I agree with both Colorado and Tinkie. Freedom of speech does not mean that ideas can be or should be debated everywhere. As far as I am concerned Glocals is not a place for discussions on nations, religion, terrorism (but sex is OK)... There are so many members with so various backgrounds that there will always be someone to feel hurt or attacked by one of these topics. And to add a further note, the question on Israel / USA / Iran does not open a debate; it raises a controversy by asking in a very closed way whether Israel or the USA should attack Iran. That's a straight way to flaming and anger.
Free, Aug 12, 2008 @ 01:37

Think it is a fascinating topic, and interesting debate - not least on account of different perspectives put with overall significant informative effort and respect.

Nevertheless the interesting debate leaves much room for fanning flames of injury and insult.

It may not be as convenient, but I think it would be fair to rest of community to take this offline and discuss further - blog, face2face, other discussion group forum.

Or create a 'contentious issues not related to Geneva' Forum structure?!

There used to be a 'News Study Group' Member Activity that happened sporadically, hosted in maison des associations nr Plain Palais. That was great to discuss this kind of thing, kicking off first with some documentary 'input' for food for thought. Of course, one could also debate the bias of the 'documentary' input too...
SimSim, Aug 12, 2008 @ 01:48

Coloarado, All:

Thanks for bringing up the 'what topics are acceptable for glocals discussions' question. It's a good one. 

To be 100% honest, we have niether worked out, not published, real clear guidelines on this. Here's the few points that drive our thinking on it tho. Maybe through these points, and this thread, we'll come out with clear guidelines.

1. Overall, glocals' reason-for-being is for meeting new people, and making daily life easier. Sure, there's tools on glocals (like the forums) that can be used for other things as well, like heated debated on politics, religion. But that's not what glocals is best for, what glocals is designed for, and why 99% of people join glocals for.  

2. There are other forums out there who focus on political / religion / etc discussions, and do it far better than glocals does.  There are sites who focus just on that, and who draw great minds who want to engage in such discussions.

3. Our approach until now has been to let most political / religion / etc discussions stay on the site, but to stop them as soon as they become aggressive (which usually happens fast...).  The number of such discussions is not large, but when they begin, they usually flame up quickly (as we're seeing now with the 'Should Iran be attacked discussion).

So that's where we are now...I think we have a few potential options moving forward:

1. Keep going like today.
This means that all topics posted are OK, but 'sensetive' topics are stopped by us quickly when they become agressive.

2. Not allow topics which are not about 'meeting new people' or 'improving daily life'. 
We can announce and make it clear on all forums that glocals is for meeting new people and making daily life easier, and not for 'sensetive' discussions like religion, politics, etc.

3. Any other ideas?

Thanks for everyone for your feedback,

Nir
Nir Ofek, Aug 12, 2008 @ 12:39

Options..



I believe if you were to remove the sensitive topics the site would lose some of it's interest as for many people having the ability to discuss some topics amongst such a wide cross section of the global population can be rewarding.



Although primarily the aim is provide the members with the ability to connect with others locally and find out information , like any group of people or friends topics like to be discussed from sport to religion (for some people they are the same thing).



This then begs the question can the topics be moderated fairly , I think we should accept that at some point the discussion will become fruitless and consist of nay saying , and the administrators should stop at that point. Is this removing freedom of speech , I don't believe so and all members should accept that creating a flame war in a discussion needs to be stopped.



britabroad, Aug 12, 2008 @ 12:57

Nir's Option 1 may suffice if the flaming hate-post were once-in-a-while thing like a strange accident on the road.

If hate-mongering topics become profuse, glocals will look like a community with profuse graffiti and garbage everywhere. In such an environment, there would be that hold-your-nose quality to anything the community shares in the forums, member activities or market place. Profuse nonsense may increase reluctance from some members to participate, or even sign up. That would not be a good thing for the potential and promise inherent within glocals, or potential advertisers for that matter.

