香港 Xocat Forum 討論區 - Powered by Discuz! Board

標題: To Xocat: Concrete Suggestion to Resolve This Matter [打印本頁]

作者: 炮艇工兵 時間: 2007-8-16 01:53 標題: To Xocat: Concrete Suggestion to Resolve This Matter

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: Gaydiator 時間: 2007-8-16 01:59

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: 癲巴 時間: 2007-8-16 02:03

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: waku 時間: 2007-8-16 02:09

引用:

原帖由癲巴於 2007-8-16 02:03 發表

難得你咁有心......

真係要存起佢....留黎做教材...

作者: 癲巴 時間: 2007-8-16 02:11

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: xocatII 時間: 2007-8-16 02:22

thanks 炮艇工兵 for his suggestions and article. Attitude and language is good. However, what you see is not so correct. Let me correct. Though I see some constructive positive suggestions.

作者: xocatII 時間: 2007-8-16 02:31

Yes, my management style might not be something you like. You can't make a movie or place that 100% of people like it. Nobody in the world can do it. I have to make those 10% of people get out of here and remain those who can be peaceful. Just because 10% of people just shout and shout and influence those other 90% of people.

引用:

And you elected to not respond to either that thread or my thread

Totally wrong. Very wrong. I did respond. And the fact is: loksiu say/speculate something without concrete evidence support.

The point is : he and his "friends" break our law of our forum. Peace. I only want peace.

作者: 癲巴 時間: 2007-8-16 02:41

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: 炮艇工兵 時間: 2007-8-16 02:56

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: xocatII 時間: 2007-8-16 03:13

totally wrong, he didn't merely ask a question. He is 誹謗. He said someone collects money for illegal stuff... what's your evidence?

作者: SCMP 時間: 2007-8-16 03:37

引用:

原帖由 xocatII 於 2007-8-16 03:13 發表
totally wrong, he didn't merely ask a question. He is 誹謗. He said someone collects money for illegal stuff... what's your evidence?

方死方生，方生方死；給別人機會就是給自己機會.....不賢者居高位, 是播其惡於眾也

p.s. 灌水無罪, 話九之你

作者: 白貓兒 時間: 2007-8-16 06:52

引用:

原帖由 xocatII 於 2007-8-16 03:13 發表
totally wrong, he didn't merely ask a question. He is 誹謗. He said someone collects money for illegal stuff... what's your evidence?

That's where I want to come in. Loksiu did not make a statement 陳述句 of accusation to the effect that someone received money......and did not name anyone in that utterance. Rather, he asked a question whether the forum could allow people receiving money.........to stay. Possibly he had 流料   in mind but even so, he did not 'say his mind'. You might say that from the context of the exchanges on that thread, it was clear that loksiu was indirectly referring to ('alluding to') 流料, but one could rebut by saying that it was an incidental (順帶) hypothetical question about an issue raised in general (a sidetrack you could say), not the issue surrounding 流料 in particular. Under the law of civil libel in Hong Kong, yes, to demonstrate  a person has committed libel against another, there is no need to provide evidence of 指明道姓. You can just demonstrate that the one 'alluded to' can be inferred without reasonable doubt to be someone. But in this case here, did loksiu make a statement? No. Can we make a reasonable inference that points to 流料? I wonder, given that loksiu's question sounded more hypothetical than accusatory to me.

And do the law-enforcement authorities in HK actively intervene if they ever suspect  a case of libel in the first instance? No. Proceedings start only when a case is filed to the court, for the matter is civil, not criminal, and the judge hears the case. Of course our forum is not a governmental agency nor a law court; we are only drawing an analogy. What, then, do I think you the administrator should have done instead?

I think you should have (or could have) reminded loksiu that his question could (possibly) provoke someone or be taken as libel (without saying that you personally think it amounted to 構成 libel) . Or you could even have remained inactive until 流料 or anyone else complained. Either way, you next step would have been to advise loksiu to take back what he had said and say the reason is to prevent an argument that might follow. If he did not comply, and an argument then actually ensued (no matter who started it), then ban the one who continued the argument. I remember that back in 2003-2005, this was how you intervened on the old forum-----you went in admist an argument, and threatened to ban. Then the argument (in most cases) stopped. That was what I appreciated then.

