Nobody's arguing about "The Rules" - the disquiet is over the way they are currently being applied and the attitude of some of the people applying themOriginally Posted by Moses
Nobody's arguing about "The Rules" - the disquiet is over the way they are currently being applied and the attitude of some of the people applying them
Thank you for quick answers, although it doesn't explain why after several days and several requests, we still could only surmise that frequent had been suspended, see Member Banned thread.
No, look at the thread: frequent's nickname appears at 5th post... after it there was nothing else to add
Bali (Indonesia), Cambodia, Myanmar, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam and Laos: gay guides and companions http://siamroads.com
There may be a temptation to attack a banned member, knowing that he can not defend himself.
Not mentioning who has been banned can, to some extent, curtail such behaviour.
Equally, there may be a temptation to support him - that's really what's attempting to be curtailed.
Basically Moses and Head Judge Len have no intention of having their judgement questioned - that's what's behind it all.
If you can't see that a447 you may borrow my binoculars
Almost. Moderator's decision is final unless he wants to change his decision. And I don't want public multi-page drama every time after moderator's action. Wanna to discus - welcome to PM, supporting public cheerleader-drama is forbidden.
Bali (Indonesia), Cambodia, Myanmar, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam and Laos: gay guides and companions http://siamroads.com
bobsaigon2 (October 31st, 2017)
If the member has been legitimately banned, i.e. he has violated a clearly stated rule, then it's hard to support that member unless you withdraw your support for the rule he breached.
So there's a much greater chance that someone will go on the attack while the member has his hands tied. They could justify such an attack by simply pointing to the rule.
SG, do you agree with me when I say that if you support the violator, you cease supporting the rule?
That seems to me to be the crux of the matter.
The crux of the matter is that, as in life, you ought to stand up for what you believe in.
Rules are subject to interpretation and application - either or both can be wrong, and to say that no dissension will be tolerated is to proclaim your own infallibility.
Do you feel infallible?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote