you this.
It is fully within my power to censor swear words, so that all the letters but the first and last are automatically replaced with ***.
</blockquote></small>
Sex is a part of life, and its discussion is not necessarily prohibited. That being said, all discourse on Quoteland must fall within the bounds of proper taste. It is impossible to define what is disgusting, but one should know what it is. It is possible to offend uninentionally. As it is said, "de gustibus non est disputandum." If you find a post offensive, please report it to the moderator. The moderator may edit or delete the post if it seems inappropriate.
If you believe that something is definitely worthy of being posted but that it may be offensive, put a warning in your subject line and at the top of your post. It may still get edited, but it is less likely.
Absolutely no images may be posted that depict sexual acts. The same all goes for violence, gore and hate.
<u>Amendment: 21 December 2003</u>
In general, moderators will employ the "Miller test" to evaluate cases of borderline obscenity. In Miller v. California (1973), the United States Supreme Court developed a three-fold test to differentiate art from wanton obscenity:
<blockquote><small> 1.“Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest. 2. “Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law. 3. “Whether the work, taken as whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” </blockquote></small>
Obviously, these criteria are highly subjective, but they provide a suitable rubric from which to evaluate a post. The moderators are not obligated to use the Miller test, but will generally employ it when a post borders on the inappropriate.
<font size=+2>Thread subject lines</font>
Most people do not have enough time to read all of the topics. Out of courtesy to your fellow users, you should strive to make your topic line as clear and specific as possible. "Help me, please!" is not an adequate topic. Vague topic lines may be subject to editing or deletion. Although topics need not be complete sentences, the other language guidelines are in effect. Please do not use profanity or potentially offensive language in your subject lines.
<font size=+2>Repeat threads</font>
There are too many threads on Quoteland. Please do your part by searching for previous threads that deal with your topic. The search engine is extremely effective; use it. Do not be offended if the moderators delete or merge repeat threads; they are merely making the site more accessible.
If the old thread is already extremely long (more than three separate pages), you may start a new thread at your discretion.
<font size=+2>"Flooding" and "bumping"</font>
Flooding, or "on-topic spamming," erodes the quality of Quoteland discussion. Flooding is called such because it dilutes the thread listing with too much work from the same source. Flooders generally do not employ sufficient discretion with regards to the quality of their posts. The end result is usually that no one's work gets read. Moderators may consolidate or delete posts if they feel that a user has been posting excessively.
"Bumping," or replying to one's own thread for the purpose of increasing its exposure, is almost always inappropriate. If, after one week, a post received absolutely no replies, you may bump your post once. You may not bump your post a second time, even if it does not receive any response. If a specific forum prohibits bumping, the forum-specific rule is in effect.
While you may reply to replies, it is inappropriate to reply to each reply individually for the sake of increasing exposure.
<font size=+2>Spamming (off-topic posting)</font>
If your post is off-topic in the forum to which you posted it, it may be moved without notice. Absolutely no commercial promotions are allowed on Quoteland.com. Although General Discussion is considered the "off-topic" forum, posts which are clearly irrelevant to every dimension of the community will be deleted.
<font size=+2>Plagiarism</font>
Quoteland.com believes in the importance of scholarly honor. Plagiarism of any kind is completely intolerable. Any deliberate attempt to claim another person's work as one's own will result in immediate and indefinite suspension from the discussions. If an act of plagiarism is deemed "accidental," a second chance may be granted. There are no other exceptions, no matter how distinguished the user or how eloquent his apology.
<font size=+2>Clarifications and elasticity clause</font>
The administrators and moderators of the Quoteland.com User Groups reserve the right, should it become necessary, to use their administrative powers for any purpose not expressly mentioned here. Should such a situation arise, it should immediately be reported so that the constitution can be clarified on the matter. As with all of the rules, such decisions are subject to appeal, and users are entitled to a meaningful explanation.
<font size=+2>Compliance</font>
Quoteland.com is a service. As with any other service, you use it on the terms of the service's providers. When you enter someone else's home, you are expected to abide by their rules or leave. We ask that you do the same for us. If you do not like our rules, you may suggest that they be revised. Until we choose to change them, though, we ask that you comply by them.
If you feel that our rules are unacceptable, we invite you to move your discussion to a community that is more to your liking. We acknoweldge that we have no way to stop those who are totally determined to undermine our rules. We ask, out of respect for our work, that you accept these rules or go elsewhere.
Most sincerely,
David B. Borenstein
Adam L. Lewis
[This message was edited on 06-12-03 at 08:45 PM.]
[This message was edited on 08-02-03 at 10:31 PM.]
[This message was edited on 12-21-03 at 09:59 PM.]
