Originally posted by Cribs
God has put it on my heart to apologize for the unacceptable
actions that led to my well-warranted, temporary banishment
from the forums. Several personal and community-wide
apologies are in order.
First and foremost, I'm sorry for the vicious personal attack
that I mercilessly carried out upon pradtf. I said several
things that were simply untrue, ...[text shortened]... orthy actions.
With deep regrets of the past, and a hopeful outlook on the future,
Dr. Cribs
An apology that isn't an apology. I cannot say it in a more polite way, Cribsie, otherwise I'm forced to lie.
Originally posted by ivanhoehey don't feel bad, sirivanhoe!
Could you translate your post in a way it is understandable for a simple Dutchmen ?
i didn't understand it either, but rc has assured me that it was just a computer joke of some sort.
(well i'm off the hook at any rate)
in friendship,
prad
Originally posted by ivanhoeThat post is a joke, as I assume yours is. However, the difference is that you speak very good English and I speak no Dutch at all. However unfair it may be, my request that you translate can be seen as ingenuous; I don't think yours can.
Could you translate your post in a way it is understandable for a simple Dutchmen ?
(Oops, don't press the "alert moderator" button. The "simple Dutchman" is me )
The irony within this thread is palpable.
In case people haven't realized, here is one of the main problems being discussed (and, for once, this post will be short). We live in a world with different people with different and mutually exclusive points of view. This, in and of itself should not be a problem. As people tend to think that their views are best (or why would they hold them?), they usually feel compelled to convert people to their point of view. Again, this is, in and of itself not a problem. It is what makes for a lively, entertaining and edifying debate.
However, because some people are unable to separate disliking opposing views from disliking the people who hold those views, the result is often an attack on the person, rather than a challenge to that person's views. And, even more frequently, some people seem inclined to respond to opposition to their views as personal attacks and lash out in response. Either situation results in moderated threads, and the removal of posts that have the potential to expand discussion or the flooding of insults within a thread, diluting discussion.
One solution, one which I personally oppose (all apologies to those who disagree) rests on the following premise: If the topic of a thread has the possibility of causing controversy, one can assume people will be insulted and the result will be a thread which will be highly moderated. Solution: Since moderation is an undesirable drain on resources, said topics should be avoided, or, if not they will be deleted before discussion ensues.
This gets to the notion of moderation which I address in the thread "Forums (again)" and need not be reiterated.
To clarify what I mean, using imaginary people, of course, the formula for the disintigration of healthy debate, takes either of the following two formats:
Format #1
"Cribbage" posits with clever, but controverisal statement X.
"Praditor" retorts with statement Y, which conflicts with X.
"Cribbage" responds with explanation Z, making Y appear unsound, but modifies his own to X'.
"Praditor" maintains Y, because it's gentler on people's sensibilities.
"Nematode" writes a dissertation on why expressing controversial idea X and challenging people to reevaluate how they think can be a glorious thing, and supplies examples from literature, art, history and music, with 4 figures, 9 tables, 3 references to webpages, some footnotes and a bibliography.
"Praditor" maintains Y, states that X is oppressive, and asks kindly that moderators censor it from now on, and thanks people for discussion.
Enter Moderation.
Format #2
"Regalturkey" states complicated idea A.
"SirWalter" replies, "You idiot, it's not A. It's F."
"Regalturkey" inquires, "F? But F has B, C, D flaws? What flaws does A have?"
"SirWalter" rejoinders, "It's F because everyone agrees it's F, moron."
"Ddoor" points out that many people, including groups H, I and some of J don't hold this position.
"SirWalter" states "Well, I don't agree and most people don't either so A is wrong."
Enter Moderation.
Nemesio
-----
*Any resemblance that the preceding post has to existing people or incidents (within or outside of RHP) is purely coincidental. NemesioCorp Productions apologizes in advance and on behalf of its writers for any controversy, challenge to a person's faith or deeply held beliefs, and any implicit or explicit insult. The above statement does not reflect the views of RHP as an institution, any of its proprietors, or any other member of said organization.
Originally posted by nemesioLOL I'm looking forward to the sequel.
The irony within this thread is palpable.
In case people haven't realized, here is one of the main problems being discussed (and, for once, this post will be short). We live in a world with different people with different and mutually exclusive points of view. This, in and of itself should not be a problem. As people tend to think that their views are ...[text shortened]... iews of RHP as an institution, any of its proprietors, or any other member of said organization.
Nemesio wrote:
To clarify what I mean, using imaginary people, of course, the formula for the disintigration of healthy debate, takes either of the following two formats:
Format #1
"Cribbage" posits with clever, but controverisal statement X.
"Praditor" retorts with statement Y, which conflicts with X.
"Cribbage" responds with explanation Z, making Y appear unsound, but modifies his own to X'.
"Praditor" maintains Y, because it's gentler on people's sensibilities.
"Nematode" writes a dissertation on why expressing controversial idea X and challenging people to reevaluate how they think can be a glorious thing, and supplies examples from literature, art, history and music, with 4 figures, 9 tables, 3 references to webpages, some footnotes and a bibliography.
