Exarchias wrote:
tzb wrote: ...for VIPs? The overwhelming majority of active posters have access to them, and...
Dear Tzb
With all the respect. That is exactly makes me to feel bit uncomfortable. Let's say that in this case it sucks to be in the minority. I can understand that it is a way to handle with possible problem caused by guests, but i wanted to mention how negative it sounds
I'm sorry, Exarchias, but how exactly is a statistically sound statement (however vague on actual numbers) to sound negative? Statistics can only sound negative if one has already formed an opinion on the positive--which I think, in this case, would mean that joining is for chumps?
I get that not everybody wants to join. I get that some people with no desire to join will hang around (for whatever reasons they have). But tzb stated what is one of the very few things these Jedi are willing to call "facts", so any possible negativity coming from that statement is from interpretation, not intent.
Akkarin wrote: In the last few months there has been a lot of, sometimes heated, discussion going on in the Temple and (though I haven't received any messages directly) people have said that some members feel uncomfortable or worried about posting their thoughts in what should be a friendly and productive environment.
May I also suggest, since a lot of us seem argumentative when really we just rather enjoy a good debate, that there be a specific place for those kinds of ludicrously heated topics? That way nobody who would feel uncomfortable there has to bother wtih them at all. Y'know, a lot like the rest of the Internet--if you don't like something, you don't /have/ to view it.
tzb wrote: The positioning of the Simple Oath is already in discussion.
The wording of it should be, too.
elizabeth wrote: I don't agree with cutting guests of from posting. While I think keeping a closer eye on topics and stepping in sooner would help stop some of what's been happening
I don't think there's a reason to censor discussion in a place that is supposedly for the free exchange of ideas. Perhaps to monitor tone? But otherwise, "stepping in" halts discussion that could lead to a lot of understanding. The conversations that have caused this problem aren't an issue because of content. They're an issue because many people are jerks and many other people don't properly know how to handle that, despite having lived in the really-real world, where jerks are the majority.
Proteus wrote: If you feel this is personal, it is not. If you insist on seeing this as personal, the chances are, it may not be because of our decision more than it is one's own issues already held for one reason or another not associated with TOTJO specifically.
I don't think this is helping.
Brenna wrote: I can be pretty quick on the trigger when people are being deliberately disruptive or upsetting other members, but I don't know that insulating our members further from others has the intended outcome long term. Bubble wrapped Jedi?
It most definitely does not. It makes this a place of hypocrisy, because I rather remember feeling--through course material, informational packets, and conversations--that this is supposedly a place where "everyone" is welcome. While I know that's never literally true, we go out of our way to defend the people who are being most disruptive, and then a portion of the community votes without the rest of the community hearing about it to completely isolate the group
before new trouble starts? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Akkarin wrote: Yes we are. But what Alan is referring to in terms of "protecting" is the fact that recent events have made multiple members feel uncomfortable in posting their thoughts at all.
...and? This is literally how I feel every time I make a post that isn't a response to one of Reliah's lessons. Every. Single. Time. Because this Temple is not what it appears to be, not from any angle. There are too many different kinds of personalities at work here, too many backroom decisions, too much finger-pointing, and too much openness-on-the-surface, insular-in-reality here. I am eternally uncomfortable posting my thoughts here. But I do it anyhow. Nobody stands up for me when I say I feel like I'm being jumped on. But then again, I'm widely seen as "abrasive" and "argumentative", so I can see how I don't fall under the purview of your prejudice, I suppose.
Rosalyn J wrote: I suggest we wait and see how this all works out. We may be blowing things a little out of proportion..
Perhaps. But perhaps we aren't. Perhaps we aren't really considering the rammifications of this
enough. And the problem is that we won't know which it is until the problem has passed. Everyone is overreacting to this, I agree. It's just that some overreactions are in favor of the idea, or in favor of neutrality on the idea, wheras mine is most definitely not.
Br. John wrote: I copied this from http://ello.co . How do you think it would work here? BTW, I have a few invites left if anyone wants one.
Ello has a zero-tolerance policy for abusive behavior.
This includes any form of hate, trolling, stalking, spamming, flaming, impersonating others, harming children, child pornography, or any other behavior designed to hurt another person physically or emotionally.
Except that the vast majority of "abusive behavior" will be the subjective viewpoint of whoever is in charge, and very little of it will fall under any kind of objective means. Many people here think I'm terribly offensive and quite a problem at times. I don't think I am. A handful of others don't, either. With a policy like this, Gisteron and I could carry on two sides of a discussion in a public thread that very well seem to be problematic. Jestor and I could war on policy topics. tzb and I could argue semantics. Or Brenna and I could have another blowout on how to handle mental health issues. I have
zero problems with the people I named, and would never be intentionally abusive to them, but given my argument style (and apparently reputation, if some are to be believed), I can see me getting axed for that sort of thing very, very easily. Which is fine; if you don't want me here, say so. But the point remains that it works that way for others, too.
Rickie The Grey wrote: Having had my last thread suddenly closed before anything got out of control I am still POd and offended. I know why but the lack of confidence of how I would post disturbs me.
If this is the thread I think it is, it was offensive because it singled out an individual. If you'd left it in broad, general terms without implicating or naming names, or carried your discussion into private avenues, it probably would've stayed open. I don't like censorship and thread-locking, but I am pretty onboard with how that one turned out. I think threads calling out individual people for anything other than absolute showerings of praise are gauche and unbecoming, and most of the exceptions I just mentioned are problematic as well, as they form opinions about elitism.
