29 Mar 05
Originally posted by DreamlaXAnd for the benefit of those people who do live in America:
Whenever you fill out an online form, and you choose your country from an alphabetically sorted list, isn't it funny how "United States of America" is comes before Afghanistan? Why is "state" almost always a mandatory field, and in some cases, a drop-down list with no "Other" or "None"? These aren't forms for anything particularly American. I want ...[text shortened]... an American over IRC:
"Where are you from?"
"New Zealand"
"Oh, what state is that in?"
Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
American Samoa
Andorra
Angola
Anguilla
Antarctica
Antigua And Barbuda
Argentina
Armenia
Aruba
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belarus
Belgium
Belize
Benin
Bermuda
Bhutan
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegowina
Botswana
Bouvet Island
Brazil
British Indian Ocean Territory
Brunei Darussalam
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Cape Verde
Cayman Islands
Central African Republic
Chad
Chile
China
Christmas Island
Cocos (Keeling) Islands
Colombia
Comoros
Congo
Congo, the Democratic Republic of the
Cook Islands
Costa Rica
Cote d'Ivoire
Croatia (Hrvatska)
Cuba
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominica
Dominican Republic
East Timor
Ecuador
Egypt
El Salvador
England
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Falkland Islands
Faroe Islands
Fiji
Finland
France
French Guiana
French Polynesia
French Southern Territories
Gabon
Gambia
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Gibraltar
Greece
Greenland
Grenada
Guadeloupe
Guam
Guatemala
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Guyana
Haiti
Heard and Mc Donald Islands
Honduras
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran (Islamic Republic of)
Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kiribati
Korea (South)
Korea, Republic of
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos People's Democratic Republic
Latvia
Lebanon
Lesotho
Liberia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Macau
Macedonia
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Maldives
Mali
Malta
Marshall Islands
Martinique
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mayotte
Mexico
Micronesia, Federated States of
Moldova, Republic of
Monaco
Mongolia
Montserrat
Morocco
Mozambique
Myanmar
Namibia
Nauru
Nepal
Netherlands
Netherlands Antilles
New Caledonia
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
Niue
Norfolk Island
Northern Ireland
Northern Mariana Islands
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Palau
Panama
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Pitcairn
Poland
Portugal
Puerto Rico
Qatar
Reunion
Romania
Russian Federation
Rwanda
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Samoa (Independent)
San Marino
Sao Tome and Principe
Saudi Arabia
Scotland
Senegal
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
Solomon Islands
Somalia
South Africa
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
Spain
Sri Lanka
St. Helena
St. Pierre and Miquelon
Suriname
Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands
Swaziland
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Togo
Tokelau
Tonga
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Turks and Caicos Islands
Tuvalu
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States
United States Minor Outlying Islands
Uruguay
Uzbekistan
Vanuatu
Vatican City State (Holy See)
Venezuela
Viet Nam
Virgin Islands (British)
Virgin Islands (U.S.)
Wales
Wallis and Futuna Islands
Western Sahara
Yemen
Yugoslavia
Zambia
Zimbabwe
29 Mar 05
Originally posted by darvlayMy point was, if you are comfortable with the systematic censorship
Nothing.
So?
EDIT - Listen, we all have our own hang-ups. My hang up may be racism and Joe Blow's hang-up may be when people talk bad about his country's foreign policy. So what? It was not my decision to ban Dodger11, it was the Site Admins. If someone wants to call for someone to be banned based on their political leanings, sexual preference, ...[text shortened]... ns agreed that racism has no place here in these forums.
Maybe I missed your point, Nems...
of Dodger's racist posts because of their controversial nature, then you
necessarily have to be comfortable with the systematic censorship of
STANG's posts because of their controversial nature.
Otherwise, you don't make any sense and can't be deemed as a
credible judge.
But that isn't even the point.
We have to remember that this site is a business. A business's
explicit purpose is, first and foremost, to make money and, especially
not to lose money. Russ, if you recall, quit his job so that he could do
this full time; that means that RHP's net income translates into his
room and board (and, if he's lucky, his retirement).
His decisions, therefore, are not about justice or even reason. His
decisions have to be primarily about whether he gets enough to
eat or not.
By censoring Dodger, he excludes one person (Dodger), but he makes
other people (such as yourself) more comfortable. People like me are
relatively indifferent (although I alerted a few of his posts and sent a
PM to Russ regarding the effect he would likely have on the site) to
people like him, but I recognize that the payoff is higher if he
dismisses Dodger.
