Legally right vs morally right

[burntan]

Legally right is easy, you just need to follow the laws and it will be easier if you are the laws maker. In other hand, morally right is controversial, only God know.

We can easily find legally right cases like buying expensive things, selling ridiculous low price mansion, lousy management of cow business but not abusive of power. We can also ban the stupid fella who don't always in line with our views, deny his rights of free speech, because the rule clearly stating that we can legally do that without even giving any reason. The rule also saying that what Moderator say is final, not arguable, not challengeable.

Hypocrisy is saying one thing, but doing it another way... like cakap tak serupa bikin.

[cml]

It takes a greater hipocrite to be able to recognise a smaller hipocrite.

[burntan]

You can reponse any point of views over here, I can accept that as long as you are following the forum rules (can't guarantee that while alllowing the "no reason needed" clause there)

[burntan]

If a forumer getting banned, there is always a valid reason given, just that often the offender can't accept the reason and they never will. To cut the never ending arguement, debating, challenging, it is necessary to have a clause to give absolute power to the Moderator (like ISA) to end the case.

That's my 2 cents.