PDA

View Full Version : Rule of law, rule by law



aastrotech
2010-Jul-09, 01:04 PM
The ancient concept of rule of law is to be distinguished from rule by law, according to political science professor Li Shuguang: "The difference....is that under the rule of law the law is preeminent and can serve as a check against the abuse of power. Under rule by law, the law can serve as a mere tool for a government that suppresses in a legalistic fashion.

How does BAUT rule?

Intended as opinion feedback for mods.

Gillianren
2010-Jul-09, 05:03 PM
I'm not voting. I think it's yet another string of complaints like ones we've heard dozens of times before. Funny how your feedback for the mods is of more concern to you than others' feedback for you.

korjik
2010-Jul-09, 05:18 PM
The ancient concept of rule of law is to be distinguished from rule by law, according to political science professor Li Shuguang: "The difference....is that under the rule of law the law is preeminent and can serve as a check against the abuse of power. Under rule by law, the law can serve as a mere tool for a government that suppresses in a legalistic fashion.

How does BAUT rule?

Intended as opinion feedback for mods.

no, this is a way for you to whine about the way this board is moderated. If you dont like it that much, go away.

I also will not vote, and request that no one else vote either, so that we can show aastrotech that we are tired of people complaining about the moderators here

tusenfem
2010-Jul-09, 05:26 PM
I personally am in favour now of a dictatorship on this board by a few mods and all posts moderated.

Buttercup
2010-Jul-09, 05:29 PM
I personally am in favour now of a dictorship on this board by a few mods and all posts moderated.

Are you being serious? :confused:

captain swoop
2010-Jul-09, 06:13 PM
I vote for a semi-dictatorship where the posts of certain members are all moderated.

NEOWatcher
2010-Jul-09, 06:24 PM
can serve as a check against the abuse of power. Under rule by law, the law can serve as a mere tool for a government that suppresses in a legalistic fashion.
How about can serve as a means to prevent anarchy?

I voted none of the above. Unfortunately, now I have a pencil mark on my screen.

HenrikOlsen
2010-Jul-09, 06:34 PM
That poll is missing the options "None of the above", "The question is meaningless" and "Beer!"

Kaptain K
2010-Jul-09, 06:51 PM
I agree with korjik!

Go away!

:wall:

captain swoop
2010-Jul-09, 08:12 PM
Be Nice.

Paul Beardsley
2010-Jul-09, 08:47 PM
Be Nice.

I nicely agree with korjik, Kaptain K and Gillian.

Honestly, though, how much more?

Disinfo Agent
2010-Jul-09, 08:53 PM
How does BAUT rule?

Intended as opinion feedback for mods.It is my understanding that the BAUT forums have a rule which prohibits such feedback, when given publicly.

Moose
2010-Jul-09, 11:27 PM
It is my understanding that the BAUT forums have a rule which prohibits such feedback, when given publicly.

The problem is more when such "feedback" winds up 'jacking an ongoing thread. Still, we do recommend the reports feature all the same. The mod team will see the feedback a lot sooner, and really, is there any real need for a continuous three-ring circus? That just winds up annoying large portions of the membership without a lick of benefit.

danscope
2010-Jul-10, 07:37 PM
" To Serve Man " .... it's a cook book!

jlhredshift
2010-Jul-10, 08:30 PM
" To Serve Man " .... it's a cook book!

I'm sorry, but I think the correct quote is "How to serve Man.":dance:

aastrotech
2010-Jul-11, 10:58 AM
So a string of adolecent derision. Somewhat surprising percentage of derisive replies. But what I expected and from some of whom I expected. Good. From what I've read on this board at least one respondant is capable of a mature, reasoned response.

So, I have 2 questions for you all. (expecting at least one mature, reasoned response.)

1) The description of this forum invites us to "Introduce yourself, then criticize, compliment, or discuss how we do things.
The question is; how do you define criticism?

I want to see how much you can torture a definition of criticism to justify your response. I want you to feel free, go hog wild on this one.

2) Do you really think such a response to criticism reflects so well on this board as to justify it?

PS
My personal opinion is that it reflects badly on this board and that you should reflect on it.

