I'm interested in what you have to say, and engaging you in discussion, but it really seems to me as if you're descending deeper into hyperbole with every post.

Asking for compassion and a little less harshness translates to 'descending deeper into hyperbole'?

This is a tough room.

Dude, friend, man, comfortadore - as I said a few times above, take it or leave it, and value it as you will.

I think that it's important to note (as I believe David touched on) that when you criticize someone/thing, you have to have some cred to do so.

Okay, I guess I can't let things die. But when I posted essentially the same thing -- though in a much more aggressive tone -- people stepped up and said "Nope; everyone gets a say." How is what I said so different?

First, I touched on it, but only to disagree with it. I know that some people (most vocally, Steph, Allyson) think that seniority confers certain privileges. But, I'm probably more invested in the notion of sweat equity. Which is why I personally grant Allyson's opinions a bit more respect, even though she joined us later in the game. Since I believe in sweat equity, then joining in and contributing is one of the essential ways to earn it. (Though people contribute in many ways, aside from in-thread discussion.)

But I really don't like, on a gut level, a council of elders vibe.

Asking for compassion and a little less harshness translates to 'descending deeper into hyperbole'?

No, and now you're engaging in misdirection. That's not at all what I said.

Asserting that there is no compassion already present is hyperbole.

Your statement, by it's structure, flat out accuses us of having no compassion, and engaging only in harshness, and it is these implied assertions that are really beginning to bother me.

How is what I said so different?

For me you answered your own question with

though in a much more aggressive tone

People have different threshholds for aggressive, and when mine gets crossed, I tend to try to defend myslef or someone else first and analyze the actual content second sometimes.

Rafmun, do you think we are ignoring the issues you are raising?

I think the point I raised about points getting dilluted by misdirection is being dilluted by misdirection, which weirdly adds at least some weight to my original point, though that is mostly lost in the misdirection. ;)

Yes.

Asking for compassion and a little less harshness

Again, maybe this is just the view from JilliLand, but I haven't seen a lessening of compassion OR an upswing in harshness. I think things are about the same as they were back on TT/WX/PF.

a really horrible way to encourage insight and input from new sources.

Seconding Jesse here. You're not being ignored.

I don't think it's entirely out of line for me to ask whether you were lurking during the Great Voting Arguments, and the Constitutional Convention we held over on WX.

You have, as a board member, every right to comment on the board and its functions. But I think you also give us too little credit for the work that has been done in the past to provide as much as possible for those who won't speak up for themselves. (And no, I'm not saying that's the end of the discussion, but I'd like some acknowledgement, particularly since you seem to be operating under the assumption that we have moderators, which we don't.)

Checks and balances. And sometimes I think the Australians are right, and people should be required to vote.

It's a fantastic way to undermine a posters' value and avoid dealing with uncomfortable issues, and a really horrible way to encourage insight and input from new sources.

No one is trying to avoid the issue. No one is ignoring what the new people have to say. We do, however, want to make sure that the new folks understand the culture before they criticize it. For example, there was a period (and still occasionally) when folks on the board addressed each other as "fucko". That could seem offensive and harsh to a newbie. Additionally, different boards have different standards of behavior. As for the lurkers, we don't know if they've been here two days or two years.

Asserting that there is no compassion already present is hyperbole.

Didn't do that.

Both points effectively ignore the issues raised by said newbie and instead focus on the cred. It's a fantastic way to undermine a posters' value and avoid dealing with uncomfortable issues, and a really horrible way to encourage insight and input from new sources.

When a relatively new poster comes along and throws out broad generalizations lamenting the state of the board it's going to be jarring. Inevitable questions are going to arise. Who are you? How well do you know the board? And since the new poster was not posting (lurking notwithstanding) during the days of yore that he/she is pining for, specifics are going to be demanded from him/her. This contrasts with someone like DavidS or Jesse lamenting the exact same things. They were "there" "then" and have the posts to back them up. So they're generalities carry more weight.

Nobody's undermining the value of your posts. It's the general nature and inspecific allegations that are driving many of us crazy. If I said that this place was much better back in the days when we were WX or TT, I'd be an idiot. Because I was not there.

Basically a newbie's opinion is valued. But when he/she makes general assertions about the community he's new to - he better back them up.