For some though rules do basically revolve around having them. The rules become crucial for distinguishing between “one of us” and “one of them”. Indeed, there are some communities [religous or otherwise] where there are rules for practically everthing. And if you are “one of us” you know your place in the community. And that’s because in communities of this sort there is almost always a place for everyone…providing that everyone does in fact strictly embody the rules.
Besides, what’s that got to do with the conflicting narratives here regarding what particular rules would best bring about and sustain a well-functioning forum? The arguments [for some] seem to revolve around whether or not Carleas’s understanding of “well-functioning” reflects the optimal frame of mind.
In other words, is there an optimal frame of mind re the three approaches I noted above.
If he wants a forum where people chat casually and exchange recipes, then one particular set of rules and enforcement will be better than another. If he wants a forum where people discuss philosophy, then another set of rules will be better. And discussing philosophy can mean many things … academic, serious but casual, practical, etc … each of which would be best served by specific rules and enforcement.
Okay, but what specific rules and enforcement per forum? Can the optimal proscriptions be pinned down?
That’s always my focus. Sure, different folks will have different renditions of this. But then there are the ones who basically insist that if you don’t share their own then you are wrong. If not a “retard” or a “moron”.
Thus the extent to which, between the members and the administraters/owners, moderation, negotiation and compromise is even able to prevail.
The “one of three policies” is really a simplistic way of looking at the situation. The power and goals of the admin and the members are much more intertwined.
Indeed, but how would this even be possible if the owners created rules to suit only their own particular prejudices…or insisted that their rules did in fact reflect the optimal or the only rational frame of mind.
We’re probably more or less on the same page here, with different narratives to explain it.