Welcome Bulgaria And Romiania!

[repiV]

Actually repiV I didn't receive any infraction because I behave in a civil manner and I respect the forum laws. Now, you throw your age around and talk about how mature you are, but you forget one thing - age is not an argument.

You know who has experienced life? A kid in Africa whose family was murdered by rebels. That's life experience. Of course, you dismiss him as a child.

Not to mention that the situation is different in the Internet - your age has no meaning here, and you gain validity, respect and friends through your posts and behaviour. So far it seems you have gained very little of it here, for reasons which are pretty much self-evident.

EDIT: This post marked the transition of HL2.net from the old format to new format. Amazing.

Civil manner? You were being an obnoxious, arrogant, offensive asshole in the piracy thread, like noone else on these forums has ever been.
Validity comes from being correct, not from having a popular opinion.

 

[Tagaziel]

I hope you mean "correct" as in "behaving according to estabilished laws, forum and otherwise" not "how I want others to behave".

 

[repiV]

And in this case, you were in violation of law dictated for the forums. Something that Samon, regardless of his age, has to uphold as part of his position.

I do accept insults as part of the Politics section, but I have also been reprimanded for partaking in it. It's not something I really try to contest since I know I'm in the wrong.

That's fair enough and I respect your position. However, in this case it really is rules for the sake of rules.

Was anyone harmed by the two-post exchange? No.
Did anyone care? No.

So why take action?

and yet here are you, doing the same thing. Except you seem to think that it's justified because you're older than Samon.

I'm not telling Samon how he should behave, I'm expressing my disdain for him telling me how to behave. He can act however he likes, I don't really care. I start caring when he's infringing upon my ability to do the same.
Contrary to popular belief, I have nothing against 17 year olds either. I just don't like being dictated to by them.

 

[repiV]

I hope you mean "correct" as in "behaving according to estabilished laws, forum and otherwise" not "how I want others to behave".

I mean "correct" in the sense of an opinion on a particular topic. It might be dead cool and trendy to be a leftie and champion the causes of multiculturalism, globalisation and pacifism around here, but don't confuse being a leftie for having validity.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

I'm not telling Samon how he should behave, I'm expressing my disdain for him telling me how to behave. He can act however he likes, I don't really care. I start caring when he's infringing upon my ability to do the same.
Contrary to popular belief, I have nothing against 17 year olds either. I just don't like being dictated to by them.

Your ability to "do the same" is governed and even limited by the rules of these forums. Samon's position on these forums is to enforce those rules.

 

[Tagaziel]

I mean "correct" in the sense of an opinion on a particular topic. It might be dead cool and trendy to be a leftie and champion the causes of multiculturalism, globalisation and pacifism around here, but don't confuse being a leftie for having validity.

So, what is validity? Behaving like mr. repiV dictates?

 

[repiV]

Your ability to "do the same" is governed and even limited by the rules of these forums. Samon's position on these forums is to enforce those rules.

I purposefully used the word "ability" instead of "right".
Insults have always been the way of the politics forum. I am also well mannered and levelheaded until someone says something really stupid, patronising or otherwise.
Either way, I do apologise for kicking up a fuss. It really pisses me off when people tell me what to do (especially when they're younger than me), and that's never gonna change. Although if you were even-handed in your approach to reprimanding people, I wouldn't mind so much.
The definition of "offensive" is very subjective, and it isn't limited to just insults. I find some of the opinions expressed here along the lines of the West being an evil empire and the Middle East being the oppressed, peaceful people of the world not only grossly incorrect but downright offensive - but that's my opinion. Where do you draw the line?
Can you not just be a bit more consistent in your approach?

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

I attempt to be as consistent as possible in my administration of the forums, and I trust the staff to do the same. The politics forum generally gets a bit more leeway than the other forum sections. Lack of overall consistency is the price you pay for wanting political discussions on a game forum.

 

[repiV]

So, what is validity? Behaving like mr. repiV dictates?

