Suggested duties for Indian members of this forum

[Shantanu_Left]

Shantanu, are you drunk ?

By the way, I am 31.

Still a lot younger than me. I'm 38...unofficially a bit higher. You sound mentally in your 20's

Kyu khamkhah bigar raha hai? Our Rather bhai did a proud job, usay celebrate karne ka.

Ball ki khal nikalna band kar.

 

[Arsalan]

OK great, thanks Joe.

@Arsalan :

1. Please change the thread title to "Suggested duties for Indian members of this forum"

2. Can you please copy and paste this into the first original post of this thread, I have wrapped it with "=====" header and footer:

============

Code of Conduct (As of 28th July 2020)

1. We will not abuse another member’s religion.
2. We will not use unprintable language, referring to somebody’s post, to the person making the post, to the person’s views.
3. We will not use abusive common labels for other Indian members such as
   1. Sanghi
   2. Bhakt
   3. Sickular
   4. Libtard
   5. Jihadi (for Muslims)
4. We will not abuse women, the LGBT community or the mentally and physically handicapped.
5. We will refrain from hostile remarks about people from different regions of India or from other countries.
6. We will not quote from any publication or from electronic media without citing the source. We will give preference to published books, peer-reviewed articles or research papers from reputable think-tanks when originating a thread
7. We will not question a member’s nationality without reasonable cause and without evidence greater than our personal suspicion.

In addition, it is suggested that members following the code avoid the following patterns of behaviour.

1. We will not celebrate the death of another human being, even those who are killed by Indian security forces in the course of violent armed protests against the Indian state;
   1. It may be less abrasive to note the incident without adjectives or coloration of any kind.
2. We will not celebrate any apparent success in war or armed conflict by India over any other, until the matter is concluded.
   1. On conclusion, we will try to use facts published by reliable print or electronic media.
   2. We will list unreliable sources from any reasonable point of view, and members will be requested not to cite these unreliable sources.
   3. We will respond to contrary claims by a simple statement of fact, and by mentioning that the matter is still in dispute.
3. We will not report assumed superiority of Indian forces over others without evidence.
   1. The stronger the statement claiming superiority, the stronger ought to be the evidence and its sources.
4. We will not respond to provocation by another member, Indian or other.
   1. The provocation will be reported to the Moderators using the report button immediately.
   2. In case of grave provocation, a common effort will be made to bring it to the immediate notice of the Moderators.
5. We will not enter into arguments about the wars and armed conflicts between India and any other country without sufficient information on the subject, and will ask other Indian members for factual support wherever necessary.

Signatories (As of 28th July 2020):

1. @Nilgiri
2. @sms
3. @The BrOkEn HeArT
4. @jamahir
5. @meghdut
6. @KhanBaba2
7. @Krptonite
8. @The_Showstopper
9. @jbgt90
10. @Mad Scientist 2.0
11. @xeuss
12. @Dustom999
13. @Syama Ayas
14. @Joe Shearer
15. @Shantanu_Left

============

Thank you Arsalan. Should be final request for some time here.

6 people oked the suggested changes, no vote against it. Have done the following changes as per your request.

1. Opening post updated
2. Thread title changed

Let me know if you need anything else updated.

 

[sms]

OK great, thanks Joe.

@Arsalan :

1. Please change the thread title to "Suggested duties for Indian members of this forum"

2. Can you please copy and paste this into the first original post of this thread, I have wrapped it with "=====" header and footer:

============

Code of Conduct (As of 28th July 2020)

1. We will not abuse another member’s religion.
2. We will not use unprintable language, referring to somebody’s post, to the person making the post, to the person’s views.
3. We will not use abusive common labels for other Indian members such as
   1. Sanghi
   2. Bhakt
   3. Sickular
   4. Libtard
   5. Jihadi (for Muslims)
4. We will not abuse women, the LGBT community or the mentally and physically handicapped.
5. We will refrain from hostile remarks about people from different regions of India or from other countries.
6. We will not quote from any publication or from electronic media without citing the source. We will give preference to published books, peer-reviewed articles or research papers from reputable think-tanks when originating a thread
7. We will not question a member’s nationality without reasonable cause and without evidence greater than our personal suspicion.

In addition, it is suggested that members following the code avoid the following patterns of behaviour.

