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.

Cold Irish breakfast --

and dude, really. Derailing conversations is the name of the game here. There is No. Such. Thing. as a linear discussion anywhere on this board. Don't take it like someone's out to get you, it's just what happens.

I may be alone in this, but I think it isn't a matter of action. It's not so much that we have to do what edge peeps want, but more that we have to acknowledge that edge opinions are valid even if we don't agree. If someone says "I feel this..." the most helpful response is sometyhing like "That's not what I feel, but it's an interesting position. Here's how I feel." Most Buffistas do that anyway, but arguments (not just here, in other threads as well) can result in people attacking the poster for even daring to have such an opinion or for posting it or for not posting it sooner or louder or whatever rather than just listening.

IOW-- the voting process here I think is great. And I know that some will always be unhappy with the results. It's the discussion which could use a bit more lovejuice.

I think Rafmun has made some excellent points, and I commend him for having the courage to make them and taking the heat.

As Hec noted, we established the voting procedure to make decision making more fair. At one time, I naively believed voting would solve the problem. I thought voting on every little thing would be the right thing to do. It's not. Voting causes other problems, such as increasing stress levels. Now, I don't have any solutions to offer, only that we made the effort to fix these problems, only to find a new set of problems.

For my part, I've accepted that the "small group" is going to make some of the decisions. For the most part, they make the right decisions. I'm still here and this is a good place. I don't agree with everything, and sometimes I get really pissed off. Still, I'm very thankful for all the people who make this place work, and make it a place worth participating in.

I'm sorry that some good people left. I miss Jen K. She was the first Buffista that I had any off-board contact with. After I disappeared for a long while, then delurked again, she remembered me and informed others that I wasn't new. Someone say hi to her from me, OK?