I believe under English Common Law traditionally evidence must exist to support any statement made to avoid libel about a person or organisation.

This is slowly being eroded particularly when it comes to public bodies this is due to the influence of the European court of human rights. An organisation can be subject to crictisim in the press as long as reasonable efforts have been made to research the information.

British courts, for example, have almost no jurisdiction over the Internet. Australian anti-defamatory laws, on the other hand, are so strict that ISPs are required by law to block access to sites that contravene those laws.

In all cases, though, Ship of Fools can be held responsible for what information is stored on their site, including anything that is posted to this board. An individual posting something defamatory may not be putting himself at risk, but the whole SoF website.

quote:

---

I believe under English Common Law traditionally evidence must exist to support any statement made to avoid libel about a person or organisation.

---

No more.

Erin

Addendum: The offending posts have been deleted, AFTER consulting with my co-host here, who agreed with me.

To come up to your serious level for a moment or two, I can see the validity of having a thread to discuss the 10 commandments but not one that sits at the bottom of the pile with no responses as this one did for so long.

If you feel this strongly, as you obviously do, that this subject should be a permanent thread, and not something that can be discussed when an individual has a personal objection or a new idea, then I would prefer that you create a new thread every (e.g. 6 months) which will be at the top of the list for people to view and which contains the actual rules themselves (which I included here) so that people do not have to search for them before being able to comment.

My original argument was not with the relevance of the subject but with its practical application. Everybody was ignoring a very dull thread at the bottom of the pile.

I do respect your power, but would ask you to consult with other administrators and hosts before simply butchering this thread and leaving it dormant again.

Your comments have been noted, however, not only am I an administrator, but I am also one of the hosts of this board (Simon being the other one), so it pretty much IS up to me what I do with threads here.

I am perfectly content to let this thread lie dormant at the bottom of the board for however long it needs to. I don't know if you were on the paid boards or not, but the 10Cs thread oftentimes went months without a post. If you were to read the 10 Commandments, you will see at the bottom of the page is a link to this thread. We will NOT be recoding html every six months just to resurrect a thread that needs no resurrecting unless there is a question or a problem.

This board is about Ship stuff, including questions about the rules and regulations. I am going to start being a bit stricter here with personal chat. There are two other boards here where (the general) you can do that, and I don't have time to monitor this sort of thing. That's why I host the Styx.

At the risk of looking like a creep here, Erin's been here a lot longer, and put in a lot more thought onto these boards than most of the rest of us, so probably knows what works, she's in charge of this board, and she does lots of consultation with other hosts and admins.

It would be lovely if we all moved in the spirit and didn't need laws, but even I've been around long enough to know that this place reflects the real world, where people are occasionally either stupid, thoughtless or nasty. Even Christians!

quote:

---

vile, parasitic and disgusting long before this latest round of media hogdom.

---

(Hope you're happy with me adding on to this thread Erin ... or would it be better to start a new one?)

To follow on from Angel's comment above about

quote:

---

there being a real person on the other side of the computer monitor

---

I don't understand that we have a commandment about attacking an issue not the person for shipmates, but that rule does not apply to people beyond the ship.

There have been a number of such instances I've spotted, and I guess I find that level of attack lacks the 'non-violent' spirit I sense the ship attempts to engender in exchanges within the community.

In our quest for peace and justice, surely its better not to go for anyone's jugular? That's my argument anyhow

There's a part of me that would like to discontinue it altogether, because I think that there are times when "shut up, dumbass" is the only logical response. However, we have had to clean up that mess before, so I know that pragmatically we need this rule in place.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
We don't have the no personal attacks on Shipmates rule because we want a "non-violent" exchange.

---

The effect is that the exchanges become non-violent though, surely?

We have the no personal attacks on Shipmates rule because the Ship separates itself into factions and then it takes us months to rebuild what's been damaged. It's primarily a protective measure for the community, rather than any embodiment of ideals.

I'm not entirely sure how to separate in my own mind 'a protective measure for the community' from an 'embodiment of ideals'. I would assume it was both/and.

There's a part of me that would like to discontinue it altogether, because I think that there are times when "shut up, dumbass" is the only logical response. However, we have had to clean up that mess before, so I know that pragmatically we need this rule in place.

Yep, and pragmatic idealism is the very best sort IMHO.

