I am glad that ¤p¼ä has been revived.
Can you proceed to listen to my advice?

Maybe, xocat, you need to give us a list of the kinds of unwelcome speech as an annex to the established forum rules.

When such a list is not yet exhaustive, please simply delete a particular piece of speech undesirable in your eyes without automatically banning the speaker, especially when there is as yet no explicit provision against that kind of speech in the forum rules.

Your purpose is to stop people making things big; to achieve that you need not ban the speaker automatically/in the first instance. After the necessary deletion, make an announcement right on the spot to make people learn not to follow in the 'offender's footsteps. After all, ¤p¼ä's utterance was most probably the first of its kind on our forum. There is no precedent. Let your ruling (without a ban) be the precedent, and anyone who does the same next time will be banned, ok??

I would not agree that 'common sense' necessarily steers us  away from the 'don'ts' in your mind, given your style of ¡uµL¬°¦Óªv¡v(or such you claim) in the past.

We simply have no idea, though I am aware that there is a provision againstº´°Ê¨¥½× in general . But your style in the past was a tendency to first warn and rebuke before killing.

We are just not used to it.
Help us comply with you without having to 'live in fear' at the same time.
Help us get to know clearly the limits to our freedom of speech here. Or we can work them out together with more mutual understanding and forgiving.

Now that you seem to have changed style somewhat and become more restrictive, specify your tattoos and prohibitions first before they take their punitive Ãg»@©Êeffect.

Don't you agree that mutual understanding and forgiving is the solution to the current crisis?

I humbly follow your example and copy this text I have written on another thread over here.

[ ¥»©«³Ì«á¥Ñ ¥Õ¿ß¨à ©ó 2007-8-18 13:16 ½s¿è ]

XOCAT, it seems that you are ready to revive a person you have banned after you listen to our fellows' pleas and find them acceptable. Why, then, do you have to ban the person in the first place and leave us wondering when you will accept the pleas? You understand about ¤p¼ä; I think you at least feel that she has all along behaved well enough by your standard. Why, then, did her friends have to stand up for her and appeal to you, when you could have saved their trouble?

Why could you not weigh her good record/merits against this offence of hers first? Doesn't the former, which is cumulative and long-standing, ouweigh the latter, which is only very recent? Wouldn't such consideration have led you to give her a chance and a warning short of a ban?

Couldn't you delete what's written, rebuke and threaten to ban if the same kind of thing is done again in the future?

You wouldn't have had to go back on your act of banning, and could remain assertive of your rules at the same time.
This would have helped to raise your credibility among us, which somehow has fallen.

This is the gist of my message should you find my text above too lengthy.
And I hope you don't consider me shouting.

[ ¥»©«³Ì«á¥Ñ ¥Õ¿ß¨à ©ó 2007-8-18 13:34 ½s¿è ]

Another thing is...regarding your interpretation/branding of lokiu's speech as accusatory of ¬y®Æ, I have stated my objection and opinions on post #12 on:

http://forum.timway.com/f/thread-122425-1-1.html

Presuming you stick to your ruling and dismiss my plea, would you care to respond saying to what extent you agree/disagree to my views stated there?


xocat, you say that it is good to post one's opinions and questions and send an alert to you in a PM as well.
I alerted you of the above linked post of mine via PM once I posted it on Thursday morning.


I am still waiting for your response today.

xocat, I have just read about and come to appreciate (undersatnd) your 'bomb' theory more in your response regarding loksiu's case.

Now, I don't mean to 'push'; I await your response to my views on ¤p¼ä's case.

[ ¥»©«³Ì«á¥Ñ ¥Õ¿ß¨à ©ó 2007-8-18 15:39 ½s¿è ]

Maybe you think banning someone necessarily carries a suppressive effect--the one banned will learn a lesson and refrain from repeating the offence if (s)he re-emerges with a new identity (membership). But if the offender considers his/her act actually done out of conscience/ for the good of society (though he/she may not be practically-minded in your eyes), such immediate suppression by killing might lead to resistance in the form of continued disobedience.

I hope we learn to channel all concerns that are not ill-natured into the good of the forum. We need to learn to see things from others' perspectives and assess others'  intentions in light of our general understanding of them---one can't change a lot overnight. If one's intention is not ill-natured or something that might bring negative consequences is said in a fit of impulse, I don't think it merits drastic action like a ban.

fighterplane ¥S, ¦]¬°§Ú¥´­^¤å§Ö¹L¤¤¤å, ¶X¬Q¤Èxocat¦b¦¹, §Ú©M¥L¦b¥t¤@±øthread¶i¦æ¹L¤@¸`¹ï¸Ü«á, ´N·Qª§¨ú®É¶¡Ä~Äò©M¥L¦b³o±øthread»qÁ¿. ¤£¹L¥L¨S¯d¤U.

