RE: A quick word on "Overwhelmingly Negative Influences"
October 20, 2016 at 2:02 pm
(This post was last modified: October 20, 2016 at 2:21 pm by Joods.)
I wasn't trying to influence staff. I clearly stated why I pulled my support. I don't use hidden meanings. I'm direct and to the point about it and made no qualms about what I felt. Sorry if anyone read more into that then they should have.
As far as the dictionary goes, as I already said, I know it is not a rule. I specifically said so. Again, being to the point and obvious about that fact.
ETA: And perhaps that is something that could possibly become part of a rule at some point. Intentionally misusing words clearly defined in established dictionaries, for the purposes of inciting drama, causing hurt or otherwise interrupting thread topic flow, is a problem. Something to discuss behind closed doors then? If several pages are wasted because a member chooses to intentionally and irrationally misunderstand the meaning of a word, and it is repeatedly corrected by several contributing members of a given thread , perhaps that should be taken into consideration as the offender causing discord? I don't even know how that would be worded, but in my (apparently worthless) opinion, it ought to be some sort of rule. And no - it's not about limiting one's freedom of speech. Especially when that member specifically goes out of their way to shift the goalposts of the definition of a word, so that it suits their own agenda, it does indeed do harm. It disrupts the flow of the conversation because the focus then becomes all about the person misusing it, and no longer relevant to the actual topic at hand. Just food for thought.
As far as the dictionary goes, as I already said, I know it is not a rule. I specifically said so. Again, being to the point and obvious about that fact.
ETA: And perhaps that is something that could possibly become part of a rule at some point. Intentionally misusing words clearly defined in established dictionaries, for the purposes of inciting drama, causing hurt or otherwise interrupting thread topic flow, is a problem. Something to discuss behind closed doors then? If several pages are wasted because a member chooses to intentionally and irrationally misunderstand the meaning of a word, and it is repeatedly corrected by several contributing members of a given thread , perhaps that should be taken into consideration as the offender causing discord? I don't even know how that would be worded, but in my (apparently worthless) opinion, it ought to be some sort of rule. And no - it's not about limiting one's freedom of speech. Especially when that member specifically goes out of their way to shift the goalposts of the definition of a word, so that it suits their own agenda, it does indeed do harm. It disrupts the flow of the conversation because the focus then becomes all about the person misusing it, and no longer relevant to the actual topic at hand. Just food for thought.
Disclaimer: I am only responsible for what I say, not what you choose to understand.
