Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion.

Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules.

 

Go Back   Doom9's Forum > Announcements and Chat > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 30th September 2010, 10:39   #161  |  Link
Ghitulescu
Registered User
 
Ghitulescu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 5,771
I don't see the point of your argument. You can't download anything illegal from doom9 either. The example with AMV was given because this is not really happening here.

Maybe I'll shorten the explanation saying that allowing this let doom9s' forum be considered as "The #1 Academy for Digital Pirating", people learning here how to convert the movies to be easier uploadable into sharing networks.

Maybe I'm too alarmist, but I found recently two posts of the same user, each question being promptly answered, and within about 1 week he upload 2 movies into 2 torrent fora, each movie being "solved" by the answers he got here. The simply fact that they were Indian movies and not American shouldn't play any difference, breaching is breaching (India is part of the Bern Convention).
Ghitulescu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th September 2010, 10:56   #162  |  Link
GodofaGap
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghitulescu View Post
I don't see the point of your argument. You can't download anything illegal from doom9 either. The example with AMV was given because this is not really happening here.
The point of the argument is that the downloading has already happened, and the uploading hasn't. Yes, this makes a big difference. Both in the possibility of discovering the real intent of a member and in the responsibility of doom9.

What you are inferring is that people who give advice can be held responsible when that advice unknowingly is used in the future for malicious purposes. This is pertinently not true.

The consequence of your reasoning is the closing of this site and all other internet forums.

Last edited by GodofaGap; 30th September 2010 at 11:03.
GodofaGap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th September 2010, 12:43   #163  |  Link
Ghitulescu
Registered User
 
Ghitulescu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 5,771
You're right, we are talking here about an act that happened (but not necessarily illegal) and about an act that might occur (and it's mostly illegal). But it's easy to spot the "future offenders" (not all of course) without incurring any harm to the real innocent user. The issue of copy protected CDs/DVDs/BDs shows us that the copyright holders consider any of us potential criminals and managed to bend the laws in accepting this situation, yet nobody seems to protest under the presumption of innocence principle (it is like that in most countries, including the USA).

I'm not saying that anyone should be held responsible, however, like in real life, one simply cannot give an advice when the purpose is blatantly illegal (imagine giving the details on how the neighbours' alarm system function and his working hours to someone on the street that looks suspicious).

I raised this issue because I've seen lots of animosities between people that have legally downloaded various files and some mods, and posts that were "politically correct" because the word DOWNLOAD[ed, -ing, and variations] was missing.

That was all my point. Nothing more. Sorry for any misunderstanding.
Ghitulescu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st October 2010, 07:11   #164  |  Link
dragongodz
....
 
dragongodz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bi11 View Post
I am suggesting the exact opposite, i.e. those in authority should be bombarded with questions that challenge their "authoritative" statements and their authoritative status.

Most likely, "authoritative" statements made by specialist/authoritative figures on the matter would generally be accepted as being true or based on facts/references.
However, "authoritative" statements made by non-authoritative figures on the matter would/should be questioned constructively to avoid the spreading of FUD.

Explicitly forcing the expected behavior of an authoritative role is a good strategy, but only if questioning of those "authoritative" statements are allowed to be more amicable.
a few things with this. first being in authority(ie. MOD) doesnt give your statements on a subject(outside forum rules) any more status than anyone elses. so secondly there is no need or reason to bombard such a persons statements any more than a non-MOD person.
thirdly questioning of a MODs(or anyones) statements about a subject is not only allowed to be amicable but should be encouraged to be so. this hasnt always happened. in this very thread it can be seen that the a few statements of some have not been an attempt to be constructive or amicable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghitulescu View Post
The issue of copy protected CDs/DVDs/BDs shows us that the copyright holders consider any of us potential criminals and managed to bend the laws in accepting this situation, yet nobody seems to protest under the presumption of innocence principle (it is like that in most countries, including the USA).
you are incorrect that nobody has protested actions and law amendments etc forced by copyright holders. that however is beyond the scope of this thread.

Quote:
however, like in real life, one simply cannot give an advice when the purpose is blatantly illegal
the problem is that yes when someone says they want to do something illegal you can say "not helping". however advice given here also has perfectly legal uses. MODs some times have to try to determine which the advice being asked is for. that is part of their job. of course its not going to make everyone happy, even if they have a valid reason for wanting the information. if they think a MOD is taking things too far then they take it up the chain to be looked at.
__________________
Narrator: And of course, with the birth of the artist came the inevitable afterbirth - the critic. (History of the World part 1)
dragongodz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st October 2010, 08:30   #165  |  Link
Deepanshu
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 3
I think you may have misunderstood Sharktooth. I think he's just saying that the Doom9 forum belongs to Doom9 and Doom9 has the right to decide and implement his personnel policies as he sees fit. That's how all businesses work.
Deepanshu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st October 2010, 10:39   #166  |  Link
Bi11
Architect
 
Bi11's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doom9 View Post
I guess we agree to disagree. I'm in a difficult position here..
Can we unconditionally agree (i.e. without exception, either "I agree." or "I disagree.") on at least this one statement:
"Authority (administrative or otherwise) does not imply absolute authority or absolute authoritative status, nor does it imply universal authority or universal authoritative status."
Bi11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st October 2010, 13:09   #167  |  Link
dragongodz
....
 
