"Serious Discussion" forum Poll

Realize that you're not in the same room with them - you can't see them, smell them, and listen to their tonal inflections, or know their context. Lacking information, you might easily mistake their intent or POV. So, be extra careful and don't draw conclusions unless you are very, very certain. Capische?

I see a lot of people who want to own free speech in order to insure their own free speech at the expense of others, too. But I see it on all sides - it's not a special problem for any one group or individual here.

Again, care. Restraint. (And yes, occasionally I should take my own advice. )

In truth, Cristiano, I think you are not allowed to express the opinion. I have seen the same problem you have, but i think expressing such an opinion is merely compounding the problem. My thought is that any discussion of a persons conduct should either be generalized and made the subject of another forum topic, or should be kept to one's self or to an IM, or an AR. And Frankly I think if you AR an thread, its reall a personal attack to make a post that says "I AR'd your thread."

Keep the discussion related to the topic and not to the conduct and "serious discussions" will flourish. In your example I think a general forum discussion of the difference between what is a disagreement and a personal atttack in a debate is a valid forum topic.

I think it is entirely possible, however for us to have threads such as these where we discuss what we feel the standards of behvior are.

I have no problem with this sentiment. Nor do I have a problem with the idea that people bring their own personal issues - including persecution complexes - to these forums, and often behave inappropriately. Nor with the idea that others sense their personal issues and take advantage of it, which is also inappropriate.

Pains me to see intelligent people acting like herd carnivores. And to see intelligent, self-destructive people setting themselves up over and over for an inevitable fall. No names, no hidden meanings, just a very general observation.

I disagree. I do not think pointing out hypocrisy negates a serious discussion. Just as I disagree with Cat's opinion that "The forum poll results were interesting and telling IMO. I would have to agree with the results and hold this thread up as an example of why any serious discussion is not possible in the official SL forums." [post]

Because personally, I think this thread shows that *most* can have a serious discussion on these forums.

Veiled threats are still threats, veiled insults are still insults.

As for Martin. It’s no secret my alt is Martin.

I have no doubt in my mind what so ever that a handful of ppl would like nothing more than for those who question their authority to leave the forums.

LL is in charge in these forums, period.

Who will be next?

edit to remove names.

Post reported for excessive incendiary Pendaries

I disagree with you. I believe your post sets up the disagreement in a personal way - one that does not contribute materially to a balanced discussion. If I was not being careful, for example, I might think that you insinuated that certain people are hypocrites and cannot have a serious discussion. If that's true, then you've made discussion much more difficult and drama more likely, by virtue of the fragile human natures we all have to contend with. I don't believe you can draw a person out and reach an understanding, even an understanding to disagree, by insinuating something they find insulting - even if you're right.

What Jake is asking for - I think - is more personal tolerance from all sides. That's a good idea - if we want to have reasonable, balanced discussions that do not disintegrate into drama.

(edited)

You mean if you were human, you could actually possibly misread what I am stating?

My point here is that in a written medium, I can fully understand that people can misread what someone is saying. To me it seems better to give the benefit of the doubt first, then ask for clarification. Earlier in this thread, I made a post based on a perception of what I thought Cat stated. She clarified and I apologized for misinterpreting what she said. I'm not above being corrected. In a give and take medium like a discussion forum, I think it is needed at times.

That is why I state that I do not think pointing out that a statement seems to be hypocritical means that all serious discussion has been thrown out the window. To me it is just saying "this is how this is [specifically] coming across to me, can you clarify because I either disagree or don't understand what/why you are saying what you are saying."

And to clarify my last post, I was just lumping together the two main points I disagreed with thus far in this discussion. Neither was related to the other except in the fact that both issues were brought up in this thread. Sorry for it seeming otherwise.

Just a gentle reminder for everyone to stay on-topic.

How is posting a picture of someone winning at Bingo off-topic? I was expressing that I felt Seth hit the nail on the head, using post-modern iconography.

Maybe I should have posted this?

