Cessation of discussion

[Oseleon]

I'm sorry, but I just went back through "Cookie Rehab" and "Urge to Kill"
I really dont see why they were locked
"Cookie Rehab" seemed to be people assuming personal attacks when none took place
and "Urge to kill"...
I have no clue why that was locked.  It was an intresting thread.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

I'm leaning toward sprig on this. I like less fights. Fights were why I stopped hanging out at Geek Culture right as I was becoming one of the "In Crowd." It wasn't fun.

Fights should be modded.

Posting something that doesn't fit a strictly defined format should not be modded unless it's completely off subject.

Cookie was a lot of misunderstanding. But when it comes down to it, I'd rather have a conversation stopped due to a misunderstanding rather than have the bad feelings continue.

I"m not sure about urge to kill. We had a few linguists discussing linguistics... and... some other people making comments and being corrected. I'm not sure about that one.

Now, I think JP is doing his job right. I think we have far too many fights and I'd much rather see Urge to Kill die than have all the other fights continue. There have been a lot of fights. And I don't want fights, even if they're mil compared to Kenzerco or Geek Culture or anywhere else.

But what Fell said, it starts with policing ourselves. If someone says something, why not assume it DOESN'T mean the most offensive thing but instead means something more innocuous. I don't think there's been a single comment that has contributed to a thread escalating to a fight that couldn't have been taken in a much less offensive manner than it was. The problem is not people making offensive comments (ok, yeah, that's part of it), but it is more that people are taking offense at comments that they shouldn't. I'm appaled that you can't call something stupid anymore, even if it bears absolutely no relation to anyone here, their interests, or the interests of their third cousins. THAT is taking too much offense.

[GorgonlaVacaTremendo]

I agree.  This site is joining the trend of being super politcally correct, you can't call something stupid or say that something is better than something else without it offending somebody.  I think everybody, myself included, should make sure that there has been something offensive if they are going to act offended.

And I didn't mean to say, and lo siento for doing so if I did, that fights were okay.  I meant as soon as there are personal attacks, take measures necissary to stop the attacks, locking included.  I do not think, though, that 'impending flame wars' are a good enough reason to lock a thread.  Until the first match is dropped, there is no fire, so there should be no firemen.

[Skar]

Could someone please link to Cookie Rehab?  

Either I can't figure out how to search for a particular thread  and am stupid or the search engine for the forum sucks.

[Spriggan]

http://www.timewastersguide.com/boards/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=other;action=display;num=1112910873

[Archon]

http://www.timewastersguide.com/boards/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=other;action=display;num=1112910873

[House of Mustard]

I still think you're making mountains out of molehills.  Jeffe listed only two threads that had been locked in the recent past, and no one else has specified any others.  Two locked posts, and other, uncounted threats of locking hardly constitute rabid modding, or, as Gorgon says, the forum becoming super politically correct.

Gorgon's phrase: "Until the first match is dropped, there is no fire, so there should be no firemen" could apply just as well to this discussion.  Where's the fire?  Where is all of this strict fascist modding?

[Mad Dr Jeffe]

Just for the record I never said fascist, and maybe using rabid was a little exaggerated, but modding doesn't stop at just locking threads anymore, it also has deleted posts and edited posts. I dont like that. I agree with saint that people need to stop seeing the worst in what people say and not throw gas on the fire when they get mad.

[Spriggan]

again, as I've said at least 2 other times in this thread, the edited posts situation has allready been delt with, the only times it should happen is when people post links to illegal content or other extream situations.  As for deletating posts, that only happens in threads like Cool Stuff and Quotes, it dosen't happen on normal threads.  If it has happened recently please let me know since I'm want to be aware of it all.

[Skar]

I just read Cookie Rehab and frankly I think  the answer to that particular problem was for SE to calm down.

Now, I've been accused of taking offense at SE's posts when none was reasonable so my opinion is suspect.  However, I see a pattern.  SE's posts are often, in my opinion, the equivalent of walking into a room of people making a quilt and saying loudly, "Quilt making is stupid and a waste of time!"  Then denying loudly ever having called anyone in the room, personally, stupid.  And claiming, again loudly, that anyone who takes offense has a problem, and may be stupid. Then, when the people in the room object, pointing out that they are the ones taking offense and therefore it's not your problem.  

The effect is the same and the behavior is unreasonable.

Sorry if I've offended.  I call them as I see them.

[Oseleon]

My personal opinion is that the only requirement to solve the problem is...
Thicker Skin

Honestly, saying "quilting is stupid" is diffrent than saying "people who quilt are stupid"
Lots of smart people do dumb things.  

Taking such rich offense is just going overboard.  

Fact is, around here
I feel like I can only add a "me too" post to any topic, otherwise, I would inadvertantly offend someone for some ODD reason and cause some lockage.  