1. We will not celebrate the death of another human being, even those who are killed by Indian security forces in the course of violent armed protests against the Indian state;
   1. It may be less abrasive to note the incident without adjectives or coloration of any kind.
2. We will not celebrate any apparent success in war or armed conflict by India over any other, until the matter is concluded.
   1. On conclusion, we will try to use facts published by reliable print or electronic media.
   2. We will list unreliable sources from any reasonable point of view, and members will be requested not to cite these unreliable sources.
   3. We will respond to contrary claims by a simple statement of fact, and by mentioning that the matter is still in dispute.
3. We will not report assumed superiority of Indian forces over others without evidence.
   1. The stronger the statement claiming superiority, the stronger ought to be the evidence and its sources.
4. We will not respond to provocation by another member, Indian or other.
   1. The provocation will be reported to the Moderators using the report button immediately.
   2. In case of grave provocation, a common effort will be made to bring it to the immediate notice of the Moderators.
5. We will not enter into arguments about the wars and armed conflicts between India and any other country without sufficient information on the subject, and will ask other Indian members for factual support wherever necessary.

Signatories (As of 28th July 2020):

1. @Nilgiri
2. @sms
3. @The BrOkEn HeArT
4. @jamahir
5. @meghdut
6. @KhanBaba2
7. @Krptonite
8. @The_Showstopper
9. @jbgt90
10. @Mad Scientist 2.0
11. @xeuss
12. @Dustom999
13. @Syama Ayas
14. @Joe Shearer
15. @Shantanu_Left

============

Thank you Arsalan. Should be final request for some time here.

@Nilgiri First casualty of CoC!!
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/man-...urgaon-cops-watch.678777/page-2#post-12590535

 

[Nilgiri]

@Nilgiri First casualty of CoC!!
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/man-...urgaon-cops-watch.678777/page-2#post-12590535

I believe the CoC refers to it as specific Indian members, as in say shantanu ought not to call say me a Sanghi.

Here he is referring to a larger body of "sanghis", rather than any specific member.

 

[Nilgiri]

Actually I just read some of the earlier replies preceding to that... its not looking good in implication. Shantanu must do better.

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

Actually I just read some of the earlier replies preceding to that... its not looking good in implication. Shantanu must do better.

Do you really think he takes this seriously lol? Look at the posts @jamahir has quoted in this very same thread and don't tell me you were just oblivious to that.

The likes of him and @xeuss, the so-called members of this grand COC are jokers to be honest.

Anyway, it also means that you yourself haven't read the 1st point of COC lol.

 

[sms]

I believe the CoC refers to it as specific Indian members, as in say shantanu ought not to call say me a Sanghi.

Here he is referring to a larger body of "sanghis", rather than any specific member.

I'm itching and trigger happy to throw "S" word. When I signed in on this thread, I've decided not to use it at all.
Moving forward I'll be bit lenient on myself.

 

[Nilgiri]

Do you really think he takes this seriously lol? Look at the posts @jamahir has quoted in this very same thread and don't tell me you were just oblivious to that.

The likes of him and @xeuss, the so-called members of this grand COC are jokers to be honest.

Hmmm I didn't read that stuff till you mentioned it just now. @jamahir called it out, I can see what he means...though I dont think its that serious (abhi none done jibe).

I myself probably have some violations in point number 5 (regd other countries)....but it does say "refrain"....and I do refrain as much as I can....so people will simply have to post instances and call me out etc... if they want to and they feel its serious enough etc.

You will all just have to post code violations here as you guys see fit and over time, pressure accumulates on the violators (who have signed up to it)....as judged by the peers. Violators can also offer their account of it.

It is only way I see it working, there is no delineated court-room resolution/process here.

A multiple flagrant violator (which I have yet to see) if it happens, I dunno, do we remove them from the CoC by simple vote or something?

I say give it some time, its early days. @Shantanu_Left cmon you can do better man.

I'm itching and trigger happy to throw "S" word. When I signed in on this thread, I've decided not to use it at all.
Moving forward I'll be bit lenient on myself.

Like I guess if you want, its up to you whether anything defeats the spirit/intent of the code. Past the 7 main articles ,its largely suggestions too.

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

Hmmm I didn't read that stuff till you mentioned it just now. @jamahir called it out, I can see what he means...though I dont think its that serious (abhi none done jibe).

Yeah, I guess it's ok to just casually disrespect a soldier who was willing to give his life on the border.

You will all just have to post code violations here as you guys see fit and over time, pressure accumulates on the violators (who have signed up to it)....as judged by the peers. Violators can also offer their account of it.

Lol, no pressure accumulates on the violators. If you introduce some point system, then it will. A point will be added for every violation, something like that. Even then, it won't amount to much.

A multiple flagrant violator (which I have yet to see) if it happens, I dunno, do we remove them from the CoC by simple vote or something?

That will be better. At least, deserving members will be a part of this. No point in taking in clowns.

 

[Nilgiri]

Yeah, I guess it's ok to just casually disrespect a soldier who was willing to give his life on the border.

There is lot of not-ok things that are not covered by the code imo. The code is just a very basic bare minimum (focused on personal attacks on forum members and identities) while keeping large contour of free speech in play (for stuff like military etc that many often feel should be beyond reproach too).