No?
I don't have the right to dictate to ANYONE, and I maintain that I still wouldn't have that right as a moderator of forums. I don't believe that moderation of ordinary discussion is at all necessary or desirable. I didn't have that right as an operator/owner of public IRC channels, either. I get pissed off when people think their insignificant "internet power" gives them the right to boss others around. In fact, that's why I left QuakeNet. It became little more than a club for losers to have powertrips with little regard to actually providing a good chat environment. NOT that I am insinuating that any of the moderators here are losers on powertrips, or even losers at all. I don't believe that, but I can see why someone would think I'm making that connection.
I also submit, however, that I don't make the rules here, and I'll try to follow them in future. But I'm still gonna get pissed off when people tell me how to behave for no reason other than "the rules say so".

Incidentally, I never had a problem with you until your tirade in the piracy thread. Usually you're pretty cool.

 

[repiV]

I attempt to be as consistent as possible in my administration of the forums, and I trust the staff to do the same. The politics forum generally gets a bit more leeway than the other forum sections. Lack of overall consistency is the price you pay for wanting political discussions on a game forum.

Ok, fair play.

 

[pomegranate]

repiV (and I'm trying to be, ahem, reasonable here) I don't think anyone really thinks of the the Middle East that way, or as the west quite like that. That's a very black and white generalisation that I really doubt anyone, even those of use whose politics are the polar opposite of yours, makes. This is the sort of thing I was talking about before...

 

[Tagaziel]

Incidentally, I never had a problem with you until your tirade in the piracy thread. Usually you're pretty cool.

Why thanks. I try my best not start flame wars with you, because, as much as I disagree with you, you are entitled to your own opinion, especially on subjects where there is no concrete evidence to use.

The piracy thread was an exception, as you advocated breaking the law, something I'll be working with in the future.

 

[repiV]

repiV (and I'm trying to be reasonable here) I don't think anyone really thinks of the the Middle East that way, or as the west quite like that. That's a very black and white generalisation that I really doubt anyone, even those of use whose politics are the polar opposite of yours, makes.

I think DaMan does. Certainly in relation to Israel and Palestine (check his signature...). It's pretty "hip" to support Palestine and condemn Israel in Europe, even if not to the extent that I said above, and I just don't understand it. It demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of reality that gives a platform to terrorists who break every rule of war in the book over a democratic, civilised nation which shows remarkable restraint when fighting, all things considered.
Incidentally, I do believe Israel used far too much force in the Lebanon incursion, but it certainly wasn't murder, genocide, unprovoked, or many of the other things it has been called.

 

[repiV]

Why thanks. I try my best not start flame wars with you, because, as much as I disagree with you, you are entitled to your own opinion, especially on subjects where there is no concrete evidence to use.

The piracy thread was an exception, as you advocated breaking the law, something I'll be working with in the future.

On reflection I can understand why you reacted the way you did, but you must admit you were breaking the rules of the forum to a greater extent than I ever have.
Dude, I neither want nor expect everyone to agree with me. If everyone agreed with me, it would be extremely uninteresting. I expect only that people give my views fair consideration and argue against them rationally, and attempt to afford the same courtesy to others.
I don't take a legalistic view of the world...I don't think law is a useful measure of morality. Incidentally I was pondering what alignment I would be whilst playing Neverwinter Nights 2...I think I'm mostly neutral/chaotic good with a small percentage of lawful evil (get what you can from the system by following the rules).

 

[Tagaziel]

I treat law as such, since it's usually a consensual agreement on rules that people of said country are supposed to abide to. Good lawmaking is the best way of governing a country, as good laws in themselves encourage following them.

Of course, no law is good by definition, and what makes it good is whether or not people find it useful and worth following.

Eg. Punishable murder is an example of a good, useful law, but executing people because they don't wash their socks isn't.

 

[repiV]

I treat law as such, since it's usually a consensual agreement on rules that people of said country are supposed to abide to. Good lawmaking is the best way of governing a country, as good laws in themselves encourage following them.

