Taiaka Wrote:I believe the only way to solve this is to call out the offenders. If no rules were broken then the admin don't have a leg to stand on. If we, as a community see members continue to misrepresent what we stand for and repeatedly bend the rules...well then, its up to us the people to stop this, no? There needs to be consequences not changes and concessions. I don't believe it would be just to start slapping members with sensitivity labels. That punishes those people that feel they are being attacked and might create a cliquish environment or seperations that we don't want to harbor.
Personally, this sentiment baffles me a little. I understand that friction between people is perceived as negative thing within a community, but it is bound to happen, and is not always a bad thing. For myself, I have learned a great deal from such situations, it can motivate at times too. I know I get excited when someone asks me a question, I want to explain, I want to share my perspectives - and just as much, want to hear that of others, the fullness of them, not just a little blurb.
I do not think vigilantism is a good solution for those that have a habit of rubbing people the wrong way - especially since they're not breaking rules. I think that such actions - especially when, to me at least, it seems to be a minority experiencing problems with the current system (50% in favor of not having question options, seems only a few here saying rules are being broken/bent). It's just not possible to get along with everyone, I don't even think it's intentional. So, to publicly call out individuals that a small group has problems with, seems excessive. Especially since the repercussions it could potentially have. The individuals feel outcast and unwanted, others that thought the person made good points feel forced to keep their lips shut less the same happen to them, potentially the administration staff is seem as just being figurehead enforcement - and all the power goes to those who are most liked or popular. On a side note, I think everyone picks their words carefully, as to not get into trouble. To say that the interrogators do this on purpose, as to "bend" the rules, instead of working with/in them (as everyone is expected to, and does), is a fallacious argument.
If no rules are broken, then what's the problem? Perhaps those that see a problem are just too close to the subject to look at it as objectively as others/moderators. To progress to an extreme, for a community (physical) to rise up against a member in the community, who just doesn't get along with anyone else, but does not break any laws, would be seen (at least to me) as being unethical - especially so since it's usually a minority that suffers for being different from the general community.
Archer Wrote:The flip side of that is, of course, "they don't need to be ammended because of a few rotten apples who take everything far too personally and assume other parties are out to get them".
Quoted because I think it's a valid side to the whole debate that has rarely been mentioned (personally, I'm a touch scared to bring it up beyond the passing touch), and worth consideration.