dragongodz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bi11 View Post
Can we unconditionally agree (i.e. without exception, either "I agree." or "I disagree.")
you wouldnt happen to be a lawyer by any chance ? you sound as if you are trying to mount a case with some of these statements.

what is the point you are trying to make with wanting that unconditionally agreed on ?
__________________
Narrator: And of course, with the birth of the artist came the inevitable afterbirth - the critic. (History of the World part 1)
dragongodz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st October 2010, 13:21   #168  |  Link
Bi11
Architect
 
Bi11's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragongodz View Post
what is the point you are trying to make with wanting that unconditionally agreed on ?
I am invoking the principle of contradiction.

Last edited by Bi11; 1st October 2010 at 13:38. Reason: more general principle
Bi11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st October 2010, 13:54   #169  |  Link
dragongodz
....
 
dragongodz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bi11 View Post
I am invoking the principle of contradiction.
are MODs absolute authorities ? of course not, the fact there is a process where someone can call action taken by a MOD to be judged clearly shows that. on a forum the only absolute authority would be the forum owner.

are people experienced in an area(commonly called an authority) immune from being wrong, even in that area ? again of course not. history is resplendent with examples of that.

these should be pretty self-evident. so maybe you can understand why i am still failing to see the point you are wishing to make.
__________________
Narrator: And of course, with the birth of the artist came the inevitable afterbirth - the critic. (History of the World part 1)
dragongodz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st October 2010, 17:26   #170  |  Link
Bi11
Architect
 
Bi11's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 57
Since this exercise could take indefinitely long, and the principle of contradiction probably doesn't apply here on second thought, I'll just jump to the conclusion.
Take it fwiw (baseless opinion) because I obviously have no proof of these claims.

Quote:
"Authority (administrative or otherwise) does not imply absolute authority or absolute authoritative status, nor does it imply universal authority or universal authoritative status."
My reasoning about the statement goes like this (together with some terms, which I think already have a clear intended meaning),

Absolute means always true. Universal means applies for everything everywhere.

Whether or not you have the ability/freewill to actually/physically make/commit the incorrect statement/wrongful action is a different matter entirely.

I consider the statement close enough to and less subjective than the subjective statement "rule in good faith". By saying "I agree." to the statement, I trust Doom9 to "rule in good faith".

The reason why I think it is important to unconditionally agree to the statement is because Doom9 usually feels the need to wrap his administrative statements/rules/polices/actions (which he is entitled to by virtue of his administrative status) in a facade of "authoritative justifications" that are almost always outside the domain of the administrator role. This, in turn, leads to the spread of FUD (or whatever equates to it, such as, incorrect statements or improper use of correct statements about that particular domain/subject matter/role). This, in turn, leads to members questioning those improper analogies, for which Doom9 pretends that they are attacking his administrative authority or his deeply held beliefs. This, in turn, leads to nowhere other than strikes and bans.

Of course, such an accusation is not conclusively provable.

So, the whole point of this exercise was to show you, dragongodz, the reasoning behind the post I made after the post you quoted.
Bi11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd October 2010, 12:26   #171  |  Link
dragongodz
....
 
dragongodz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,797
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bi11 View Post
The reason why I think it is important to unconditionally agree to the statement is because Doom9 usually feels the need to wrap his administrative statements/rules/polices/actions (which he is entitled to by virtue of his administrative status) in a facade of "authoritative justifications" that are almost always outside the domain of the administrator role.
i have to disagree with that. first off he doesnt have to justify the reasoning behind any decision or rule etc. doing so fosters better understanding and probably a friendlier forum but it is not an obligation and it is his right to choose.
that doesnt mean you have to agree with his reasoning or think its wrong. for example if Doom9 never wanted the word "bee" on this forum because he said he had been "stung by one and now consider them all evil" then that is perfectly within his right. you and i may think thats the most bizarre rule and reason ever but it doesnt change his right to do it.

Quote:
This, in turn, leads to the spread of FUD (or whatever equates to it, such as, incorrect statements or improper use of correct statements about that particular domain/subject matter/role). This, in turn, leads to members questioning those improper analogies, for which Doom9 pretends that they are attacking his administrative authority or his deeply held beliefs. This, in turn, leads to nowhere other than strikes and bans.
questioning in private(by PM for example) in a calm rational way would probably be fine and if you could present a good enough argument to why he was wrong about something may get him to reconsider or at least think again about the subject.
however when people do it publicly he may feel like they are trying to push him in to a corner and attack him(my opinion only of a possibility). that of course doesnt aid a persons argument.
even so look at how Doom9 has reacted to your publicly stated thoughts. he has considered them and explained his thoughts. all quite calmly. just because he hasnt agreed with you doesnt mean he hasnt taken you seriously enough or is doing something that is out of his purview.
__________________
Narrator: And of course, with the birth of the artist came the inevitable afterbirth - the critic. (History of the World part 1)
dragongodz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd October 2010, 05:10   #172  |  Link
Bi11
Architect
 
Bi11's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragongodz View Post
i have to disagree with that. first off he doesnt have to justify the reasoning behind any decision or rule etc. doing so fosters better understanding and probably a friendlier forum but it is not an obligation and it is his right to choose.
I agree he doesn't have to justify the reasoning behind his rules and policies, but he still does, and he tends to do so in a fairly broad manner, which can sometimes be used out of context.
So allow me to underscore the point I am trying to make...