Of course, no law is good by definition, and what makes it good is whether or not people find it useful and worth following.

Eg. Punishable murder is an example of a good, useful law, but executing people because they don't wash their socks isn't.

I think society would work much better with about one tenth of the number of laws we have now. Why does the government need to proscribe the acceptable behaviour in so many areas of life? Let people govern themselves. Law by definition gives precedent to a particular viewpoint, and in many cases it's simply not justifiable. Here, for example, they're trying to enact laws that would make a man guilty of rape if he has sex with a drunk woman and she decides to press charges. Notably, this doesn't work in reverse.
That's utterly outrageous. Totally sexist, discriminatory, and WRONG.
A few years ago, a 17 year old in the USA got imprisoned for 10 years for child molestation - for having consensual sex with a 15 year old, who has all along begged them not to put him in jail. He's still behind bars.
Since, beyond a few things like murder, REAL rape, burglary etc. noone is ever going to agree on what is right and wrong, wouldn't it make more sense to just stop legislating these things and let people deal with their own problems? Market forces...
Not to mention the difficulty in applying the law in a manner that is fair and just (money buys justice).
I think the mark of a truly civilised society is not a fleshed-out judicial system, but the ability to live in peace and prosperity without the need for endless amounts of laws that ordinary decent people break every single day.

 

[CptStern]

Go ahead. I might think you say stupid shit when it comes to politics, but I would never dictate anything to you, even if I owned the site. You have proven yourself in life a great deal more than I have. What right would I have? None at all.

you have no right regardless if I've proven myself ..we're all free to do what we please here ...however we are all bound by the rules of this site; this is not a democracy, posting is not a right. We are all beholden to the big Munro up in the sky, who rules over us all with an iron fist. Trust me sometimes beating something into someone is cathartic to say the least however it does nothing to prove a point

 

[Tagaziel]

I agree with most of your post. However, we still haven't reached the point where the number of people abusing the system is limited so far, that most laws can be dropped.

Law is an inevitable thing in the modern world. Agreed, a man, a family, a small community can govern themselves without laws. But, seeing how a country encompasses different groups with different views, to avoid conflict and infighting, laws must be estabilished.

Which was the basic reason roman law begun it's existence - Rome has grown beyond a small community and it's influence fell down on many farming communities with differenet agendas, and the system of priests governing cities with laws has proven to be an extremely flawed one, as more often than not, they abused their power. Thus, the birth of the Law of XII Tablets.

 

[repiV]

you have no right regardless if I've proven myself ..we're all free to do what we please here ...however we are all bound by the rules of this site; this is not a democracy, posting is not a right. We are all beholden to the big Munro up in the sky, who rules over us all with an iron fist. Trust me sometimes beating something into someone is cathartic to say the least however it does nothing to prove a point

If we are bound by the rules of the site, then by DEFINITION we are not free to do as we please.
I think the site would work better if there were no rules at all. I frequent another forum that is completely unmoderated - you can't get banned or moderated for any reason, ever (with a couple of very far-out exceptions). Now, that site is extremely vicious, but that has little to do with the lack of rules and everything to do with the fact that 80-90% of the regulars are right-wing, ex-military types. People aren't like that here - I think it would work just fine.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

I guess we'll never know.

 

[repiV]

I agree with most of your post. However, we still haven't reached the point where the number of people abusing the system is limited so far, that most laws can be dropped.

Law is an inevitable thing in the modern world. Agreed, a man, a family, a small community can govern themselves without laws. But, seeing how a country encompasses different groups with different views, to avoid conflict and infighting, laws must be estabilished.

Which was the basic reason roman law begun it's existence - Rome has grown beyond a small community and it's influence fell down on many farming communities with differenet agendas, and the system of priests governing cities with laws has proven to be an extremely flawed one, as more often than not, they abused their power. Thus, the birth of the Law of XII Tablets.

