Subject:
|
Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 27 Dec 2004 23:57:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
8234 times
|
| |
|
|
Snipped most of it to focus on one point
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
> I have no issues whatsoever of voicing grievances (and bringing up 'browncoats'
> is arrogant presumption once again (not you Ben, but I want one reply, so,
> again, Ken)--if you do a history of mine and most other people's posts who are
> against your wrongful interpretation of the 10152 issue, you will note that many
> of us love debates and discussion issues and we are as far as one could possibly
> get to censoring people's ideas and/or posts.
Note that saying that you think a discussion is over, does anyone have anything
NEW to add, is not censorship. If no one adds anything new, asking that people
not repeat the same points except LOUDER is not censorship either. If someone
continues to bait people, casts aspersions on people's character (whether
directly or by implication, or even by backhanded inference by posing "have you
stopped beating your wife" questions) and in general acts in a manner not
becoming that of a civilised person engaged in civilised discourse (and thus,
not abiding by the TOS here), giving that someone a temporary or permanent time
out is not censorship either.
LUGNET does not censor. It does, however, require that people abide by the rules
of LUGNET. People who are not willing to do so may not be able to post here. So
be it. We may warn them privately. We may warn them in a bantering manner,
informally, but publicly. We may warn them in a stern official public manner. We
may not warn them at all (not the preferred approach but I won't rule it out).
But we will maintain decorum.
> That said, if you have a legitimate grievance, by all means voice it, but also--
>
> first--open your mind to the possibility that your grievance may not be
> legitimate, and maybe you should re-evaluate what actually happened instead of
> adhering to your wrongful interpretation.
>
> secondly, and, in my opinion, infinitly more important, voice your grievance in
> a polite, non-condescending way such that people who are reading or listening to
> your side of hte issue are not automatically put on the defensive due to your
> tone and your apparant unconsciously smug 'high horse' attitude. On the flip
> side, if you're into the debate by a couple of weeks and the other side just
> isn't getting it, then, by all means, release the facetiousness.
No. Facetiousness is not welcome here. Even if you're provoked and sorely put
upon.
If you are a couple weeks (or a couple hundred posts) into a debate and the
other side "isn't getting it", and especially if you find yourself restating
what you already said, state your points one last time if you must, summarized
as best you can, (or just reference them, or just skip this stating the points
part) and then say "I'm done, the other side doesn't get it but I made my point"
and MOVE ON. Or skip saying "I'm done" even...but move on.
Let the other guy have the last word if you have, to but move on. Please. (and
thank you, as Nik always says)
Dave, I know what you really mean and I know you're not advocating facetiousness
as a general rule, but I am using your words as a way to be clear here. LUGNET
will maintain decorum.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
| (...) Ditto (...) Censorship does come into play when you say "LUGNET doesn't (yet) have threadlocking. But I personally (and this is not a statement of policy, I am not wearing my hat) wish we did. Because if we did, I'd lock this thread so fast it (...) (19 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
| (...) One more time from the top--if you want to misinterpret what happened, by all means. But, let's look at Ken's very example, which is completely inaccurate to the actual situation. (...) LEGO made no such promise and there was no going back on (...) (19 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
257 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
