Community Notice [PLEASE READ!]

Xanthus Wrote:2. My point is not questions. Questions are fine. My point is courtesy. If you ask a question, that's fine. If you're a jerk about it, that's not fine. And then if people say, "You are offending me - please cease and desist" and you instead prod them 3x harder in response - you are then officially a jackass, imo. THAT is my point to this whole thing.

Maybe I'm not paying enough attention to threads, I've never seen this.

As far as I can see, only once did a person ask another person to stop talking to them, and that person stopped talking to them. So your point about people asking questions After they've been asked to stop (by the person that is being asked) doesn't seem to apply here. Or do you mean to imply that if person A asks person B not to as them any more questions that person B should leave the entire discussion and not talk about the topic with other people within the discussion nor offer any non-question type posts?

Xanthus Wrote:However, my point wasn't really the questions. However, that both diffuses your own point and doesn't touch mine. Let me explain:

1. The kittens don't need to be punished, contrary to the strawman-arguements here, as the simple solution is just "don't answer". No punishment needed.
2. My point is not questions. Questions are fine. My point is courtesy. If you ask a question, that's fine. If you're a jerk about it, that's not fine. And then if people say, "You are offending me - please cease and desist" and you instead prod them 3x harder in response - you are then officially a jackass, imo. THAT is my point to this whole thing.

The point is not the questioning, the point it the courtesy, exactly! However, people define courtesy in different ways and THAT is the problem. Members here are from many different countries so what qualifies as someone "interrogating" me in my mind, is not "interrogating" in their mind; they're simply asking questions and I'm taking it the wrong way. But if others jump on board and agree that I was being "interrogated" that could be seen as an issue with common courtesy from the "interrogator". But as I said, the problem lies in individual interpretation and there's not a whole lot that can be done about that. People are going to express themselves how they see fit. However, if anyone here feels like they're being interrogated, they can simply stop responding and thus the problem should correct itself.

Yes, anyone, 'kitten' or 'interrogator' CAN choose to ignore an 'annoying' user. However, if this 'solution' becomes official policy then perhaps we should change:

Quote:1. All members shall act in a civil manner. Please be polite and respective of other members beliefs. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

to

Quote:1. All members shall act however they damn well please. You don't need to be polite and respective of other members beliefs, since they can just ignore you, anyway. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"...unless you don't feel like it.

Elinox Wrote:The point is not the questioning, the point it the courtesy, exactly! However, people define courtesy in different ways and THAT is the problem. Members here are from many different countries so what qualifies as someone "interrogating" me in my mind, is not "interrogating" in their mind; they're simply asking questions and I'm taking it the wrong way.

Quoted for awesome. Plus, I think the point was missed.

Xanthus Wrote:Yes, anyone, 'kitten' or 'interrogator' CAN choose to ignore an 'annoying' user. However, if this 'solution' becomes official policy then perhaps we should change:

Quote:1. All members shall act in a civil manner. Please be polite and respective of other members beliefs. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

to

Quote:1. All members shall act however they damn well please. You don't need to be polite and respective of other members beliefs, since they can just ignore you, anyway. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"...unless you don't feel like it.

I don't appreciate how you're trying to act like a mod/admin here. It is not up to you to decide what rules we have; suggesting things is one thing, but you just re-wrote a rule to prove a point and that's not very polite. The rules that are in place are fine and no one else seems to have a problem with them. The point was not that anyone can say anything, but that people think/take things differently and that's the problem. But as I said before, PLEASE RELAX.

Selcar Wrote:Quoted for awesome. Plus, I think the point was missed.

Thank you and I agree. <!-- s --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_e_sad.gif" alt=":(" title="Sad" /><!-- s -->

Xanthus Wrote:Yes, anyone, 'kitten' or 'interrogator' CAN choose to ignore an 'annoying' user. However, if this 'solution' becomes official policy then perhaps we should change:

Quote:1. All members shall act in a civil manner. Please be polite and respective of other members beliefs. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

to

Quote:1. All members shall act however they damn well please. You don't need to be polite and respective of other members beliefs, since they can just ignore you, anyway. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"...unless you don't feel like it.

There is a massive difference between deliberately disrespectful and impolite, and being seen as disrespectful or impolite. That is the core of the matter.
Just because something a person says seems disrespectful to you doesn't mean that the person doesn't have any respect for you.
There are massive cultural and subcultural differences between us here and what may be culturally or subculturally acceptable does differ a lot with it. This is what the moderators are trying to take into account.
Take your disagreement with their enforcement of their rules for instance. I'm sure you don't mean to be disrespectful but to me, I would think that your most recent arguments in this thread are all very disrespectful towards the moderators. Your choice of words, as well as your choice of arguments, sounds to me like you are implying that the moderators and site owners aren't capable of running their own forum. Furthermore I could understand you to compare them to people of astounding idiocy or malice. However, seeing as I am aware of your general post-behaviour, and I do allow for the possibility that this is an emotional issue for you and that you are probably exaggerating on some points as well as I do take into account the possible cultural differences, I choose not to report you or argue with you, I only point out the flaws I see in the basic logic of your posts.

Elinox Wrote:I don't appreciate how you're trying to act like a mod/admin here. It is not up to you to decide what rules we have; suggesting things is one thing, but you just re-wrote a rule to prove a point and that's not very polite. The rules that are in place are fine and no one else seems to have a problem with them. The point was not that anyone can say anything, but that people think/take things differently and that's the problem. But as I said before, PLEASE RELAX.

I am really not trying to act like a mod or admin. I"m not charging around telling people to cease and desist or else. I'm not throwing around any sort of false authority or acting like I own the place. I'm just complaining about breaches of the rules we all agreed to, both to the community and to the management.

I also, never suggested changing the rules, nor did I rewrite a rule. I think if you check the rules thread, you will find it is still very much intact and untouched.

I am, quite relaxed. Sometimes that doesn't come across well over the internet. I am not yelling, frothing at the mouth or throwing things at the monitor. I like to think I can calmly discuss an issue with reason and logic even if it does annoy the holy hell out of me. Sometimes, though, as Freetha pointed out, I tend to resort to hyperbole on such matters.

Freetha Wrote:However, seeing as I am aware of your general post-behaviour, and I do allow for the possibility that this is an emotional issue for you and that you are probably exaggerating on some points as well as I do take into account the possible cultural differences, I choose not to report you or argue with you, I only point out the flaws I see in the basic logic of your posts.

Cultural differences is a hard nut to crack. I've been to a few countries and studied a few culture - but there's LOTS of countries out there.


Just to come back to the issue, hopefully with a little less overweening emotion, what I'm trying to say is YOU moderators/admins have set up a set of rules. If you are now saying that you are unwilling or unable to enforce the very first rule on that list, due to either too much grey area within that rule, or any other reason, I would like to REQUEST, politely, that you redfine, drop or change that rule.

A rule that is not enforced only serves to make management seem ineffective.

Xanthus Wrote:A rule that is not enforced only serves to make management seem ineffective.

Perhaps it appears that it is not enforced because it has not been broken yet, not an unwillingness to enforce it, but rather an inability to say that "Yes this rule has been broken". That's what it seems like to me at least.

...to avoid the argument already set in place... I voted for the new entry field, because it's a good thing to know how sensitive a person is. Some people are new here, new to the concept, and to themselves. Heavy questioning is not always a good idea, then there are some who don't mind at all, and some who encourage it. And after all, if it's not a required field, no one has to fill it out if they don't want to.