[This message was edited by thenostromo on 07-24-07 at 12:58 AM.]This message has been edited. Last edited by: thenostromo,
Posts: 1171 | Location: Cambridge, MA | Registered: 08-30-00
It seems there are few loopholes with which one in power may exploit to further certain or personal agendas or vendettas. There is no respect clause that can be perverted in order to silence those who are disliked though otherwise law-abiding. Since the above was my main complaint, I am a happy camper for the most part.
But you want feedback, and so I will offer some, and no, don't take this as just criticism.
"That being said, all discourse on Quoteland must fall within the bounds of proper taste."
This is ripe for a prudish mod to seize and use to enforce a moral agenda which is wholly incompatible to scholarship.
While this (in the same paragraph) : "If you find a post offensive, please report it to the moderator. The moderator may edit or delete the post if it seems inappropriate."
Is a carte blanc for any member to call for censorship of any particular subject. I have used this example before, but it still holds: I, personally, find relgious people contemptible in the extreme, yet if I (legitimately) complained that every post they make extolling their Faith offends me, I would be a bit selfish, yes? So I think I am being resonable for, in my reticence I do not call for any censoring. In my experience, though, many have called on posts that were anti-religious or "blasphemous" to be removed. "Offensive" is a value judgement, and I fail to see why QL should enforce such values unless it wishes to make an official philosophical stand (is QL officially theist? etc.), which I don't THINK you want to do.
I find the "inflammatory posting" section to be excessive. HOW do you know the author's mindset/intent? I find the conclusion that a thread is "intended to ruffle feathers" to be yet another quick means of pre-emptiveness to strike ALL criticism. Is this what you want? I really fail to see how you can KNOW what the intent of the author is, unless, of course, you mean to say that ANY criticism is intentionally ruffling feathers. If so, then I respectfully disagree, and the battles at the suggestion box, I think, show that the "feather ruffling" excuse was often just that -- an excuse to shut people up who had legit complaints.
"Criticizing a person, as opposed to that person's work, is a personal attack. Criticizing someone's actions, beliefs or character constitutes a personal attack. Criticizing the moderators publicly constitutes a personal attack."
This bothers me. A person is often inseparable from their works. If one is a warmonger then one EMBODIES a belief and action that others will find morally repugnant. Thus, others will condemn warmongering. According to your rules, this condemnation amounts to a personal attack. And the moderators addition is a bit much? This is like forbidding criticism of any particular position : President, Cop, CEO, whatever. It's a GENERAL criticism, while a personal criticism has to be to a SPECIFIC person. Unless you want to change the accepted meaning of "personal"?
The rest is all quite good, though the first enactment of the elasticity clause should be interesting. All in all I like what you've done and of course we all know it was sorely needed. I think my criticisms are minor when applied to the constitution as a whole.
Thank you, Retardo. I really have to get to sleep (I spent too much time writing a composition for WC), but I want to make a couple of brief remarks about your suggestions.
I agree that the 'taste' and 'inflammatory posting' bits are a bit broad. I was hoping that the enquiry system would prevent an abuse of power in these cases, but I guess I should still refine the rules.
Taste: Certain things can be well-researched, well-written, and completely inappropriate. It's like the British laws concerning obscenity: they are very vague, and the discretion of the judge be employed in exercising them.
I would consider replacing "If you find...inappropriate." with:
"If you find a post offensive, please report it to a moderator. The moderator may edit it temporarily, pending a review by at least one peer. If the peer upholds the decision, the edit stands."
Also, it is worth mentioning that all of the moderators have exercised a lot of restraint since the introduction of the constitution. I think you need not worry too much about elastic rules.
I am not sure how to rework the inflammatory posting section. It is absolutely critical, because some posts are clearly intended to upset people - and it works. We need to be able to respond to that kind of situation before it explodes.
Again, I propose a retroactive peer review system to balance the power vested in it. If you can think of another alternative, I would be willing to consider it.
I have to disagree with you about the personal attacks rule. Criticize the concept of moderation, or the idea of moderators, to your heart's content. Criticize the idea of CEOs, etc. I don't care. If you criticize a particular CEO, or a particular moderator, I care.
It is always possible to separate the person from his role and from his actions. Parents are advised to discipline their children by telling them that they love them, but they do not love what the children have done.
Imagine what devastation it would do if the parent said "I don't love you because you broke my lamp!"
Or the friends of a criminal. They still care for their friend, even if they despise their role in society.
So, to cite your warmongering example. Suppose you are a pacifist and there is a warmonger who's saying some nasty things. It would be appropriate for you to say "I disapprove of advocating violence for its own sake." It would be inappropriate to say "I disapprove of +you+."
That would be true even if you said "I disapprove of your because..."
Criticize the ideas, but not the people. That has a place - but it isn't Quoteland. Period.
Once again, thank you for your thoughtful response. I can tell by the 'views' column that this isn't everyone's first choice of reading. I do appreciate your support.
