 |
| |
|
|
MrWhereItsAt
|
 |
New Year's Resolution: 2005 is the year of Where It's At - come get some.
Nov 2001
time: 17:36
|
|
Well with the die cast, I wanted to pop in to express my disappointment with the end decision. NOT to flame the Consuls, but just to acknowledge my strong disagreement with their POVs. Yes, I see the poll result, yes I see the leaders of this game ATM united in their decision, but I saw plenty of reasons to the contrary. I understand the decision, which was made without irrational bias on the part of the Consuls. However, I found that not one, but BOTH threads were closed to comment. 
Now that I have hijacked my own thread before I even got to the topical bit (must be some kind of record there...  ) : when is closing threads and stifling POVs from being expressed too much? I agree that BF was bating the Consuls with his remarks in the closed threads, but members of the leaderhsip responded in kind, and it is THIS that escalated the problem to where it was felt (not without some good cause) better to close the thread.
BF, MZ (in particular) and others - DO NOT turn my thread into a flamewar or a bating thread like the two just closed. I am seriously sick of it and would not be against reporting such things to the Admin if it was the only way to keep discussion going in a civil manner.
This thread is for rational discussion on what I think is a serious couple of concerns. First is the topic title - having threads closed off and preventing those who want to express their opinion in a reasoned and calm manner from doing so. In this case it may well have been proper to stop both of the threads there, but we should NEVER make it seem that members' POVs have to stop being expressed, as long as they are done so in a reasonable manner. Everyone should have the right, as I am doing now, to start/restart a thread detailing their concerns and thoughts.
Second is the tendency of some Consuls and in cases Ministers (who should know FAR better) to aggravate situations.
Regardless of what is said you are our leaders - you are not there to aggravate tensions in the team. You should certainly respond to justify your actions and decisions, that is right and proper. But for the love of God use some restraint please, and realise when there is a lost cause, and when it is best just to stop. When you realise that you are being baited DO NOT go for it. Call this a warning if you will, because time and again members of the current leadership have taken exception to posts that were best ignored or at least not responded to and made things worse. I do not, as a proud member of this team, want to see that coming from my leaders. If it continues than I, for certain, will seek to replace that leadership with cooler heads.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
DeepO
|
 |
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:36
|
|
I asked for closure of the play-the-turn thread, so let me state my views (although I'm in no way active in this team, so I know my views way in lightly)
First of all, there is a tendancy to become personal in counter arguments. This is simply childish, and without any need. I'm not pointing fingers, as it happens by many people and sides.
This too easily escalates. While in most situations, you expect from the leaders in society that they can bear more then their subordinates, and thus can calm the mood of all, this doesn't really apply here. Our leaders are not the oldest members, nor are they paid to do what they do. We respect them for the work they put in, not necessarily for their managing abilities. We shouldn't change that either: it's the people who know to play civ, and are willing to put time into playing civ that need to have the most influence in this team. Not those who stink at playing, but can talk smoothest.
So, I don't think it is a task of our leaders to just be flamed, and keep smiling. Not at all is it okay for them to become personal themselves, they have to restrain themselves just as the rest of us. The whole decision process of the team has been made so democratic influence is big (even if the possibility exists that the consuls go against it), so everybody should be heared, and all PoVs should be presented. Discussion is good. But by flaming, you lose the discussion, and deny others a PoV.
So, in case you only half suspect that someone is becoming to personal in his argument to you, please go back 2 posts, and say "Hey, I didn't mean it like that, I did not want to imply you're some stupid f*ck who had no point at all, and I'm sorry if I was perceived that way". So grow up, swallow your pride, and be the first to acknowledge you yourself are the cause for the personal stuff. It's always easy to blame the others...
/rant
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrWhereItsAt
|
|
New Year's Resolution: 2005 is the year of Where It's At - come get some.
Nov 2001
time: 17:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DeepO
I don't think it is a task of our leaders to just be flamed, and keep smiling. Not at all is it okay for them to become personal themselves, they have to restrain themselves just as the rest of us. |
At the risk of taking parts of your post out of context... 