This does not mean that all debates are bad. Far from it. Healthy debates can be stimulating, fun and a wonderful learning experience. Healthy debates have that mutual respect, love and positive energy within it. It serves to fulfill our curiosity, our desire to understand and make a humble difference in this world... to the extent we can. They are like flowers and beautiful fountains along the boulevard a community lives along, or countryside farms of abundant olive trees and lush vineyards over rolling hills... charming our intellectual energy and social life.
colorado, Aug 12, 2008 @ 18:54

naturally there can be only good by seeing and sharing ideas ... no the real issue is IF the "community" has substance.

[/quote]

Just partly read that thread on Iran. The first reply to the Iran thread was from a fellow member: bedrock. Your response to his reply was to use hurtful language against bedrock, calling him mentally deranged.

Why did you to call bedrock deranged? How is using such hateful language appropriate? How is such a reply from you "seeing and sharing ideas, and adding substance to the community?"

Lets start with your explanation and apologies to a fellow member bedrock.

If you are reasonably contrite, I can show you two versions of the same topic - the one you have and the other transformed to a somewhat more healthy and interesting form.
colorado, Aug 13, 2008 @ 08:18

AngelaS

I stand by the opinion I expressed in my earlier contribution to this discussion.

[/quote]

My answer too is Option 1, but with a BIG caution.

The caution builds on this: when is a debate healthy, and when is it not?

In my humble opinion, glocals is more likely to flourish if useful information and healthy discussions bloom in its forums. Glocals would decay if false information and unhealthy weeds overwhelm its bandwidth.

I will share some more thoughts when I have a bit more time.
colorado, Aug 13, 2008 @ 08:56

Like many people, I didn’t like the post about Iran, which seemed extremely narrow minded to me. Still, I think that Glocals should be what its members decide to do with it. If some of them want to discuss politics, why not? Several persons participated in the thread, we have to respect their choice. (I remember an extremely interesting thread about Blocher this winter, which was started by Nir himself. It led me to precise my thoughts about the issue, and I still muse about it when I see how things have developed since. I thank Glocals for it).

 

So I’m against restrictions on the topics that can be written about. Still, you’ve got to do it in a respectful way. This was not alfawolf7’s case. In his second post, he calls a contradictor mentally deranged. This can not be accepted and I hope that he received a clear warning for this.

 

Can a thread hurt somebody? Of course. But in my view, this is the reader’s problem. When you’re member of a global community, you’ve got to accept that some people have opinions that can piss you off. I don’t want to live in an overprotected world where bread is wrapped in antiseptic cellophane and where wise persons fend me off from disturbing opinions.

 

So, when it comes to Nir’s suggestions, I would say definitely keep it like today, but give a yellow card to those who write disrespectful posts and be ready to give a red one to second or three time offenders.
Bustan_A, Aug 13, 2008 @ 12:11

Bustan, All,

Thanks for the balanced discussion. The general idea that's rising, and which we'll implement, is to: 

• Keep allowing 'potentially explosive' topics to be posted on glocals
• Ensure that participants who become dis-respectful on these topics (or on any other topics), are warned / stopped / removed.

Alphawolf,

Your reaction to Bedrock's reply (and to some other replies) was way out of line. I imagine you know it too. You asked for a discussion, and when some arguments didn't go your way, you stopped discussing and started attacking. This would surely qualify as 'dis-respectful', at least...I hope you'll decide to make it right.

Nir
Nir Ofek, Aug 13, 2008 @ 12:24

Bustan_A

Can a thread hurt somebody? Of course. But in my view, this is the reader’s problem. When you’re member of a global community, you’ve got to accept that some people have opinions that can piss you off. I don’t want to live in an overprotected world where bread is wrapped in antiseptic cellophane and where wise persons fend me off from disturbing opinions.

[/quote]

A hateful thread may or may not be the reader's problem.

I agree that as a human being, we must accept the world and life as it is... a rainbow of experience, some beautiful and some not so beautiful. I too do not wish to live in an overprotected world... with time, my deepest pains have taught me to know and fully experience true happiness; with time, witnessing discrimination and hate against my friends or me have taught me to better share compassion and love.

