Oh, has it been an hour already?
-- posted on December 2, 2006
I mean a week, I mean this is is a quote from the one (Scrubs) episode I can watch over and over again (I don't have this effect on any other episode from any other show).
Actually the occasion is not really funny, but what the hell, it's not about anybodies death (about the only thing one shouldn't make fun of). And this also should not
make the appearance that I'm not serious about it. I'm far from happy that I have to do it, but I won't live that way. Then again this might sound a little over-dramatic, but try to keep me away from things I just can't support. Sometimes boycott is the only thing to make a point anymore.
If you read my recent blog
you know what this is all about, if not: I'll not contribute anymore (and resign from my guides), but I'll still be around in the forums. I've pointed out the reasons for this decision already in my last blog, although it got a little confused and overtaken by the discussion about JAGUARDOG's ban. Thus a "few" words on that before I point out what could resolve the issues for my "leave" and could also drive me to contribute again.
I admit writing "fuss around JAGUARDOG's blog" instead of about would be an even better phrasing, but as my blog wasn't about this issue it doesn't really matter. In case anybody didn't noticed by my argumentation of the reasons itself, I mentioned this issue because of why he was upset and that the whole blog with reactions had to be deleted.
Ok not that it would make anything more clear, but I'll mention what exactly of the issue is about the points I mentioned:
First the thing that covers already two of my points. The deletion of his whole blog was only necessary due to the inability of the Mods to keep him from adding further points to his blog, which refers to point 1 and w/o the deletion point 3 would be satisfied in this case, too. @Mogg if the issue of the ban would be non-public in the first place, your point with trusting the Mod's decisions is true.
The second thing is that he was upset about (the enforcement of) rules that weren't noted anywhere (thus the enforcement isn't verifiable in the first place) and he didn't (couldn't) understand. Why and how this was avoidable I'll explain in the conclusions of point 2 later.
So, to summarize: If this basketball was a non ST-elevation myocardial infarction, Glycoprotein 2B3A inhibitors would be initiated early on. (Sry, could not resist. Again!) What I actually wanted to write is that this is all why I mentioned this issue in my last blog.
The conclusions from point 1 have no public relevance as they are mostly technical and only concern one man: Sebrioth...
Actually it's pretty easy to resolve point 2. There is nothing wrong with rules that are made by some kind of parliament , they just need to be justified and verifiable.
The first thing is that all rules that are enforced have to be publicly noted, so there is no point in I did not know whatsoever.
The second thing (mainly resulting from the parliament approach) is that if not obvious (from the phrasing of the rule) the reasons and (intended) effects have to be noted with the rule itself. This is as important as the rule itself.
The third is that the enforcement of rules must rely on publicly noted rules and may directly refer to them.
One thing that isn't that kind of conclusion, but noticeable nonetheless, not everything needs to be a (hard) rule. There are things that are working also if they are set up as guidelines (with airtight arguments) and don't be enforced with: you have to do or I'll kill you.
Well point 3 doesn't really lead to a conclusion. It's mostly "just" a byproduct of 1 and 2.
I know this writing is quite heavy stuff and just for a TV related side such a discussion is maybe too intellectual, but this is how I see the world, easy things doesn't exist, there is always more to it :-)
And yes, this is kind of theoretically, because this isn't about one or two rules, it's a general thing for a good working community
. Comment >>