Thread
Print

反對過激言論

反對過激言論

張浩輝:“觀鳥會不可能限制各位會員/嘉賓言論,我明白那一段發言可能引起閣下不安,.....”
fkm: “張浩輝既然尊貴的閣下當日如此回覆我, 為何今天的我打倒昨天的我? 還是親疏有別, 標準尺度各不同?”

以下是我的回應,
1.就算我很想限制 fkm  君的言論,他/她的言論目前仍然是一字未刪改的放在本會討論區上,本會實並未限制 fkm 君的言論。
2.我曾在 fkm 君的言論取出一段來評論,並建議各位慎言慎行,不明白我甚麼時候“打倒了”昨天的我。

很多人怪責鳥會沒有做事,但我認為鳥會已就一些是非黑白明顯的事聲明立場,若果認為鳥會應再進一步為一些灰色地帶作裁決,那麼大家會否承諾當鳥會有裁決之後,會服從鳥會的決定,不再抗爭?

張浩輝

TOP

fkm 說: "但鳥會的甚麼制約, 端要視乎是否合情合理合法."

最同意合情合理這個說法,暫時不要把鳥會個人的作為拉進來,大家先相議一下怎樣才是合情合理,取得共識,然後勸大家遵守。

鳥會會章有幾條宗旨,是大原則,大家認同本會宗旨才好加入,但對一些有爭議的行為,鳥會或有指引,對指示的作用,會內亦有不同意見。

個人一直認為指引是一份建議,供大家參考,對初級鳥友極有幫助,遵守指引辦事,固然能符合鳥會宗旨,但與指引相違的行為,亦未必明顯有違本會宗旨,這中間存在一個灰色地帶,需要按情況斟酌。再進一步,即使指示完美無瑕,若未能清楚向會員解釋,未能為會員廣泛接受,這本指引也許只能作參考,不宜強加於人。

張浩輝

補一下:目前不宜再談人的衝突,因為已談過很多次,無新意,而且真的無助解決問題,好不好集中討論鳥會應有的角色?

[ Last edited by HFCheung at 23/06/2010 14:01 ]

TOP

Let's talk about "What are constructive and what are destructive to the society"?

fkm: “ … many photographers are so disappointed with the HKBWS that they don't even join the club at all,  …. There are also some that has not given up hope totally and ….”

Thanks for reminding me that.  I am very aware of these facts.  If people decide not to join HKBWS, I would not care too much about them.  For our members, I surely want them to participate to make the society a better one.

If any member finds that the society is not working/behaving properly, then the destructive way is to exaggerate it, attack the whole society, convince others that the society is their enemy, persuade the society to get rid of particular members/volunteer, …..

The constructive way is to discuss it carefully in the forum, suggest constructive way forward, come forward as volunteers to help.

The society welcome constructive actions and advice members not to be destructive.

The board of directors and executive committee are volunteers (strictly no pay).  That are trying to help the society by denoting their time and sometimes also money.  Together with members of smaller committees, they are heroes that support the society, and work for benefit of birds and society members.  If any member want to be a volunteer, I am sure he/she will be given the chance to demonstrate their sincerity and ability.

HF Cheung

TOP

2010君的提議有建設性,可以討論一下,但由公眾審判案件,是否已証實不可行?

張浩輝

TOP

如果指引只是建議,那目前的指引非常好,若果指引是鳥會法典,那我覺得有極大害處,將引致鳥會內部無窮無盡的互相指責。

想回應一下鳥會職員在今次討論的角色問題,之前在陳伯被暴力事件暴光之後,鳥會職員在討論區回應,只重申鳥會觀鳥及攝鳥指引/守則一事,被個別討論者評為冷血,以下是我的回應:

6月15日我在辦公室和幾位職員談過網上討論黑捲尾這事,我的結論是職員要少發言,只可以重申鳥會立場,就是重申鳥會指引,所以我覺得這一次職員只是按指示辦事,沒有出錯。以職員身分作出任何言論,都是代表鳥會,所以要十分謹慎。目前大家仍要怪責,那就算在主席身上好了。對於暴力一事,本人已代表鳥會遣責暴力。

張浩輝

TOP

關於反對討論區過激言論問題,我建議以下的具體做法。

鳥會把過激言論分為三級,
1.言論偏激,鳥會會作出呼籲,希望大家克制。
2.言論超過鳥會接受界線,鳥會會給與發言者繼續討論的機會,萬望小心不要過界,再故意過界就會取消發言者的討論資格。
3.言論不雅,所謂“兒童不宜”級數的言論,鳥會會馬上刪除這份發言,並立即取消發言的討論資格。

張浩輝

[ Last edited by HFCheung at 30/06/2010 16:17 ]

TOP

Thread