HenrikOlsen
2010-Jul-11, 03:03 PM
The question is; how do you define criticism?
How do you?
From your past behavior, you seem to define it as alternatively sniping and whining, with the occasional vague allegation of wrongdoing.

aastrotech
2010-Jul-11, 03:57 PM
How do you?


I asked you first.

By the way. I think your use of the word vague is incorrect. Non specific criticism, as required by mod interpretation of rule 17, is the correct word. Under those terms specific criticisms are logicly stipulated as true so that a general critism can be discussed without "rehashing" unumerable specifics*.

*Or as you would say "sniping and whining."

HenrikOlsen
2010-Jul-11, 04:35 PM
I asked you first.
State what you think is wrong, read the response, then stop.

Don't repeat yourself again and again and again, you were heard the first time, your complaint was thought about.

Don't keep trying to invent new ways to bring the matter up either, the other people here are smart enough to recognize what you're doing and will call you out on it, as happened in this thread.

Continuing to do so will only have the effect of making people see you as an irritating pest we'd be better off without.


By the way. I think your use of the word vague is incorrect. Non specific criticism, as required by mod interpretation of rule 17, is the correct word. Under those terms specific criticisms are logicly stipulated as true so that a general critism can be discussed without "rehashing" unumerable specifics*.

*Or as you would say "sniping and whining."
I used vague intentionally because I still remember the song and dance routine you did about where you kept accusing a moderator of wrongly fouling you but you refused to define what you meant by "fouling" or to specify which incident you were referring to.

aastrotech
2010-Jul-11, 05:06 PM
State what you think is wrong, read the response, then stop.

Don't repeat yourself again and again and again, you were heard the first time, your complaint was thought about.

Don't keep trying to invent new ways to bring the matter up either, the other people here are smart enough to recognize what you're doing and will call you out on it, as happened in this thread.

Your opinion* has been noted and thought about. Please apply your own standard and stop repeating it again and again and again.

I, however, still have my reason. Since I still have a reason to post "about" this I will until my reason has been satisfied or disposed of.

*My definition of criticism does not include "read the response, then stop". Personaly I do read the response and evaluate it.

korjik
2010-Jul-11, 06:07 PM
Your opinion* has been noted and thought about. Please apply your own standard and stop repeating it again and again and again.

I, however, still have my reason. Since I still have a reason to post "about" this I will until my reason has been satisfied or disposed of.

*My definition of criticism does not include "read the response, then stop". Personaly I do read the response and evaluate it.

We can see by the results of your poll that you are in a very small minority who think you have a reason to keep complaining.

Guess what, we actually do know that you think you were wronged, and most of us think that you are wrong about being wronged. So would you please stop wasting that moderators time with repeated threads about how they all suck when you are one of a very small minority who actually think that.

No, the mods are not perfect. Yes, occasionally the moderation is not perfectly even. So what? If you think you got the short end of the stick at some point, then just deal with it. You arent banned, you can still participate to the point of being a nuisance, and can even make repeated pointless threads. Just like everyone else here. So you got your feelings hurt. Again, deal with it.

The moderation here is really pretty good. This thread is probably about the closest I have seen to a flame war here in years. There is almost no spam that we have to get through, people are civil and generally friendly. Questions are asked and answered by the score.

The very overwheming majority like it here. Alot. They like the way this board it run. Alot.

So if you really disagree that much with the way this board is run, why are you still here?

mugaliens
2010-Jul-12, 02:37 AM
2) Do you really think such a response to criticism reflects so well on this board as to justify it?.

I see a forum which specifically invites critism: "Introduce yourself, then criticize, compliment, or discuss how we do things."

I see the OP asking an honest question about how others perceive the general nature of moderation here on BAUT, whether it's "rule of law," which serves as a check against abuse of power, or "rule by law," in which rules are used when it suits those in power to do so, and ignored when it suits them to do so. In the first, the rules serve the needs of the masses, whereas in the latter, they exist as a barrier behind which those in power hide.

