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.Originally Posted by scottish-guy
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.
I think we're more likely to vote with our fingers - such is the nature of technology.
Siam Roads offers an escort/tour guide service, in some of the more popular tourist destinations. Speaking personally on behalf of the lads, I'd rather off a boy from a bar and have him act as my tour guide. At least, there'd be sex available.
Hitchhiking's more of a challenge on the road less travelled.
unless he will be arrested for illegal guiding without license (mostly in Bangkok or Ayuthaya in Thailand, Ho Chi Minh and Hanoi in Vietnam, somehow at Bali)...
Bali (Indonesia), Cambodia, Myanmar, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam and Laos: gay guides and companions http://siamroads.com
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?
Yes, but I specifically referred to "a clearly stated rule", not those which are open to interpretation.
Of course, imprecisely worded rules are a can of worms.
The rule (discussion of moderating decisions) you're referring to is imprecisely worded and is open to interpretation.
The fact that Moses has found it necessary to explain it at least twice in this thread alone (the difference between decision and policy), points to that fact
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote