Let's Have a Civil Discussion about Mod Discretion

[Solid Snake]

Originally Posted by Terex4

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting the "Rule of Law" vs "Rule of Man" but considering how I read Snake's post, if the "Rule of Man" didn't apply to our legal system in that each Judge makes interpretations of the law and crimes allegedly committed, Lawyers wouldn't be necessary to guide the process.

Naaah, you've misinterpreted.
Or I did a poor job of explaining the terminology.

The "Rule of Law" and the "Rule of Man" are terms generally tossed about in comparative international legal courses -- the types that analyze the various legal structures in various countries.

Most western countries -- civil law or common law, including the US, UK, France, Germany, etc. -- essentially are "Rule of Law" jurisdictions. The existence of some degree of discretion, or judicial interpretation, is implicit in every one, but "Rule of Law" generally infers that said discretion is substantially curtailed by the existence of objective rules (in statutes, case precedents, etc.) that clearly define what can and cannot be punished.

There's two types of "Rule of Law:" Procedural and Substantive. Procedural is the stuff I learned in Civil and Criminal Procedure classes. Think the Fifth Amendment, as well as every jurisdiction's statutes dictating the procedures under which parties advance litigation. There are rules defining the limits of Discovery, which evidence is admissible and which is not, what the judge decides and what a jury decides, how and when a complaint must be issued, etc.

Substantive is, like: "Battery" is a tort with a definition that includes required elements (such as the fact that you actually have to make physical contact with the victim; merely scaring the victim from afar into physical injury is not "battery" but may be "assault.") Statutes and common law precedent (in the U.S. and U.K.) define what the required elements are. If the required elements are not met, a judge or jury can't find the alleged tortfeasor guilty of battery, even if the judge or jury thinks that the guy (or gal) is totally a jerk and did something wrong and deserves to be punished.

So we are a "Rule of Law" jurisdiction, and the fact that judges and juries still have a small degree of discretion in, for example, solving factual ambiguities or discerning the degree of punishment to inflict doesn't change the fact that there are concrete rules that regulate the process and provide notice to citizens regarding what behaviors will result in litigation and what behaviors are acceptable.

"Rule of Man" is most often associated with authoritarian regimes (in the bad examples) and the Confucian ideal in Chinese legal tradition (in the good examples.) There, complete discretion -- or at least, substantial discretion -- is vested in individuals perceived to be capable of discerning when violations have occurred.

The difference is that in "Rule of Man" societies, the men -- and not the laws -- define what constitutes a violation and can basically do so at whims.

So, say I scare you into falling off a cliff, but do not actually instigate any physical contact. I don't push you off the cliff, but I scream "Boo!" with the deliberate intent of frightening you into losing your footing. In an ideal "Rule of Man" society, the judge can say fuck the traditional definition of battery and find me guilty of committing battery anyway. Essentially, the rules can be bent a bit because we "trust" the benevolence and intelligence of the administrators to do what's right.

Unfortunately, in a less-than-ideal "Rule of Man" society, what can often happen is, for example, a definition of corruption that encompasses all cases of corruption that the government wants to prosecute, but does not encompass any case of corruption that the government deems desirable because it benefits the party in power.

In practice, the cynical legal realists out there would probably say that even "Rule of Law" systems have a bit too much "Rule of Man" discretion in them. After all, despite all our statutes and laws, the 'right' actors can still get away with corruption and not face prosecution because enough loopholes exist to avoid the just outcome.
Still, the distinction's important in theory, even if it doesn't often work out that way because humanity sucks.


S-S-S-SNAKEPOST AWAY

EDIT: REGARDING DRAW MOHAMMED DAY AND RACISM:

It is racist, but it's racist from the perspective of the motivation of many -- not ALL, but MANY -- of the participants in Draw Mohammed Day, not the perspective of the offended members of the Muslim faith themselves.

Yes, many Muslims are in fact East Asian (Indonesia), Sub-Saharan African, or Caucasian (Bosnia) in ethnic descent. They'd be equally offended by a picture of Mohammed, presumably.

But most the Europeans and Americans involving themselves in this bullshittery? They're too ignorant to perceive Islam as anything but Arabic. And their goal is to offend Arabs.
This would perhaps be easiest to display simply by showing a Draw Mohammed participant an image of a Caucasian Muslim and an image of an Arabic Coptic Christian. I'm betting the participant would knee-jerkingly assume that the Arabic Coptic Christian would be the target of said shenanigans, and would subsequently view the movement directed as a criticism of the perceived failings of the Arab, even though the Arab wouldn't actually be offended at all.