And thankfully it didn't stop me from ranting and raving up a storm when I left my ex.
Point taken.

And all the bleeding heart pinko commie liberals here would explode if they couldn't trash Bush 43, Reagan or Thatcher.

Hey, lead me to some of these 'bleeding heart pinko commie liberals' I'm still trying to find them (or is that an impermissable question for the Styx? )

Shalom

late but never a quartet

[ubb tidied -- yes, I am that nice ]

I still think to separate secondary benefits from primary intentions for the Ship is something of a misnoma (whatever misnoma means).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:

Re: the liberals -- you can't swing a cat without hitting at least ten of 'em around here.

---

Ouch.

Although I can't decide if I'm a Right wing or a Left wing liberal. <grin>

In general I am happy with the no personal attacks rule, but in my personal conduct use it beyond members of the ship.

I might say that I disagree with Bush on an issue, but to suggest that he is a "dumbass" or his Christian Faith is not genuine is to my mind contrary to the scriptural approach to those in positions of secular authourity. It's also not very nice.

I have personally apologized to each of the hosts I have offended.

I had not intentionally set out to annoy or disrespect any of them.

However I realize now that that is what I achieved.

So Frin I'm sorry, and Siegfried I'm sorry too.

In both instances I had not seen boundaries which would have been glaringly obvious to those of you who know the Ship better than I.

Enough said.

quote:

---

Originally posted by FCB:
I'd like to offer what I hope is a helpful suggestion. Would it be possible to add something to the 10 C's about analogies that, as we say, create more heat than light. One thing that I've reflected on following the sex, lies etc. dust up is that what seems to some people a "common sense" matter does not seem to to others. This seems to me to be one of those cases. Indeed, in many circles asking "then explain to me how your position differs from X" is a perfectly legitimate arguing tactic. I can accept that making analogies between someone's position and that of a widely hated group is out of bounds for these boards. But it does not seem to me self-evidently so.

Particularly if hosts are going to tell people to apologize for do this, I would think that it could be spelled out a bit more explicitly in the 10 c's. I don't mean listing the hated groups you are not allowed to invoke (I could see a major row over whether Republicans are included or not), but some sort of general warning, maybe under the 3rd commandment.

I'd be interested in what people thing.

FCB

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cuttlefish:
I know there could be a risk of detailing the 10 Commandments so much that they become too wordy, and still not cover every eventuality. But even so I think FCB's suggestion is a good one. I think the 11 commandments just wouldn't be catchy enough, so which commandment would "do not compare the arguments of a shipmate with those of a generally despised group or individual such as racists, paedophiles or Hitler" fall under? I think it could slip into commandment 3: name calling etc. In effect it is a subtle form of name calling, even if the offender does not consciously mean it as such.

---

quote:

---

Name-calling and personal insults are not allowed, regardless of the context. The same goes for comment which stereotypes or attacks people on the basis of their race, nationality, age, gender, religious belief or sexual preference.

---

I am always reminded of the funniest line from the movie "A River Runs Through It." The Presbyterian minister is quoted as saying, "Methodists are Baptists who know how to read." Naturally, that sort of remark on this board would quite rightly get one reprimanded.

I'm concerned about rule 3.

quote:

---

Originally posted by FCB:
Erin, your reply strikes be as a bit non-responsive. I think Bonzo was asking what constituted name-calling. For example, is calling someone a "troll" (as I have done on one occasion in the past) name calling?

FCB

---

Well, he may have meant what constitutes name-calling, but he asked what constitutes a personal attack. When someone asks me what time it is, I try to avoid telling them how to build a watch.

That said, the best thing, really, is to lurk if you're unsure about it. Get to know the tenor of the boards. It is impossible for me to sit here and identify when something is and is not acceptable. And what is acceptable on one board may not be on another. I can't answer this, I leave it to the judgment of the hosts and administrators (a judgment I trust very much).

Each one of them is obviously a prohibition or a burden, but the effect of each one is a liberation. Of course, you could post 23 messages on the semiotics of individual commands, but all you would be doing is missing the point.

So what is the point?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Erin:
Well, he may have meant what constitutes name-calling, but he asked what constitutes a personal attack. When someone asks me what time it is, I try to avoid telling them how to build a watch.

---

Presumably he knew that a personal attack meant a verbal one (i.e. name-calling), since physical assault is difficult over the internet.