Law is of course necessary. I think laws governing personal behaviour should be very limited in their power and scope, however. But in order for that to be plausible, we have to shift the balance of power back towards the individual.
In the UK at least, I'm not exaggerating too much if I say that self-defence is illegal. The government arrogantly assumes responsibility for solving individual disputes of that nature (although they are incapable of delivering on that responsibility).
If someone angers me sufficiently, I should be within my rights to punch them in the face. I wouldn't do so, as I'm a diplomatic rather than a violent person. But I maintain I should have that right.
People will be people. Laws exist to tame and shape the nature of the individual, which is inherently unnatural. People fear a "lawless" society, but in a society where communities and not governments bear responsibility, I fully believe we would have a far more peaceful, friendly and pleasant society. Sadly, I doubt we will ever get to see.

I have to go to bed now...shoulda gone to bed a long time ago. I look forward to your reply, however.

 

[Tagaziel]

I'm an advocate of libertarian approach too, and I also tend to point out roman law, which is based on individual cases as the base for law, much like British common law is, as the example of a very good law.

Roman law interfered with personal disputes in a limited way, and allowed for most cases to be settled between two parties before it was taken to the praetor, and even then, the praetor would not interfere beyond giving a sentence, which proclaimed either side right.

Additionally, there were very few cases the government would interfere directly, in most cases, the inititiation of a legal process laid in the competence of the one who was hurt, who also would have the right to full legal legal protection by the praetor.

Sadly, most governments have abandoned this valuable approach.

Moving on, I have to oppose your proposition of allowing a punch in the face. It's a law easily abusible, and it's hard to provide a definition of it. If I punch someone in the face, I'm not a criminal, but if I punch him in the guts, I am, despite lower possibility of causing permanent harm. It's also impossible to take into account the medical conditions one would have - for instance, one may have a very weak nose and you may break it, permanently, while another has a nose of iron. What then?

I agree with the notion that less laws would allow for a more peaceful society, however, people need to re-mature (as a technological society we're still primitive, to be honest) to a point where those laws would be no longer needed.

Off to sleep too, glad we can resolve probelms in a civil way

 

[Raziaar]

Yes, because that's the mature way to go. Respond in the same fashion. Someone throws a brick at you? Throw it right back! Sorry, but that isn't how it works. You don't have to reply to such messages with an equally inappropriate response. He received an infraction too.

Moved to Politics.

I throw all my bricks back... sometimes I stack on a second for good measure. :cheese:

 

[ZeeM]

Can you come to Poland and repeat that in the face of people who lost their loved ones because of the communist secret police? Or the ones repressed and relocated to gulags? Or maybe you should see the state Poland and neighbouring countries were in when the Soviet Union fell?

This is a statement that's inherently ungrounded and, well, stupid.

EDIT: Stern, I love you.

Yes you're maybe right, thats war in case you didnt know it. (at least they're not policing the world like the yankees do nor do they kill thousands of civillians for purely economic reasons while blatantly pretending that they saved them etc etc - what's the next country for 2007?). That's the cost of being a superpower. If you want to be a superpower or at least have some significance you have to do something more than to sit on your ass. See Germany, France, Britain etc... Its called war.
Note: I do not disclaim that stalin was evil (he was Georgian by the way )

But I was talking about countries that belonged to the Soviet Union and while they enjoyed all the comforts and benefits that Soviet Union offered them (being one of the places to live at that time) and everyone was fine with it, now that SU collapsed they're bitching that its Russia's fault of their state. Ungrateful bastards. E.g. see Georgia. It was one of the richest SU republics, and their citizens of the most well paid. Now that they're on their own, that place became a complete shithole and they're not getting better anytime soon. Now Georgians hate Russians (you see it yourself) although tens of thousands of them are working legally and illegaly in Russia.
It also has a lot to do with economic interests. E.g. see gas prices. Its not something Ukrainians like but hey, whats so special about them that they should pay the gas cheaper than the rest of the Europe? 1 more reason to hate Russia, 1 more reason to spread more Propaganda. The Union is over after all. It wasnt like that during the time of SU. There was no hate and everyone was living fine. Now that economic interests came into play, here comes cold war 2.

