Rule Change (New Staff Power)

[Heat]

But, this misrepresentation can be seen in SteelCurtain's post, reasoning for why I am frustrated being how when I say "Possibility that some sort of conflicting judgement could end up in unfair action taking place" I say this very neutrally for a reason, not suggesting that it will. I even responded to Steel clarifying this. However, Steel, like the other people I have gotten mad at in the past, still pushed this willfully ignorant and ever-so-frustrating notion that I was claiming that "Staff is corrupt", and had a "Low opinion/expectation of staff". It's this mindset that people have, I can never understand, that somehow someone has to be either incredibly in favor of one side, or the other. Simply because I suggested something slightly in favor of one side, especially clarifying that this suggestion was only that the possibility of a single scenario could occur, DOES NOT mean I am extreme in this view, and to suggest this repeatedly after being corrected, not only is willful ignorance, but a failure to attempt to have a proper, meaningful, cooperative conversation with others. That is exactly why I am frustrated whenever I feel misrepresented, and I hope Stimbo, you understand where I am coming from.

I am sorry if I took exception to what your words clearly said. I accept that you didn't mean staff was corrupt, but you have to know that your words said something completely different.

We as a staff bend over backwards in an unwinnable battle to not be biased and not let our feelings about posters color how we vote on infractions. That is really why this rule is necessary. We purposely hamstring ourselves to the rules in order to not let people get under our skin and affect our vote on whether they actually broke the rules. We do this to a fault. Seriously. I wish I could let you peek behind the curtain to see how many reports we get where a poster writes something heinously offensive and we all vote 'no action' because their opinion, while disgusting, hasn't broken a rule.

So please understand that when you write:

I can see staff getting mad at each other for possibly not voting yes, because of their own personal opinions, or staff possibly trying to coerce each other in to voting to pass it.

I take that personally, because there is an assumption required to say that.

Alright I can admit there was some assumption in that statement, although I didn't intend that to be the case. However I still disagree with taking that and then claiming I was claiming staff was corrupt or had a low opinion of them. It could be a personal issue who knows, I just feel like I always go through all this trouble to ensure my words are not misinterpreted and then the exact thing I was trying to prevent from being claimed ends up getting claimed. 

Yes that statement was poorly worded. I really just meant "I could see the possibility of ..." 

So sorry I responded so harshly. I'm just frustrated that's all. But I can understand where you're coming from.