¤p¼ä¤w»¡©ú¦o¬O¤Þ¥Î¤F¥L¤H¤£¬°xocat±µ¨üªº¨¥½×, ¤£¬O¦o¦Û¤v¥ý¼gªº. ¨º»ò§Ú¤WÃ䪺¤@¨Ç·N¨£¨Ã¤£ª½±µ©M¦o³Qbanned¤§¨Æ¦³Ãö. ¬O¾ãÅé¤Wªºµ{§Ç°ÝÃD. ¦p¤w¦³·|­û½èºÃ¹L³o¦¸­·ªi¤¤¨S¦³forewarning, §Ú¥u¬O±Nforewarning¼g±o§ó§Î¦¡¤Æ¹ê½è¤Æ.

§Ú¤£ª¾xocat¬O§_¤£­«µøµ{§Ç°ÝÃD, ¤×¨ä¬O·í¤¤±¡²z°ÝÃD. ¥L»¡¥L­«µøevidence, ¥L¤]¦³¥L¼fµøevidenceªº¤@®M.

¨ì¤H°Ý¥L¬°¦ó¬O¥t¤@°Ïª©¥Dban¤p¼ä, ¥L»¡'anyway.' §Æ±æ¥L·|¥æ«Ý·í¤¤¥È¯µ.

§Ú¤]¤£©ú¥L¬°¦ó¤´®efairgame¦s¦b. §Ú­Ó¤H¹ïfairgame¨¥½×¤£¸m¥i§_, ¦ý¬O¥L©ú¨¥¤£®e¸Óµ¥¨¥½×ªº.

§Ú¤j·§µª«DºÉ§A©Ò°Ý, ¦]¬°­Â¤F, ¥u§@ÂI¹s¸H¸É¥R.

xocatII, my ideas in the first post on this thread are presented in clear paragraphs. In paragraphs 2 - 4, in particular, I detail my concrete suggestions, supplemented with thoughts in the remaining paragraphs. If you find my presentation generally not conducive to your understanding, forget about it. I am not going to restructure or  rephrase what I have said.

What about these in Chinese from above:

¡u¨ì¤H°Ý¥L¬°¦ó¬O¥t¤@°Ïª©¥Dban¤p¼ä, ¥L»¡'anyway.' §Æ±æ¥L·|¥æ«Ý·í¤¤¥È¯µ.

§Ú¤]¤£©ú¥L¬°¦ó¤´®efairgame¦s¦b. §Ú­Ó¤H¹ïfairgame¨¥½×¤£¸m¥i§_, ¦ý¬O¥L©ú¨¥¤£®e¸Óµ¥¨¥½×ªº.¡v  

You have not responded to these. But I have said I will not press you with further qeries.

Presentation? I think in the course ¹Lµ{ of explaining to us why you banned the people, your presentation was problematic. First you said you and 'Robin' had been keeping an eye on the group of people for quite some time....By the end you said at a moment of immediate urgency, you could not distinguish your friends from your enemies. I felt very confused.

'if you break a rule, that's a big stuff.'

-----It really depends. If you don't understand what it means by 'weighing', sorry I can't be of further help.

In any case, I now leave you altogether with the state of affairs as it is. I do not expect any substantial crisis in the foreseeable future in how members relate within the forum and with the outside, for many have learned to be 'wiser' and ......indifferent.

I do not expect to speak out again in the future, period.

Thanks.  

[ ¥»©«³Ì«á¥Ñ ¥Õ¿ß¨à ©ó 2007-8-23 22:23 ½s¿è ]

¤Þ¥Î:

­ì©«¥Ñ ¨D¨ä ©ó 2007-8-24 18:34 µoªí


learned to be 'wiser', XOCATII should be the frst one to do that
indifferent...­ü,‰r过这许许¦h¦h,«Ü¦h¤H¤w‰Z±o«Üindifferent¤F

and learned to be reticent.

¤Þ¥Î:

­ì©«¥Ñ SCMP ©ó 2007-9-6 02:44 µoªí



"¥´­^¤å§Ö¹L¤¤¤å" ­ø¥Nªí­^¤å¦n¹L¤¤¤å, ¥ç­ø¥Nªí§A¤¤¤å¦n, ­ø¸Ó¿ô¤Ö¤Ö·íÀ°¦£°Õ

¤S¦Û¤vŪ¤JdÁp·Q§r?
¦P¿ô¤Ö¤Ö¦³ÉAÃö«Y? ¥ç¦³¨ä¥L¤H¦b³¡¥÷¥Î­^¤å.
¤jªO¥D§ó¥[«Y, §A­ø¦n¤S¥sÊ\¿ô¤Ö¤Ö?
À°¦£? ¤j®a¦Ó®a³£µL¿³½ìØ{.


[ ¥»©«³Ì«á¥Ñ ¥Õ¿ß¨à ©ó 2007-9-6 16:18 ½s¿è ]

¨þ, ªG¤S¥uÃÑÄ~ÄòŪ¤JÁp·Q, §AÄ~Äò¯Q¾~°Ö½_¯ó¤H¹v.

µL¿×¦A¡ulau¡v¥LÁ¿³¥°Õ.