No one's perfect, so 1 and 5 are out. As to where in the middle three the answer lies, I've seen it tend more towards the "rule of law" than in the other direction, and that's a good thing. :)


State what you think is wrong, read the response, then stop.

Alternatively, you could stop dodging his question and simply answer it. He's put it to you twice, first in the OP (and quite politely), then in post number 18, a bit more directly subsequent to your "How do you?" misdirection.


So would you please stop wasting that moderators time with repeated threads about how they all suck...

The answers to his poll range very evenly from one extreme to the other. They in no way imply the mods "all suck." The OP, as it's written, is quite objective, and any "intended feedback" is from the poll, not from the OP.


The very overwheming majority like it here.

There are currently "381 users online," of which 65 are members, and the "most users ever online was 2,260." By this ratio, the most members ever online was around 386. When this number is compared to the 64,027 members, it's just 0.6%.

I think most people who're still here like it. The majority that didn't like it are long gone, and those who've departed are clearly in the majority, i.e. most people who've signed up as members are no longer here.


Alot. They like the way this board it run. Alot.

Try: "Alot. You like the way this board it run. Alot." It's more accurate.


So if you really disagree that much with the way this board is run, why are you still here?

So if you really disagree with his comments in this, in response to the forum's express invitation to "criticize, compliment, or discuss how we do things," why are you still here? For that matter, this applies to all who responded negatively towards aastrotech. The forum invitation is for you to discuss the board, not its members, so I must ask you - why are you ragging on one of its members?

As Rule 2 states: "Attack the ideas, not the person(s) presenting them. If you've got concerns with what someone is saying, feel free dismantle their arguments, but do not resort to ad hominem or personal attacks." Why then do 10 of 21 posts either directly or indirectly attack aastrotech?


I personally am in favour now of a dictatorship on this board by a few mods and all posts moderated.

I echo Buttercup: Are you being serious?


Still, we do recommend the reports feature all the same. The mod team will see the feedback a lot sooner, and really, is there any real need for a continuous three-ring circus?

If someone feels they're being slighted, then yes, there's a need for the Forum Introductions and Feedback section (not a three-ring circus). Nevertheless, I do not perceive this poll, with it's full range of potential answers, as aastrotech complaining about being slighted in the least. If anything, he may simply be curious as to how others feel about the issue.


That just winds up annoying large portions of the membership without a lick of benefit.

Each and every one of these members have full authority to refrain from reading, much less replying, to any of aastrotech's threads, polls, or posts. Thus, if they choose to read and reply, however annoyed they may be, they're choosing to be annoyed. As for benefit, we go back to the fact that if someone is taking the time to post a poll with a full range of answers, that fact itself substantiates a need. For those who might disagree, all one need do is search BAUT for any of the many polls whose only benefit is humor. Is that a benefit? Yes. But so is the satisfaction of one's curiosity, whether it's merely the OP's curiosity that's satisfied, or that of the other 96% who read these threads as users and not members.

I think the most telling thing about this thread is that most responses fall squarely in the definitions and examples of my Psych 101's textbook on the negative, exclusionary behavior of cliques as described in the chapter on Group Dynamics. There's nothing wrong with cliques, per se'. The take-away I learned in that class, as well as throughout my career in the military, is that the more mature the group, the less exclusionary and negative the behavior towards dissenters or those who call any aspect of the group into question.

aastrotech
2010-Jul-12, 04:49 AM
Well said Mugs, and thank you.

Though, just to be accurate and to forstall others pointing it out, I didn't ask the question about definition in the OP. It was post 16. In my opinion no harm at all.

korjik
2010-Jul-12, 05:31 AM
I see a forum which specifically invites critism: "Introduce yourself, then criticize, compliment, or discuss how we do things."

I see the OP asking an honest question about how others perceive the general nature of moderation here on BAUT, whether it's "rule of law," which serves as a check against abuse of power, or "rule by law," in which rules are used when it suits those in power to do so, and ignored when it suits them to do so. In the first, the rules serve the needs of the masses, whereas in the latter, they exist as a barrier behind which those in power hide.

