The New Forum Guidline, The Good and the Bad

Since I am a normal person, I shall first congratulate our moderators for understanding that banning posters without any reasonable reason, inscribed in the official rules, was wrong. Of course, I don't expect them to recognise this, but I shall be the first one to admit that making new rules will eliminate some of the basic complaints of some of the members. Of course, the new rules shall eliminate the very idea of complaint but nonetheless great work...

Now, for the sake of argument:

Now, introducing new notions in a forum guide book without explaining them a bit is a bit tricky. This new regulation, for example, is blurry, in fact is more than blurry, is capable of creating bigger problems than there are at this moment. Paragraph 2 forbids Holocaust denial, yet this paragraph allows discussion on this subject if sources are mentioned. May I also add that the notion "discussion" tends to apply, most of all, to conflicting ideas. So, in fact, while I couldn't say anything about the fact that Holocaust never happened, I can, from now on, mention this along with a source.

The Admins did a good job by not introducing the "reliable" adjective, since it would have been a lost battle. But without this, virtually any member can deny Holocaust using a source, a book, an article, no matter how far-fetched it will be. Of course, he will be banned, but because of Paragraph 2 and against Paragraph 6. The law contradicts itself... This article needs a revision.

Clearly, some of us (like Imperialist, me, Chandernagore) have already a suspension (in the case of Chandernagore even two) because of regulations that did not exist before. It would be logical to enter this new age of the forum with a clean sheet (I completely refuse to be in the same league with alexkdl, whose suspension was and still is clearly in the bounds of the permanent ban).

There should also be a mention here of what a lighter or serious offense means in relation with the other rules. From my perspective, serious offense = permanent banning-resulting action, while light offense = banning-resulting action.

Please, let me think you also meant movies, because otherwise the "alexkdl Gambit" will remain as a profitable way of gaining posts without the possibility of ban. And I wouldn't want to think that you actually agreed with that huge, unnecessary megathread that he started...

*****

Now, I'm quite surprised that the administrators didn't use this opportunity for two more things:

a) Define the boundries between the position of administrators, moderators and members that exist within the owners of this board, Dragos and Victor. Because the difference should be in there. When will we know if dragos is posting in a particular thread as a moderator, as an owner or as a simple, limited, capable - of - doing - mistakes poster? When I want to attack one of his ideas, I don't want to be banned because I have insulted, with my ideas, the administrator. My proposal is: use a different color when posting moderating or administrative decisions. Simple and effective.
b) Define the relationship between the General Discussion forum and the General Military one. I won't repeat myself here, because I kept playing the same record in the "banning of indrid" thread, but there should be a remark on the role of both ones.

If the laws could speak for themselves, they would complain of the lawyers in the first place. (Lord Halifax)

This post has been edited by Alexandru H. on June 18, 2005 08:53 pm

I've read some of the articles featured on the site (by chance on WWI section).
To my surprise they were unreferenced, but I could very well recognise where they were taken from, because I own the same book. With very small differences those are sentences translated from there.
I dont think adding some bibliography at the end would dent the site's credibility. Au contraire.

Well, the main page is referenced with a bibliographical page...

http://www.worldwar2.ro/bibliografie/?language=ro

I think that is enough...

I never saw a link for bibliography. After you pointed out there is one, I stared very loong at the main page at only after a while did I find it. Either I'm tired, or I'm losing my focus.

Nevertheless, I may have quite a book that concentrates a lot of other sources.
But nevermind, its not important, if they have a bibliography afterall, discrepancies between our sources can very well be.

My book is "Istoria Militara a Poporului Roman", Editura Militara, 1988

At least in the WWI section several phrases from the site match incredibly with phrases from this book. Not only in content, but in phrasing style and some details.

From this point of view my intervention is covered.

p.s. I'm sorry for saying the mods have no bibliography.

When I wrote that I had as model the rules set by David Thompson in the H&WC section of AHF. It doesn't refer to denying the Holocaust but to related issues. For example the number of Jews killed in the unfortunate reprisals at Odessa in October 1941 could be debated using different sources of information or the claim that Romanians used Jewish blood to oil the axes of their carts and so on. Givewn the fact that discussions on the Holocaust and on warcrimes usually generate a lot of controversy, sometimes violent (verbally), claims must usually be sourced, preferably to serious works or archival materials.

We have also reorganized the ban system. There is now a separate member group for those that are banned and it will be mentioned under their username in all their former posts. They have also been unsuspended. So the suspention is different now, not only through the period of time. At the end of it you are still a member.

I am not for a fresh new start for those in your situation, simply because it would a technicality (sp?).

What you are asking for would indeed be preferable, but it is pretty difficult to make a complete list of possible offenses and resulting admin actions, especially since many situations can't always be preciselly cathegorized. Also, such a "Code of Laws" will be too lengthy and many would probably get bored before finishing to read it. When I will have the time sit doen and think about it I will give it a try. However, eliminating the subjectivity in admin decisions is something that I personally don't think that it can ever be fully achieved.

Regarding point a
I am sorry, I do not understand with the notion of "insulting with my ideas". Of course one can challenge me or Dragos on non-admin interventions. We don't always agree among ourselves on sume subjects.

and point b
As I said in another thread, the General Discussion part of the forum is there for the regular members to get to know eachother if they wish. It wasn't meant to become a forum on its own, inside the greater one. Unfortunately, this has happened also on other WWII related forums and solutions aren't that easy to find.

The articles were uploaded before the new feature on the website with the bibliography for each article was made available. Unfortunately there wasn't enough time to review the articles published before the feature (most of them that is). When time will be available for this, it will be done.

Victor, thanks for the explanations...

Regarding point a
I am sorry, I do not understand with the notion of "insulting with my ideas". Of course one can challenge me or Dragos on non-admin interventions. We don't always agree among ourselves on sume subjects.

I just suggested a better way to differentiate between admin and non-admin interventions. For example, I tell you that you are wrong in a controversial thread. Do I have the guarantee that you won't look at my reply as a threat against your administrative half and just answer it as a normal poster? The guidelines don't make this clear... and relying on human objectivity is a mistake I won't do again...

I think this is a good idea. The warnings and the administrative demands should be made in red, to avoid confusions and allegations of members involved in controversy with the moderating staff.

I think this is a good idea. The warnings and the administrative demands should be made in red, to avoid confusions and allegations of members involved in controversy with the moderating staff.

Exactly...It would certainly help...