Yet, there is place and time for everything.

If I go to a university library and pick up a book by Hermann Hesse, well I want to read Hesse. I will be disappointed and troubled, if Chapter 1 of the book turns out to be a print out of glocals recent thread on Iran. I may ignore it once, and call it weird. If I pick up the next book whose cover says "Steppenwolf" by Herman Hesse. I open it, go to chapter 1, and again it turns out to be a print out of some nonsense. Now imagine the whole library is full of this. It would be normal to be upset. And in this situation, it is not reader's problem. The library is the problem. Any visitor to a library expects something from the library before he or she enters its big open doors. A deceptive library would be noticeably empty of well meaning human beings.

In the same way, if current members and future members visit glocals and open the forum or market place or whatever, there is implicit expectation. Member such as me would not want to continue in a community whose forums are full of personal attacks such as someone calling another mentally deranged, where much of what one finds is false or prejudiced. In this case... I, as the reader, ain't the problem because my aim isn't to test my strength or weaknesses. I am fine with all my frailities, torments and curiosities. Members such as me will just say "oh well! this is not what I signed up for," and move on.

The same applies to glocals events. If one member advertises some an event on glocals, and another fellow member signs and shows up... she would be rightfully upset if the advertisement was fradulent, she finds herself alone doing things she does not want to do and then she is subjected to repeat advances and abuse. Such a member will just say "oh well! this is not what I signed up for," and leave. In my view, nothing may be wrong with her, something is wrong with glocals, and a lot may be wrong with the fella who posted the false advertisement.

In summary, yes we do not want to live in an overprotected world. But, in my humble view, we do want to live in an honest world, a world where there is truth and learning, love and happiness, and such positive energy. It is more fun and meaningful that way.
colorado, Aug 13, 2008 @ 19:31

We claim that we are open mind, respect others opinions, respect human rights but what about respecting others sensitivity ?

From my point of view, debates are good, very good. I'm working in an organisation where we are debating everyday to be sure that we are doing things the right way keeping in mind fairness.

Again, to my point of view a debate is useful when it is constructive and not destructive.

This topic regarding Iran just brought feelings like the world has in war context: anger, violence (verbal), intolerance, discrimination, stigmatization...

So, I would really appreciate for those who want to release their anger against others (countries or people) to do it in a more appropriate website as for me glocals is here to promote a friendly spirit.

  
Sofia, Aug 13, 2008 @ 19:48

Colorado said:

"A hateful thread may or may not be the reader's problem."

I'm afraid you misunderstood me, Colorado. I never wrote or thought such a thing. I tried to differentiate:
1) The topic: expressing your views on world politics is OK for me. Others have to accept the fact that you have your opinions.
2) The way you do it: it should be done in a respectful way. A hateful thread doesn't enter this category, and thus shouldn't be allowed.

 I hope it makes things clear
Bustan_A, Aug 13, 2008 @ 20:07

All,

It's not directly linked to this thread, but still wanted you to know (since it did come up here) that Alfawolf just posted this apology. I think apologising was the right thing, and it reflects well on Alfawolf.

To sharpen one point that came up (Bustan said it well):

• There's no issue in airing views that others don't like (as long as these views are not racist / hateful).
• The issue is when the discussion turns into personal attacks on other members.

Nir
Nir Ofek, Aug 13, 2008 @ 21:36

On this topic I agree with Alphawolf7. We're all adults, if you don't like the topic, don't take part. And i'm sorry but to ask the question 'what does this bring to the community' is just silly. We're not the smurfs (old cartoon about simple, little blue people who lived a happy little life in a forest, oblivious to the real world). We are all individuals, with individual ideas and passions. I don't agree with Alphawolf7's views on Iran but so what? As i've mentioned on the Iran forum we should never ever legislate our taste. I don't think much of a large number of forums that deals with fluffy, cuddly topics (these are probably considered as 'bringing something' to the community...personally i think its all nonsense). but you know what? that's just my personal taste and it is not my right to close down other forums because i think they're nonsense. that is my personal taste. I don't legislate my personal taste. please be so gracious as to reciprocate the favour.



also, again as i've said on the iran forum, this is a real issue!!! the powers that be are talking about this, George Bush would love to bomb Iran. So I think its childish to run away in horror from this question. Alphawolf7 is merely reflecting the world. If you are truly shocked by his opinions I would urge you not to watch the evening news. You may have a heart attack if you found out what the real world is really like.