These forums are here to encourage us to pay, not because Russ is
a philanthropist. While I'm sure that he derives pleasure from the
creation of a community (indeed, it makes someone like a little god
when they do), if the forums become a liability rather than a benefit,
I can promise they will be discontinued. And, while I am sure that
Russ has a certain personal range of comfort for what he considers
acceptable speech, he is sober enough to realize that it's not what he
thinks matters, it's what the paying majority thinks.
And, yes, I am sure he is willing to take a little bit of a financial hit for
ideological reasons, tolerating a certain degree of loss for the
presentation of unpopular opinions, I can promise you that he is never
going to dive on his sword for any one or two people here. As we have
seen, if people complain enough, someone is going to get shown the
door.
I -- you, Ivanhoe, everyone -- am free to criticize Russ when a post
gets erased or a person gets kicked out. We suffer no loss. Our
dinner is guaranteed whether or not a thread is here. His isn't. If he
doesn't take action where popular opinion demands it, then he stands
to lose his dinner, his house, or everything else.
STANG is being censored, not because he's right or wrong, but because
he has been unable to learn how to present his controversial ideas in
a way which the community can accept. Indeed, he has spent a great
deal of 'social capital' in being an irritating individual -- repeating
posts and threads, demanding that people hear him, posting his
tragic pictures. It's not about the censorship of ideas in and of itself;
it is about keeping his posts within the acceptable limits of this
community (as governed by that community).
You can't compel a community of diverse people with disparate
viewpoints to be sensitive, or tolerant, or even rational, because all of
them are making decisions from different standpoints. As many find
STANG appalling, and most find him annoying, unless he changes is
tack on the presentation of his ideas, he will never have any social
currency in these forums.
Nemesio
29 Mar 05
Originally posted by howardgeeThen kindly vacate the premises, and DO let the screen door hit your @$$ on the way out...and take STANG with you...
Yup, that's what you get on an American web-site!
Loads of parochial, blindly patriotic, Bush voting fools.
I had a thread detailing the Super Gun affair where the West was attempting to break its own sanctions and sell Sadam WOMD in the 1980's removed too!
29 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioYes. That's it. At the end of the day this site is a privately owned and operated business. Business decisions must be made by those responsible for managing this motley croup of opinionated, chess playing fiends. I see Shav's points, Darv's points, even STANG's points, but it's all irrelevelant in the end. Business decisions made by Russ outweigh everything else. And it has to be that way.
We have to remember that this site is a business. A business's
explicit purpose is, first and foremost, to make money and, especially
not to lose money. Russ, if you recall, quit his job so that he could do
this full time; that means ...[text shortened]... primarily about whether he gets enough to
eat or not.
Nemesio
29 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioNemesio, you need to do some thorough research into the history of threads when I first started posting.
My point was, if you are comfortable with the systematic censorship
of Dodger's racist posts because of their controversial nature, then you
necessarily have to be comfortable with the systematic censorship of
STANG's posts because of ...[text shortened]... will never have any social
currency in these forums.
Nemesio
You will find that I posed some serious questions regarding how the balance of power will change in the world and the implications if violence continues to be used.
You will find very few replies other than patriotic and/or stupidly critical ones.
Out of dismay, I decided to take the approach of getting messages out there even if the messenger gets shot.
29 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioPerhaps I called for Dodger to be banned strictly because I didn't like him and I knew that there would be people who agreed. But I'll never tell 😉
My point was, if you are comfortable with the systematic censorship
of Dodger's racist posts because of their controversial nature, then you
necessarily have to be comfortable with the systematic censorship of
STANG's posts because of ...[text shortened]... will never have any social
currency in these forums.
Nemesio
To the point at hand, I understand you now and you're right. This is a business and the final say is with the Admins based on their own risk assessments. If they feel that STANG was a detriment than they have all the right to silence him. After all, RHP isn't a democracy. But by no means do I have to agree with their decision. I think at the time of STANG's repeated bannings, he was not spamming the forums nor was he being offensive (in my mind) and his bans were unwarranted.
29 Mar 05
Originally posted by darvlayThat's correct. My 'spamming' climaxed just before Christmas and New Year when I was disgusted by celebrations while children are blown to bits in Iraq. I stopped the 'spamming' but have been banned twice since then.
