Tore,
I have to admit, your single-mindedness and finger pointing is now getting to the point of victimisation. Are you just going to ignore my reply that I was not the only one in that conversation, was replying to a theory put forward (to test whether the person actually thought that or not) and yet am the only one you posted that snippy reply to?? Furthermore:
Quote:
Originally Posted by tore
Personally, I don't attribute much consideration to such threats. I find it immature to threaten a suggestion like this to silence and besides, it is just the last in a line of argument where the whole basis relies on extreme exaggeration of the harshness of the proposed system. Words and terms like police state, nazi state and witch hunt have been used. Noone wants this. It's not what I or anyone else who supports this are envisioning. The whole assumption that that's what this suggestion would lead to is wrong and fallacious.
|
Did you even read my post? It said "This should NOT be taken as a threat". You have seen three, maybe four people, all established members, advise that if this system went through they would be forced to either leave or, in the case of those who maintain journals, lock themselves in their journal cave. Yet you still choose to tell me I'm making a threat. I jsut told you it is not a threat, why can't you acknowledge that, and the depth of feeling there is against this in many quarters?
Quote:
|
My last proposition suggests more relaxed rules in the lounge. That would more or less mean that lounge discussions would be as they are today, but threads outside of the lounge will be protected from bickering and derailment (among other things). Did you consider this suggestion?
|
I'm very much against people not being able to have a lighthearted approach to threads outside the Lounge. For instance, my "Metal Month III is coming" thread. Your new system would forbid the likes of Batty calling me a girl, or telling me to **** off, or someone else saying I know **** all about metal? Using those words? You would want EVERYTHING taken seriously 100% of the time? Cos that is what your system is proposing, at its heart. Have your fun in the Lounge, but be serious outside it? No thanks dad. I'd prefer, much prefer to be able to, and have people able to, take the piss out of me in any thread they feel they wish to, unless it is VERY serious, like maybe an RIP or someone discussing their mental state or something. There's a time and place for fun and levity, and that's always.
So no, fencing off the Lounge as the only place you can kick back and let your hair down (metaphorically in my case) after working hard in the main forum does not appeal to me, and does not seem like very much of a compromise. I am insulted that you imply that we don't know when to turn it off and act seriously: someone only has to say come on guys knock it off this has gone too far, and 99 people out of 100 will. We're not stupid.
Quote:
I think there are ways to make this work, but you need to take the discussion a little more serious. How would you make it work? What is your suggested compromise? That's what I would like to know. So how about you stop the threats, stop the cries and instead try to be a little constructive and perhaps even help find solutions?
|
If what I've said up to now is not being taken seriously by you, or seen to be, then I don't know what to say. I haven't made fun of your thread or your proposal, but I have been very clear that I am one hundred percent against it and do not believe it is needed. How many members have left because of "bad feeling"? How can you quantify, or even qualify this? It seems to me this is a classic case of a problem that does not need fixing. How would I fix it? I wouldn't. It's fine. Even when I had spats with Sansa I jsut waited for it to be sorted, put her on Ignore and eventually was glad to see she had taken enough rope to hang herself. Once someone is on Ignore you don't have to worry about them, unless they're quoted. It worked well for me. YorkeDaddy on the other hand was man enough to accept my PM and we worked it out like friends, which we now are. Your new system would have had us both banned and he probably would never have come back. Not only would we then have missed his excellent music but his sharp humour, so it would have done more harm than good.
Quote:
If your post has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, it is off-topic. You were discussing Soulflower's character, not my suggestion.
|
And I was the only one doing this of course, as I said above. Look Tore, if I had run that conversation on my own, trying to draw people in and nobody bit, then yes, you would have cause to call me out. But I was responding to a question, and really the only reason you picked me out as far as I can see was that you were getting irked that attention was being taken away from your main topic, even if it was only a few posts.
Quote:
If you need people for a job, you get people who can do that job.
|
Yeah, but you give everyone who wants the job a chance. You don't just pick the people who voted for you, or who you went to school with. Could be a case of Clique City ahoy!
Quote:
I am generally a busy person and will be more so in the future, and so no - I am not particularly interested in running a "new state" here. I like Musicbanter, but I don't like the direction in which I think it's headed and would like to offer my help in changing the direction of the ship so to speak. When it's on the right track with a captain and a crew to get it there, I'd like to step off .. In other words become a normal member again and get on with the rest of my life.
edit :
|
So you would come in, get us all thinking the way you think we should be thinking, then leave us to fend for ourselves? You know, I kind of thought that. Also, you didn't answer my more important question: if this gets shot down, if the vote goes against you, or the poll, will you let it rest or will you continue to bring it up every chance you have?
Is it even possible you have taken into account the views of the, as it were, NO campaign, or do you see us all as standing in the way of your system because we're all just a bunch of naysayers who don't know what's good for them, and you'll run this thing and get it through whether we like it or not? Cause there's a word for people like that, you know.
It'll be interesting to see how this poll goes... and more to the point, what happens after it. Also, I agree that the title of the poll is very unbalanced, sort of like "Do you favour fair governance?"