By now on this new forum, the above two-step approach may seem to you clumsier than a simple 'pre-emptive' ban which you imposed on loksiu this time. But I'd rather you took it in two steps (as you generally did back in the old days) so that both the manner and the outcome of your intervention are acceptable by most if not all (能服眾). With argument initiation not allowed here, if you are to intervene, intervene to prevent argument in your role as administrator and board master of 意見區. You need not have recourse to the notion of 誹謗.(You said loksiu did not know about the law of any big country. Did you check up the legalities involved in libel?)  Instead go back to the spirit of the forum rules: to prevent argument and ensure harmony. Hence intervene, when you deem it necessary, to prevent argument, without pre-emptively accusing anyone or 'stretching' what someone says beyond his words on the surface (i.e. saying that loksiu's hypothetical, generalised question is an attack directed specifically on 流料 in this case here.)

I earnestly implore you to remove your ban on loksiu and all the rest of them. If anyone of them did deserve a ban in the past, you did not ban him/her when the situation would warrant it (or you finally let him off, as in the case of your previous ban on loksiu which was subsequently removed). I am not saying that they did deserve punishment in the past (I withhold my view here); I am saying that  if at opportune times for banning them in the past  (if there were ever any) you chose not to punish them, this time all the more they should not be banned.

They might leave the forum altogether in the end, as stated by some of them on other threads. Let them leave in an honourable way (with their membership intact), even if they have acted in ways dishonourable in your eyes in the past.

Whitekitty

[ 本帖最後由白貓兒於 2007-8-16 21:21 編輯 ]

作者: 馬蹄爽 時間: 2007-8-16 07:53

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: 白貓兒 時間: 2007-8-16 21:42

xocat wrote elsewhere:

'If you insist that you're not on the side of crazybb or loksiu, you're innocent.'

I do not consider taking personal side necessary for me.
I side with procedural propriety.

[ 本帖最後由白貓兒於 2007-8-16 21:45 編輯 ]

作者: 呀mug順拿 時間: 2007-8-17 00:53

引用:

原帖由癲巴於 2007-8-16 02:41 發表

取笑 = tease.

請問單打係 single, or double 果種定係 sarcasm.

作者: xocatII 時間: 2007-8-18 13:18

questioning someone sin is very impolite... especially someone didn't have a sin. And you didn't have concrete evidence.
If someone question about you to ask if you have committed that sin but without evidence publicly, you're very embarrassed...
Try it out for your friends, you won't even do it.
Just because you're hidden in the Internet, you did it. And it is very impolite.
I repeat, no one is prosecuted...

作者: 白貓兒 時間: 2007-8-18 13:41

I repeat, loksiu did not name anyone in that utterance.
I think you speculate he alluded to 流料.....'speculate', to use your word.

I repeat that I do not particularly approve of loksiu's manners in general.
I simply think that given what he said there and then, what should have been done is warn/advise him as long as there was no evidence that he spoke ill of 流料specifically.
'Evidence'.........to follow your requirement.

[ 本帖最後由白貓兒於 2007-8-18 13:43 編輯 ]

作者: xocatII 時間: 2007-8-18 13:48

引用:

原帖由 白貓兒 於 2007-8-18 13:41 發表
I repeat, loksiu did not name anyone in that utterance.
I think you speculate he alluded to 流料.....'speculate', to use your word.

I repeat that I do not particularly approve of loksiu's manne ...

He is not speculating... he lead many many other users to think that 流料 break the HK law. He is very successful in it. Proven. No need to use the word "speculate" any more... PROVEN AND PROVEN TO BE SUCCESSFUL... a lot of users believe in that and ask me why I allow someone break the law... very very successful...

