perhaps type up what you want before posting on forums??

barely made it before me... damn feel bad now...

Maniac +5

I don't want this to happen, and will stop using this site for philosophical debates and go back to my old one. The only reason why I switched over was because this isn't self regulated.

I agree and Disagree at the same time... We do need to cut down on the neverending threads... the fact that there are like 6 right now is to much... 2 or 3, thats bad enough, but doable... on the other hand, I agree, I really do not want people to moderate every post we make...

Butterhead,

that makes no sense. If you don't want people moderating every post you make then you're just gonna have to deal with and ignore such posts. Are we supposed to dictate what goes on the forum just because a few people don't like such threads?

...... guys we ARE self-regulated no matter what..... I don't think you understand what is meant by a self-moderated forum.

IT MEANS THERE ARE NO MODS

and no bans.

It means that we, as a group of individuals, decide what we are going to post. This forum fits that description. It already is self-moderated, self-regulated, self everything.

No one has to get paid. You are joking aren't you maniac?

Thus, no, no one is going to fucking ban any person or threads. The idea is just to get people to voluntarily not make the threads, or not post in them. Just like the DFTT rule, its totally voluntary.

So what's the problem again?

Ban Thucy for not self-moderating himself. He said "fucking". :-)

do you guys actually understand what im saying or not.... i still cant tell if you are just fucking with me or genuinely concerned with whatever you imagine "self-moderation" to be.

lol....

I'm just fucking with you and I'm sure everyone else is too...

lol i hope so because if even self-moderation fails i might just take a break from these forums except in diplo-related threads. but i'm going to wait it out for now.

I'm pretty sure they're screwing around with you.

I thought it was pretty obvious Maniac was fucking with you, Thucy >_>

normally, i would have agreed, but so much bullshit has happened on this site of late i bar nothing anymore. again as i said i hope to do my part to improve this place. lol.

Actually that makes sense. I thought self-regulated was with enough people reporting a post, that user would be suspended.

I think there should be a max amount of posts in a thread. after 1000 posts or something you have to move on.

Thuc, try assuming Maniac is a sensible normal person, then reread. You might just about notice a possible hint of sarcasm.

Oh, and I oppse everything you said. I'm so ultra cool and trendy that I know that its cool to be rebellious, and you shouldn't let society define you. However, that attitude was so 2010, and because I'm better than everyone else I realised I don't want society to define me as being rebellious. So, you and your crowd of rebels: I refuse to support your protest.
Down with the man
Down with the Maniac.



webDip disclaimer: I'm not serious. If anything else I'm not sure how its possible to oppose the man when the man has no clear agents in this field, and if he does i suspect I'd be one of them

@thucy - got to love ya; i thought the line "We all rub along quite well with hardly a cross word already" would have alerted you to the fact I wasn't (and am hardly ever) serious.

7/. They tried self regulating the banks and look where that got us.

"They tried self regulating the banks and look where that got us."

Erm... at the risk of starting something ugly, there are and have been for all of the past decade thousands of pages of bank regulation... the problem was the low interest rates as set by the central banks.

Oh Ghost, one day we will speak without argueing...but not today.

I agree that the banks have been regulated but in fairness I think the toy industry is was more closely regulated. IMHO the problem was not enough regulation OR too much. I know this sounds bizarre but hear me out. I happen to sympathise with your laisse-fair approach to the markets and think the banking industry could fuction without any regulation at all, provided that there was no state intervention in the event of a failure. As we are unlikely ever to get to that situation, then tight regulation is essential and it has to be as global and as consistant as possible.

"I agree that the banks have been regulated but in fairness I think the toy industry is was more closely regulated."

This is factually incorrect, banking is one of the most regulated markets in existence, and has been for the past century.

"I happen to sympathise with your laisse-fair approach to the markets and think the banking industry could fuction without any regulation at all, provided that there was no state intervention in the event of a failure. As we are unlikely ever to get to that situation, then tight regulation is essential and it has to be as global and as consistant as possible."

The issue is that regulators cannot know what the effects of the regulation they are putting in place are, so no amount of regulation can provide against failure, however all regulation does inhibit business practices.

A look at the history of major banking crises from the great depression to the present day shows that it has without fail been the result of government action in one form or another. The regulation isn't just ineffective, but actively harmful, so even if the government takes all or some of the risk, it will still do yet more harm by regulating.

Furthermore, we used to have a situation where failure was not taken on by the government, surely we should be able to return to that far superior situation, and argue for it.

@Ghost - would you send me £800.00 please and I'll insure you to drive any car. My Liability in the event of an accident will be capped at £1m.

toys > banks

@Ghost - "the problem was the low interest rates as set by the central banks. "

Actually, the problem has always been the fact that central banks issue money at interest because it creates more debt than there is money to pay that debt off.

It begins and ends with this issue and this issue alone. Everything else is a mere symptom.

@Maniac - £800? That's outrageous. I payed significantly less than that for a full year of insurance with a very low deductible on my Corvette. Geez, I thought $700 per year for a Vette was bad!

@draugnar - i think ghost is a little younger than you and insurance companies are allowed to discriminate

This "sort of debate" does bring up some interesting points though. As it is everything is in 1 thread. Couldn't they be separated into 3-4 categories? Like games, debate, stupid shit and such? It's annoying sifting threw it all to find what you want and good threads get lost in the mayhem.

wtflol @ random banking debate in thread

good point pres eden but if we open up a new thread everytime we go of topic there will be more threads than posts.

impossible since each thread counts as a post.

at best you could have as many threads as posts, but if a single person posted in one of the threads besides the OP, you would then return to the normal state of more posts than threads

:P

@Ebay - Yes they could be, but given most diversions are (to some degree) linked this is quite a good way of doing it.

"The issue is that regulators cannot know what the effects of the regulation they are putting in place are, so no amount of regulation can provide against failure, however all regulation does inhibit business practices."

I disagree on one point. Bussinesses will respond to regulation by trying to find solutions which might not have been profitable or even thought of. Thus regulation can push innovation.

Thus one of the effects of regulation can include the development of better business practices.

It is like a genetic algorithm, you can artificial manipulate the system to push people out of a comfortable niche and force them to find an alternative maximum (efficiency), which may not have been reached in the 'laisse-fair' regime.

This is not to say regulators know what they're doing, or what every effect will be, but considering they don't know what the other maximum might be they're just trying to prevent 'damaging' practices from becoming the norm.