I've lived in 3 countries during the Soviet Union (Russia, Georgia, Armenia) and I have relatives that lived/are living in some of the (ex-)SU countries.


edit: Seeing that this thread is in the Politics Forum, I dont see myself coming here anytime soon :O

 

[Tagaziel]

Dear ZeeM,

If you had checked the history of abuse of the Soviet Union towards Eastern Europe, in which you admit you haven't lived, you would see why communism is evil.

Ukrainian Famine rings any bells? Katyń? 17th September invasion of Poland after annexing Baltican countries? Ribbentrop-Molotov? Process of the sixteen? These are just the crimes that affected Poland.

Not to mention that our economy was completely screwed up, living standards minimal and people were dissatisfied greatly with the system.

I invite you here, to Poland, to throw what you say in the face of people who were persecuted during USSR's influence.

Much love,

Mikael Grizzly

 

[Solaris]

If we are bound by the rules of the site, then by DEFINITION we are not free to do as we please.
I think the site would work better if there were no rules at all. I frequent another forum that is completely unmoderated - you can't get banned or moderated for any reason, ever (with a couple of very far-out exceptions). Now, that site is extremely vicious, but that has little to do with the lack of rules and everything to do with the fact that 80-90% of the regulars are right-wing, ex-military types. People aren't like that here - I think it would work just fine.

Ironic how the anarchist was calling me a commie.

 

[ZeeM]

If you had checked the history of abuse of the Soviet Union towards Eastern Europe, in which you admit you haven't lived, you would see why communism is evil.

Last time I checked, Russia was in Eastern Europe too.

And no, communism is not evil my friend. The way it was implemented by its leaders was. Capitalism is the evil one, but thats a whole different topic.

"Capitalism is Man Exploiting Man; Communism is just the opposite"

And that "communism is evil" crap from western media has gone old. "When you download mp3s, you download communism" :angel:

 

[el Chi]

NO rules and anarchy aren't really the same thing, Solaris.

$5 says Russia gets membership in exchange for oil.

Israel is in Eurovision Song Conbtest - who knows how far the EU could expand.
China, here we come.

 

[Mesz]

Delusional, communists like you are destroying my country. You obviously don't even like Great Britian so GTFO!

It's not Solaris' fault, he lives in the countryside where real world situations like drug problems and immigration problems do not affect him and Emmerdale

 

[The Monkey]

Last time I checked, Russia was in Eastern Europe too.

And no, communism is not evil my friend. The way it was implemented by its leaders was. Capitalism is the evil one, but thats a whole different topic.

"Capitalism is Man Exploiting Man; Communism is just the opposite"

And that "communism is evil" crap from western media has gone old. "When you download mp3s, you download communism" :angel:

Just a disclaimer, I don't like Reagan, I dislike him and almost all of his policies very much, but I liked this one thing he said:
"How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."

Communism is outdated and can only be applied to a society that no longer exists. I would have thought anyone would realized that after the fall of the USSR.

 

[Solaris]

Just a disclaimer, I don't like Reagan, I dislike him and almost all of his policies very much, but I liked this one thing he said:
"How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin."

And you understand it? What books have you read on the subject?

Communism is outdated and can only be applied to a society that no longer exists.

Why can't it?

I would have thought anyone would realized that after the fall of the USSR.

You understand communism yet you think the USSR was communist?

 

[NeptuneUK]

It's a nice theory, but has never worked in the past. Why bother with communism any more?
It just doesn't work.

 

[repiV]

I'm an advocate of libertarian approach too, and I also tend to point out roman law, which is based on individual cases as the base for law, much like British common law is, as the example of a very good law.

