You would think Rule #5 is pretty clear when it says "Signatures may not contain images or links."
Charles Anthony and liberty student, you get the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you haven't read the rules which you enforce as moderators, and which you agree to by signing up for an account. But now there is no longer an excuse. You guys are in persistent violation of Rule #5.
hashem: You would think Rule #5 is pretty clear when it says "Signatures may not contain images or links." Charles Anthony and liberty student, you get the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you haven't read the rules which you enforce as moderators, and which you agree to by signing up for an account. But now there is no longer an excuse. You guys are in persistent violation of Rule #5.
Snarky, but correct. If this thread is closed or deleted, it will not be by me.Although, I think this might be a case of negligence, not intentional violation. Editing a signature is a bit of a benign thing to remember to do, honestly; I had almost done the same thing linking to mine the other day when I remembered it was a rule lol.
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Liberty is so ingrained with anarchistic tendencies that he defies rules like a bird defies gravity. Fly free liberty...fly free.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Kinda like how police are so enfatuated with justice that they disregard laws as they please, and enforce them when they feel like it.
Some of the images have actually been "approved" by the Mises staff, e.g. Jeff Tucker really liking the calculation ani-gif.
hashem: Kinda like how police are so enfatuated with justice that they disregard laws as they please, and enforce them when they feel like it.
There's such a thing as the spirit of the laws, it is that, not the literal laws, that matters. Notice how links are in the topic area of "Spam," and how the reason for this is not to have forum members advertise, and promote material on other website. In that light, it is obvious that neither libertystudent, nor Charles Anthony have violated the spirit of the laws since their links are both to the mises forums, and are on relevent topics.
By the way, if you actually desire to point our rule violations to moderators, pming is the optimal method.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
laminustacitus: hashem: Kinda like how police are so enfatuated with justice that they disregard laws as they please, and enforce them when they feel like it. There's such a thing as the spirit of the laws, it is that, not the literal laws, that matters. Notice how links are in the topic area of "Spam," and how the reason for this is not to have forum members advertise, and promote material on other website. In that light, it is obvious that neither libertystudent, nor Charles Anthony have violated the spirit of the laws since their links are both to the mises forums, and are on relevent topics. By the way, if you actually desire to point our rule violations to moderators, pming is the optimal method.
I obviously see the relation between forum moderators and police officers.
laminustacitus:There's such a thing as the spirit of the laws, it is that, not the literal laws, that matters.
lol. OK because for a second I thought it said "Signatures may not contain images or links." My fault. I guess it's kinda curious how they didn't manage to mention anything like the "spirit of the rules" anywhere in the rules. Perhaps you've heard of the concept "the rule of law"?
I think anyone who lives in the U.S.A. knows where this spirit of the law concept goes. It's nowhere pretty. I would take the literal interpretation and the rule of law any day. But then, those with power always prefer their own interpretation don't they.
I found that signature links were a great method to reduce the number of newbie questions thread.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Signatures are peanuts. I personally don't see any problem with them. Even if they advertise outside blogs. It would only be a problem if it advertised commercial products, because then we would start attracting people more interested in selling than discussing economics or libertarianism.
If anything, Moderators can be exceptionally rude and insulting. Now, I'm extremely partial so I won't point out all the moderators I've seen doing this. But I will point out that this Knight_of_BAAWA guy seriously needs some moderation.
Perhaps the rule should be altered or loosened slightly? I like the link in Liberty Student's profile, it just links to a helpful forum thread.
And... if moderators are rude, insulting, or in flagrant violation of any serious rule, report it. Mods should be held to a higher standard, if anything, and I'm sure they will be since it reflects on LvMI's image.
Ansury:Mods should be held to a higher standard
One would think that is a given. But if you read the rules and look at the history of mod activity here, you will see they tend to be more like rule-breaking powermongers. There can be no denying that they are aware now of their persistent defiance of the terms in Rule #5: "Signatures may not contain images or links."
I've used forums for half of my life, and in my experience, forums where the rules are unclear and the mods are not held strictly to them never run as well as they could. It tends to make the mods look bad and more like typical elites than keepers of the peace.
It's sort of awkward how mods can ban people not just for violating rules, but literally because they feel like it. And yet they do not have to follow the rules themselves? So much for the higher standard.
There's also such a thing as protesting just a bit too much and pouting, hashem. And you're doing it.
Stephen Forde: But I will point out that this Knight_of_BAAWA guy seriously needs some moderation.
I disagree, i think KoB should be a double moderator.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Well there's always a higher authority than the mods, so if someone writes something in poor judgement, abuse report it. I don't see a major problem, unless you have some examples of more serious abuses that have gone unpunished. (I don't think this one is such a big deal.) But I am biased in this case because I think the image/link rule is a little too extreme.
