A desire to control others isn't even in the realm of my thinking.
It seems like you've been trying to control what people are allowed to complain about. You even offered a suggestion about how often they should be allowed to complain.
But if they don't want to, and other means are sought out to get them to take that sig pic down (be it official or unofficial, a ranger, or another poster), it's no longer about coexistance, but about getting YOUR way.
For me, it wasn't about getting MY way, it was about upholding the use of a forum according to the guidelines
the community has decided upon as a group, guidelines I believe are there for the good of everyone.
But if people start to use it to "control" (yes, as I think Cerin did with the bikeracks thread, for ONE example), then I think that is wrong.
Voicing my opinion that a forum should not be used in a way that I felt potentially threatened its intended usefulness to members of the community isn't attempting to 'control' anymore than you are attempting to control people by voicing your opinions.
The moment, however, when they said they didn't want to move the thread, and Cerin (or anyone else) decided that some kind of intervention to get the thing moved was necessary, it became about control.
That isn't an accurate description of what happened. I voiced my opinion about the thread in what I considered to be the appropriate manner as soon as I saw it, because
to me it was a clear violation of the board guidelines
that I perceived could be harmful to the interests of the community.
It wasn't a matter of expressing a personal preference for something, it was a matter of principle. I would not alter my stand on a matter of principle according to what other people thought about it. I don't believe you would, either (based on my impressions of you from your posting).
Cerin obviously places a great deal of importance on the bikeracks forum working in a certain way.
Yes, I place a great deal of importance on the forum working
in the way it was intended to work, which was arrived at with a great deal of consideration
and voted on by the membership.
That's fine, but when Lidless and TP did something outside of that "certain way"
Outside of the certain way
our board guidelines specify for good and well-considered reasons
Cerin tried to "control" the forum, that is "force" it bakc to that "certain way"
I objected to what I viewed as a potentially harmful misuse of the forum as stated in our board guidelines,
which were created by the community to serve the community.
instead of coexisting with TP and Lidless, let them have their joke, and then let things return naturally.
Instead of looking the other way when I saw something going on that I felt would potentially harm the usefulness of the forum
for members who genuinely had a need to use it in the way it was intended.
No, it's not about getting MY way.
Yes, it is about getting your way. You want the forum to be used the way YOU want it to be used (which is contrary to the way it was designed and so stated to be used as a benefit to the members of the community).
It is exactly and entirely about getting your way.
Or, if charter really is set up to control the members (which I don't think it is), it would be good to know that too, as I don't think that would be common knowledge.
The Charter is for the most part set up to define what kind of community we would like this to be. It does include a few stated penalties that are meant to control certain behaviors that we have identified as harmful to that goal.
While at the same time, it does not prohibit people from joking in the bikeracks room
It states what the Bike Racks is to be used for. Staging mock dispute resolutions isn't on the list.