Again, thanks to the administrators for giving us a forum in Geneva that allows for adult debate. Thanks also to Colorado for starting this thread.
manics1984, Aug 13, 2008 @ 21:51

What would you think if tomorrow a nazi started a debate on the relevance to start again another world war ? don't you think that many people would be offended ? don't you think that everybody will start to shout to kick out this undesirable member ?

Don't you think that there is a more appropriate way to bring a topic like attacking a country ? Do you think that it shows that you are an adult...

The way Alfawolf brought this topic was not appropriate and his radical views brought just confusion and anger.

If this topic was introduced like "what do you think of US politics toward Iran?", I think that nobody would have felt offended. If I was an iranian in geneva trying to catch up with people throught glocals, I would have probably felt stigmatized by a question like "should US or Israel attack Iran?".

Even if you are not interested to go in the forum, the question appears in the front page of the website.
Sofia, Aug 14, 2008 @ 11:51

(While I quote you manics1984, in this post I will try to weave in sections to keep my promise in this thread to AngelaS)

manics1984 writes: [ ] And i'm sorry but to ask the question 'what does this bring to the community' is just silly. We're not the smurfs (old cartoon about simple, little blue people who lived a happy little life in a forest, oblivious to the real world). [ ] If you are truly shocked by his opinions I would urge you not to watch the evening news. You may have a heart attack if you found out what the real world is really like. [\quote]

I am happy to note your desire for open discussion regardless of whether you concur, and your focus on the real world. I can sense that you mean well.

I am confused with your assumption that "...if you found out what the real world is really like." It reads as if we do not know what the real world is really like, or that we just read something for the first time and got shocked by someone's opinions.

We all do live in the real world. In this age of 24 hour news and propaganda, it is easy to get aware, in fact rather overwhelmed with the feeds from wire services and news agencies... the Associated Press, Reuters, Dow Jones, Agence France, UPI, Kyodo, Xinhua, Deutsche Presse and others.

In the past few decades, news and tragedies of this world are almost instantaneously passed on to others through cable and press and internet. An avalanche of events descends somewhere, within minutes half the world hears of the splash. Our challenge isn't the availability of news, or lack of awareness of the real world, or a dearth of opinions. We have an avalanche of news. We are drowned with opinions.

Our challenge is the missing yardstick by which to measure those events and to evaluate them in accordance with the values and the complex contextual history of unfamiliar parts of the world. The same news can be cheerful to one part of the world, and painful to another. The same opinions can evoke pride in one part of the world, and trauma to another. How is that possible in this world? I feel, to understand these very different responses, we should seek to understand the different yardsticks, the different values, the different histories suffered by various people.

News and opinions are what are easy to share in forums, in news print, through sound waves from the left-wing or right-wing or confusing-wing broadcasters. I doubt that news or opinions would get us to mutual understanding or to that world we sometimes long for in our silent moments... one where no one is afraid, one where love is shared, one of peace.

Our best hope is to seek to understand the different histories and scales of values, values that have baked in the oven of time. To know and understand someone's history and values, one must communicate face-to-face, do things together, feel the humanity, and experience inner world of any person or people.