There is lot of common sense stuff that will never be covered by it, that largely comes with character of the person (and you make impression on that as you personally choose to)....we cannot micro manage that....where does one bit start, where does another bit end etc....

I also didn't make this code or play much role in shaping it...but I read it over and it seems to ally with a larger ideal sense (I stress the larger) I set for myself already....thus I decided to join it too. I think everyone has larger codes in operation internally, so finding and expressing the minimum common root is what this was supposed to be.

Lol, no pressure accumulates on the violators. If you introduce some point system, then it will. A point will be added for every violation, something like that. Even then, it won't amount to much.

Well keep reporting violations here (if they are esp flagrant) and it can be done...even retroactively later if we go for some points tabulation if anyone is really becoming a problem.

This is all somewhat a work in progress.

 

[Shantanu_Left]

Hmmm I didn't read that stuff till you mentioned it just now. @jamahir called it out, I can see what he means...though I dont think its that serious (abhi none done jibe).

Yes, you got that one right. Jamahir was overreacting to that Abhi-none-done jibe. Sure he may have felt bad about it which is something I don't rule out. All he should have done was express his views once, and change the topic. There's no point in him trying to convince me that the Abhi-none-Done jibe was in poor taste (as a matter of fact, it wasn't.)

I would like to respectfully draw our entire CoC team's attention to something that is usually not taught in an Indian school syllabus. It's called reading someone's subtle intentions: reacting only after you assess the overall damage to a situation.

There are Indian members here who are pretty much what you'd call "anti-national"/desh-drohi in Indian parlance (I will only speak for myself...see that's being subtle too). We have some views that you will find very disagreeable. But you will need to learn to stomach them, if not already.

I am going to react very vociferously every time I find a story of mob lynching in India due to someone allegedly carrying beef. Those are the kind of issues I feel very strongly about: I am going to lambast everything about that country because of the insult and genuine hurt I feel due to a story of that nature. You don't like the way I express my views? Fine....that's why we have a CoC in the first place. Agree to disagree, and move on.

A CoC comes into picture only when I'm repeatedly harassing any Indian members here, or preventing them from expressing their views. Verbal disagreements =/ harassment. @sms told he didn't want to discuss that topic any further and we ended it right there.

Although I find his views extremely odious, as he's a member of CoC, so I will not force my views on him. See those posts once again...I was only defending my views. That is allowed within the ambit of CoC.

CoC should not be invoked for every personal insult, whether perceived or real. These are general guidelines that prevent us from abusing each other's mothers (these are the genuine areas where we ought to draw the line, which are actually part of CoC), not actual forum rules.

Short summary: CoC is about preventing any Indian member from being harassed here in this forum. And to encourage them to contribute their views freely. It's not about settling scores, righting the wrongs, or speaking for Bharat Mata etc.

 

[Nilgiri]

Yes, you got that one right. Jamahir was overreacting to that Abhi-none-done jibe. Sure he may have felt bad about it which is something I don't rule out. All he should have done was express his views once, and change the topic. There's no point in him trying to convince me that the Abhi-none-Done jibe was in poor taste (as a matter of fact, it wasn't.)

I would like to respectfully draw our entire CoC team's attention to something that is usually not taught in an Indian school syllabus. It's called reading someone's subtle intentions: reacting only after you assess the overall damage to a situation.

There are Indian members here who are pretty much what you'd call "anti-national"/desh-drohi in Indian parlance (I will only speak for myself...see that's being subtle too). We have some views that you will find very disagreeable. But you will need to learn to stomach them, if not already.

I am going to react very vociferously every time I find a story of mob lynching in India due to someone allegedly carrying beef. Those are the kind of issues I feel very strongly about: I am going to lambast everything about that country because of the insult and genuine hurt I feel due to a story of that nature. You don't like the way I express my views? Fine....that's why we have a CoC in the first place. Agree to disagree, and move on.

A CoC comes into picture only when I'm repeatedly harassing any Indian members here, or preventing them from expressing their views. Verbal disagreements =/ harassment. @sms told he didn't want to discuss that topic any further and we ended it right there.

Although I find his views extremely odious, as he's a member of CoC, so I will not force my views on him. See those posts once again...I was only defending my views. That is allowed within the ambit of CoC.

CoC should not be invoked for every personal insult, whether perceived or real. These are general guidelines that prevent us from abusing each other's mothers (these are the genuine areas where we ought to draw the line, which are actually part of CoC), not actual forum rules.

Short summary: CoC is about preventing any Indian member from being harassed here in this forum. And to encourage them to contribute their views freely. It's not about settling scores, righting the wrongs, or speaking for Bharat Mata etc.

I'm extremely pro free-speech....so yeah this is more a reply for others in this thread heh.

I really mostly operate on my own set of principles (this code stuff is largely subset of it).... but I think this code thread will be good arena for any resolution of persistent issue that enough people bring up etc....that's really my whole understanding of it.