I agree, but at the same time since they are our elected leaders (even with no opposition at the time), there is a degree of responsibility. Especially where it is clear to all there is no danger of having one's reputation besmirched (say it is just one or two members known for their dissent you are arguing against), there is absolutely no need to do anything but state the facts. Don't get personal.
Although this goes mostly for the leadership, I address this to all of the rest of we members as well. If we refuse to let it lie if warned we should be prepared to face the potential consequences, which could in the worst case result in a banning.
I don't want this to happen, so please have a bit of thought. Fight your case strongly, and many of us have done so very well recently, but if you start to address a particular poster in an argument you'd better be damn sure you are attacking their arguments, and not them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DeepO
|
|
supporting Candle'Bre
Jan 2002
time: 06:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
I agree, but at the same time since they are our elected leaders (even with no opposition at the time), there is a degree of responsibility. |
Actually, that is partly my point. As long as there is enough opposition in elections, the people will choose those that word their reponses best, or take most resonsibilities, also in keeping the arguments friendly. But when only 1 member applies for a job, he earns respect for being the only one who wants to invest his time. In my eyes, this not automatically makes him more responsible for being calm in his discussion.
I do not want to say that consuls are in any way exempt from being friendly, and seeing they are amongst the most avid posters, they do have more responsibility regarding the atmosphere then lurkers who only post every month or so. But we simply can't expect them to be moderators, as it is not the primary job description which they were selected for. It is everybody's responsibility to debate thoroughly, but friendly.
And in case it goes horribly wrong, I don't mind at all that threads, (which are linear; they build on the last few posts, not on the subject title, and hence can stray for from the initial intention) are closed when things get out of hand.
If it would be possible, I would appoint a senior moderator (e.g. nye) exactly for this purpose. By not mingling in the discussion, but keeping an overview on the tone of the arguments, a moderator can decide whether something goes beyond flaming or trolling and take appropriate action. (BTW, banning someone is rather extreme)
DeepO
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Master Zen
|
 |
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:36
|
|
Well, with what I'm about to say I am not justifying my rather frequent virulent posts, particularly against certain members, but rather offering a perspective on how we sometimes react against these types of posts.
Many of us spend an unconsiderably large part of our free time participating in these demo games, obviouly having an official position on the team implies responsibility and also restraint (which is undoubtedly the weakest link). It also implies a great love for this team and an unflinching desire to not only do our best for it, but to win at all costs. When opinions which differ from ours are given, we debate them, we discuss them passionately but we eventually take what the majority has decided upon.
What is intolerable, and is that which frankly pisses me off the most, is when people choose not to debate, but to insult and mock. Calling people cowards, chickens, cry babies et all, posting taunting pics which are everything but funny, serves no purpose whatsoever, and inventing groundless conspiracy theories of us manipulating this team to serve the interests of ourselves, rather than the team as a whole. Of course, our decision should always be to ignore those posts which offer absolutely zero constructive criticism, but that is just plain impossible sometimes. We are only human, have emotions and we let those emotions get ahold of us from time to time.
What is also obvious is none of this happend during the first 6 months or so when there wasn't this level of discussion as there is now. It is easy to say or to ask other people to keep cool when these things happen, another entirely different thing is to actally DO it when faced with the same crap. I have no doubt that WIA and others have good intentions when asking us to behave rationally, but I seriously would like to see those same people under the gun and see them if they really react the same way they want us to. The best example is E_T, who was one of the biggest advocates of calming things down during the last flame fest a few months ago, yet falls in the same trap whenever he argues with Trip. Need I not remind of Togas when he argued with Vondrack like a maniac yet kept his cool with practically everyone else. And if panag were still on this team I would seriously like to see WIA keep the same kind of cool if he was the one hurling the insults his way.
In short, there are people who tick you off, for whatever reason or another. It is hard to control yourself when that happens and we consistently make the mistake of following our emotions rather than our head when debating with them.
Again, this is in NO WAY justification for the way some of us have reacted. It is merely an insight on why, and how there are really very few people who can claim to be level-headed with everyone at any time.