Given their motivations, it's right to call their participation -- perhaps even the movement itself -- as motivated by racism. Because a lot of hatred towards Islam is really just directed, as of right now, towards Arabs, and a lot of that hatred can't even distinguish between Arabic Muslims, Christians, Jews, etc. To the average racist asshole, every Arab is Muslim, and no non-Arab is Muslim, and every Arab is the enemy, because fuck those guys for 9-11 or some shit.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Snake
really quick here, just one thing:
Do you have any idea how hard it is to read that and take it seriously when there's a gif of Pinkie Pie and Applejack right there?

[shiney]

Easy. Snake is Pinkie Pie, and NPF is Applejack.

Funny note I just saw that episode on Saturday. <3

[A Zarkin' Frood]

The problem with Snakeposts is ever since he became a huge-ass brony I can't take them seriously anymore because I imagine them being spoken out loud in the voice of Pinkie Pie. Alternatively: Sung.

[POS Industries]

Originally Posted by Bells

So, wouldn't be "Bigotry" instead of Racism?

See, this is where I feel bad because the night the thread started I thought, "You know, I should mention this because the blanket term of 'bigotry' is really more apt here" but I had faith in everyone to not have a big shitfit over it because I am an idiot. Then I mentioned it to Liz after I got home from work the next day to see that y'all had a big shitfit over it and Liz ended up banned and she was all, "Oh wow, yeah, that would have worked a lot better."

So, um, my bad?

Like, "bigoted" works great because it totally cuts off the whole "naw man I don't hate brown people, just their stupid suicide bombing moon god religion" excuse before it can get going.

Though I'm actually on the side of it being totes racist because, come on now, do you think anyone involved in shit like "Draw Muhammed Day" pictures any Muslims at all looking like this:

Short answer: No.
Long answer: Hell no.

[Terex4]

That is much clearer, thanks Snake.

[BitVyper]

I just wanna say that since Liz was banned, I've opened up chat a few times to find people rejoicing that they don't have to walk on PC eggshells anymore. If Liz going off the deep end is only thing that keeps people from really throwing that racist, sexist bigotry of theirs around, then fuck it, give Liz an open license to be as angry as she wants. I mean don't get me wrong; I'm still kind of peeved at Liz for some crap she pulled in a discussion we had awhile back, but if putting up with that is the sacrifice I have to make so that everyone else thinks about what they're posting then welp, I guess I'll just deal with that.

[synkr0nized]

Originally Posted by BitVyper

I just wanna say that since Liz was banned, I've opened up chat a few times to find people rejoicing that they don't have to walk on PC eggshells anymore. If Liz going off the deep end is only thing that keeps people from really throwing that racist, sexist bigotry of theirs around, then fuck it, give Liz an open license to be as angry as she wants.

I'm pretty sure this is likely not what anyone meant, but, I mean, yes, NPF, don't show to me that Liz is the only thing keeping your asshole side in check.

[Magus]

I just want to say that is the true acme of a Snakepost. I read the first three or four paragraphs, scrolled down and saw something regarding Rule of Man v. Rule of Law and I was just like "No. There is no way this will ever be worth my time. Ever."

I commend you on the length of this, Snake. My hat is off to you.

EDIT: Well in regards to Liz's banning how could they not ban Liz? I assumed she meant to get banned or she wouldn't have done that.

That topic devolved incredibly quickly anyway and was going to get shut in about one or two more posts besides.

[Grandmaster_Skweeb]

Originally Posted by BitVyper

I just wanna say that since Liz was banned, I've opened up chat a few times to find people rejoicing that they don't have to walk on PC eggshells anymore.

Pretty much boils down to any topic under the sun could set off a drama tsar bomba at the slightest perceived provocation. Often gets referenced, but the Mass Effect thread is a golden example. If one's opinion doesn't align with Liz it was inherently wrong. No debate. No chance to explain. Just outright wrong and if you stick to your guns the rage knife gets twisted further and you're an idiototic racist hatemongering oppressive colorful expletive so-and-so.

That's what is being alluded to. I've expressed I'm sick of it, because I like all you's folks and don't want to have to second guess anything I say because it'll cause a flipout. I enjoy a good debate as much as the next person, except when it pretty much would always devolve into a 'take verbal abuse or walk away' situation.