Updated House Rules

[Bryn]

Not being one of their number, I hope not to be guilty of such a solecism irrespective of whether any of them are so.

I think the more notably miscreant of the Brit Anglo-Saxons were carted off to Van Diemen's Land a while back.

[Serial_Apologist]

For what it may or may notbe worth, I think so, provided that either or both is preceded with "intentionally".

Hat to nit-pick with you ahinton (of all people) but "intentionally" would be hard to prove, no?

[vinteuil]

..."intentionally" would be hard to prove, no?

well, under English law intention has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt for, for example, murder - where the prosecution have to establish mens rea as well as actus reus. Surely these Boards will function just as admirably as English courts? .

[french frank]

There was a warning by Southendian that one should not impute motives to other messageboarders. And this is the difficult area. Member A may post a message which would not be judged intentionally provocative. Member B might post the identically worded post and it would be. Accuse Member B and s/he may ask why on earth you should think the post 'provocative'. To which the answer would be, because it resembles 17 other messages which you've posted on the same lines and you'd have to be as thick as a pile of planks not to have noticed that they provoke anger, antagonism, indignation, abuse &c &c from other members (therefore referred to as 'the usual suspects').

[LeMartinPecheur]

well, under English law intention has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt for, for example, murder - where the prosecution have to establish mens rea as well as actus reus. Surely these Boards will function just as admirably as English courts? .

Gamma minus in your LL.B. exams, vinteuil. You've completely failed to deal with the proliferation of strict liability offences for which the prosecution don't have to prove any intention at all. Speeding is an example familiar to us all.

[The minus on your gamma is for your use of completely outdated, meaningless mumbo-jumbo like mens rea and actus reus. Latin, if that's what it is, now has no place in Her Majesty's courts.]

The developing British legal enforcement model for a huge number of offences is: a) offences of strict liability; b) fixed penalty notice as the punishment; c) right of appeal removed as far as possible from the criminal courts; d) no legal aid to fight anything anyway.

This is therefore the approved model for the the guardians of these boards, since no one here cares about liberty and open justice.

Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes? OH DAMN! Mea maxima culpa, your lordships!

[ahinton]

Hat to nit-pick with you ahinton (of all people) but "intentionally" would be hard to prove, no?

"Hat"?

My suggestion was not "intended" to imply that the use of "intentionally" in this context would make anything easier or harder to prove; almost everything is as easy or as hard to prove as anyone might care to try to make it and in accordance with the perceptions of those to whom it might be amenable to being proved or otherwise. In court the question of "intention" is, after all, what usually distinguishes the charge of murder from that of manslaughter.

[ahinton]

Gamma minus in your LL.B. exams, vinteuil. You've completely failed to deal with the proliferation of strict liability offences for which the prosecution don't have to prove any intention at all. Speeding is an example familiar to us all.

But, to be fair, he seems (to me, at least) to have been confining his observation to a response to posts about offences for which intention does have to be proved; he didn't thereby suggest that this need applies to the defining and trying of all offences.

[Mandryka]

I have to say, I think banning 'provocative' threads may be a step down the slippery slope, as it is often difficult to judge the intention of the original poster.

What I WOULD like to see a ban on is people making unproductive contributions to threads - known on another forum I frequent as (pardon me) 'threadcrapping'. An example of this would be someone posting on a thread just to say 'I'm not joining in with this discussion' or 'I don't like negative threads', or something of that sort. If you don't like the thread, your most appropriate response is to ignore it.

[LeMartinPecheur]

But, to be fair, he seems (to me, at least) to have been confining his observation to a response to posts about offences for which intention does have to be proved; he didn't thereby suggest that this need applies to the defining and trying of all offences.

Sorry ah, I was probably letting off steam inappropriately after a bad day.

Incidentally, what does 'being fair' have to do with message boards??

[ahinton]

Sorry ah, I was probably letting off steam inappropriately after a bad day.

That's OK; no need to apologise.

Incidentally, what does 'being fair' have to do with message boards??

As much or as little as each member thereof desires, I imagine - but then I cited fairness only in a single specific instance as I felt it appropriate to do so, rather than as an accepted tenet of messageboarderie!

[aeolium]

I have to say, I think banning 'provocative' threads may be a step down the slippery slope, as it is often difficult to judge the intention of the original poster.

What I WOULD like to see a ban on is people making unproductive contributions to threads - known on another forum I frequent as (pardon me) 'threadcrapping'. An example of this would be someone posting on a thread just to say 'I'm not joining in with this discussion' or 'I don't like negative threads', or something of that sort. If you don't like the thread, your most appropriate response is to ignore it.

I completely agree, Mandryka. Possibly the feeblest and most tiresome response is when someone just posts a 'yawn' or 'sleep' smiley. It adds absolutely nothing to the discussion, except to invite contempt for the person posting it.

[Flosshilde]

What I WOULD like to see a ban on is people making unproductive contributions to threads

Would '<<yawn>>' or ' ' be considered an unproductive contribution? (or indeed or any of the emoticons).

[french frank]

Would '<<yawn>>' or ' ' be considered an unproductive contribution? (or indeed or any of the emoticons).

Not in the context of a discussion on what constitutes an 'unproductive contribution'. Otherwise, yes

[MrGongGong]

I would like to suggest the removal of the "ignore" function
it makes it impossible to have a discussion if some people are (and its usually just a wilful empty gesture !) ignoring contributions
surely there are enough safeguards to prevent statements that are gratuitously insulting etc ?

it also seems to be used in the same way that some folk use the
"I'm not interested in this " or "yawn" etc

"I'M NOT LISTENING TO X" seems to be a rather immature way to conduct oneself ?

[Flosshilde]

Beat me to it, Aeolium! But I think that an emoticon can be a reasonable response - unless the person posting it is in the habit of doing so without any justification or argument. I also think that posting as a response to the one above could be considered as 'productive'; as a mild satire on the first poster in the hope that it might shame him into desisting (a very forlorn hope).

As French Frank (I think) said, it depends on the poster.