But I will point out that this Knight_of_BAAWA guy seriously needs some moderation.
No, not really.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Ok so even the mods admit that they won't enforce or abide the rules. Further, pointing this out is considered "pouting". Congratulations you guys are awesome role models for all members and future moderators to follow. Great work team. Let's all give a big round of applause for these consistent and principled keepers of the peace. We all hope to follow in your footsteps one day.
Anarchist Cain:I obviously see the relation between forum moderators and police officers.
So I'm not the only one who sees the irony in a forum full of Anarcho-Capitalists with moderators and administrators.
Clubs are administered by their owners or their designates, no? So how is this inconsistent with anarcho-capitalist principles? Answer: it isn't.
Regarding mods and violations of so-called rules (I don't even know why the one regarding signatures exists and I do not enforce it), I don't recall being assertive being one of them, so I've no idea what "moderating" KoB needs.
its illustrative of the spontaneous order that individuals owning private property can create
While we're shredding the sanctity of forum rules, would the mods mind pointing out any others we can all blatantly violate simply because we don't agree with them?
Only that one, really.
hashem: While we're shredding the sanctity of forum rules...
While we're shredding the sanctity of forum rules...
The forum rules are not sacred, they are not an ends to themselves. The forum rules are a means to achieving a peaceful, and productive forum.
By "the forum rules" you mean "some forum rules, but not others." Right? Or do you mean all forum rules, regardless of whether you agree with them or not?
It should be noted that invariably among internet forums, the only rule that ever seems to be enforced (indeed, to even be attempted to be followed by the very moderators assigned to maintaining that forum rules are followed) is the vague "don't be rude" rule. Most powermongers pretend that it is their duty to guarantee that everybody "stays in line", so they can smack anybody down for violating the golden rule. But like many members, moderators inevitably find that they disagree with some rules, and further they find themselves in the unique position to pick and choose among them which to follow without consequence. Thus they often find themselves looking like police, who disregard speed limit laws because "there are more important laws to follow", or because "at least we aren't selling crack." They tend to forget the rule of law, that rules are to be followed, and that they are charged with making it so.
And really, who can do anything to rectify the situation except the very moderators who benefit from the power to disregard whichever rules they please? Certainly not the moderated masses, who are laughed out of court for daring to point out the obvious violations of the moderators.
Yeah I'm not exactly sure what would constitute a bannable offense?
What behavior isn't exactly allowed?
auctionguy10:Yeah I'm not exactly sure what would constitute a bannable offense?
You'll never be sure, because there are none. Instead, the moderators can ban people at will, whether or not it is proved that the banned did indeed violate forum policy. The problem is that the forum rules are so flimsy and transparently fallacious and contradictory and impossible that not even the mods attempt to follow all of them. Only principled people dare to follow rules when they could easily slime along in clear violation of them.
auctionguy10:What behavior isn't exactly allowed?
Well, for example, "Signatures may not contain images or links."
Well- I mean I have seen members here being banned before, and not for any specific forum rules. So maybe the mods that banned them can explain why they came to that conclusion so we can avoid that particular type of behavior?
hashem:You'll never be sure, because there are none. Instead, the moderators can ban people at will, whether or not it is proved that the banned did indeed violate forum policy. The problem is that the forum rules are so flimsy and transparently fallacious and contradictory and impossible that not even the mods attempt to follow all of them. Only principled people dare to follow rules when they could easily slime along in clear violation of them.
Dude, is this really an issue for you?
I mean after all the allegations you throw at mods, I do not see you banned at will?
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
Why not just ask to have the rule changed or clarified instead of discussing it's relevance or validity?
Seriously hashem, you can't apply "rule of law" to forum rules.If I have a rule in my house that states that no-one can use curse words (I do not have this rule), and I drop something on my foot and start to use curse words, is that a problem? No.
There's no such thing as "rule of law" on forums, the only rule on forums is "might makes right". In this case it's a very libertarian principle. Go read Atlas Shrugged, when Rearden's brothet starts talking about "freedom of speech", Rearden gets pissed and says "not in my house". That's the libertarian way, like it or leave it.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Go read Atlas Shrugged, when Rearden's brothet starts talking about "freedom of speech", Rearden gets pissed and says "not in my house". That's the libertarian way, like it or leave it.
Juan: But the idea that you get to control what your guests say is totalitarian nonsense.
this is a strawman juan...
you get to control whether your guests can stay. and you advise them how to behave so that they can improve their chances of being allowed to stay...
if they want to upset you and get thrown out, then they are free to do so.