Roman law interfered with personal disputes in a limited way, and allowed for most cases to be settled between two parties before it was taken to the praetor, and even then, the praetor would not interfere beyond giving a sentence, which proclaimed either side right.

Additionally, there were very few cases the government would interfere directly, in most cases, the inititiation of a legal process laid in the competence of the one who was hurt, who also would have the right to full legal legal protection by the praetor.

Sadly, most governments have abandoned this valuable approach.

That sounds quite interesting, I didn't know about that. I'll have to look into it - thanks.

Moving on, I have to oppose your proposition of allowing a punch in the face. It's a law easily abusible, and it's hard to provide a definition of it. If I punch someone in the face, I'm not a criminal, but if I punch him in the guts, I am, despite lower possibility of causing permanent harm. It's also impossible to take into account the medical conditions one would have - for instance, one may have a very weak nose and you may break it, permanently, while another has a nose of iron. What then?

I wasn't saying that there should be a law specifically allowing you to punch someone in the face under certain circumstances, it was just an example. I think that people should be able to settle their personal disputes in whatever manner they deem necessary, within reason.
If people get out of line, other people set them straight. Self-regulation. We don't need the government to do the job of the community. Of course, there is the problem that in urban society the community doesn't really exist anymore. But that is also a problem that needs to be addressed.

I agree with the notion that less laws would allow for a more peaceful society, however, people need to re-mature (as a technological society we're still primitive, to be honest) to a point where those laws would be no longer needed.

I guess we are. But it's certainly debatable whether the concept of civilisation can transcend basic human nature...civilisation is a very fragile thing.

Off to sleep too, glad we can resolve probelms in a civil way

Yeah, me too.

Incidentally, some more stupid laws for you. I started my new job as a recruitment consultant today (****ing loved it, I didn't wanna leave!) and I was learning about legislation governing job advertisements.
Since the new age discrimination laws came into force, you're not allowed to ask for an "energetic" or "dynamic" person, as that implies youth, nor are you allowed to ask for an experienced person, as that implies age. Nor are you allowed to ask for graduates (unless the job by law requires someone with a particular degree), you can only say someone of graduate-calibre.
It's utterly inane. What kind of morons come up with this shit?

 

[repiV]

Ironic how the anarchist was calling me a commie.

There's a big difference between being an anarchist and being a libertarian. Also, what's ironic? You are a commie. Further in evidence due to the fact that you routinely ignore difficult questions posed to you...like commies.

It's a nice theory, but has never worked in the past. Why bother with communism any more?
It just doesn't work.

It's not a nice theory, it's a terrible theory. Communism is totalitarian by definition, and in order for it to function people must be denied basic freedoms by force.
If it's never worked, that's a good indication that it's a bad theory too.

 

[Solaris]

It's not a nice theory, it's a terrible theory. Communism is totalitarian by definition, and in order for it to function people must be denied basic freedoms by force.
If it's never worked, that's a good indication that it's a bad theory too.

And what basic freedoms are these?

 

[repiV]

And what basic freedoms are these?

The freedom to trade, maybe?

 

[kirovman]

No trading!

And if you give a gift to your family, the government should tax you 40%.

Oh, wait...

 

[The Monkey]

And you understand it? What books have you read on the subject? [/QOUTE]
I've read the Communist Manifesto and parts of Das Kapital.

Why can't it?

Communism was worked out when the conditions on the market were far different from what they are today. It was written for 19th century Europe, and since that society is long gone, the ideology that people tried to apply to it is useless.

You understand communism yet you think the USSR was communist?

It followed the communist economic models, even though it never reach "the final stage of communism", but only the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. It was, by all standards, communist.

 

[Solaris]

It followed the communist economic models, even though it never reach "the final stage of communism", but only the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. It was, by all standards, communist.

Except, ironically by the standards of communists themselves.
Lenin himself said it wasn't communist, it was, as most communists to date think, state capitalist.

 

[kirovman]

I think it was Karl Marx who said he wasn't a Communist.