Do you have an guidelines for the little "report this person" icons?
-A friend
We want to stand upon our own feet and look fair and square at the world - its good facts, its bad facts, its beauties, and its ugliness; see the world as it is and be not afraid of it. Conquer the world by intelligence and not merely by being slavishly subdued by the terror that comes from it.
I have a concern for the blind assertion clause in the constitution. Is it a rule or a template of encouraged behavior?
*I* shall come again,
Cheers!
"If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in thought or deed, I will gladly change. I seek the truth, which never yet hurt anybody. It is only persistence in self-delusion and ignorance which does harm." [Marcus Aurelius]
quote: Quoteland.com is above all an academic resource, and the quality of work must reflect that. Allowing for personal skill, all posts must demonstrate reasonable effort on the part of the author to make a meaningful contribution to the community. Posts which contain unsubstantiated claims, demonstrate inadequate research, are needlessly wordy, contain lies, pass opinions for truths may be subject to editing or deletion.
My question was refering to "unsubstantiated claims".
*I* shall come again,
Cheers!
"If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in thought or deed, I will gladly change. I seek the truth, which never yet hurt anybody. It is only persistence in self-delusion and ignorance which does harm." [Marcus Aurelius]
He means entity=god and the abscence of being able to substantiate access to afore mentioned entity. . .
Since no one is able to "substantiate" or prove the existance of a "metaphysical being" or of things of the "paranormal" persuasion, they are therefore - unsubstantiated claims and fodder for Ladons cannon, so to speak.
I humbly bow to your expert opinion in how to handle this dearest David. . .
I hope I summed that up in the correct way Ladon. . .
Not intended for illegal purposes, like anthrax and smallpox in surplus to murderers - Big Boi; "In Da Wind" The "Krispy Kreme" of Quoteland, and my HOT light is ALWAYS "on". -98.7 wildFM (revamped for QL)
No it is specific to all blind assertions. Sorry, I just have this thing for unsubstantiated claims. They really piss me off.
*I* shall come again,
Cheers!
"If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in thought or deed, I will gladly change. I seek the truth, which never yet hurt anybody. It is only persistence in self-delusion and ignorance which does harm." [Marcus Aurelius]
Just as at one point in history, the 'fact' of the world's flatness was substantiated by the consensus of belief of geographical experts, so too the real effects of metaphysical phenomena should be considered substantiated by the consensus of belief of those experts in matters metaphysical.
All of us rely on various sources of 'knowledge' to reach conclusions about things, and all sources have to be considered valid 'substance' for the purposes of open debate, because of the overwhelming consensus of belief in the real effects of the metaphysical experience.
On that basis, God should be allowable in supporting an individuals perspective.
I listen to the wind....to the wind of my soul....Cat Stevens
Posts: 3766 | Location: Brisbane, Australia | Registered: 07-26-02
I would have to also question the access to "personal truths" or assertations. . .
My thinking is more along the lines of the colorblind person stating that a red sock is "grey" or "green". That is his own personal truth, obviously not the "common" truth but for him it is none the less reality.
Blind assertations are only so if you dont give a REASON for it correct??
So would it be in good form if I stated, "I beleive in the Easter Bunny because I get colored eggs on Easter and my mom bought me a bunny and told me that the bunny brought the eggs."
In that statement is the assertation no longer blind??
I am not sure if this is the correct place for this but when David checks in I would like him to see how confuzzled a few of us are.(Namely me)
Not intended for illegal purposes, like anthrax and smallpox in surplus to murderers - Big Boi; "In Da Wind" The "Krispy Kreme" of Quoteland, and my HOT light is ALWAYS "on". -98.7 wildFM (revamped for QL)
This is a somewhat properly basic backed up assertion. However, you must demonstrate that mommy is an expert on bunnies and then show us why it should matter that the bunny exists.
Then we must define what is a good reason.
*I* shall come again,
Cheers!
"If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in thought or deed, I will gladly change. I seek the truth, which never yet hurt anybody. It is only persistence in self-delusion and ignorance which does harm." [Marcus Aurelius]
But I am in the midst of picking myself off the floor from a fit of laughter. (wipes tears away, catches breath)
That was funny, even if you didnt mean it to be.
quote:However, you must demonstrate that mommy is an expert on bunnies
That just struck me as enormously hilarious.
I am anxious to see Davids response. You do have a point.
Not intended for illegal purposes, like anthrax and smallpox in surplus to murderers - Big Boi; "In Da Wind" The "Krispy Kreme" of Quoteland, and my HOT light is ALWAYS "on". -98.7 wildFM (revamped for QL)
I am a little bit offended by what's happening here. There is an obvious distinction between a claim and an axiom, and you know what I'm talking about.