If someone say it in the public and asked : "hey, I saw someone on the street promoting sex trade SEEM/LOOK LIKE your mother? Is that true?". Even if it is speculating... it is very very insulting... so, here you speculate someone violate the law... that's more than meets the eyes...sorry, more than breaks the law... more than insulting...

If you want to discuss with me, pls read every one of the post before posting... I see your strong language skill and writing skill, you need to improve your reading skill. I also appreciate your legal skill. But you have to understand more evidence...

作者: 白貓兒 時間: 2007-8-18 13:50

You say: (At the end of the day) no one is prosecuted,
(just as messenger, 炮艇工兵,屈臣氏,fuk, 小潔etc. are unbanned finally).

But I consider procedural propriety quite important. It contributes to your credibility. It is part of a group's norms.

作者: xocatII 時間: 2007-8-18 13:51

引用:

原帖由 白貓兒 於 2007-8-18 13:41 發表
I repeat, loksiu did not name anyone in that utterance.
I think you speculate he alluded to 流料.....'speculate', to use your word.

I repeat that I do not particularly approve of loksiu's manne ...

You didn't see it doesn't mean you he didn't do it.
He has the right to imply or use subtle ways to imply... that is insulting as well.. and that is 誹謗 as well...
And most importantly, he also explicitly say it... and proven, YES PROVEN, a lot of other members believe in him...

作者: xocatII 時間: 2007-8-18 13:55

loksiu tend to break many many minor rules so that it is not clear. But the whole picture and the accumulation is very troublesome to our forum... do you think I ban loksiu's decision is within 10 days? No, it is already over 1 year... I have that in mind for over 1 year... so it is a hard decision to make... unless now concrete evidence is clear.

作者: 白貓兒 時間: 2007-8-18 14:01

引用:

原帖由 xocatII 於 2007-8-18 13:48 發表

He is not speculating... he lead many many other users to think that 流料 break the HK law. He is very successful in it. Proven. No need to use the word "speculate" any more... PRO ...

In that case, you should have banned loksiu earlier, when he more obviously misled others. You should have referred to earlier utterances of his, even if you banned him later.

You require us board masters to specify the post(s) in question that lead to a decision to ban. You say it is to let others undertand the rationale.
Please practise what you require. I hope you the administrator are no exception to this requirement.

作者: 白貓兒 時間: 2007-8-18 14:06

引用:

原帖由 xocatII 於 2007-8-18 13:51 發表

You didn't see it doesn't mean you he didn't do it.
He has the right to imply or use subtle ways to imply... that is insulting as well.. and that is 誹謗 as well...
And most importantly, he ...

Whether a particular subtle implication amounts to libel is for the judge to decide.
However, here you are:
The Executive, The Legislature, The Judiciary. All three branches of government in one.
What can I say?

[ 本帖最後由白貓兒於 2007-8-18 14:07 編輯 ]

作者: xocatII 時間: 2007-8-18 14:10

That thread is like "how to create a bomb" to bomb this forum... I will forget it forever... Will you make publish a article on how to create a bomb in the Internet? That is obvsiouly illegal and devastating...

Everyone involved in that thread are highly suspected to bomb our forum or make us die... I'm sorry again and again that some good persons are accidentally killed, but I have resumed their accounts, and make them alive again, on the name of God, sorry, not God , on the name of xocat...

They are alive again easily ... provided that they are willing to talk to me politely, they have the right to have different opinions... but polite different opiniions are surely welcome.

I'm very troubled during that time I don't know who is my friend and who is 無間道. Have you seen that movie? I'm the one who is so afraid. So frightened that I have to ban many of them... I have no choice during that time. Now I see more clearly and willing to see more clearly and thus many have been unbanned, unless they are the group of loksiu...

作者: xocatII 時間: 2007-8-18 14:12

引用:

原帖由 白貓兒 於 2007-8-18 14:06 發表

Whether a particular subtle implication amounts to libel is for the judge to decide.
However, here you are:
The Executive, The Legislature, The Judiciary. All three branches of government in ...

ha ha... our forum still stay at the law technology of 包公時代... me too, I have nothing to say... just laugh...

