That could be why Knut left....

and Dana TOTALLY imposed her will on others!

She's so bossy. But note how readily Knut and I compromised for the good of the board. David Rothschild, however stuck to his name, that cantankerous bastard.

You can talk all you want about being conflict avoidy and stressed out by these talks...

Yet when a poster comes forward and explains that there is a problem in their opinion, a few others do backflips to try to demonstrate that no problem exists. Then when a few others agree that the problem exists for them too, specific examples and names are demanded. When provided, these examples are dismissed as not being good examples, but if they are, then damn-it, the people involved are going to defend their actions. Then it is suggested that solutions are already in place to solve the problems that some still maintain don't exist, and hey - if the solutions don't work for you, tough?

Well, to be fair, the thread is called bureaucracy. =)

But such responses could be one of the reasons why the avoidy-stressed out types kinda get avoidy in the first place.

Rafmun, I have to be honest here. I haven't seen you post anywhere but this thread. I don't know what basis you have for being so critical of this community. You haven't been a part of it at all, and yet you come in and post really insulting -- yet vague -- assertions about this community.

That would be like me walking into a Kiwanis' meeting, insulting them, and walking out. [NB: I am not a Kiwani.]

Why should we give any weight to your assertions? I'd really like to know.

Rafmun, yeah, what you described is people have different opinions on an issue. People who disagree with you are going to defend their position. And if you don't like the solution to the issue, suggest another one.

But honestly, I don't see you saying anything accept some people are pushy and you and some others don't like it.

Have they done anything to be warned for? If not, there is nothing that can be done.

We have encourgaed people to speak up who feel left out. There has been support for them here today and from more than a few.

You are speaking in very broad generalities and I do not even get what you are on about anymore.

Directly, what do you want changed?

Oh deer loward people, Rafmun does post elsewhere, in Natter this morning, for example. And he's married to a long-time poster and he knows the culture, so it's not like he's clueless, okay? He has some points he'd like addressed. Let's do that, and not attack him.

First, if I'm one of the rude, insensitive, pushy, domineering, wants-to-decide-the-direction-of-the-board people simply because I said I didn't like the Deathmatch posts, well so be it. I said I didn't like them. I didn't get histrionic about it, or flame-baity, or insulting, or mean. I expressed an opinion; not a veiled desire for the board to be run my way.

Argghhh. That isn't what I meant, and I don't think it's what I said, although it probably feels like a personal attack, it was the most recent, vivid illustration I could recall that would pacify the people who were calling for concrete identities and instances. I haven't any disagreement with your making your point, or indeed how you made it. You had an opinion, you expressed it, that's all.

Elena (in this instance. I am still not debating this issue. It's closed. It's an example) had an opinion. She expressed it. I guess what it boils down to is that Elena's following posts attempted to be accomodating, to find a middle ground. The position of the vocal posters (including but not limited to you, Steph) was that deathmatches weren't "news" and didn't belong in a "news" thread at all. There was no matching attempt at compromise, and there didn't seem likely to be. So all that would have been gained by staying in the discussion and repeating oneself wasn't worth the emotional uproar, since the other side appeared unwilling to consider compromise.

This is my observation. It isn't an accusation, or an admonishment, or anything of the sort. I have no animosity toward anybody who disagreed with me on that question or any other than I can recall offhand. It's a different style, is all, and I think if someone who is known for being non-confrontational persists in asking for a compromise position, some attention could be paid by those who thrive on confrontation. It doesn't actually hurt to concede, occasionally. Or to accomodate.

What I said was that I'm not up for debating it to death

specifically when you have tried to talk it out in thread and move something here, it doesn't have to be you debating so much as people either supporting it or not. If 10 people do then there is a warning. Period. That's It.

K, then I'm not up for a popularity contest with said poster. I honestly don't mean this to be offensive, but it's what I think would happen and frankly, I think I'd lose.

Yet when a poster comes forward and explains that there is a problem in their opinion, a few others do backflips to try to demonstrate that no problem exists.

The "problem" was that some unnamed individuals who are present for the discussion are selfish assholes. I am not surprised to find some serious resistance.

Yet when a poster comes forward and explains that there is a problem in their opinion, a few others do backflips to try to demonstrate that no problem exists.

Yeah, but people don't disagree simply because they're ornery and contrary. (Mostly.) They disagree because they see it differently. The only way to even begin to see if there's any consensus is for folks to weigh in on the subject, and discuss the merits of the complaint. That's where you find out if there's enough of a groundswell to take it to a vote.

Previous to voting, that's also how we came up with our consensus decisions.

Talky meat for someone who doesn't like conflict:

some unnamed individuals who are present for the discussion are selfish assholes. I am not surprised to find some serious resistance.

Excuse me?