Sõna- ja tsensuurivabadusest

« Tagasi artikli juurde    Artiklile on 603 kommentaari.

Ti, Padre, 2006-01-16 22:25:03

*
Muk küll tindub..= Mul küll tundub

/nuh.. naerap mudugi ise kaa.. :))))

Uuk, 2006-01-16 22:28:16

A muk küll ei tindu

Ti, Uuk, 2006-01-16 22:30:32

*
Tasa nüüd sina , Uuk, tsss

/muk küll tindub..mh? :)))

Uuk, Ti, 2006-01-16 22:31:44

muk tindub et ei tindu ühti

Mooz, Joosu, 2006-01-16 22:32:38

tollel miskil megadelfi poel, millest rääkisid, käisid vaid üksikud elfid.
ja tulid haigutades tagasi.

Seega sündis kelder enne reaalipidu?
Mul oli miskipärast meeles, et eriti vastikud kätšid ja libamised tekkisid pärast pidu, kui arutati, et kes keda “sellise” pilguga vahtinud oli ja kes kellega peolt ära läks. Ja nii edasi ja nii tagasi.

Aga ju siis elfide lahkumine mingitel teistel põhjustel toimus. Vbndst.

ei. elfikelderi kinnine kontsept sündis sellest, et piirata LIBAJAID ja limukaid.

Ahah. Ja kas aitas?
Libamise vastu aitab regamine küll, kuid limukluse vastu???

neid, kes võtsid mõne püsialiase nime või käisid saja eri nime all susimas ja mürgitamas

No see häda on ka 2006 AD täitsa olemas. Pidavat üks sõnavabaduse ilminguid olema, püha ja puutumatu.

P.S. Mooz ei ole moos. Segiajamine võib halvasti lõppeda!

Retsept on siin.
Don’t try this at home. All stunts were performed under supervision of trained professionals. No animals were harmed, only humans.

MOOZ!

Ingredients:

Bottle of vodka
Pint of Milk

Method :

Pour as much vodka as u like into a glass, fill the rest up with milk and say cheerz..
Then quickly run to the toilet and BaRF!!
Amazingly, u will never want to drink milk again.

Or for an even greater time...
Try Vodka Jelly!

Uuk, 2006-01-16 22:40:27

üksikuid hunte pole olemas

Maila, 2006-01-16 22:41:33

Artiklist:
Sisuliselt tähendab portaali sisekord, et külastaja teeb portaaliga lepingu, et saada õigus kommenteerimiseks

Ma arvan täpselt samamoodi. Via.ee kasutamistingimustes on kirjas: “Neil, kes ei nõustu eelnimetatud tingimustega, palun lõpetada Via.ee lugemine kohe!”
Aga noh, Eestis on ilmselt elunormiks lepingute täitmisest keeldumine.

Joosu, 2006-01-16 22:43:58

Maila, 2006-01-16 22:45:36

Sa oled siin terroriseerinud juba mitu päeva. Ma palusin Sul lahkuda. Kui palumine ei aita, ma aitan Sul lahkuda.

tsukts, 2006-01-16 23:21:51

Uuk, Ti, 2006-01-16 22:08:13

Vastan oopis minaloom, et tsukts vana kalana...

tsukts pole kunagi vana kala nime all kommenteerinud. See oli hoopis teine inimene, kes seda aliast kasutas ja kel pole minuga miskit ühist :o/

Hele, 2006-01-16 23:28:17

Kotkad ja limukad... no küll on probleem.

Kõik me oleme ju inimesed, igaüks oma inimlike nõrkuste ja tugevustega. Teiste juurest vigade otsimine ja nende peale näpuga näitamine ei aita kedagi paremaks muuta, ehkki võib hetkeks teiste arvelt parandada näpuganäitaja enesetunnet. Aga nagu näha, küllalt sellest talle ilmaski ei saa - “ei saa täis ega lähe ka lõhki”, tsiteerides klassikuid :o)

Inimesel on ikka aegajalt vaja mõttekaaslasi, seltsi ja suhtlust, toetust ja tunnustust. Kellel rohkem, kellel vähem.
Selge see, et inimesele ei meeldi sõimata saada. Ei meeldi, kui teda süüdistatakse ja halvustatakse, teda pilgatakse ja tema sõnu väänatakse. Olgu otse või kaude, viisakalt või ropult. Keskkond, kus inimest pidevalt rünnatakse, muutub talle ebameeldivaks.
On selles täiskasvanud inimesele midagi uut? Ma küll ei suuda uskuda sellise inimese siirusesse, kes teeb näo, et ta nii lihtsatest asjadest aru ei saa. Ükskõik kui agaralt ta sõnades siirust ülistab või teiste siiruseastme üle otsustama kipub.