One may ask... why face-to-face time is necessary? Because communication is a lot more than the words someone speaks. It is in part how we say things, our body language, the tone of the voice, the interplay of silence with the words, and so many other things. Sitting at a dinner table, after a hectic day, one can say “pass the salt”... and with that phrase, and how one says those words, one can easily communicate a whole universe of emotions - from why aren’t you talking to me, to I am mad at you, or I am disappointed with you, or I want to flirt with you, or where have you been all my life, or I am falling in love with you? Communication is more than words on a screen. There is a time for written letters, and there is time to sit across a table and let our guards down... to discover, to learn, to understand. The time to do the later is when you want to understand someone’s values, their history, and their yardsticks. And understand we must, for love and peace to have a chance.

In addition to above arguments, I hope you will consider the 100’000+ forums available on internet that debate global politics, local politics, religion, culture,... including many that are hosted in Europe and Switzerland... an internet search will lead you to them. For example, visit these links. After you have considered them, please tell us why you do not wish debate your ideas on those web sites and those forums, and why glocals community would be better off if it changed from its cordial and simpler past to something else?

Of course, I also welcome your and other views on why face-to-face time is irrelevant or relevant; and anything else on my earlier posts in this thread.

Best Wishes, Colorado
colorado, Aug 14, 2008 @ 19:00

Thanks to everyone who made points on my last post – appreciate it.



I don’t want glocals to be a big brother website that hides ‘offensive’ topics from my view. I don’t want anyone else, apart from me, to decide what is and what is not acceptable for me to read. Again let’s keep Nir’s policy. Let’s talk about the difficult stuff as well as posting topics on activities (which is also a very good thing to do). Of course, let’s be sure no one is called any vulgar names or bullied – that’s unacceptable. But i can’t see the logic in deleting a person’s post topic just because you find it disagreeable.



And Colorado, thank you for your questions. So why i dont save my politics for more ‘politically’ orientated websites ? well, i’m not obliged to restrict the expression of my political views to political websites - simple as that. And I’m not the one suggesting glocals change. Its others who want to create brand new rules to change how the forums work, not me. I am voting for sticking with the current rules as stated by Nir (see quote from him below). This rule would continue to allow for ‘potentially explosive’ topics to be posted on glocals. I’d much rather glocals had a few explosive topics than ignore the real explosions that could take place all around the middle east in the next few years if some evil people have their way. You mentioned before ‘i sense you mean well’. I hope i’ve now articulated my thoughts to the extent that intuition will not be required to decode my intentions. But please, your questions are great, if i’m not clear, let me know.



Ok everyone here’s Nir’s rules – lets keep them ! Don’t change them ! Let’s preserve glocals for future generations !



'[i]Keep allowing 'potentially explosive' topics to be posted on glocals

Ensure that participants who become dis-respectful on these topics (or on any other topics), are warned / stopped / removed’. [/i]'

manics1984, Aug 15, 2008 @ 03:37

Guys,

2 quick points:

1. The guidelines are now clear: we'll keep allowing 'loaded' topics to be posted on glocals.
Thanks to Colorado and to everyone who engaged on this helpful discussion, and helped drive this clarity. 

2. Still, people who really want to engage on serious discussions about politics / religion / etc, can get better results on different forums than on glocals. 

• glocals is designed for enabling friendly people to get together, and for making daily life easier. And 99% of glocals members are here for that reason. 
• On the other hand, there are other forums out there that focus only on high level discussions on religion / politics / etc, and which draw top minds that want to engage on such topics.
• So if someone wants to reallly discuss such topics, he/she would get better results on those other forums, and not on glocals.  

Hope this helps, and looking forward to seeing you at the next glocals Activity...(-:

Nir 
Nir Ofek, Aug 15, 2008 @ 10:38

Thanks Nir for those two points.



I'm happy that no posts will be taken down automatically. I think that's really great.



And I respect and recognise the fact that glocals gives friendly people an opportunity to meet and organise activities. I've enjoyed some great activities myself - all thanks to this site.



Perfect!
manics1984, Aug 15, 2008 @ 11:23

Nir_ (15/08/2008)

1. The guidelines are now clear: we'll keep allowing 'loaded' topics to be posted on glocals.

2. Still, people who really want to engage on serious discussions about politics / religion / etc, can get better results on different forums than on glocals.