Perhaps I called for Dodger to be banned strictly because I didn't like him and I knew that there would be people who agreed. But I'll never tell 😉
To the point at hand, I understand you now and you're right. This is a business and the final say is with the Admins based on their own risk assessments. If they feel that STANG was a detriment than the ...[text shortened]... s not spamming the forums nor was he being offensive (in my mind) and his bans were unwarranted.
29 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioI have a somewhat different take on all this. RHP is a business, true; but what is it selling? Essentally its product is us; people join the site to play chess and to yap in the forums with other users. Therefore, it should endeavor to be inclusive as that will assure the greatest possibility of growth. I do not agree that some people at RHP should be able to band together and successfully insist someone else be removed because they don't like their ideas; that's neither fair or good for business.
My point was, if you are comfortable with the systematic censorship
of Dodger's racist posts because of their controversial nature, then you
necessarily have to be comfortable with the systematic censorship of
STANG's posts because of ...[text shortened]... will never have any social
currency in these forums.
Nemesio
STANG should, however, make some reasonable efforts to post in an acceptable manner. In this thread itself, we have two ridiculous, lengthy posts, one listing the states in the United States and one listing the countries of the world. Of what possible relevance do they have to the issue of the thread? And why did you, STANG, insist on posting the same question over and over again in thread after thread where it was not relevant to the discussions at hand? If people don't want to discuss what YOU want, that's up to them. Stop being such a petulant jerk.
30 Mar 05
You might not like STANG's posts but he has every right to post them. He doesn't offend me. At least he has a brain.
I actually think that rhp is far more responsive to its (very vocal) customers than practically any other business I know.
Location of rhp.com or its members is irrelevant. There is, in my opinion, an american bias in the debates forum and a more european agenda in the general forum. But generally this site breaks more international barriers than the UN. I've played chess against housewives in India, children in Canada and middle aged men from Italy - for this Russ should be congratulated
30 Mar 05
Originally posted by invigorateAn american bias in the debates forum? Do you mean to say we have more americans weighing in on the issues, with less resistence?
You might not like STANG's posts but he has every right to post them. He doesn't offend me. At least he has a brain.
I actually think that rhp is far more responsive to its (very vocal) customers than practically any other business I know.
Location of rhp.com or its members is irrelevant. There is, in my opinion, an american bias in the debates f ...[text shortened]... dia, children in Canada and middle aged men from Italy - for this Russ should be congratulated
Because I don't see the site admin picking a side here. Leaving it, in my oppinion, unbiased.
If you think non-americans are not represented well enough, I suggest the non-americans should represent themselves more.
Nyxie
30 Mar 05
Originally posted by NyxieHi Nyxie: Just to clarify, there are more US centred topics debated in the debates forum (ie Terri whatshername x 10) and US centred threads generate more posts - the bias might be just down to SVW!
An american bias in the debates forum? Do you mean to say we have more americans weighing in on the issues, with less resistence?
Because I don't see the site admin picking a side here. Leaving it, in my oppinion, unbiased.
If you think non-americans are not represented well enough, I suggest the non-americans should represent themselves more.
Nyxie
I'm not complaining about it merely making an observation.
30 Mar 05
Originally posted by no1marauderMy posts were in response from one by DreamLax, who is quoted below. I too get annoyed by American-centric geography. It even affects my export business. Americans refer to their states by initials like MA as if the rest of the world lives in America. I listed the states and then I listed the rest of the world.
I have a somewhat different take on all this. RHP is a business, true; but what is it selling? Essentally its product is us; people join the site to play chess and to yap in the forums with other users. Therefore, it should endeavor to be inclusive as that will assure the greatest possibility of growth. I do not agree that some people at RHP sh ...[text shortened]... eople don't want to discuss what YOU want, that's up to them. Stop being such a petulant jerk.
"Whenever you fill out an online form, and you choose your country from an alphabetically sorted list, isn't it funny how "United States of America" is comes before Afghanistan? Why is "state" almost always a mandatory field, and in some cases, a drop-down list with no "Other" or "None"? These aren't forms for anything particularly American. I wanted a free e-mail address, but unfortunately I don't live in any American state, but it allowed me to select New Zealand. Go figure.
A conversation I had with an American over IRC:
"Where are you from?"
"New Zealand"
"Oh, what state is that in?"