Hele, 2006-01-16 23:34:36

toomas, Hele, 2006-01-16 20:42:35
Tea seda nüüd öelda, eks see defineerimise asi ole.

Ma siiski arvan, et hea ja halb ei ole vabalt ümberdefineeritavad - isegi mitte kuitahes tolerantses ühiskonnas, rääkimatta üksikisiku tasandist. Inimestel on selleks lihtsalt liiga suur ühisosa.

Mooz, paneb kopipetsi, 2006-01-16 23:37:06

www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/BuildingCommunitieswithSo.html

Q. Why is the software so dang simplistic?

A. In the early days of the Joel on Software forum, achieving a critical mass to get the conversation off the ground was important to prevent the empty restaurant phenomenon (nobody goes into an empty restaurant, they’ll always go into the full one next door even if it’s totally rubbish.) Thus a design goal was to eliminate impediments to posting. That’s why there’s no registration and there are literally no features, so there’s nothing to learn.

The business goal of the software that runs the forum was to provide tech support for Fog Creek’s products. That’s what paid for the development. To achieve that goal, nothing was more important than making the software super simple so that anyone could be comfortable using it. Everything about how the forum works is incredibly obvious. I don’t know of anyone who hasn’t been able to figure out how to use it immediately.

Q. Could you make a feature where I check a box that says “email me if somebody replies to my post?”

A. This one feature, so easy to implement and thus so tempting to programmers, is the best way to kill dead any young forum. Implement this feature and you may never get to critical mass. Philip Greenspun’s LUSENET has this feature and you can watch it sapping the life out of young discussion groups.

Why?

What happens is that people go to the group to ask a question. If you offer the “notify me” checkbox, these people will post their question, check the box, and never come back. They’ll just read the replies in their mailbox. The end.

If you eliminate the checkbox, people are left with no choice but to check back every once in a while. And while they’re checking back, they might read another post which looks interesting. And they might have something to contribute to that post. And in the critical early days when you’re trying to get the discussion group to take off, you’ve increased the “stickiness” and you’ve got more people hanging around, which helps achieve critical mass a lot quicker.

Q. OK, but can’t you at least have branching? If someone gets off on a tangent, that should be its own branch which you can follow or go back to the main branch.

A. Branching is very logical to a programmer’s mind but it doesn’t correspond to the way conversations take place in the real world. Branched discussions are disjointed to follow and distracting. You know what I find distracting? When I’m trying to do something on my bank’s web site and the site is so slow I can’t remember what I’m doing from one click to the next. That reminds me of a joke. Three old ladies talking. Lady 1: “I’m so forgetful the other day I was on the steps to my apartment with a bag, and I couldn’t remember if I was taking out the trash or going upstairs with the groceries.” Lady 2: “I’m so forgetful I was in my car in the driveway and I couldn’t remember if I was coming home or going to shul.” Lady 3: “Thank God, I still have my memory, clear as a bell, knock on wood. (knock knock knock). Come in, door’s open!” Branching makes discussions get off track, and reading a thread that is branched is discombobulating and unnatural. Better to force people to start a new topic if they want to get off topic. Which reminds me...

Q. Why do posts disappear sometimes?

A. The forum is moderated. That means that a few people have the magick powah to delete a post. If the post they delete is the first one in a thread, the thread itself appears deleted because there’s no way to get to it.

