Posts from Obleka Morale

"Violation of moral and ethical norms"—we see this phrase on the forum more and more often. Sometimes I get the impression that you and I are immoral creeps who know nothing of honor and justice, of mercy and compassion, of good intentions, and other key concepts of ethics. Or is this simply a case of ordinary ignorance? An appeal to broad and vague concepts because of an inability to justify one's actions with precise and concise definitions?

Let's figure this out, but first, let's separate the concepts of Morality and Ethics. First of all, what is Morality? Morality is one of the methods of normative regulation of human actions. Morality encompasses life goals, principles, motives, and moral foundations; it defines what is good and evil, honor and dishonor, justice and injustice for each individual and for society as a whole. To a large extent, Morality is formed as a result of upbringing and primarily serves regulatory functions. A person's moral judgments can be justified within a certain system of norms, but it is incorrect to call any system of moral values "wrong" when the evaluation is made solely from the position of another moral system. As Franklin said, "Sometimes we call people fools simply because their views do not coincide with ours" (the quote is not exact, but that is the general meaning as I remember it). As you can see, this is an extremely broad and imprecise concept, which is why politicians and public figures love to hide behind it.

Ethics, unlike morality, has clearer boundaries. Ethics is the philosophical study examining morality and virtue. It is ethics that draws the line between good and evil. Ethics is not at all a collection of rules on how a person should behave, as many somehow believe, but a philosophical system of views, including a system of moral norms and concepts of what happiness, the meaning of life, truth, beauty, etc., are. As you can see, ethics is even broader than morality. And it is understood differently by many philosophers, and simply by people in general.

As funny as it may sound, everything written above has no direct relation to what I wanted to discuss, but I nonetheless felt it necessary to provide precision and make the discussion more substantial.
What I wanted to say is that I do not like it when someone imposes their point of view on me, and not only imposes it but also forbids me from saying things that, in their opinion, are a "Violation of moral and ethical norms," yet are not a violation of so-called "public morality." And the judgment is based precisely on their strictly personal point of view, which they did not justify in any way even after being asked to do so, repeating only "Violation of moral and ethical norms," "Violation of moral and ethical norms"... And as you have already seen, anything can be explained by this definition.
Let's look at concrete examples: besides the fact that Am was demoted to a regular user, two threads were closed, which incredibly surprised me—the thread about hentai and an even calmer thread about prostitution.

In the hentai thread, a normal question was asked: "Do you like hentai (anime erotica)?" This is a perfectly normal discussion of a person's preferences and a normal question that, moreover, one can choose not to answer. Discussing female beauty or attitudes toward erotica does not go beyond the boundaries of current public morality (nor did it go beyond the boundaries of ancient public morality, e.g., Ancient Greek or 17th-18th century French; in those systems, it was normal not only to discuss but to depict naked bodies; in the language of art, nudity always signified freedom).

Even more incomprehensible to me is the closing of the Prostitution thread, in which everyone was simply expressing their attitude toward such a phenomenon of our society; here, I cannot find a "Violation of moral and ethical norms" at all.

I want it explained to me where I made a mistake in defining morality and ethics, or for you to present your understanding of these things; I also want it explained clearly and plainly why these threads were closed. Where do you think I am right, and where am I wrong?

The actions of the administration are not to be discussed.

Violation of moral and ethical norms:
discussing issues that, in one way or another, touch upon topics that are simply unacceptable in decent society, such as:
Discussing the actions of the administration.
A...

The actions of the administration are not to be discussed.

Someone has a heavy bat that no one has the right to take away) it would be a sin not to wave it around :)

Morality, you say? As has already been noted, morality is not the same for every individual. Interestingly, even so-called "public morality" differs among different people. Different people live in different environments; in some places, 7-year-old children drinking and smoking is normal, while in others, it's a catastrophe.
But, in my opinion, the issue isn't that at all, but rather that some people have an inflated (often, groundlessly) sense of self-worth, which leads them to believe that their opinion is the Absolute Truth.
ps It's the most real, bloodthirsty Gestapo, I swear.

What do you think, comrades, does this fact suggest – that the most prolific offenders*, according to the current violations table®, are primarily the most active visitors to the "Everything and Anything" section? I've been observing from the sidelines for a while due to a lack of time, not participating much, casually skipping some of the new posts, simply forgetting to read them or not having time to read them before they were deleted (and there were quite a few deletions), so I might not know everything, and I might not fully understand everything, but this observation doesn't seem like an unlikely coincidence to me, just as the possibility that the section has become a haven for notorious forum troublemakers. Maybe I'm like a blind man, not seeing some important detail, some essential truth, or perhaps I'm completely confusing the sky with the stars reflected in the pond at night?