No one's perfect, so 1 and 5 are out. As to where in the middle three the answer lies, I've seen it tend more towards the "rule of law" than in the other direction, and that's a good thing. :)



Alternatively, you could stop dodging his question and simply answer it. He's put it to you twice, first in the OP (and quite politely), then in post number 18, a bit more directly subsequent to your "How do you?" misdirection.



The answers to his poll range very evenly from one extreme to the other. They in no way imply the mods "all suck." The OP, as it's written, is quite objective, and any "intended feedback" is from the poll, not from the OP.



There are currently "381 users online," of which 65 are members, and the "most users ever online was 2,260." By this ratio, the most members ever online was around 386. When this number is compared to the 64,027 members, it's just 0.6%.

I think most people who're still here like it. The majority that didn't like it are long gone, and those who've departed are clearly in the majority, i.e. most people who've signed up as members are no longer here.



Try: "Alot. You like the way this board it run. Alot." It's more accurate.



So if you really disagree with his comments in this, in response to the forum's express invitation to "criticize, compliment, or discuss how we do things," why are you still here? For that matter, this applies to all who responded negatively towards aastrotech. The forum invitation is for you to discuss the board, not its members, so I must ask you - why are you ragging on one of its members?

As Rule 2 states: "Attack the ideas, not the person(s) presenting them. If you've got concerns with what someone is saying, feel free dismantle their arguments, but do not resort to ad hominem or personal attacks." Why then do 10 of 21 posts either directly or indirectly attack aastrotech?



I echo Buttercup: Are you being serious?



If someone feels they're being slighted, then yes, there's a need for the Forum Introductions and Feedback section (not a three-ring circus). Nevertheless, I do not perceive this poll, with it's full range of potential answers, as aastrotech complaining about being slighted in the least. If anything, he may simply be curious as to how others feel about the issue.



Each and every one of these members have full authority to refrain from reading, much less replying, to any of aastrotech's threads, polls, or posts. Thus, if they choose to read and reply, however annoyed they may be, they're choosing to be annoyed. As for benefit, we go back to the fact that if someone is taking the time to post a poll with a full range of answers, that fact itself substantiates a need. For those who might disagree, all one need do is search BAUT for any of the many polls whose only benefit is humor. Is that a benefit? Yes. But so is the satisfaction of one's curiosity, whether it's merely the OP's curiosity that's satisfied, or that of the other 96% who read these threads as users and not members.

I think the most telling thing about this thread is that most responses fall squarely in the definitions and examples of my Psych 101's textbook on the negative, exclusionary behavior of cliques as described in the chapter on Group Dynamics. There's nothing wrong with cliques, per se'. The take-away I learned in that class, as well as throughout my career in the military, is that the more mature the group, the less exclusionary and negative the behavior towards dissenters or those who call any aspect of the group into question.

Mugs, one thing I want to make clear, which I did in the OP's next thread, is that I am in no way asking all people who criticise to leave. I am adressing a specific poster who seems to be way past having an axe to grind, and now is beatng the dead horse with just the handle.

The specific poster in question has made many threads about how the mods are unfair, to the point of nusance and beyond, even tho it is more than abundantly clear that his view is nearly a minority of 1 member.

His issue has been raised and addressed. It is time for him to move on, either accepting the judgment of the owners of the board, or going to a different board. He seems very loath to do the former, so it seems the latter is in order.

If he dosent like it here, then making himself a nusance to the people who do like it here is simply being rude.

aastrotech
2010-Jul-12, 05:41 AM
It is time for him to move on, either accepting the judgment of the owners of the board, or going to a different board. He seems very loath to do the former, so it seems the latter is in order.


There is a third and fourth option.

The third is hope that my reasons are satisfied.

HenrikOlsen
2010-Jul-12, 06:28 AM
Alternatively, you could stop dodging his question and simply answer it.
That was my answer to the question he asked.

HenrikOlsen
2010-Jul-12, 06:29 AM
There is a third and fourth option.

The third is hope that my reasons are satisfied.
Would the fourth option be that you're reclassified to troll and kicked out?

mugaliens
2010-Jul-12, 07:18 AM
That was my answer to the question he asked.

