(Merged) Are the moderators getting ... & Censorship

[Morrus]

Well, I stand corrected. Apparently one should not question a moderator here. And I disagree with this stance.

I obviously wasn't clear enough. That is not what I said at all. "Challenging" and "squaring off against" refers to a confrontational, combative stance. It is entirely different to the concept of questioning.

Sure, you can raise the issue politely. But I said that in my post, so I'm getting the feeling you're pulling out bits of the post and making something of those bits that isn't there. But if I wasn't clear enough, there's the explanation.

 

[SemperJase]

 

[SemperJase]

I obviously wasn't clear enough. That is not what I said at all. "Challenging" and "squaring off against" refers to a confrontational, combative stance. It is entirely different to the concept of questioning.

Thank you for the clarification. Apparently I misinterpreted the word question as synonomous with the word challenge.

Sure, you can raise the issue politely. But I said that in my post, so I'm getting the feeling you're pulling out bits of the post and making something of those bits that isn't there. But if I wasn't clear enough, there's the explanation.

I appreciate rational discussion. It is not my intent to misrepresent your words (i.e be irrational). My response was a reflection of my interpretation of your message. I responded to what I saw as an inconsistency in your policy. Now I understand better. Thank you.

 

[Piratecat]

Semperjase, thanks for being reasonable - and for caring enough to want to stay involved.

 

[Morrus]

Semperjase, thanks for being reasonable - and for caring enough to want to stay involved.

Those 20 ranks of Diplomacy in action again.

 

[alsih2o]

Those three threads were great! They had plenty of participation and overall were respectful.

i would strongly disagree. i saw little respect in many ways.

 

[SemperJase]

i would strongly disagree. i saw little respect in many ways.

Some people were disrespectful. But others were quick to call those few on it and correct them.

There was quite a bit of disagreement. That is not the same is disrespect though. Unfortunately too many people make the mistake of connecting the two concepts.

Disagreement is not a bad thing. In fact, it is necessary for a board. If everyone agrees with you, then what is the purpose of discussion?

But perhaps the disrespect that was shown had more of an effect on other people. I generally have a very thick skin on message boards and tend to easily overlook these comments.

 

[alsih2o]

Disagreement is not a bad thing. In fact, it is necessary for a board.

this is not true. there are riddle boards, humor boards, instructional boards, barter boards and many others that get along just fine without any disagreement whatsoever.

i am not saying disagreement is bad, just that it is far from necessary.

 

[SemperJase]

there are riddle boards, humor boards, instructional boards, barter boards and many others that get along just fine without any disagreement whatsoever.

True, and they all have one thing in common, they are all BORING

But then again, that is just my opinion, you may disagree.

 

[alsih2o]

Disagreement is not a bad thing. In fact, it is necessary for a board. If everyone agrees with you, then what is the purpose of discussion?

but boredom was not your point, at least not how i read it. your point seemed to be that disagrement was "neccesary".

this leaves out the possibility of mutual celebration, instruction, exploration, and trade as valid exchanges.

you seem to express the same notion with this quote "A board where participants are not allowed to disagree is worthless. There really is nothing to discuss in that case."

again leaving out spaces intended for mutual celebration, instruction and in many cases (but not all) exploration and trade.

it seems that the disagreement is the core point here, not just an allowable discourse.

(edited for civility)