A quick word on "Overwhelmingly Negative Influences"

[Losty]

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.

Here's a problem you may not have considered. There's no way for us as staff to decide if someone intentionally and irrationally did something so creating such a rule would only serve to annoy you more. You'd want to know why people aren't being punished for violating the rule and we'd have to say because there's no way to prove they've violated it.

[Joods]

I would think reading the posts in any given thread, where it's clearly an issue would be enough. Especially when the behavior has been admitted to by the person causing the shitstorm in the first place. But it all comes down to subjectivity doesn't it? What one person views as being offensive, another may not. It is what it is, I guess.

Seems to be the only way to solve the issue is for me to place limits on my own freedom of speech and let the offender do what he does best.

[LastPoet]

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.

Here's a problem you may not have considered. There's no way for us as staff to decide if someone intentionally and irrationally did something so creating such a rule would only serve to annoy you more. You'd want to know why people aren't being punished for violating the rule and we'd have to say because there's no way to prove they've violated it.

So it was a bad idea. I tought so, given that it somewhat violated the quorum idea. Dunno if that is still going, but it was my baby.

[LastPoet]

Hindshight is 20/20 BTW

[LastPoet]

Is this all about EP? I am sure he would love being the center of attention lol. For that matter, Little Rik? They are harmless.

[Joods]

Neither.

[LastPoet]

If it is about Drich, we should keep him as a reminder of how fucked up one can become by religion. Still pretty much harmless. He shows the bottom line of the feeble dogma.

[Losty]

Can't we talk about overwhelmingly positive influences?...... Like me for example.

I think you just won the thread, bae <3

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I would think reading the posts in any given thread, where it's clearly an issue would be enough. Especially when the behavior has been admitted to by the person causing the shitstorm in the first place. But it all comes down to subjectivity doesn't it? What one person views as being offensive, another may not. It is what it is, I guess.

Seems to be the only way to solve the issue is for me to place limits on my own freedom of speech and let the offender do what he does best.

Heres the thing though, and we need to be careful about what we are regarding as contravening the rules.

Offence isn't covered by the rules. We don't care if a post is 'offensive' as that's a meaningless term. After all anything can be offensive to anyone, and nobody should be interested in moderating 'offence'.

I also just feel we need to be clear on this salient point. Nobody is restricting your freedom of speech. Not once has anyone told you 'you can't do x or y' if it does not contravene the rules. That there have been encounters between members who disagree is not something we can do anything about. We aren't here to moderate interpersonal conversations and relationships any more than we are to moderate offence. I appreciate the conversations in question revolve around heated and personal topics, but really, the principle is the same. I'm not going to moderate people's beliefs, ever. It's not what I volunteered to do and if someone told me I should I would leave and never come back.

I'm not going to comment further on this now unless someone needs me to. I think I've made my position clear, and I hope that people can appreciate our stance and we can move forward together as a forum. I am a member before being staff, after all. I didn't stop being a member when I became an admin. In fact I view my staff duties as almost non-existent because this forum is, generally, pretty good at self-regulation.

[Foxaèr]

*Proud negative influence*