Not everyone shares same idea of what a nation is (or any larger concept like that), so thats why I agree there is no need to put that in the code in some way....the code is simply to prevent personal level attacks....everything else is in free discussion space...and its indeed good to have as different robust views on matters among a forum as possible.

i.e Intent is not one of micromanagement .... but a membership core that does better, sets a basic decent example and improves with time....and we just agree personal attacks are the common minimum thing to be dissuaded in that larger interest.

I also dont think this is a day to day...week to week thing but lot more long term.....so really only if people tag me in here, I will have a look....and maybe we have a jirga every few months for any larger suggestions/changes etc.

Where possible members ought to just settle things in threads amicably themselves....but they also can bring stuff to attention here if they feel it needs to be. Just so one also knows they have an issue with something you are doing (in their interpretation of code in some way) , and you can take that on board for next time (esp say if its a pretty trivial thing)....your view need not change on it one bit

 

[Shantanu_Left]

I'm extremely pro free-speech....so yeah this is more a reply for others in this thread heh.

I really mostly operate on my own set of principles (this code stuff is largely subset of it).... but I think this code thread will be good arena for any resolution of persistent issue that enough people bring up etc....that's really my whole understanding of it.

Not everyone shares same idea of what a nation is (or any larger concept like that), so thats why I agree there is no need to put that in the code in some way....the code is simply to prevent personal level attacks....everything else is in free discussion space...and its indeed good to have as different robust views on matters among a forum as possible.

i.e Intent is not one of micromanagement .... but a membership core that does better, sets a basic decent example and improves with time....and we just agree personal attacks are the common minimum thing to be dissuaded in that larger interest.

I also dont think this is a day to day...week to week thing but lot more long term.....so really only if people tag me in here, I will have a look....and maybe we have a jirga every few months for any larger suggestions/changes etc.

Where possible members ought to just settle things in threads amicably themselves....but they also can bring stuff to attention here if they feel it needs to be. Just so one also knows they have an issue with something you are doing (in their interpretation of code in some way) , and you can take that on board for next time (esp say if its a pretty trivial thing)....your view need not change on it one bit

Don't worry. They will learn eventually.

 

[jamahir]

Hmmm I didn't read that stuff till you mentioned it just now. @jamahir called it out, I can see what he means...though I dont think its that serious (abhi none done jibe).

Yeah, I guess it's ok to just casually disrespect a soldier who was willing to give his life on the border.

Jamahir was overreacting to that Abhi-none-done jibe. Sure he may have felt bad about it which is something I don't rule out. All he should have done was express his views once, and change the topic. There's no point in him trying to convince me that the Abhi-none-Done jibe was in poor taste (as a matter of fact, it wasn't.)

Though I am the most anti-war anti-military member on this forum I felt that jibe was indeed in bad taste.

 

[sms]

Yes, you got that one right. Jamahir was overreacting to that Abhi-none-done jibe. Sure he may have felt bad about it which is something I don't rule out. All he should have done was express his views once, and change the topic. There's no point in him trying to convince me that the Abhi-none-Done jibe was in poor taste (as a matter of fact, it wasn't.)

I would like to respectfully draw our entire CoC team's attention to something that is usually not taught in an Indian school syllabus. It's called reading someone's subtle intentions: reacting only after you assess the overall damage to a situation.

There are Indian members here who are pretty much what you'd call "anti-national"/desh-drohi in Indian parlance (I will only speak for myself...see that's being subtle too). We have some views that you will find very disagreeable. But you will need to learn to stomach them, if not already.

I am going to react very vociferously every time I find a story of mob lynching in India due to someone allegedly carrying beef. Those are the kind of issues I feel very strongly about: I am going to lambast everything about that country because of the insult and genuine hurt I feel due to a story of that nature. You don't like the way I express my views? Fine....that's why we have a CoC in the first place. Agree to disagree, and move on.

A CoC comes into picture only when I'm repeatedly harassing any Indian members here, or preventing them from expressing their views. Verbal disagreements =/ harassment. @sms told he didn't want to discuss that topic any further and we ended it right there.

Although I find his views extremely odious, as he's a member of CoC, so I will not force my views on him. See those posts once again...I was only defending my views. That is allowed within the ambit of CoC.

CoC should not be invoked for every personal insult, whether perceived or real. These are general guidelines that prevent us from abusing each other's mothers (these are the genuine areas where we ought to draw the line, which are actually part of CoC), not actual forum rules.

Short summary: CoC is about preventing any Indian member from being harassed here in this forum. And to encourage them to contribute their views freely. It's not about settling scores, righting the wrongs, or speaking for Bharat Mata etc.

It's my bad that i interpreted that we as CoC gang will not use "sanghi". Based on my interpretation, it was not in line with coc and worth reporting.