Anarchist Cain:Liberty is so ingrained with anarchistic tendencies that he defies rules like a bird defies gravity. Fly free liberty...fly free.
laminustacitus:There's such a thing as the spirit of the laws
Nitroadict:While technically true...[advertising]...is a good thing for the forum.
Stranger:I found that signature links were a great method to reduce the number of newbie questions thread.
Stephen Forde:I personally don't see any problem with them. Even if they advertise outside blogs.
Ansury:Perhaps the rule should be altered or loosened slightly?
Knight_of_BAAWA:There's also such a thing as..pouting, hashem. And you're doing it.
Ansury:unless you have some examples of more serious abuses that have gone unpunished. (I don't think this one is such a big deal.)
laminustacitus:The forum rules are not sacred
Harry Felker:Dude, is this really an issue for you?
Arvin:Seriously hashem
Or...the mods could follow the forum rules. Just thought I'd throw that one out there. It seems like a revolutionary idea among the crowd here. *Jury gasps* *Whispers go around -- Did he just suggest what I thought he just suggested?! Moderators have to follow rules?! Somebody shut him up!*
Great post above. Seconded.
hashem: Anarchist Cain:Liberty is so ingrained with anarchistic tendencies that he defies rules like a bird defies gravity. Fly free liberty...fly free. laminustacitus:There's such a thing as the spirit of the laws Nitroadict:While technically true...[advertising]...is a good thing for the forum. Stranger:I found that signature links were a great method to reduce the number of newbie questions thread. Stephen Forde:I personally don't see any problem with them. Even if they advertise outside blogs. Ansury:Perhaps the rule should be altered or loosened slightly? Knight_of_BAAWA:There's also such a thing as..pouting, hashem. And you're doing it. Ansury:unless you have some examples of more serious abuses that have gone unpunished. (I don't think this one is such a big deal.) laminustacitus:The forum rules are not sacred Harry Felker:Dude, is this really an issue for you? Arvin:Seriously hashem Or...the mods could follow the forum rules. Just thought I'd throw that one out there. It seems like a revolutionary idea among the crowd here. *Jury gasps* *Whispers go around -- Did he just suggest what I thought he just suggested?! Moderators have to follow rules?! Somebody shut him up!*
And yet I did not advocate nor approve advertising in violation of the rules. I surmised / rationalized, in an attempt to understand the violation of the particular rule, that the signature link to a thread in the same forum was allowed because it was advertising for the forum, thus not spam, & that advertising is probably in the interests of who owns the forums (which would not be me, or the mods). If i did own the forums or any other forums for that matter, I personally would not be so flexible with the rules to prevent this such a type of contradiction, which I agree haseem, it is. I hope you do not include me in the critique of mods, since I barley do any modding around here except for occasionally deleting the obvious spam accounts that register here, in an attempt to prevent more spam accounts (since usually, the spam accounts signal to other spammers that this forum can be spammed, thus more come to spam). In pretty much every instance where someone is proposed for banning, or a thread closed, deleted, I either keep silent or object, due to my own views of modding being in possible conflict with my own morals and/or ethical views (despite the legitimacy of such modding & rules existing under private property, which would be these forums, methinks). And no before you or anyone asks, not just any account can be considered a spam account, there are obvious tell tale signs such as:+ a huge list of keywords in their profile that link to outside blog spam, site spam, etc.+ a member history of consistently posting off-topic threads such as "Shop for Nikes etc." that link to outside blog spam, site spam etc.So yea, my 2cents.
My opinion is that the forum rules are simply 'cider house rules', they are a guide, they are advice. if you understand them and they help you great. if you cant comprehend them, or you don't like them, too bad.as Block is fond of saying, if you can't tell the difference between a living room and a toilet, dont come to my house...
at the end of the day the LvMi own the forum and they can ban who they want how they want, and they can also assign mods who can assign mods. and if they wanted to junk mods, thats in their power too. the posted rules are not one half of a Rothbardian title-transfer contract. as a poster you have no property right to anything against the LvMi.
nirgrahamUK: My opinion is that the forum rules are simply 'cider house rules', they are a guide, they are advice. if you understand them and they help you great. if you cant comprehend them, or you don't like them, too bad.as Block is fond of saying, if you can't tell the difference between a living room and a toilet, dont come to my house... at the end of the day the LvMi own the forum and they can ban who they want how they want, and they can also assign mods who can assign mods. and if they wanted to junk mods, thats in their power too. the posted rules are not one half of a Rothbardian title-transfer contract. as a poster you have no property right to anything against the LvMi.
OK.......? So yeah, about those moderators violating the forum rules...
you obviously have no recourse but to contact a higher authority. good luck with that.