As it stands, I would never attempt to discuss
Terri Schivo
Secular Europe
US Foreign Policy
Papal polotics
Michael Moore
Anne Coultor
Star Wars Cannon (EU vs Movies)
and others..
On this board.  The chance of someone manufacturing a reason to be offended is too great.  My personal opinion is to not lock the threads when they get heated unless the content is OBVIOUSLY offensive, not just what ONE person CLAIMS is offensive... as it stands now we have threads locked out of fear of the Tyranny of the minority

[Skar]

My personal opinion is that the only requirement to solve the problem is...
Thicker Skin

No doubt.

Honestly, saying "quilting is stupid" is diffrent than saying "people who quilt are stupid"

Hardly.  It is impossible for quilting to be stupid.  The activity itself does not have cognitive ability and therefore that cognitive ability cannot be lacking.  When you are in a room(or forum) full of quilters the implication that it's actually the people who indulge in quilting who are being called stupid is unavoidable.

It's simply a case of the speaker not having the courage or the clarity of thought to just come right out and say it.

That said, I think it's correct that a thicker skin is usually the best solution to avoiding contention on the board.  But when you call someone stupid, through backhanded implication or straightforward insult, don't be surprised when they object.

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

That's a really pedantic perspective, Skar, and I enthusiastically disagree. It is neither technically nor grammatically incorrect to call an activity stupid. It is common and accepted usage. The fact that I think that activity is stupid by no means says that I called an individual who does it stupid.

My wife thinks a lot of things I do are stupid. I don't like that she thinks they're stupid, but I would never go so far as to say that my wife thinks I am stupid. There is a universe of difference.

Btw, It's awfully hard to calm down when you're constantly accused of offending people. In cookie rehab? What did I say that was offensive BEFORE anyone told me I was out of line? Yes, I was excited, but that does NOT mean offensive. If you're not allowed to be passionate here, there's really no point in hanging around, because I do not spend my time, wasted or no, doing things that I don't have strong feelings about.

[Skar]

OK.

It is neither technically nor grammatically incorrect to call an activity stupid. It is common and accepted usage.

Given. However, the implication that the person performing the "stupid" activity must therefore be stupid is just as common and accepted since the statement is nonsensical otherwise.  You must remember that the only medium by which we communicate is text.  Nuance, such as body language and tone is uncommunicable by it.  So, whatever nuance you would add to your statement that quilting is stupid in a room full of quilters that would prevent them from being offended is lost in this medium.

The fact that I think that activity is stupid by no means says that I called an individual who does it stupid.

I beg to differ and I appear to be in fairly numerous company considering how many of your "stupid activity, stupid point of view, stupid whatever" posts are reacted to with offense and displeasure and eventual locking.

But I suppose that when the whole world thinks your posts are offensive, the whole world must be stupid, since your posts are not offensive.  Continue as before.

I hope you realize that a standard PM to noobs on this board is to not let SE/e get under their skin, since it's just his "way"

[The Holy Saint, Grand High Poobah, Master of Monkeys, Ehlers]

See, now, THAT post seems calculated to make people (read: me) feel bad.

The other difference is I have REPEATEDLY stated that I intend a difference between the two statements. Continuing to take offense at that point IS a problem with the reader. By doing so you DELIBERATELY choose to say that your interpretation of the comment matters much more than the actual poster STATING that he did not intend it that way. That, frankly, is NOT my problem. It is the problem with the person taking it.

Btw, I am also in plentiful company separating the two ideas and finding that there is no logical inconsistency between them. So that hardly makes it the rest of the world. I'm sorry, but disagreeing with you does not mean I disagree with the whole world. I hope that doesn't deflate your ego too much  -- remember, I am not even the one who brought up that thread as an example. nor was I the first to agree that it shouldn't have been locked. In fact, I was the first to say that it was better to have locked it than to let all fights continue.

I return back to my question. You say the Cookie Rehab thread was me needing to calm down. Again, was there anything I said that was offensive before other people were telling me to cross the line? Or was it just something I had strong feelings about? If the former, THEN I'll accept it was my fault (conditional on my belief taking offense to the point was a rational decision). If the latter, why is expressing strong feelings such a problem? Who here honestly wants to continue to visit a place where no one is allowed to talk about what interests them?

Now, before you decide to focus on that last statement: I am fully aware that "no one" is an exaggeration. The point remains. There are several people here who feel that there is enough censorship to prevent them from entertaining several topics of conversation. I personally would really be interested in hearing what Oseleon says about Papal politics, since he's one of the few active Catholics I know and would be in a much better position to comment on it than most people I know. I think our forum would benefit from opening up a little more to some tolerance of saying things strongly.