I have a few thoughts on this, which I will probably keep to myself, at least for now. It will be interesting to see how the administration handles this issue.

*By "prolific offenders," we mean users who have accumulated a significant number of violation points and are at the top of the list of offenders. (author's note)

"Public morality" differs from person to person. Different people live in different environments; in some places, 7-year-old children drinking and smoking is normal, while in others, it's a catastrophe.

Here, the term "public morality" is used incorrectly, but it is true that morality is different for everyone. It is influenced not only by upbringing, as I already wrote, but also by adaptation, and you are right about that; a person adapts to the society in which they live and either starts smoking or, fearing condemnation, develops an aversion to this habit.
However, public morality is a more stable system accepted by society, and it is with this system that the moral system of each person is compared, which is incorrect because public morality changes just as much, and for each historical period, society, or culture, it is different. Therefore, a person's system of beliefs cannot be compared with public morality.

Perhaps, like a blind man, I don't see some important detail, some essential truth, or perhaps I am confusing the sky with the stars reflected at night on the surface of a pond?

Beautiful; it's not often that someone expresses their thoughts in such a way.

P.S.
I still ask you not to engage in arguments but to stay within the topic.

The administrator, apparently, is unaware of this state of affairs. Therefore, the issue of the morality of posts largely rests with the moderators. What am I getting at? The fact that a post is often considered immoral on the surface, but a moderator, in my opinion, should think three times before deleting an "immoral" post. For example: a thread about hentai. Although, to put it mildly, I don't like this type of animation, I don't consider it particularly immoral. Because erotica is considered an art form. And to prohibit access to beauty is stupid and absurd. Moreover, a topic about prostitution is not immoral, but quite the opposite – it shows the causes of this social pathology. But here's an example: let's say there's a thread about world history. One of the posts describes and mentions the city of Suceava (the former capital of Moldova in the Middle Ages). Should this post be considered immoral in the "insult" category? No, of course not! And a moderator who would penalize this post could, at best, be considered incompetent. Now we need to think: what are we being punished for? Because the person responsible for maintaining order in matters of morality does not understand the opinions of others?

Since you were so deeply offended by the administration's actions, I will try to comment on the decision.

1) Morality (Latin: moralis – concerning customs) is one of the main ways of normative regulation of human actions. Morality encompasses moral views and feelings, life orientations and principles, goals and motives of actions and relationships, drawing a line between good and evil, conscience and unconscionability, honor and dishonor, justice and injustice, normality and abnormality, mercy and cruelty.

2) Ethics (Greek: ἠθικόν, from ancient Greek: ἦθος – ethos, "character, custom") is the study of the primary causes of morality. Ethics is a doctrine about morality and ethics.

I completely agree that there are topics that are undoubtedly interesting and debatable, and their discussion is allowed, but within certain limits.
However, in our case, these boundaries were violated; in the "Morality" topic, the discussion turned into making vulgar jokes, and in the "Crisis Spurs" topic, the discussion was about contraception methods, and in a vulgar way, etc.

I understand that this is a concern for many young people now, but look where you are; this is, first and foremost, a Heroes forum, and it implies behaving accordingly; this is not some kind of pub, but a society with a high level of morality and ethics.
And I understand that your standards are much lower; after "comedy," there are no standards at all. And don't say that the topic about Hentai is among the topics with a high moral inclination.

Such vulgarity will not even be allowed in the off-topic section, I guarantee it!

Amaranth, your signature violates two portal rules:

4. HeroesWorld prohibits any direct or indirect insults to users, third parties, or organizations.

18. The actions of HeroesWorld moderators and coordinators are not subject to discussion, and if a HeroesWorld user disagrees with their legitimacy in accordance with the current HeroesWorld rules and the current rules of the moderators, then he can, within two weeks from the moment of what he considers to be unlawful actions, send a private message to the HeroesWorld administration with specific claims regarding the actions of the moderators or coordinators, providing appropriate evidence of the unlawfulness of their actions in accordance with the existing HeroesWorld rules.

Sincerely, Xaker.

It depends on what kind of "hyentai" we're talking about. You just need to avoid being overly vulgar, and then you can even talk about such topics as "hyentai." I myself am definitely not a fan of vulgarity. It all depends on how it's presented. And since you're here, comrade Xaker... Please take a look at this:
/topic/at/185715/
Is there any profanity or insults here? Am I missing something? If everything is fine, then why do I have 10 penalty points for this post?

