4 ms·

Again, you're looking at secondary matters. Look at the consequences which results due to the primary intention. Besides, nobody opens up their houses for stra

Again, you're looking at secondary matters. Look at the consequences which results due to the primary intention. Besides, nobody opens up their houses for strangers. So it is a flawed comparison as well. You need to be honest with the premise. You are talking about an online community which is built for a purpose. Your purpose is two-fold. You want to be a nice contributor towards some ideal (nothing wrong with that). Your second purpose is to be self-sustaining (so you can continue your goals). Again, nothing wrong with that either. But none of this has anything to do with open and inviting house, or even strangers. But look at what your purpose does: it necessarily invites strangers. You then have consequence. You also know in your heart of heart, that if you do not invite strangers (let's also remember that we're talking about the online world), you will never be able to achieve your ideals. Because no matter how big your social circle may be, you cannot achieve your ideals through just the people you know.

yladiz 10y ago
What are you saying? This doesn't really make much sense. Are you arguing that inviting someone into your house, a stranger or not, means that they can demand whatever they want and you have no right to kick them out? Sorry if I'm not following but the idea of primary and secondary intention doesn't really make sense to me. This argument is not about creating a "perfect social circle" with only specific people who have the same view points as you, it's that you can have someone who believes wildly different things than you but they are expected to be nice and treat the invitation into a community with respect, e.g. be nice, rather than do whatever they want. And if they disrespect the invitation, they have consequences.
- webwanderings 10y ago
  > ...means that they can demand whatever What I am simply saying is that setting such an expectation (via rules and enforcement) is unnatural for humans. People are not going to "demand whatever" because they are not nice. You should expect them to demand whatever, even if they are nice. What I am really trying to say is further explained here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13148978 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13148978
  - yladiz 10y ago
    But just because they can demand whatever does not mean you have to fulfill their request.
    - webwanderings 10y ago
      But now that's a different point altogether, isn't it? We were not talking about whether one should fulfill the demands or not. This also does not imply that the implicit rules can be automatically enforced. If you agree that the rule-setting is unnatural under such context (i.e, the context of an online community, dealing with humans and human nature), then you would agree that you should first fix your own expectations. If you read my comment about the Scott Peck's framework, then you can see that at the first stage, humans are generally nice to each other in any group setting. This is a modern condition: the consequences of civilized societies. But humans also tend to reach the second stage, where they are totally not nice to each other. If you read him directly, you'll get the better idea. This argument of freedom of speech, or lack there of, is misguided and misplaced in my opinion. It tends to come up at every opportunity (every normalized social network now initially had this argument when they started in the beginning - and we're still having this misplaced argument.
grzm 10y ago
I'll be honest. I don't know what your point is right now (which I admit you stated explicitly above: "You are missing the point"), other than to disagree. I've read and re-read your comments in this thread, and this one in particular in an effort to figure out where you're coming from. I see no reason why the consequence of allowing people to join and contribute to an online community where they might do things I'm not happy with (I think that's what you're getting at when you say "consequence")—which I understand will happen—also doesn't mean I can't have expectations of their behavior and choose to, say, kick them off if they don't meet those expectations. I haven't expressed this explicitly, but I don't think it's much of a reach from what I've posted upthread. At best we're talking past each other, but I'm going to take my answer off the air.
- webwanderings 10y ago
  Let me ask you this: If you want to kick "people" off, because they're not playing nicely (according to you, or normal perceptions) then why in the first place you want to invite them? Note my emphasis on people which includes you as well.
  - industriousthou 10y ago
    If I invite some friends over for drinks and one one them takes a shit on the carpet in my living room I will kick them out. Shitting on the carpet is not playing nicely, according to me and "normal perceptions", whatever that is supposed to mean. I invited them over because I wanted some friends over for drinks, but there are a few things that I will not tolerate in my home. How can you possibly not understand this?

yladiz 10y ago

What are you saying? This doesn't really make much sense. Are you arguing that inviting someone into your house, a stranger or not, means that they can demand whatever they want and you have no right to kick them out? Sorry if I'm not following but the idea of primary and secondary intention doesn't really make sense to me. This argument is not about creating a "perfect social circle" with only specific people who have the same view points as you, it's that you can have someone who believes wildly different things than you but they are expected to be nice and treat the invitation into a community with respect, e.g. be nice, rather than do whatever they want. And if they disrespect the invitation, they have consequences.

webwanderings 10y ago
> ...means that they can demand whatever What I am simply saying is that setting such an expectation (via rules and enforcement) is unnatural for humans. People are not going to "demand whatever" because they are not nice. You should expect them to demand whatever, even if they are nice. What I am really trying to say is further explained here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13148978 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13148978
- yladiz 10y ago
  But just because they can demand whatever does not mean you have to fulfill their request.
  - webwanderings 10y ago
    But now that's a different point altogether, isn't it? We were not talking about whether one should fulfill the demands or not. This also does not imply that the implicit rules can be automatically enforced. If you agree that the rule-setting is unnatural under such context (i.e, the context of an online community, dealing with humans and human nature), then you would agree that you should first fix your own expectations. If you read my comment about the Scott Peck's framework, then you can see that at the first stage, humans are generally nice to each other in any group setting. This is a modern condition: the consequences of civilized societies. But humans also tend to reach the second stage, where they are totally not nice to each other. If you read him directly, you'll get the better idea. This argument of freedom of speech, or lack there of, is misguided and misplaced in my opinion. It tends to come up at every opportunity (every normalized social network now initially had this argument when they started in the beginning - and we're still having this misplaced argument.

grzm 10y ago

I'll be honest. I don't know what your point is right now (which I admit you stated explicitly above: "You are missing the point"), other than to disagree. I've read and re-read your comments in this thread, and this one in particular in an effort to figure out where you're coming from. I see no reason why the consequence of allowing people to join and contribute to an online community where they might do things I'm not happy with (I think that's what you're getting at when you say "consequence")—which I understand will happen—also doesn't mean I can't have expectations of their behavior and choose to, say, kick them off if they don't meet those expectations. I haven't expressed this explicitly, but I don't think it's much of a reach from what I've posted upthread. At best we're talking past each other, but I'm going to take my answer off the air.

webwanderings 10y ago
Let me ask you this: If you want to kick "people" off, because they're not playing nicely (according to you, or normal perceptions) then why in the first place you want to invite them? Note my emphasis on people which includes you as well.
- industriousthou 10y ago
  If I invite some friends over for drinks and one one them takes a shit on the carpet in my living room I will kick them out. Shitting on the carpet is not playing nicely, according to me and "normal perceptions", whatever that is supposed to mean. I invited them over because I wanted some friends over for drinks, but there are a few things that I will not tolerate in my home. How can you possibly not understand this?