Subject:
|
Re: Flaming about guidance given
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 4 Mar 2002 16:28:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
873 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Matt Hein writes:
> > Don't you think its amazing how one post on portholes
>
> and an off topic follow up, one out of many that were ON topic...
I'll connect the dots here, to make it as clear and concise as possible.
The topic, in this specific case, was when should issues such as this get
bumped to .admin. My issue had *nothing* to do with gentle guidance. I've
said it before and I'll say it again, I am a proponent of community
guidance, and gently pointing out that mayhaps when someone slips, they
should take the time to reconsider their position or what they did. Gentle
guidance is *not* the issue here.
So all these posts concerning this issue were *on* topic in the .admin group
where we are discussing what is appropriate and what isn't, for where else
are we suppose to *discuss* such things and get them resolved?
>
> > can turn into a full fledged flame war?
In not any of my posts did I flame anyone. If someone perceived *any* of my
posts as an attack against them personally, then I apologize. I didn't mean
to, didn't set out to, nor do I have a vendetta against anyone here. If
someone can point out where I may have flamed someone, I can see where I can
improve on my style of writing to avoid such misunderandings in the future.
We have a saying in my church circles to 'hate the sin, not the sinner'. A
quick definition of 'sin' is to 'slightly miss the mark' (an old archery
term--if you didn't get bullseye, you 'sinned') I have an issue with the
'sin', not anyone personally.
I appreciate Larry. I admire his dedication to LEGO, trains, et al. In my
history of LUGNET I have actively been involved in 3 issues such as this.
One in which I didn't realize the cross-posting issues but still maintain
the general idea that gentle guidance should only be done once, instead of
everyone jumping on the bandwagon, saying 'you were wrong!', which is what I
saw happening in that particular case. The second was *defending* Larry in
his (tm). It's his and he has the right to do with it as he pleases and
people should accept that. We should be adult enough to understand that it
is a right, even in the lawbooks, to defend and use the (tm). This should
not have been an issue in the first place but for petty people just looking
for things to gripe about. This somewhat huge thread is the third issue.
I'm not 'camping out', waiting for Larry, or others, to slip up and make an
issue for me to pounce on. I am 'champion of the underdog' (who is, imho,
in the right) who has been 'wronged' by 'governement sanctioned' repressions.
>
> I agree.
>
> If you're actually concerned about flame wars though, ask yourself who is
> doing the flaming and who is merely defending their actions in support of
> what the bulk of the community has indicated it desires... gentle guidance
> to help people stick to the norms.
Gentle guidance does not mean, imho (as all my posts are--my humble opinion)
bumping a small 'perceived' infraction (one post that was off topic, which
was a direct response to a previous post that was on-topic). Norms are
norms--they're not 'cast in stone' and immoveable. Norms aren't even laws.
They are there to give consistancy. If there is a repeat offender that
always 'bucks' against the norms, or a thread that has gone on longer than
this one, being off-topic, then that's abnormal. In this situation, the
reply that got bumped was in defense of the previous post. Did it need
guiding? Guide yes, bump no. Clear enuf?
> Consider the alternative: guidance given and received without incident, and
> no flamage. Wouldn't that be much more pleasant? The appropriate response to
> guidance is "thanks, I'll keep that in mind", not bucking.
So Larry, the appropriate response, again from my point of view, would be,
"Thanks Dave, maybe I shouldn't have bumped this up to .admin when I did."
Heck, you could go on to say why you did it, as long as you understand that
it didn't have to happen in the first place. I have done nothing but give
'gentle guidance' in this matter. The flurry that ensued was not caused by
me, I'm just merely defending my actions and offering guidance.
> I said it before... the fact that "rowdy elements" unreasonably buck against
> guidance isn't going to make me (and others) stop giving it. But it does
Nor should you, Larry. I defend your right to give guidance As for me, I
am not going to stop giving my gentle guidance, even when I perceive that
people are unreasonably bucking against it. Everything you have said in
your post I completely agree with. The idea that my issue here was with the
bumping to .admin and the corresponding fallout and *not* with the gentle
guidance was clearly missed and I'll endeavour to make myself more crystal
clear in the future, connecting the dots a little better.
> indeed get very tiresome to get dragged into these relatively pointless
> discussions about it over and over when the admins have already said it's
> appropriate (and appreciated) to give gentle guidance.
Discussion is never pointless if *all* of us come away with a better
understanding of the situation.
If you are unwilling to even rethink your position on an issue then there is
no growth or coming to an understanding, there is no betterment of the
community in general, so cutting to the bottom of the page--what's the point?
The admins are appreciated. The gentle guidance is appreciated. The admins
allowing us to guide each other is appreciated, and makes for a better
community. How many times do I have to say that? If, however, the guidors
cannot handle being gently guided at times, and label people that try to
guide them as 'whiners' and 'rowdy elements', mayhaps they should rethink
their position.
Yes there have been times when people want the arguements just to hear
themselves yap, want the flame war 'cause they got nuttin' better to do,
want the trashing others to make themselves feel superior. This is not one
of those times, nor am I prone to do such, and I resent the 'implication'
that I am one of these people.
I believe in edifying one another, about building one another up and
overlooking, or gently guiding, the small infractions. I believe in not
getting my knickers in a knot over slight transgressions. I believe in not
involving the 'big-wigs' until it's absolutely necessary (for they have far
too much to do as it is and shouldn't be burdened with the small things).
When things get blown out of proportion is where I stand up and voice myself.
Beyond that, I'm going to try and close this thing one more time. Hopefully
I've connected the dots clearly and concisely, said something you can read
as *constructive criticism*, and done all of this in a way that did not
offend, cajole, step on, or otherwise cause others to take it personally.
Dave
>
> ++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Flaming about guidance given
|
| (...) and an off topic follow up, one out of many that were ON topic... (...) I agree. If you're actually concerned about flame wars though, ask yourself who is doing the flaming and who is merely defending their actions in support of what the bulk (...) (22 years ago, 3-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
39 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