/topic/at/185715/
Is there profanity or insults here? Am I missing something? If everything is fine, then why do I have 10 penalty points for this post?

The violation system is designed so that when a violation is issued, it must be linked to evidence. In this case, one of the moderators did not change the link to the actual evidence; an email explaining the reasons has already been sent to the moderator who issued the violation.

Hmm... It's so fun here...
I was just passing by... Just playing Heroes 5... But I've known Amaranta for quite a while... And I didn't see anything in his signature that would offend me ethically or morally... Shall we all argue together? And give each other Latin translations of various words? Here's one for starters:
Anus Globus - a world on the brink of destruction...

I don't understand how banning a user benefits anyone. For example, who benefited from banning Lok? Or did it actually help the forum? In my opinion, Lok actually made the forum more lively.

1) Morality (Latin: moralis – concerning customs) is one of the main ways of normative regulation of human actions. Morality encompasses moral views and feelings, life orientations and principles, goals and motives of actions and relationships, drawing a line between good and evil, conscience and unconscionableness, honor and dishonor, justice and injustice, normality and abnormality, mercy and cruelty.

2) Ethics (Greek: ἠθικόν, from Ancient Greek: ἦθος – ethos, "character, custom") is the study of the root causes of morality. Ethics is a doctrine about morality and ethics.

We have already clarified the terms, and I don't see the point in copying definitions, as we can open a book or Wikipedia ourselves.
Morality is a very slippery concept, and that's why I felt it was necessary to start the topic with my understanding of these words, so that it is clear from what position I am looking at the situation.

And I understand that your standards are much lower.

Lower than what? Lower than yours? But this is a comparison with one's own values. Is the moderator resorting to extreme measures, closing the topic based solely on his own ideas of moral norms? Discussing erotica is not immoral, but contempt for those around you clearly shows a person's level.

a society with a high level of morality and ethics.

This is a society that understands and respects those around it, fairly assesses people, has a clear understanding of good and evil, and has principles and goals worthy of emulation, and not one where people don't make crude jokes or talk about "low" things. And it is a society that respects the freedom of others. Many humanists wrote about prostitution, and not only condemned it; I won't even mention erotica.
There is nothing criminal about this, and it does not harm anyone, unlike the rude and tactless actions of the administration, based on its own system of moral values, and not even on the rules of the forum.
In reality, these topics are not important to anyone, and no one would pay attention to them if it were not for such rude actions.

p.s.
We are now discussing morality and ethics, and whether a moderator can prohibit something based solely on his own norms, so let's not switch to discussing the actions of the administration as a whole.

And I understand that your standards are much lower.

You are insulting me.

Added 7 minutes later

p.s.
We are currently discussing morality and ethics, as well as whether a moderator can prohibit something based solely on their own standards, so let's not move on to discussing the actions of the administration as a whole.

I believe that a moderator should be guided by the rules of the forum; that's what they are for. Of course, any law is imperfect, at least because it is written by imperfect people, but that doesn't mean that something else should be put first. It would no longer be a forum, but a real bloodbath.

I think we should do it like on many other forums: just have the moderators and coordinators not participate in the "everything about everything" section.

You are insulting me.

Banned for a month
;)

I completely agree that there are topics that are undoubtedly interesting and open for discussion, but within certain limits.
However, in our case, these boundaries were crossed. In the "Morality" topic, the discussion turned into making vulgar jokes, and in the "Crisis Spurs" topic, the discussion was about contraception methods, and in a lewd manner, etc.

I just didn't notice where in the forum rules these boundaries are defined?

I understand that this is a concern for many young people now, but look around you. This is, first and foremost, a Heroes forum, and it implies behaving accordingly. This is not some pub, but a community with a high level of morality and ethics.
And I understand that your standards are much lower; after "comedy," there are no standards at all. And don't say that the topic about Hentai is among the topics with a high moral inclination.

If you look at all the forum topics, you can find quite heroic speech everywhere. And high morality and ethics are overflowing, flooding the fields of the most vile manifestations of all the world's depravity.
By the way, Hentai was originally a designation for content that was not at all pornographic (oh... sorry for my ignorance), it is a style of anime (not directly related to pornography or even eroticism). And it can also be different.

Amaranth, your signature violates 2 rules at once.

There was no insult there) there was a subtle (there wasn't) hint (what is this??), irony (what is this??) that someone considers the author of the signature:

that your standards are much lower, I understand.

nya.