Introducing a New Method for Enforcing TOS/Site Rules

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bcampos

I don't disagree with rules, it was the big-brother aspect I was trying to discuss. We have just kind of wandered off the path of the conversation and turned it into something it should not have been.

---

This is all the stuff I tried to say.. I'm just a Dummy though.. Good job BC!!:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wilomn

Ok, no now I have your testbook definition above and this comment here but, unless I missed it, I don't have your defintion of communism unless, of course, you argee whole heartedly with the textbook definition you used.

Supposing you do, wouldn't the abililty to simply walk away from the site, out of big brother's sight, negate the implication you make of two classes?

---

That is my definition of comunism. I've studied it just a bit. I havent seen many textbooks that discuss it in the manner I've explained. Walking away from the site would be like leaving China. Sure you can leave a communist country, but that doesn't make the place you left anything other than communism.

Sometimes you have to fight a bit to make what can be good better.

Sometimes you have to pick your fights also.. And it is clear that we have a different opinion and you are trying to get me mad. Calling my definition the textbook answer when it is not will not change my ideals, even if you enjoy bashing my knowledge. It will not anger me to see your opposition. It is clear that we do not agree, and you want to duke it out.

If you have a better "real world" definition of comunism please, share. But again, we have gone very far off topic here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JASBALLS

This is all the stuff I tried to say.. I'm just a Dummy though.. Good job BC!!:bow:

---

Thank you JASBALLS

I think it is funny that people who do not contribute to this community choose to post in threads that concern how those who participate in the community are to be repremanded for bad behavior.

Glad to see the new policy. I hope it makes this forum much easier to moderate for the mods/admins and causes some people to reconsider making inappropriate post before they hit the reply button.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daniel1983

I think it is funny that people who do not contribute to this community choose to post in threads that concern how those who participate in the community are to be repremanded for bad behavior.

Glad to see the new policy. I hope it makes this forum much easier to moderate for the mods/admins and causes some people to reconsider making inappropriate post before they hit the reply button.

---

Daniel, Shame on you!! There are tons of folks here that dont even post! They have rights to you know? Post counts mean nothing here..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JASBALLS

Daniel, Shame on you!! There are tons of folks here that dont even post! They have rights to you know? Post counts mean nothing here..

---

Wow Jas... Aparently there are some people here who think you have to sit at home and make 5,000 posts before you can have an opinion!!!!

Contributions to the site are beyond the old ataboys ,and nice pic dude, comments....

Quote:

---

I still fail to see why enforcing rules that already existed is somehow depriving anyone of enjoying the site.

---

I don't disagree with enforcing the rules, in fact I like the way the rules have been spelled out a little more clearly. What I disagree with is the public punishment idea where everyone can see how many times you've been dinged, but not what it was for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JASBALLS

Daniel, Shame on you!! There are tons of folks here that dont even post! They have rights to you know? Post counts mean nothing here..

---

Funny thing is that you have to post in order for this policy to effect you.

If you just kept your mouth shut, your infraction level would have been zero. But you chose to post therefore the rule effected you.

How is someone that posts rarely going to be greatly effected by a policy related to the manner in which people post? It should not concern them unless the few posts that they make each month are all inappropriate.

I don't understand the issue with the policy. It is no different than the previous methods used by moderators/admin. It is just a different way of keeping track of the infractions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkS

I don't disagree with enforcing the rules, in fact I like the way the rules have been spelled out a little more clearly. What I disagree with is the public punishment idea where everyone can see how many times you've been dinged, but not what it was for.

---

Mark---- I hear you on the public punishment without explanation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bcampos

Ok plain and simple guy... If you would like to explain exactly what the text book answer is.

Comunism is "Revolutionary Proletarian Socialism" or "Marxism." It is a political and economical philosophy claiming to be free of ideology. Yet it is a specific ideal in and of itself. It is a structure that promotes a "classless" society of people, yet in doing so creates a distinct upper and lower class. The upper class is usually the organization or political structure that enforces the ideals. Its design is that a mass of working class can push forward without materialism, and create a better world. In reality, it is a "big-brother" attitude of the enforcers keeping the "classless" working class in check and under control.

I think we've gotten away from the topic of the big-brother system, but I'm sure you understand now.

---

I believe, as this post shows, that it was you who brought text books into a discussions about opinions and definitions.

Thank you for your disagreement.

Perhaps I missed you saying so, but I don't recall you mentioning anything about making a change in the new system. I did see complaining about it and broad generalizations relating it to communism which, other than a text book definition of, you don't seem overly familiar with.

Are you implying, since you haven't said so directly, that the mods and admins have a want, a need, a desire to elevate themselves above the general membership and that they do this by oppressing that membership? Are you saying that the mods and admins oppress the general membership by making rules that only the general members have to follow, that the mods and admins are immune from?

Or are you saying that there are some members here who need to inflate their worth, their self value, the value they have in the eyes of others, by oppressing those general members who are not mods and admins?

You can see that I am confused.

I am confused because it seem to me that those who enforce the rules, rules which are by and large in accordance with what the general population wants, are working far harder than the very general membership that you claim is oppressed.

How can this be?