So be it.


Mugs, one thing I want to make clear, which I did in the OP's next thread, is that I am in no way asking all people who criticise to leave. I am adressing a specific poster who seems to be way past having an axe to grind, and now is beatng the dead horse with just the handle.

I hear you, korjik. To paraphrase, you're tired of reading the same old complaint.


His issue has been raised and addressed. It is time for him to move on, either accepting the judgment of the owners of the board, or going to a different board. He seems very loath to do the former, so it seems the latter is in order.

If he dosent like it here, then making himself a nusance to the people who do like it here is simply being rude.

Perhaps if those who find themselves annoyed at any particular individual's posts took a moment to move on themselves, instead of stopping by to beat their own dead horse on this issue, the issue would die of starvation!

By rule of law (forum rules) a poster can't raise these issues in the normal forum threads, so he must raise them here. If no one responds, he'll soon tire of it. Even if he doesn't, people won't be bothered by what they don't read.

In the meantime, this section of BAUT remains open, by definition, to criticism of the forum, whether that criticism is good or bad. And while the individual of which you speak may have raised the same or similar issues in other threads, in this thread at least, standing alone on its own merits, I see little more than an objective poll followed by some backlash unwarrented by the OP and his other comments contained herein.

Food for thought...

HenrikOlsen
2010-Jul-12, 07:48 AM
in this thread at least, standing alone on its own merits, I see little more than an objective poll followed by some backlash unwarrented by the OP and his other comments contained herein.
And had this thread been started by anyone else it wouldn't have generated this response, because it's seen as continuing a pattern, which he then immediately lengthened even more in the next thread he started.

Moose
2010-Jul-12, 08:38 AM
There are currently "381 users online," of which 65 are members, and the "most users ever online was 2,260." By this ratio, the most members ever online was around 386. When this number is compared to the 64,027 members, it's just 0.6%.

There's a factual error here that deeply affects your conclusion. A very large fraction of the non-member users are web crawlers (most self-identify as Google and Yahoo.) The days (there were at least two that I remember) we had 2000+, we were being hit, hard, by spam crawlers. Those were otherwise normal days.

aastrotech
2010-Jul-12, 01:10 PM
Back to our regularly scheduled program where "by law" rampant rule violations are unchallangeable (except and unless by private agreement by mod) and (until and unless modded) are thus encouraged while rules are tortured to justify attacks against people with whom's ideas some disagree.

Watch the excess work, burnout, questions of integrity and further highjinks the show inevitably produces.

Starring

aastrotech as Kicking Horse

The Mods as themselves

And the ever popular hilarity of The Peanut Gallery

Ah hah hah
oh ho ho
and a couple of lousy louts
that's how we pass the day away
in the merry old land of BAUT

Swift
2010-Jul-12, 01:23 PM
Would the fourth option be that you're reclassified to troll and kicked out?
Henrik,

That is neither an appropriate comment nor appropriate speculation.

Please, do not make this a debate about aastrotech, nor any specific member.

aastrotech
2010-Jul-12, 01:54 PM
Ah hah hah
oh ho ho
and a couple of lousy louts
that's how we pass the day away
in the merry old land of BAUT

Do I sound angry? Have I lost my sense of humor? I submit that it is mathematicly impossible to be angry when singing...

Ah hah hah
oh ho ho
and a couple of lousy louts
that's how we pass the day away
in the merry old land of BAUT

Come on everybody, sing along

Ah hah hah
oh ho ho
and a couple of lousy louts
that's how we pass the day aaaawaaaaaay
in the merry old land of BAUT

HenrikOlsen
2010-Jul-12, 04:56 PM
Back to our regularly scheduled program where "by law" rampant rule violations are unchallangeable (except and unless by private agreement by mod) and (until and unless modded) are thus encouraged while rules are tortured to justify attacks against people with whom's ideas some disagree.
Aaand it's back to our regularly scheduled program of veiled vague accusations the introduction of which was too obviously the whole point of making this thread.

PetersCreek
2010-Jul-12, 09:06 PM
Derogatory nonsense results in thread closure. Moderator discussion pending.