Q. But that’s censorship!

A. No, it’s picking up the garbage in the park. If we didn’t do it, the signal to noise ratio would change dramatically for the worse. People post spam and get rich schemes, people post antisemitic comments about me, people post nonsense that doesn’t make any sense. Some idealistic youngsters may imagine a totally uncensored world as one in which the free exchange of intelligent ideas raises everyone’s IQ, an idealized Oxford Debate Society or Speakers' Corner. I am pragmatic and understand that a totally uncensored world just looks like your inbox: 80% spam, advertising, and fraud, rapidly driving away the few interesting people.

If you are looking for a place to express yourself in which there will be no moderation, my advice to you would be to (a) create a new forum and (b) make it popular. [Apologies to Larry Wall].

Q. How do you decide what to delete?

A. First of all, I remove radically off-topic posts or posts which, in my opinion, are only of interest to a very small number of people. If something is not about the same general topics as Joel on Software is about, it may be interesting as all heck to certain people but it’s not likely to interest the majority of people who came to my site to hear about software development.

My policy in the past has been that “off topic” includes any discussion of the forum itself, its design or usability. There’s a slightly different reason for this, almost another axiom. Every forum, mailing list, discussion group, and BBS will, all else being equal, lapse into conversations about the forum itself every week or two. Literally once a week somebody strolls in and announces his list of improvements to the forum software which he demands be made right away. And then somebody says, “look buddy you’re not paying for it Joel’s doing us a favor get lost.” And somebody else says “Joel’s not doing this out of the goodness of his heart it’s marketing for Fog Creek.” And it’s just SOOOO BORING because it happens EVERY WEEK. It’s like talking about the weather when you have nothing else to talk about. It may be exciting to the new person who just appeared on the board but it is only barely about software development, so, as Strong Bad says, “DELETED”. Unfortunately what I have learned is that trying to get people to stop talking about the forum is like trying to stop a river. But please, if you’re reading this article and you want to discuss it on the forum, please, please, do me a huge favor, and resist the urge.

We will delete posts which are personal, ad hominem attacks on non public personalities. I better define that. Ad hominem means it is an attack on the individual, rather than on his ideas. If you say “that is a stupid idea because...” it’s OK. If you say “you are stupid” then it’s an ad hominem attack. If it’s vicious or uncivil or libelous, I delete it. There’s one exception: because the Joel on Software forum is the best place to criticize Joel, vicious or uncivil posts about Joel are allowed to stand but only if they contain some tiny sliver of a useful argument or idea.

I automatically delete posts which comment on the spelling or grammar of a previous poster. We’ll be talking about interviews and someone will say, “It’s a wonder you can get a job with spelling like that.” It’s just super boring to talk about other people’s spelling. SUPER, SUPER boring.

Q. Why don’t you just post the rules instead of leaving it as a mystery?

A. The other day I was taking the train from the Newark Airport back to Manhattan. Besides being in general disrepair, the only thing to read was a large sign that explained very sternly and in great detail that if you misbehaved, you would be put off the train at the next stop and the police would be summoned. And I thought, 99.99999% of the people who read that sign ain’t gonna be misbehavin', and the misbehavors couldn’t care less what the sign says. So the net result of the sign is to make honest citizens feel like they’re being accused of something, and it doesn’t deter the sociopaths at all, and it just reminds the good citizens of New Jersey endlessly that they’re in Newark, Crime Capital, where sociopaths get on the train and do Unpleasant Things and Make a Scene and have to be Put Off and the Police Summoned.

Almost everyone on the Joel on Software forum, somehow, was born with the part of the brain that tells them that it’s not civilized to post vicious personal attacks, or to post questions about learning French on a software forum, or to conduct an argument by criticizing someone’s spelling. And the other .01% don’t care about the rules. So posting rules is just a way to insult the majority of the law-abiding citizens and it doesn’t deter the morons who think their own poo smells delicious and nothing they post could possibly be against the rules.

When you address troublemakers in public, everyone else thinks you’re paranoid or feels angry at being scolded when they did nothing wrong. It’s like being in grade school again, and one idiot-child has broken a window, and now everyone has to sit there listening to the teacher giving the whole class a stern lecture on why you mustn’t break windows. So any public discussion of why a particular post got deleted, for example, is taboo.

Ti, Hele, 2006-01-16 23:38:46

*

Olgu otse või kaude, viisakalt või ropult. Keskkond, kus inimest pidevalt rünnatakse, muutub talle ebameeldivaks.