-MZ
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arnelos
|
 |
of the Free World
Sep 2002
time: 00:36
|
|
I closed both threads. They had gone well beyond the point of being civil. In my view, if you wanted to discuss the issue, start a new thread.
I also closed them after I had thought about doing it and DeepO encouraged me to do so.
SOMETHING needs to be done about the level of despicable flaming in this forum and if closing threads is the necessary weapon to achieving that, then so be it.
Of course, it only stands to reason that an attempt to at least stop the flaming on an issue after it is already decided would end up being attacked by someone who would then flame a Consul for trying to do something about flaming. I'm not mad at you MrWhereItsAt for that, as I suppose I should have expected that behavior.
I learned a long time ago, the hard way, that attempting to please everyone as a leader is a competely futile thing to pursue. If I do everything that everyone wants me to do when they ask it, I'll just become fickle, ineffectual, and both sides of an issue won't be able to trust me to just make up my own mind and be done with it.
On THIS issue, here is my observation:
There are a few members of the team I should have anticipated would be upset with the closing of those threads, of any such threads. They have posted in this thread to complain. Balanced against those few is the weight of, I would guess, about 90% of the team, which is actualy really sick and tired of all of the flaming and bickering and probably doesn't mind seeing threads where flaming is taking place closed. A message needs to be sent that such behavior NEEDS TO END - period.
So my decision for now is that if I see flaming on the forum, I am no longer just going to sit it out and let it go on without acting. I've been doing that for months and it just gets worse and I see more and more members of the team get sick of it and drift away from the forum. If necessary, I can just split threads and throw the flame posts into their own "flaming" thread, which I'll then close.
Now, I'm willing to be reasonable about this and I'm willing to take suggestions - but the flaming has to stop. That goes for both members of the team and fellow Consuls. This has gotten well out of hand and we've been chasing good members of this team out of the forum for too long now.
(Aside: I would also ask that if anyone is going to open a closed thread, they should consult with the person who closed it first... MZ.)
Last edited by Arnelos on 26-06-2004 at 09:10
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Master Zen
|
|
of naughty
Jan 2003
time: 23:36
|
|
@WIA
The thing is, the poll thread for every BF/Trip flame, there was good discussion going on which is the reason why I re-opened it, in fact, the last couple of posts were all on-topic. I do not think that just because an argument gets heated up by a pair of posters yet continues civil among everyone else is justification enough for closing it.
The other "play the turn thread" had of course run out of any form of civility as well as any logical arguments and more than deserved being closed.
As for the ignore list, I've been close to applying it to a certain poster around here but I have not done so. The reason? Most people in this team, no matter how immature their attitude can be, occassionally offer good advice which can be of much use to the team. Shutting up someone by using the ignore feature, would make one ignore the trolls, but at the same time, ignore those posts which can also contribute to the team. Even if the ratio is one intelligent comment per 10 trolls, I don't think it's worth it. We need all the advice we can get, especially in moments like this.
@Arne
I would also ask that if anyone is going to CLOSE a thread, they consult it with the rest of the consuls, precisely to avoid moments like this. We do not always agree on the way to moderate this form, that should be more than obvious, but if each of us acts like they're the lone authority we'll be sending the wrong message of executive unity to the rest of the team.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrWhereItsAt
|
|
New Year's Resolution: 2005 is the year of Where It's At - come get some.
Nov 2001
time: 17:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Master Zen
As for the ignore list, I've been close to applying it to a certain poster around here but I have not done so. The reason? Most people in this team, no matter how immature their attitude can be, occassionally offer good advice which can be of much use to the team. Shutting up someone by using the ignore feature, would make one ignore the trolls, but at the same time, ignore those posts which can also contribute to the team. Even if the ratio is one intelligent comment per 10 trolls, I don't think it's worth it. We need all the advice we can get, especially in moments like this.
|
I suspected you would say this.  That's fine, so long as the silliness can be controlled by any who chose to get involved in escalating heated discussions beyond where they are productive. I just don't want to see important discussions dissolve into personal attacks. Heated debates are GREAT, but we should not lose sight of the fact that we shouldn't let a GAME make us turn against each other.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
25-06-2004 12:02
just start posting like this...?? 
|