[/quote]

Thanks Nir for the note. From the various posts from Bustan_A, AngelaS, manics1984, Tinkie and so many others, it is clear that the spirit of openness and friendly inclusiveness continues to motivate this community.

There is another poster here in this thread named Jamie (sp?) with few comments, and it is likely there are other silent members who concur with those comments. Jamie does not seem comfortable with this allow-any-topic policy. In a previous post, I too had urged a BIG caution with the "allow loaded topics" policy. I did not have time to expound on what is that BIG caution, and why caution is appropriate. May be Jamie's thoughts and my BIG caution have common roots. Is it okay if members such as Jamie, or anyone else concerned with allow-any-topic can be considered in this debate, even if it means we have to continue this discussion a bit longer?

I am fine either way... walking a bit more before we rest, or stopping here.
colorado, Aug 15, 2008 @ 16:22

Thanks Colorado for your consideration and Thanks a lot for this forum.

 

Thank you very much Nir and Ode for your reactivity and for the improvements you are trying to do considering everybody’s opinion.

 

The rules you have fixed are fine for me.

 

At the end of the day, nobody wants anybody to censor anybody (this is for manics).

But I still think that politics should be discussed on political websites or in face-to-face instead of hiding behind a website. One could wonder why somebody needs to discuss this on a website (but this is another debate…)

 

About the topic policy, I think that the most important is

-         First, to be vigilant on the way topics are introduced.

-         Second, to monitor debates on sensitive topics (politics, religion, races), to avoid that people start to insult each other or present such radical views that, despite of the human rights declaration (again!), are in themselves a violation of human beings to be respected as they are, regardless from their nationalities, religion, races.

 

I’m aware that what I’m asking might be unfeasible for Nir and Ode but this monitoring could be easily done by any member of Glocals that could feel that things are going too far.

I'm not a big fan of rules (althought I seem to be) but it seems like some rules are needed within a community that would like to enjoy life and not getting angry... (we have so many medias that are force-feeding us with terribles stories everyday that having that also on glocals is not fair...) 

 

Again, thanks a lot for your help Colorado!

Big hugs;)
Sofia, Aug 15, 2008 @ 17:16

yep big thanks to colorado for this topic, just look how important it is to so many people. kudos to u colorado!



A point on the original Iran topic posted by Alphawolf.



i saw other glocals members like Mike1956, isa413, Justdoit, Sandholm and Archie standing up for peace and understanding, repudiating the motion to launch military attacks (and repudiating any support for such attacks). it was great to see. i look forward to seeing all those people 'face-to-face' on any activity. can we not rally around this momentum of a united desire for harmony?



And that's the beauty of glocals. whether you're talking about organising a language exchange (which i have) or defending the iranian people's right to live a normal life (which i have), glocals lets the geneva online community stand up for what they believe in. i'm proud of this site and proud of everyone who took part in that debate.



when alphawolf did go too far and insulted another member he was publically condemned by the site. This shows that an attack on any of us is an attack on all of us. Again, the end result was that glocals sense of solidarity increased. Rather than being decisive the post united us.



so in conclusion, what we had was a topic that perhaps some members like colorado and jami would prefer not to have allowed on glocals (and i respect your right to hold those opinions guys, 100%). while on the other side other members like Mike1956, isa413, Justdoit, Sandholm and Archie seemed to see an opportunity to stand up for what they believe in – peace. i feel a lot of good came out of the debate and glocals revealed itself to be not only an instrument of free speech but as representing a collective determination to always seek the peaceful path to any conflict. wow, pretty cool. Well done guys !

manics1984, Aug 15, 2008 @ 18:29

Not quite, not quite. Unless I am missing something manics1984, jami is not banning any topics. Rather jami's suggestion is that we be vigilant about the way topics are introduced. I feel there is big difference there.... and a very important difference if our aim is to help glocals remain a fun, friendly and welcoming place in the future.