作者: 白貓兒 時間: 2007-8-18 14:12

引用:

原帖由 xocatII 於 2007-8-18 13:55 發表
loksiu tend to break many many minor rules so that it is not clear. But the whole picture and the accumulation is very troublesome to our forum... do you think I ban loksiu's decision is within 10 ...

Of course I know what you think of loksiu all along.
Many minor offences are already enough to convict an offender.

However, last time when you banned loksiu for the first time, I don't remember you explicitly listing his minor offences. I would have loved to read it. I remember people pressing you for it. Then you let loksiu off without ever specifying his guilt other than as making trouble.

[ 本帖最後由白貓兒於 2007-8-18 18:53 編輯 ]

作者: xocatII 時間: 2007-8-18 14:21

引用:

原帖由 白貓兒 於 2007-8-18 14:12 發表

Of course I know how you think of loksiu all along.
Many minor offences are already enough to convict an offender.

However, last time when you banned loksiu for the first time, I don't re ...

talked already.
no need to mention again and again for his wrong doings... many already. by me...
You can see it in his signature... what he want to do:
http://forum.timway.com/f/profile-uid-8419.html

He has made it very clear that he wants our forum to die... that's all.

作者: 白貓兒 時間: 2007-8-18 14:32

引用:

原帖由 xocatII 於 2007-8-18 14:10 發表
I'm very troubled during that time I don't know who is my friend and who is 無間道. Have you seen that movie? I'm the one who is so afraid. So frightened that I have to ban many of them...

I am not sure if you had to race against time to stop the police probing into what was going on. I am not sure if time permitted you to first consult the moderators as to which ones in the group actually sided with loksiu/crazybb in their 'stirring up'. I am not sure if you did it on impulse.

Frightened? I remember that in a communication with you in the past, you commented if you were frightened, you should have started to be frightened seven years ago.
Seven (or six?) years ago...when batman emerged.

[ 本帖最後由白貓兒於 2007-8-18 18:56 編輯 ]

作者: 白貓兒 時間: 2007-8-18 14:57

引用:

原帖由 xocatII 於 2007-8-18 14:21 發表

talked already.
no need to mention again and again for his wrong doings... many already. by me...
You can see it in his signature... what he want to do:
http://forum.timway.com/f/profile-ui ...

No matter how not well-meaning enough loksiu was in the past, I don't think to make the forum die has always been his intention.
Rather, I think this arises from his current grudge against you coupled with his dissatisfaction with your handling of the previous crises in the past few months. Note: my speculation.

Note that last time after you unbanned him and gave him grace, he seemed to retreat to the private 'Cannon' and became less outspoken on the surface. Less critical. He did not speak as much as the others over the 'lagan' issue on the 141 board.

It takes time for members to grow on the forum. Unfortunately, there are from time to time sources of 'stimulation', just like 流料 this time. Some people are particularly reactive to stimuli. It seems also necessary to get rid of stimuli that take negative effect on not only a few people but very little positive effect on others.

Personally, I found 流料's report offensive upon reading it, though I did not bother to react or respond. But I understand why others reacted (strongly).

That's why if the current crisis had not arisen, while I tended to ignore 流料's report, I would also have continued to ignore loksiu's query (or 'subtle implication' in your words). But if loksiu was to be suppressed, it is only fair to suppress 流料 as well.

[ 本帖最後由白貓兒於 2007-8-18 16:33 編輯 ]

作者: xocatII 時間: 2007-8-18 15:02

引用:

原帖由 白貓兒 於 2007-8-18 14:57 發表

No matter how not well-meaning enough loksiu was in the past, I don't think to make the forum die has always been his intention.
Rather, I think this arises from his current grudge against you ...

流料 has grown up. He has learned the lesson alraedy... though I repeat, he didn't break the law.
Don't specify on any specific person, we judge based on what he did... and not your description... e.g. offensive... that's not a charge... that's a description...

If you find any one not behave properly, let me know and I will do him/her.

Again, don't focus on people, focus on the stuff he did and what he write/wrote. That's clear evidence. And concrete evidence... don't just write some short articles and explain your feelings... explain your feelings with concrete evidence...

