Internet Ethics Section On The Warrior Forum

You're suggesting that everyone who takes on board the theory of evolution has no morals? Bit of a broad generalisation there, Peter.

Thanks Paul. Again, the voice of reason.

Ass pennies.

Exactly. This forum isn't a democracry. There are definitely written rules and unwritten rules that are here to help this place run as smoothly as possible. Though the members here are moderators (by helping report things), ultimately, what's allowed here is up to the owner and the moderators that try to enforce those rules to the best of their ability.

Regarding the OP, I think this forum has enough sub-forums as it is and would not see any added value of having an internet ethics section. Those kind of topics get brought up enough in the main forum and that seems to be working pretty swell.

I'm with Cypherlock, time for a beer!

RoD

Most communities that desire to keep a large membership base will adjust rules and structures to satisfy their members. In that regards, any membership site is a democracy of sorts.

No, the members don't vote on rules and pass "laws" that will affect everyone, but through communication, everyone makes their points heard, and the loudest voices will usually get their way.

Again, I do understand the pitfalls of having a subforum as the OP suggested. I simply wanted to voice my opinion that there is a positive side to it, and some of us could benefit from knowing what others find ethical and what they don't.

Not that the discussions would result in any action being taken, which seems to be what a lot of folks here are assuming would be the case.

For instance, if 5 people posted a comment that something I did was unethical, and 15 people supported the action I took, I see nothing wrong with that.

On the other hand, if the reverse were true, then I may reconsider my actions.

And once more -- I do see the potential problems with that. No one really wants to be the subject of competitive sabotage, or get caught in a flame war. And as much as we'd like to believe that Warriors are above such things, people are people.

Point taken, Alan, and I'm glad you can see the free for all, flame wars that would ensue which would probably require 2 more full time mods just to keep on clicking on stuff to delete it and ban people. There are just certain topics that are hot buttons for most people. Religion and politics are two of the top ones.

I also believe that there are those of us who know that we might not be able to resist the urge to blast someone when they hit those hot buttons and thus avoid the forum altogether.

Chris....That picture is full of AWESOME.

Alan, That is almost exactly the opposite of how things end up working here, and in most other forums where there's a significant group of experienced members.

Whether you measure "loudness" by numbers or actual vocal intensity, the loudest are usually not the ones with the best ideas. It happens occasionally, but it's definitely not the standard in forums. The nature of the traffic of members through a forum almost guarantees that it won't be any time soon.

You have a relatively small group in any established forum that's been around for a while, and have heard and considered the various points. They've actually worked with the suggestions, and seen how they end up when given a chance. They know most of what will work and what won't based on that. What works gets adopted pretty quickly, and what doesn't gets dumped.

The much larger group of new folks tend to come up with the same ideas, over and over. For each of those people, the idea is new. Their intentions are usually very good, and they want to help. They just don't know what they don't know. No flaw or fault in that. The experienced folk have all BTDT. That's how they get to be experienced.

Thing is, the less experienced folk outnumber the experienced ones by large numbers. For the next few years, at least, that's going to continue to be the case. When the majority of people online have been here a few years, it will start to reverse direction a bit, until it hits a par with population cycles.

Note that I am in no way equating experience with intelligence.

One of the reasons democracy can work is that voting has a minimum age requirement. There's a certain amount of life experience that's assumed to have been accumulated by that age. A democratic forum could work, if it required a minimum level of experience and participation in the culture and process before allowing people to have a vote.



Paul