Does Doom9 believe that the role/authority/statements/actions of the administrator (and by extension other authorities related to forum administration/moderation) must be deemed infallible in the eyes of the public? what does that usually imply? and where does that usually lead?
(Also, I think there is a subtle difference, but a difference nonetheless, between... realizing you're doing something wrong, or not as good as could be done, and then quietly trying something else that may be better, and... explicitly acknowledging fault and then vowing to do things better.
I consider the former to be the sign of someone who tends to shirk responsibility if they can, and the latter as the sign of a responsible leader.)

If Doom9 had agreed to the statement I challenged him to agree upon, then it really becomes a question of how much he is willing to constrain his administrative authority, which, thinking logically, would be zero constraints for an administrator with total control of the forum.

As a member of this forum, I have no inherent/established administrator/moderator/or any other power or authority vested in me when I registered to be a member of this forum. So I think it should be clear that if I make a statement that extends outside my purview as a forum member, then that statement would have less weight (and clearly not absolute) than the weight of the statement made by someone with some inherent/established authority on the matter.

The point is that if you make "innocent" inaccurate statements within your authority, then I could easily overlook those statements because I trust in your understanding of the issue. But by drawing inaccurate analogies outside your authority, leads me to question your understanding of the issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dragongodz View Post
that doesnt mean you have to agree with his reasoning or think its wrong. for example if Doom9 never wanted the word "bee" on this forum because he said he had been "stung by one and now consider them all evil" then that is perfectly within his right. you and i may think thats the most bizarre rule and reason ever but it doesnt change his right to do it.
Again, I don't think the issue is about what someone can or can't do, i.e. freewill or vested power/authority, but about what someone should or should not do assuming the person is willing to act responsibly in good will.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dragongodz View Post
questioning in private(by PM for example) in a calm rational way would probably be fine and if you could present a good enough argument to why he was wrong about something may get him to reconsider or at least think again about the subject.
Well, there is always the issue as to what qualifies as a "good enough" argument, but if the authority on the matter is responsible and willing to act in good faith (or whatever it means to act in a reasonably fair interest of all parties involved) then it's a matter of trusting the authority's judgment of the evidence provided to support the subject/claim.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dragongodz View Post
even so look at how Doom9 has reacted to your publicly stated thoughts. he has considered them and explained his thoughts. all quite calmly. just because he hasnt agreed with you doesnt mean he hasnt taken you seriously enough or is doing something that is out of his purview.
Yes, I agree he has taken steps to rectify some of the issues raised. Though I think it would be responsible of him to explicitly acknowledge and explain what were the problems with doing things the way he did before making the changes. I think we can all learn from such "confessions".

--

It is obviously not within my right as member of this forum to insist that the following solution be implemented, but I think it is within my right as member of this forum to at least constructively raise the issue and to suggest a possible/feasible solution.

If Doom9 understands and acknowledges the underlying problem I have been trying to raise, and really understands what Ben Parker meant when he said to his nephew, "with great power, comes great responsibility", then I expect to see rule 6 and its enforcement changed in a certain particular way (not openly like this, but similar to the way spam posts are reported and the moderator unilaterally decides if the post violates the rules or not), such that the overall result will be, established members will be satisfied with the change, and members not well informed about the implications of violating rule 6 will be treated leniently.

--

I think what I did in some parts of this discussion, in an attempt to raise some of the issues I think should be addressed, could probably be called "show by example". If this "proof" technique is allowed to be used in public on matters related to the administration/moderation of this forum, even if the intent is to keep it confined to threads like this (which could be considered as one big court case), then it seems similar "examples" would inevitably spread throughout the forum, potentially causing chaos, which would eventually lead to the downfall of this forum.

So I acknowledge that the court idea is not feasible (and it seems Doom9 is using this thread, and the "show by example" technique, to show that point).

I have been graciously allowed to publicly make my point, which I take as a gesture of good will by Doom9 in an attempt to amicably resolve some of the issues raised.

Are there any other points you constructively raised that have not been constructively/reasonably addressed, Doom9?

--

Getting so much involved in this discussion has literally made me lose my appetite for food (probably because I felt I needed to prove an accusation, which is futile; I can only provide supporting evidence and trust that the powers-that-be are willing to consider the evidence and act responsibly in good faith), so I can understand why Doom9 feels sick just by looking at some of these posts, my posts included.

Id like to thank dragongodz, for being an open-minded fellow (in my opinion anyway) in this debate.

Finally, Id like to quote jdobbs signature into this thread,
Quote:
"I wouldn't be so paranoid if everyone wasn't out to get me." (Frank Burns)
Bi11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 13:50.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.