Note - I've added my comments in RED since it was getting confusing with all the quoting.

Quoting Rico:

Quote:
Hi Paul,

Quote:
I'm having difficulty in understanding what you are saying.

Yes I can see that. Try to think of it ethically, does the end justify the means?

That again depends on what is trying to be achieved and there is no straight forward answer. For instance is it morally right to kill someone for pleasure - NO. Is it morally right to kill a maniac with a gun who is trying to kill others - YES. There is no absolute answer.

Quote:
I don't think anyone would try and justify the slaughter of dolphins

Not what I'm trying to say. Dolphins are collateral damage, & to correct the harm should be thrown back in the water. This does not happen, just like the negative sstar given incorrectly.

Again I see a difference between Dolphins and negative stars. And I wouldn't call Dolphins collateral damage - the consequences for doing this should be such that it is stopped and those who do it should be punished.

Quote:
especially, as a single black mark has no affect on your rating.

Correct! But it does affect the recipient. If it's such a trivial matter (no effect) why the PM's to the designer to rectify?

You are only speaking for yourself. With my negative vote I just ignored it because I thought it was trivial.

Quote:
and after you admitted that they were removed from you anyway.

They correct injustice when they find it. Alert them to the fact (improper star) they ignore. This attitude is taken IMO to avoid an onslaught of PM's seeking justice. The selective enforcement of justice is what i object to, all inequalities should made correct. The easiest way for this to happen (without tyeing up all the admins time) is moderators.

Its isn't selective justice. Its practical justice. The whole point of negative stars is to help them to do their work without having to continuously monitor the forums. A single negative vote does nothing and is ignored by the system as a aberration. Multiple negative votes - i.e. where a number of people have all thought the same about a post will flag up with Ken/Gerri. At that point they will look at the original post and if the post deserved negative votes then these will stand and the system will work as expected. If undeserved then they all either get removed or reversed. As regards moderators - there was a recruitment drive and for what ever reason this was not persisted with. Perhaps there were just not enough volunteers. If noone was happy to do this then you can't make them up out of air. This system is automated enough to try and carry out the same tasks as a moderator - i.e. to ban someone who carries out frequent bad posts.

Quote:
You seem to be hung up on the words 'collateral damage'. The usage in the rest of the world appears quite different from the way you are using it.

Perhaps! Could you please define what you think 'collateral damage' means?

Collateral damage seems a U.S. Military term for unintended or incidental damage during a military operation. Self evidently we wouldn't (In UK) use it to mean the same. I really don't see it in much use in the UK for anything. I suppose the nearest equivalent would be unintended damage - so for instance if a house is knocked down then the collateral damage would be a tree in the front garden falling into the road.

Quote:
We don't call the loss of any soldiers (or airmen etc) collateral damage. We don't seek to minimise the loss by blanketing them with a generic term.

Who are you referring to as 'We?' Collateral damage, term can & is used, and is dependent on perspective. Perhaps a general describing an entire battle scene, may speak of collateral damage.

See previous comment. I'm not a general on the battle front so I don't have any idea how he would refer to battle casualties. When non US troops get killed by US troops we(non US people) refer to it as friendly fire. I suppose the US general might refer to it as Collateral damage. But it's actually friendly fire.

Quote:
Next how one dark star, adversley affects the Invelos community!

I made this point so I should back-it-up. Now be kind when responding.

I have no idea where you got this quote from but I didn't make it. And I don't think its true. A dark star doesn't affect the community - it doesn't even affect the individual who received it. Multiple dark stars might stop someone being wildly offensive.

Often times one finds peculiar & interesting stuff, that he/she wishes to share with the community. Keeping in mind, negative stars are for bad behavior, and a negative star is given inappropriately, this uncorrected star can hinder the community. As new found stuff can/will not be shared, although it's not offensive, I may get a negative star. The content to the community is diminished. As more & more inappropriate stars go uncorrected, freedom/desire to post new stuff is inhibited.

Do you have ANY evidence that someone has gone away from these forums without posting because they got some negative stars? The only person who has admitted to getting numbers of negative votes is Skip and since he is still posting that means that your argument is flawed.

Take Care
Rico

Messrs Paul, Draxon,

Paul nothing I say, will allow understand my point. You've added 8 red paragraphs, I'll briefly respond & the numbers will correspond to your paragraphs:

1. You win regarding 'ends & means'. But still I would ask you to think if this is ethically correct.
    Right vs wrong not the degree or intensity of the right or wrong.

2. Dolphins are the collateral damage of the fishermen. I agree those who do it should be punished
    but, we have an innocent till proven guilty, so they would have to be caught red handed. The
    ethical thing for the fisherman is to throw flipper back in the water. Can we agree if the fisherman
    throws the mammal back in the water, he acted ethically?

3. Remember 'Goodguy' stated he PM'd the admins. I also PM'd, so it bothered at least two
    that we know of, to take action. Probably more have PM'd seeking to overturn a neg. star.

4. I have a problem with your 'practical justice' this implies you see the small injustice , & choose
    to ignore it. This is ethically wrong. Example driving speed limit 30 mph & your going 31 or 35
    mph yes the speed above, posted is trivial, but in fact you were speeding. Moderators
    would make it much easier for the admins.. Can you imagine a soccer/futbol game, where on
    a play which relied on a rule, lets just put it up for vote by those in attendance. If you ask
    me the results of the vote are trivial. I'm sure some in attendance will cast there vote,
    because one team has prettier uniforms.

5. I would define as; going after wrong doer's with the knowledge that innocents can/will be
    harmed, regardless/independent of the pain. Friendly fire does not fit.