作者: xocatII 時間: 2007-8-18 15:04

引用:

原帖由 xocatII 於 2007-8-18 15:02 發表

流料 has grown up. He has learned the lesson alraedy... though I repeat, he didn't break the law.
Don't specify on any specific person, we judge based on what he did... and not your descripti ...

loksiu didn't grow up, however... all these years, I've given him a chance all these years.

But someone is so ridiculous, if I found a shit on the floor, and don't like it, I will just pass by and neglect that shit... and go on with my life... but he is so loyal and stay on that shit... and then keep stepping on it for so long... I think his past life was a fly.

作者: xocatII 時間: 2007-8-18 15:07

Of course, you have the right to tell us how to make this shit better ... or at least cleaner and more tasteful ... but not stepping on it... but they are just like flies and stay together on that shit and actually, no one should really help him stay... this is just a shit...

Another choice for you is to help us make this shit better. I repeat... not stepping on it...

作者: 白貓兒 時間: 2007-8-18 15:07

引用:

原帖由 xocatII 於 2007-8-18 15:02 發表

don't focus on people, focus on the stuff he did and what he write/wrote.

While I may have to name people, I do not focus on them but rather on things said/written. Do you remember I helped you incorporated this principle into the moderators' rules in March/April?

[ 本帖最後由白貓兒於 2007-8-18 17:08 編輯 ]

作者: 白貓兒 時間: 2007-8-18 15:12

Well, I think our exchange here on this thread is substantial enough.

Thank you for the time anyway.

作者: xocatII 時間: 2007-8-18 15:12

引用:

原帖由 白貓兒 於 2007-8-18 15:07 發表

While I may have to name people, I do not focus on them but rather on things said/written. Do you remember I helped you incorporated this into the moderators' rules in March/April?

I see.  And thanks.
Pls write an article with
1. your thinking.
2. your reasons.
3. your concrete evidence.

If you understand it, you should write such articles and not just describe someone as offensive without proof, I admit that I cannot see ABC's post completely.  You may see it much better than me.  So, if he breaks the law of being offensive, you have to let me know and let me see see what he has written instead of just some short sentences of being offensive...  if I see the evidence, I will ban ABC or someone completely...

Also, I appreciate your help.  Most people are not so rational and thus pls don't disturb the peace here... most people don't dare to read every one of my article and just keep blaming my banning... they don't see my ratioinale... if they see it, they should discuss with me POINT BY POINT.  I have good language ability that I can present things 有條理地.  Not Just Tiu Lei...

But you all have to read it carefully.

作者: xocatII 時間: 2007-8-18 15:18

引用:

原帖由 白貓兒 於 2007-8-18 15:07 發表

While I may have to name people, I do not focus on them but rather on things said/written. Do you remember I helped you incorporated this into the moderators' rules in March/April?

Then you should focus on things said/written. Thanks.

作者: 白貓兒 時間: 2007-8-18 15:20

To find something offensive or take offence is to do so personally.
A may take offence at something while B does not.
By its very nature taking offence is subjective.
'It just makes me sick.'
And taking offence is not accusation in itself.
Not everything offensive is automatically against forum rules.
This explains why though quite some people mocked 流料, very few if any asked you to remove his report.

You seem to have an obsession with evidence.
But please also distinguish between different notions.

[ 本帖最後由白貓兒於 2007-8-18 16:36 編輯 ]

作者: 白貓兒 時間: 2007-8-18 15:24

引用:

原帖由 白貓兒 於 2007-8-18 15:12 發表
Well, I think our exchange here on this thread is substantial enough.

Thank you for the time anyway.

Maybe over onto this thread, where I question you as to how you handled 小潔's case:

http://forum.timway.com/f/thread-122933-1-1.html

I would appreciate your continued patience to me.

[ 本帖最後由白貓兒於 2007-8-18 18:57 編輯 ]

歡迎光臨香港 Xocat Forum 討論區 (http://p.xocat.com/p/)