I am a bit busy. Will write more on this later.
colorado, Aug 15, 2008 @ 18:55

what debate about debating...
SimSim, Aug 15, 2008 @ 20:02

Colorado – thanks for the feedback. I had based my post on the following two quotes from you and jamie's most recent posts…



You had observed that ‘Jamie does not seem comfortable with this allow-any-topic policy. In a previous post, I too had urged a BIG caution with the "allow loaded topics" policy’



While Jami’s last post noted that ‘I still think that politics should be discussed on political websites or in face to face…instead of hiding behind a website’



so you both do seem to have some reservations about letting some topics and/or subjects being discussed. Again, i respect your right to hold those opinions 100%.



By the way what do you think of the points i brought up ? do you not feel the community’s sense of solidarity was strengthened by the unity it showed in responding to the original alphawolf iran post ? I’m proud of all the members of glocals who took part in that debate for solidly rejecting, as a group, violence and instead advocated peace with other nations. And again, the solidarity of glocals was reinforced when the insult that was directed against bedrock was publically condemned by the site. As i mentioned above, this showed that an attack on one of us is an attack on us all. Glocals is stronger than ever, as a community, for having had the debate. At least from the point of view of those who took part and argued for peace. Note that these same people are not political extremists who have nothing to do with other glocals activities. they are peaceful types who use glocals for stuff like french conversation and art trips…just typical friendly glocals who, in that particular forum stood up for peace.(see list of people in my previous post).

manics1984, Aug 15, 2008 @ 20:11

That's true 20 people don't represent the whole glocals community.

I don't represent all members, I just represent myself. I don't have any power to stop anything to happen on the website and I don't want to have it.

Sensitive topics are known. Everywhere and by everybody: religion, race, politics...

If somebody is having provocative debate, it could be funny for him and for her. He could enjoy that so many people are reacting to him because that what he's probably seeking for. Glad for him....

But as tinkie said, there are so many nationalities, origins on this website that it could create such misunderstanding on Glocals dynamic.

Let me ask you something Manics. What's the point to have this kind of topic except to fight ? those who want a country to be neutralised (in fact 1) against those who want peace... what's the point ? except to enjoy that others are peaced off ?

That s true that showed a certain solidarity between people against war and it's positive.

From my side, I was glad to have been able to discuss this with all of you. I will stop from now on discussing on that because I said what I wanted to say and had satisfying answers within Glocal. I was new on Glocals and was really wondering if this was usual to debate the relevance of attacking a country .... just try to understand my position.

If I see another forum with provocative words, I will probably just ignore it (to a certain point) but somebody else (new) could feel the same thing.

All the best...
Sofia, Aug 15, 2008 @ 22:12

Ok. Half past noon came and has already left me in my part of the world, it is raining outside, and the waterdrops on Aspen leaves look beautiful.

Lets talk about that BIG caution, and weave in jami's comment on the need to be vigilant on the way topics are introduced.

Here is the issue. We have the active members with one set of preferences; in contrast, we have potential members with another.

Current members have already experienced glocals community, perhaps attended some activities or read some posts and market place ads. Current members are generally comfortable with glocals. If occasional "loaded topic" is posted, it is no big deal. If a poster starts calling fellow members mentally deranged, it does not change our impression of fellow members or glocals. Occasional loaded topics would not alarm existing members. For some, loaded topics on politics or religion or etc can actually be interesting content. As this thread confirms... for many members, controversial topics are fine, debate is fine, and most of us would rather err on the side of allowing some nonsense, than participate in an overprotected community.

Now lets consider another angle. Consider the prospective members who visit glocals for the first time, just to check it out, before deciding if they want to join this community. What first impression would they get when they see glocals forums full of hate topics, prejudiced topics, topics with titles and subject of destruction, death and other negativity? Imagine one title preaching attack country X, another attack country Y, another attack religion Z, and 9 out of 10 topics with such titles. Would glocals seem like a fun, friendly, welcoming place to curious prospective members? My guess is... No. A forum full of loaded hate topics, a front page displaying hate-filled or destructive titles would discourage most potential members.