Jah.
Mai saa muud, kui nõustuda.

Pole mõtet süüdistada foorumit ega selle pidajat, pole mõtet süüdistada vähesid-paljusid reegleid.

Me oleme ise, ise, kes me siia tulime ja üksteisele meeleolu, keskkonda aitasime luua, selle lõpuks tinginud.
Vahel on väga hea siin olnud.
Vahel paha.

Viimasel ajal lihtsalt tunne-
enam ei taha..

Hele, 2006-01-16 23:48:20

Ti: Need inimesed on lähedaseks saanud, veel enne Viat.
Ja ma olen neist palju rõõmu tundnud ja neilt õppinud.

Kirjutan kah alla. Kahe käega kohe.
Eks see olegi põhjus, miks ma ideedest üha hõrenevas ja kakelusest üha tihenevas keskkonnas nii kaua olnud olen.
Ikka lootuses, et tulevad paremad ajad. Et kui see kaklus otsa saab, siis ehk lõpuks ometi saame teha siin seda, milleks me siin tegelikult oleme. Seda, mida me siin teha tahtsimegi.

Oli kord üks vene laul, kus Armastus muutus nähtamattuks, Usk lendas kuhugi kaugele ja sai eiteamilleks, ainult Lootus jäi.

kaak, 2006-01-16 23:50:51

Igasugune tsensuur on sisuliselt vaimne vägivald, kus domineerib tugevama ja võimsama õigus.

Teame, et tugevamal ei pruugi mitte alati õigus olla.

Millegipärast tuleb meelde vaikse ajastu "järeltsensuur".
Sel ajal suleti lehti ja ajakirju pelgalt siseministri määrusega...kusjuures suleti just lehed, mis kirjutasid tõtt...ja olid seega objektiivsed.

Millega see kõik lõppes...teame hästi.
Kusjuures pean just tsensuuri peamiseks süüdlaseks selles tragöödias, mis eestlastega toimus.

Loomulikult on tegemist retrospektiivse tarkusega...kuid seda suurema väärtusega, mis kinnitab jällegi tõsiasja...et tsensuur ei sobi arenenud tsivilisatsiooniga ühiskonda.

Sort of järeltsensuuriga on tegemist ka VIA:s, kus toimetaja on oma punast pliiatsit liig´emotsionaalselt ja hoogsalt kasutanud.

Rohkem tekitavad aga hämmeldust mõnede vaimsete prükkarite hüsteerilised ja seosetud kiljatused, millele on raske isegi nime leiutada.

Kui aga reaalis on nende näol tegemist igati soliidsete inimestega...siis on nende persoonide hingeeluga küll midagi lahti.
Kohe väga pahasti lahti.

Ti, Hele, 2006-01-17 00:00:20

*
Oli kord üks vene laul, kus Armastus muutus nähtamattuks, Usk lendas kuhugi kaugele ja sai eiteamilleks, ainult Lootus jäi.

Jaah.. ei saa öölda, et ainult niiskete silmadega seda lugev.
Täitsa pisarine ja (nuuks)- nuuskav..

Tsuuukts?!
Sa tead kindlasti mingit õiget lugu (laulu) selle kohta, mh?
Kui sa kaitia, kes siis veel?

/Juba ette õnnelik, et õnnestunud üledramatiseerida.
Võib-olla just sellepärast.. :)
Kiretust ja tervemõistuslikkust leiab ju mujaltki. Seda ei pea Viast otsima.

Maila, Mooz, 2006-01-17 00:01:07

Tänud selle vahva meenutuse eest :) Oligi juba natuke meelest läinud.

tsukts, Ti, 2006-01-17 00:03:52

Kui saaksin kasvõi mõne sõna sellest laulust, siis ehk leiakski.

Maila, kaak, 2006-01-17 00:04:13

Sort of järeltsensuuriga on tegemist ka VIA:s, kus toimetaja on oma punast pliiatsit liig´emotsionaalselt ja hoogsalt kasutanud.

Sul õnneks ei ole enam jäänud liiga kaua seda kannatada.

***