6. See #5

7. If you read my post, you would see I quoted myself.

8. I did state quite clearly 'Content' & did not talk of anyone leaving the forum. I'll only post
    content that IMO will not be offensive. Now that I get inappropriate stars, I pass on many
    items I would have posted previously. The community loses that content. Before you make
    a big deal out of this. If I've tightened my screening process others will also.

Question - Should offensive avatars be allowed here?

Paul check this out, perhaps we can chat. See Here

Draxon - You've got CLASS! I think you would be a terrific moderator.

Last - Paul if you so desire take your best shot, at responding, I will not respond back.

Take Care
Rico

Is this still about Global Warming? Do I really have to yell OFFTOPIC before this discussion is continued in another thread? I think it was a quite interesting discussion before the whole star talk started...

Just an observation.

If a person does not believe that human beings have any significant impact on (are not the cause of) global warming, then it would be logical that that same person also believes that human beings do not have the wherewithall to reverse it either.

Here's my take on this -- I have a new dire threat we need to be concerned about -- the Purple Space Monster!

Column B -- If we do nothing and the space monster is a made up threat then we're ok -- if we do nothing and it's real the world will be destroyed

Column A -- If we do something and its a fraud all we did was spend some money -- if we do something and the purple monster was real we've saved the planet from destruction - HURRAY

We should choose Column A obviously.....

By the way did I mention that the space monster will only stop its quest to destroy the earth if everyone pays me $10 each. I am the only one who can communicate with the monster and the only one who can call it off -- it's purple but invisible until its about to attack.

This guys argument is absolutely stupid ---- the complete absence of probabilities is the issue as Ken points out -- in my analogy the probability of the purple space monster being real is kinda remote don't you think 

I agree with Skip that if it's a problem we're far better off trying to adapt to it rather than trying to stop the forces of nature. Plus some warming could be a good thing for arable land etc. I also think we have far bigger fish to fry as far as human suffering and environmental problems -- just look at Africa.

Brian

Quoting lyonsden5:

Quote:
Quoting bbursiek:

Quote:
Here's my take on this -- I have a new dire threat we need to be concerned about -- the Purple Space Monster!

[...]

By the way did I mention that the space monster will only stop its quest to destroy the earth if everyone pays me $10 each. I am the only one who can communicate with the monster and the only one who can call it off -- it's purple but invisible until its about to attack.

w-w-w-where do I s-s-s-send the m-m-m-money

Sounds to me like a cue to a song. Shall we all sing together.        

Watch for the One-Eyed, One-Horned Flying Purple People Eaters.

Skip

Quoting JP_S:

Quote:
Not doing anything is also not an option. large pieces of land allong the coast will dissapear, during the heating of the earth, The Netherlands and Cambodja... well there will be only 50% left and for a crowded country as mine there won't be much room left.

Don't worry, we'll arrange for some form of shelter for you, set up some nice parking spaces for your Winnebagos and the like and maybe even teach you how to play soccer....

On topic:

While I agree that the actual cause of the global warming effect has not been determined yet, it should be clear that it's actually happening and that it is bad and troublesome for our current way of life, as it is bringing significant changes to the environment as we know it and will force us to adapt.

Trying to pin this on certain actions or regions is IMO a waste of time, as you can't do so with certainty, so however you call on will defend themselves and point to some other cause, equally valid as nothing in that area (cause) is proven beyond doubt yet.

IMO it would be better to focus on trying to reverse the situation, which probably won't take effect fast enough and because of that also start to adapt to the occuring changes. Even if we were to revert back to the ways of 200 years ago at once, whatever change that would bring would probably take so long to take effect that my nephew currently aged two would probably begin to see a change in the environment. Such things do take time.

Because of that it is correct to point out that we don't know the exact causes and the exact results of certain measures that are currently discussed. What we do now is that doing nothing is going to result in the need to adopt to a situation we are not prepared for and cannot adapt to in a timely fashion (see my above mentioned joking example to our Dutch friends). While pulling their collective legs, truth is that an increase in the ocean's level will swallow coastlines inevitably, resulting in loss of living space for millions around the world, resulting in migration on a global scale and the necessity to provide living space for millions that's not there to begin with.

Diong nothing is inacceptable, but quarreling over who's to blame is equally inefficient. No one who makes a decision regarding this matter today is going to live long enough to see the results for themselves. Those who are selfish and don't have children of their own can easily sit back and say, "This doesn't concern me, I'll be dust by the time something serious actually happens." Those that ahbe a sense of responsibility for future generations (be it their own family members or mankind in general) will have to hope that what they're doing is right and brings positive results.

And I'm sure that not everything discussed today is either necessary or sucessfull if actually put into action.

But doing nothing is only going to help if you believe in diviine intervention and miracles. And hopefully people like that don't get to make the decisions on a larger scale.

Quoting JP_S:

Quote:
Okay, wind, well we have lots of that, but do we really want to put a country full of these mills? Every country should be able to meet it's own demands in electricity IMO. And isn't that defacing the still green areas in certain countries.
I think it would be an abomination to drive to Austria, or France (along the coast) and not seeing the solely the beaches where the Canadians, Americans and British entered. But to see vast amounts of mills generating an irratating hum and defacing the lands.

Funny you should mention wind power.  I don't think you have anything to worry about...especially on the beaches.  Here is why...

We have a HUGE 'wind farm' here in Northern California.  It is in a perfect spot, up in the hills in an area where...due to the way the hills are shaped...the wind is forced to blow quite hard.  This farm could produce countless amounts of energy, but, the windmills sit still and silent.  Why?  Environmentalists...

The same people who rallied against polluting power plants, demanding 'clean energy', have also rallied against these wind farms.  The problem?  "Avian Mortality".  Too many birds are running into the spinning blades and getting killed.

If your beaches are anything like ours, there are far to many sea-birds at risk for there to ever be windmills.