"Praditor" maintains Y, states that X is oppressive, and asks kindly that moderators censor it from now on, and thanks people for discussion.
Yup, that really clarified things for me! 😉
If I may be so bold:
The problem here is reality vs. humour. What one person finds funny another seems to take seriously. And vice-versa.
So X makes a joke and Y responds as if the joke was a true statement.
X then responds to Y's true statement as if that was a joke.
And that results in two things:
A. A very funny thread for those not involved
B. Frustration on both X and Y's part.
Now, I hate to play the councilor here, so much so, that I can't even spell the damned word (this is a joke by interlude by the way), but let me ask you ALL one little question:
What was Fonzy?
Come on. What was Fonzy?
Fonzy was cool.
Let's all be little Fonzy's then, shall we?
(returning to seriousness, that was from Pulp Fiction, by the way):
As with any interaction, you have a person sending a message, a message and a person receiving a message.
Not as with every interaction though you have people from various countries, cultures (and believe me the Dutch sense of humour is not the same as the Scottish sense of humour) and various levels of English to contend with. No facial expressions and body language to add meaning to a sentence.
Now, one can project a problem with the message or a problem with receiving the message on the sender, BUT, it is usually much wiser to keep control of matters and project the problem of a message on one's self.
This means that a sender should try to ensure that the message is clear.
This means that the receiver should send feedback (maybe even PM, so as not to 'dirty' the thread) to the sender if he/she is in doubt of the intent.
It also means that it's okay to misinterpret the meaning of a message and that's where a culture of safety comes in. You have to feel safe on the boards to make mistakes and have them bettered for you.
So, say I misinterpret a joke and reply dead serious-like. If somone notices this (I'm not saying that they will, but if they do) then they should PM me about it, so that I can adjust my behaviour accordingly. This is also the case if the message is serious.
Do note however that spontaniousness will be less fore-coming in certain situations.
Cribs, you go man... One of the 7 recs. is from me ...
Why?
Cause I'm sick and tired of all those talk about to say and what not to say ...
If someone wants to call me a p*thetic w*nker, then that is fine by me. At least then I know where I am at ... This whole pretentious don't step on anyones toe's business is boring and annoying. If I feel someone is a complete t*sser, I damn right want to tell him/her that ...
Well, that at least is my humble opinion ...
Boris
Originally posted by The Slow PawnRight on.
Cribs, you go man... One of the 7 recs. is from me ...
[b]Why?
Cause I'm sick and tired of all those talk about to say and what not to say ...
If someone wants to call me a p*thetic w*nker, then that is fine by me. At least then I know where I am at ... This whole pretentious don't step on anyones toe's business is boring and annoyi ...[text shortened]... mn right want to tell him/her that ...
Well, that at least is my humble opinion ...
Boris[/b]
Fight Fire with Fire!
Honesty is my only Excuse!
All these words, I don't just say...
Dr. Cribs
Originally posted by CribsWell, that position is also rather extreme. I'm not one of those people who advocates "middle grounds" blindly, but in this case I think finesse and detachment are called for, though I obviously rarely achieve either.
Right on.
Fight Fire with Fire!
Honesty is my only Excuse!
All these words, I don't just say...
Dr. Cribs
Originally posted by The Slow PawnI have to disagree most strongly. If you're happy for someone to insult you then that's your business, but how does that give you the right to insult anyone you please? You might say that they should be more thick skinned, I say why should they have to be? Should the forums be for the hardened few only? Justify that.
Cribs, you go man... One of the 7 recs. is from me ...
[b]Why?
Cause I'm sick and tired of all those talk about to say and what not to say ...
If someone wants to call me a p*thetic w*nker, then that is fine by me. At least then I know where I am at ... This whole pretentious don't step on anyones toe's business is boring and annoyi ...[text shortened]... mn right want to tell him/her that ...
Well, that at least is my humble opinion ...
Boris[/b]
And all this talk of censorship of what we discuss is rubbish. I can count on 1 hand the number of topics that have been removed from these forums because the subject was unwelcome. We are free to talk about whatever we wish, it's only when posters resort to insulting other members or attacking them personally (and not thier opinions) that posts are removed.
Originally posted by belgianfreakThis is correct; I don't think I mentioned censorship anywhere. What I am afraid of is an overly loose definition of 'offensive', but I don't really think this position is worth arguing anymore, because it is very rarely a problem. I'm sorry that my earlier attempt to discuss a specific potential injustice degenerated into bickering about an issue that, by and large, does not exist.
I have to disagree most strongly. If you're happy for someone to insult you then that's your business, but how does that give you the right to insult anyone you please? You might say that they should be more thick skinned, I say why should they have to be? Should the forums be for the hardened few only? Justify that.
And all this talk of censorship ...[text shortened]... ng other members or attacking them personally (and not thier opinions) that posts are removed.
Cribs...
Shizzle happens, foo', you gotta learn the lingo that these other foo' can't progress too...
That was absoltue crap.
Lemme put it this way.
People say crap on these forums. Everyone does. Personal attacks happen every day, and in most threads. Some people take it in stride, some bitch about it for months.
Apologies are a thing that we need more of on this site.