So there. That is the conflict. Existing members want solidarity and content. Prospective members want rapport and trust. For content, some existing members may be willing to tolerate a flood of posts with hurtful and disturbing titles. Prospective members may feel repelled and distrustful of a website as they read numerous posts with hurtful and disturbing titles.

I can empathize with SiteAdmin and Nir... who should they focus on? The needs of existing members, or the needs of new members.

I do not know the answer. I sense part of the answer is in what jami is suggesting... Be vigilant on the way topics are introduced! The titles matter, the tone matters, the style matters...

Consider the same topic with two titles: Politics - Iran & Israel, and contrast this with the title posted a few days ago. I prefer the former title. It introduces the topic in a neutral manner. If I do not wish to participate, I can read the simple and neutral title and not click on it.

That is, in part, what I had in mind when I spoke of BIG caution. May be, that is what jami means through the term vigilance. Please correct me if I wrong jami.

There is a lot more in the posts in this thread. There is that question about solidarity, there are some references to rights of free speech, and many more. Please allow me silence on those topics. For I have said enough. It is now time for me to listen, feel the romance of the Apen leaves outside and eat my sandwich.

Best wishes, Colorado
colorado, Aug 15, 2008 @ 23:14

[quote][b]alfawolf7 (11/08/2008)

[/b]

(...)Give this state the ability, within 1 year at most, to have Nukes and - in my view - we will be back to the Germany in 1936 (...)[/quote]

Congratulations, Alphawolf7, you just won a







on your first post of this topic...



And speaking of respect, isn't it strange that you, at the same time, ask "that no one attacks any other point of view directly" and imply in your numerous posts that an attack against Iran would be justified? (please note that writing in all caps is like shouting in Internet language, and is generally considered rude or arrogant)



[quote][b]Nir_ (13/08/2008)

[/b]

The general idea that's rising, and which we'll implement, is to:

Keep allowing 'potentially explosive' topics to be posted on glocals

Ensure thatparticipants who become dis-respectful on these topics (or on any other topics), are warned / stopped / removed.

[/quote]

[quote][b]manics1984 (15/08/2008)

[/b]

I don’t want glocals to be a big brother website that hides ‘offensive’ topics from my view. I don’t want anyone else, apart from me, to decide what is and what is not acceptable for me to read.[/quote]

Yes, of course, we’re all grown ups (Well, at least apparently …), which implies that we ought to be able to moderate ourselves and know when a topic is relevant or not. As far as I’m concerned, it's a simple matter of etiquette (or should I say politeness?) to know what to discuss, and where, and I see nothing in Glocal's charter about political or controversial discussions (but there's nothing to forbid them either, I must admit):



What can you do on glocals.com?

Meet Expats & locals in Switzerland with similar interests to yours (on Members)

Join and/or organize local Activities (on Member Activities)

Get / give info about Switzerland life (on Forums)

See / share reviews about local venues & services (on CityGuide)

Find / advertise Apartments, Goods, & Jobs in Switzerland (on MarketPlace)

See what Events are happening in your city (on Events)

Use exclusive offers on services & products (on Exclusive Offers)

Burn time instead of working

Besides, who would believe that discussing war between Israel and Iran is "sharing" ideas? From what I've seen so far on numerous places, it usually leads to a (rather sad) collection of cliches...



Free, Aug 16, 2008 @ 03:04

Free writes:

Yes, of course, we’re all grown ups (Well, at least apparently …), which implies that we ought to be able to moderate ourselves [ ]
[/quote]

I concur with Free. Glocals history, or the year or so of it I have witnessed, urges moderation. Every 3 to 6 months, loaded topics appear on Glocals forum. After the dust settles, with all its understandings and misunderstandings, a few active contributing members vanish, some withdraw and participate less, and the community feels different.

On the subject of solidarity on topics posted here or on issues in the world, please visit past threads. For example, review a past thread for the cause of Burma, where solidarity and one voice from glocals was sought. My answer then was No. It still is.
colorado, Aug 18, 2008 @ 20:36