It is, by definition, impossible to substantiate axioms. Any logical process requires the establishment of axioms. It is impossible to reason without a starting point: the legitimacy of reason itself is an assumption.
If every assumption made were to be explicitly stated, every post would begin with tens of thousands of pages of declarations:
"Suppose that these 26 letters can be interpreted to create sounds analogous to those in the English language... and suppose the English language were to be..."
Such fundamental assumptions, "unsubstantiated" though they may be, are nonetheless necessary to creating a means for dialogue.
It is perfectly absurd to demand that axioms must be explicitly declared. They are not 'claims' - the are groundwork.
What I am +not+ saying that it is an acceptable method of argument to exert a +challenged+ axiom as evidence. "Homosexuality is evil because God condemns it" just won't cut it.
"Since homosexuality is condemned in Judeo-Christian scripture, there is a religious argument against homosexual acts" does.
The distinction here is a matter of objectivity: one can make a substantiated claim using the format, "Given x, then that y be true."
One +cannot+ make a substantiated claim by saying "Y is true." In some cases, it can validly be asserted as an axiom or as self-evident. But no logical step may be taken in this form.
Let's go to your "easter bunny" business, which is a farce.
"I beleive in the Easter Bunny because I get colored eggs on Easter and my mom bought me a bunny and told me that the bunny brought the eggs."
This claim is completely substantiated. Note that the claim is not about the Easter Bunny's existence; it is about the author's beliefs. The author believes such and such (a subjective observation - undebatable) for personal reasons. We have no reason to disbelieve them.
The following steps would be invalid:
1) "Since my mother told me the Easter Bunny exists, it does." (This is not valid no matter how "expert" mother is.)
2) "Since I believe that the Easter bunny exists, it does." (Note that this step, although rarely articulated, is one of the most common errors in argumentation.)
"The bunny matters because mommy says so" is never, prima facie, a valid claim. "The bunny matters to me..." would be. This is independent of Mommy's expertise. If Mommy were an expert, Mommy would have some evidence to show. And if you would make this claim, so would you.
Now enough of this sophomorism. I don't know why I even bothered to respond to this.
I brought the "Easter Bunny" into it so that everyone might be able to see the "lighter" side of the assertation argument.
There are definately some people that make unsubstantiated claims, fling them wildly, and expect for them to hold up in a debate.
I beleive Ladon had a true and good question. I apologize if by me adding my two cents I lowered the intelligence of the initial inquiry. . .
Not intended for illegal purposes, like anthrax and smallpox in surplus to murderers - Big Boi; "In Da Wind" The "Krispy Kreme" of Quoteland, and my HOT light is ALWAYS "on". -98.7 wildFM (revamped for QL)
So unsubstantiated claims are allowed when subjective?
*I* shall come again,
Cheers!
"If anyone can show me, and prove to me, that I am wrong in thought or deed, I will gladly change. I seek the truth, which never yet hurt anybody. It is only persistence in self-delusion and ignorance which does harm." [Marcus Aurelius]
Subjective claims are based on the experience of the speaker, about which the speaker is the absolute and undebatable authority. So a subjective statement is ipso facto substantiated.
That being said, a subjective statement makes flimsy evidence for just about everything. "I feel x when y happens" is not going to justify very many claims.
quote:Originally posted by David: Subjective claims are based on the experience of the speaker, about which the speaker is the absolute and undebatable authority. So a subjective statement is _ipso facto_ substantiated.
That being said, a subjective statement makes flimsy evidence for just about everything. "I feel x when y happens" is not going to justify very many claims.
Thankyou David. I know having clarified that will make certain of the debate topics run a whole lot more smoothly.
As for subjective statements being flimsy evidence, maybe so if one is here to prove the science books right. But others *perspective* of truth is a very enriching element of debate if one is here rather to learn.
I listen to the wind....to the wind of my soul....Cat Stevens
Posts: 3766 | Location: Brisbane, Australia | Registered: 07-26-02
Ok David, I'm not saying your wrong or trying to challenege you in anyway...maybe I jsut didnt read it clearly enough, but why arent you aloud to use acronyms? I use them all the time...I just read the consitution for tha first time and I just don't understand.
Dreams created by the subconcious mind...Illusions of hope leaving you blind.
~*?Lauren?*~
Posts: 397 | Location: Between subconsious dreams and the pain of reality | Registered: 01-03-03
I think he just doesn't want us talking with sentences full of lols and brbs amd jkz and wtfs and lmaos (and so on ). Which is understandable, no?
-A friend
*Precise Imagination*
We want to stand upon our own feet and look fair and square at the world - its good facts, its bad facts, its beauties, and its ugliness; see the world as it is and be not afraid of it. Conquer the world by intelligence and not merely by being slavishly subdued by the terror that comes from it.