I'm back. There's no need for me to point out the personal attacks in this thread. If people can't see them, then obviously the whole situation is dire. And sad.

As for free speech - yes, free speech. But free speech in these forums doesn't include the right to make personal attacks on individuals. See the TOS.

I will be getting to my forum reform poll fairly soon, I hope; I've been busy with other things.

coco

Can't wait. Nothing like being reformed by people who need reforming.

Now wait a second here.

I asked becasue I often miss things. I'm an Aspie - social interaction is something that I do not do well. When you posted back there that you were angry, I had no idea why. I did not understand what it was about the preceding posts that was offensive to anyone. Yes, there have been personal attacks since that even I call obvious, but that's not material. Enabran's explaination made some sense to me. But if that's not the cause in your eyes, then I'd have loved to know what was - that's how I learn.

So if you want to just label me as "sad" and move on, fine. But that places you in exactly the same spot as those you rebuke.

I think you're giving me a little more credit than I deserve. I'm not aware of any humor in what I wrote, beyond my attempted levity using food items as discussion pieces. Please PM me with whatever cleverness you thought I'd achieved, in any case, I'm kinda curious now.

As for who Janet and Martin are, I had no one in particular in mind. In retrospect, I guess Ulrika is a good Martin. In general, though, there are many individuals who are simply capable of conducting a pretty effective argument and thus sway other forum participants toward agreement. My point was that not everyone is good at doing that and they get disappointed and even pissed off when the assumed wave of agreement doesn't wash over them the way it often does for the "Martins." The disappointment builds up to the point where any questioning or disagreement with a Janet argument is labeled as an attack and no discussion can happen because everyone is hopping around declaring their case as victims.

Apparently, they were my posts that were so aggregious in Cocoanut's estimation. Even though I spoke generally about the fact that I think those most often claiming to want serious discussion/free speech don't have a clue what it means, etc.. and she decided that my post was simply about Catherine. As I said, if anyone recognizes themselves in what I said, that is not my problem. I wasn't directing it at Catherine, I was directing it far more generally as Catherine is not the sole representative of anything, but that doesn't matter, Cocoanut decided I was, so it's a personal attack. Now when she speaks about forum mobs, or even about a specific group, it is not a personal attack, but when other people do, it is.

BTW, Catherine posted that a thinly veiled insult is still an insult. I will just remind her and everyone else that she constantly posts statements directed at someone without naming them, and again cries foul at that. I am not crying foul at the behavior, personally I don't give a shit what anyone says to me and can handle myself without demanding that anyone else behave a certain way. I just don't like the hypocrisy of it all, and that is on full display here in this thread.

Jillian; I feel the above post is a personal attack since I was named by name and some unflattering things were said about me directly.

Cat

ps: was it deleted? it was right after yours.

I deleted it - I decided it wasn't worth it, since I am preaching to the choir and it would be lost upon you, as I see it was.

STOP IT!

I thought Cris was just saying what he felt. Sometimes when things are posted about what I have written and someone didn't like it, I just accept that's an opinion, not a personal attack.

Must we just say nice things and never say what we really feel? Is that what some people want? It seems as if that is counter productive.

Ok, I'm a tad confused. Is it not ok, after all, to post an observation about another poster? That is, as opposed to a judgement?

Are these both considered attacks?

hey, i have yet to recieve an apology for the following stupidity:

Merry Christmas
the invisible hand

until then, in my estimation, your personal attacks stand and you are a hypocrite.

So basically you're interested in a forum where you can behave however you want, and if anyone makes an observation based on that behavior, they get banned immediately? This would solve the problems that are currently afflicting you?

The forum guidelines, however, would disagree with you.

Then by the same token I guess I should also dig up every thread ever posted about me. That I ever found offensive and start posting the links and demanding apologies also.

I don't see this kind of treatment aimed at other residents who also posted simular things. I don't see old old links being posted over and over and over again,meant to piss them off. I don't see the same old issues being brought up to any other resident.

Why don't I?

This is getting realy old and fast.