you were lurking during the Great Voting Arguments, and the Constitutional Convention

John Hancock was a lurker! The lurkers support me in the Pony Express!

(Yeah, I know...historically inaccurate. You make a mail joke.)

For example, there was a period (and still occasionally) when folks on the board addressed each other as "fucko".

Good times, dammit. Good fuckin' times.

It's interesting to me that Rafmun is saying that he "heard about" gentler Buffista days, not that he "read" them. To me, that suggests that he's going by megan's comments about her participation in the board rather than by posts he's read himself. (Please correct me if this is a wrong impression, Rafmun.)

If that's the case, I might respectfully point out that there's a big difference between something someone tells you about and something you've experienced yourself. Plenty of things are all golden-colored and fuzzy when seen through the eyes of someone who loves them, and much uglier and harsher when experienced first-hand.

Edit: Which is not meant to discredit Rafmun or discount his points, but I do think that the issues he's complaining about are ones where board experience matters.

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

I started this discussion by raising this very point. And what I was trying to do was to push this notion closer to the center. That's really all that can be done.

One reason the voting causes friction is because any extended talk in Bureaucracy about tone or direction becomes a lightning rod for general crankiness. People address their long held grievances. Which is what is happening now. And that's okay - they need to be addressed. But sometimes those aren't board problems. They're not issues that can be resolved by the community - they're issues that the individual has because they're feeling out of sync with the ever-migrating center.

Just as an amusing sidenote interjected: I just re-read the thing in the FAQ about Hec and Knut, and Dana TOTALLY imposed her will on others! Kinda. She didn't get to pick their new names, as it turned out, but she sure tried.

Hey!

That could be why Knut left....

Hey!

and Dana TOTALLY imposed her will on others!

No picking on me while I'm in class!

That being said, I would suggest that the first step would be acknowledging that there is a problem.

That obviously seems to be a major challenge in itself.

Rafmun, (anyone else have to spell that out backwards each time?) I find the tone of your posts a major distraction to the points you're trying to make. To be honest, it reads like you think you have the on correct opinion, and when anyone disagrees with you, you dismiss them by accusing them of misdirection. Which is basically the same thing you're complaining about.

I do believe everyone has a right to comment on the board. That's why we have all these threads. But one thing that will absolutely not help in this discussion, where we have at least twenty people running in circles, trying to figure out if there's a problem and how we fix it, is taking that condescending tone.

Most importantly, keep an eye out for those few far-between posters who always seem to get their ways simply by persistence of posts, intractibility, refusal to engage on issues through either denial or misdirection.

Self-referencially quoting myself, in a referencial manner, in response to piling on.

No, I'm not being ignored, and yes, a number of people have chimed in agreeing with the issues I've raised, while a few others have suggested they'd be more aware of the situation in the future.

But then there is a whole other small, agressive, assertive, verbose group that is cross examining my cred rather than discussing my points - calling the newbie cheeky (this is. A. Bad thing. Here?), taking offense, suggesting my notions are descending into hyperbole, that my ideas 'suck', being defensive, suggesting there is no problem etc

How do you, gentle veteran, think a Newbie would feel and respond to the totality of this discussion? Encouraged, or put off and unlikely to consider it 'safe' to express an unpopular idea again?

Everyone will answer that for themselves, so I will leave it at that.

I keep trying to stay out of this...

I actually do think newbies should think twice before posting an unpopular opinion. Not that they shouldn't do it, but they should think twice. Because we do take shit seriously, and we also are a community. Shit, I don't know, can someone just Nilly poor Wolfram's brouhaha? All of this was said then.

Rafmun, (anyone else have to spell that out backwards each time?) I find the tone of your posts a major distraction to the points you're trying to make.

Hey, whatever tone you choose to read into my posts is your right completely.

I explicitly stated the tone I intend my post(s) to have at the outset, and I will keep everyone updated when I want that to change.

How do you, gentle veteran, think a Newbie would feel and respond to the totality of this discussion? Encouraged, or put off and unlikely to consider it 'safe' to express an unpopular idea again?

Honestly? I think a Newbie would still post after reading this discussion. I also think a Newbie might come away with the assumption that there are some posters who are annoyed at and/or are holding grudges at other posters.

cross examining my cred

I'll admit to doing this. Your first post stated that your authority came from your position as a knowledgeable observer. You then referred twice to "mods" which is something we don't just not have, we've made a clear policy of not having, which cast doubt on your knowledge. You've also stated repeatedly that people who are responsible for the behavior complained of refuse to recognize it. How do you propose we become persuaded in order to recognize it? Accept you at your word (which, according to your logic, we won't do) or try to become convinced by establishing your credibility?

If I'm misdirecting, well, I don't care. This is my concern, and my right to ask you if you want to persuade people.

But then there is a whole other small, agressive, assertive, verbose group that is cross examining my cred rather than discussing my points - calling the newbie cheeky (this is. A. Bad thing. Here?), taking offense, suggesting my notions are descending into hyperbole, that my ideas 'suck', being defensive, suggesting there is no problem etc

See, this entire paragraph isn't an assertion, so much as an aside to posters you are now refusing to have a direct conversation with, designed merely to push buttons, rather than further the debate, while pretending to be nobly above such action.

What's more, it's clear to me from your command of the English language that you understand perfectly well what you're doing with your rhetorical constructs, and are doing it deliberately and intentionally now (if not before).

So, if you would like to continue the direct conversation I was trying to have with you (just because I disagree with you does not mean I was talking past you, or trying to misdirect the debate), fine, otherwise your smug air of superiority over debate ethics is compete hogwash.