4. If Board77 ever intends to be what it was created to be, then a few things need to happen.
First, members need to give people the benefit of the doubt when conflict happens. People cannot assume guilt and treat others based on that assumption. This is a concept I believe is fundamental to the concept of democracy, which is another thing this board was founded on.
Agreed 100%.
Do you mind if I quote you on that?
Second, while rangers must excercise their authority to prevent abuse on the board, they cannot be authorized to arbitrarily decide in favor of one side or another in a dispute. They are not judges, or a jury. If they are forced to do something to "maintain peace" they should do so in an unbiased way. Even if it seems one person is central to a conflict, they cannot confine that one person and let others be free... ALL involved in a conflict must be treated the same. If one person feels that 10 others are ganging up on them, they cannot be singled out, but if they and the 10 others are all confined to the "bike racks" or whatever, then there can be no complaint.
Agreed, in principle. In practice, I'd have to hear what people who have been Rangers and have had to deal with these issues have to say about the practicalities.
Third, personal attacks and offenses must be based on the perception of the one offended. If a person feels offended or attacked, THAT should be the concern of the rangers. Rangers should not decide one way or another if a statement was REALLY a personal attack or not. If someone feels they have been insulted or attacked, then 99% of the time they have, and it was intentional on the behalf of the attacker. If the attacker can hide behind some technicality or hide becuase they can convince the rangers they were ONLY attacking the opinion, not the person, then we've lost all concept of "mutual respect." At the same time, someone who is quick to claim they have been "personally attacked" should be asked to resolve the dispute without rule enforcement or ranger involvement. If someone claims they are attacked without any attempt to resolve the dispute in the spirit of mutual respect, then they are essentially attacking their percieved attacker with the accusation. The whole concept of B77 (at least as I had thought it) was that we could resolve disputes without rules, technicalities, and moderators (ie. super-rangers).
Okay, here is where it all falls apart for me. Firstly, you have to realize that everyone doesn't perceive "personal attacks" the same way. You and I especially seem to be on complete opposite ends of the spectrum. I very seldom take offense at anything, and am usually surprised whenever anybody else does. You OTOH seem to usually take up for the offended person (even when it's not you), and I'm sure you wonder why people like me just don't seem to get it.
Which is not to say that one of us is right in these perceptions and the other is wrong. It's to say that we need to keep in mind that these things are inherently subjective. People will disagree
in good faith and any system for dealing with disagreements must assume good faith. In fact, I just recently read something to that effect...
First, members need to give people the benefit of the doubt when conflict happens. People cannot assume guilt and treat others based on that assumption.
Which brings me to some specific things that I think are
not a matter of opinion, but are
objectively wrong.
If someone feels they have been insulted or attacked, then 99% of the time they have, and it was intentional on the behalf of the attacker.
So much for the benefit of the doubt and not assuming guilt. Expecting the Rangers to operate off of this assumption takes the burden of proof off of the accuser and places it on the accused, making him guilty until proven innocent. That's downright un-American.
Unless we move our server to Guantanamo.
...personal attacks and offenses must be based on the perception of the one offended. If a person feels offended or attacked, THAT should be the concern of the rangers.
Bullshit.
No, let me restate that:
Bull-fucking-shit.
The Rangers are not therapists. They're not here to deal with people's feelings and perceptions. They are here to deal with people's
behavior. Nor can you hold one poster responsible for another poster's emotional response to his posts. You have to look at what was posted and hold the person responsible for that.
Making other people responsible for your own feelings and behavior (generic "you") is a great recipe for emotional dysfunction. Trust me, I've tried it. And I have no desire to replicate that on a societal scale. Each and every person must be responsible for their own emotions and their own actions.
On that note...
Maybe it never worked this way, but I always assumed that if "one member" felt mistreated and disrespected, and complained about it, and no one listened, and that "one member" got angry, and lashed out about it, then the first response of the board would still be to treat that person with respect, and try to understand what upset them, and work as a whole board to "fix the problem" not "eliminate the one member."
Well, if "one member"
(dunno why we're putting that in quotes, but whatever) got angry and lashed out, then he's wrong for lashing out. His anger is no excuse. Likewise, if "others"
(still dunno about the quotes, but it seemed fair) respond to his lashing out by getting angry and lashing back, then they are also wrong. If we've learned nothing else from this little experiment here, it's that there's enough room on this board for EVERYBODY to be wrong at the same time. It's the same point I kept hammering on in the original thread - your actions are your own.
Bottom line - we can do whatever we want with the charter or power rangers or anything else, but it's all irrelevant if people don't grow the fuck up and act like adults. Most of the time, we do okay with that. Which is why I agree with Tosh in not seeing a pressing need to change anything.
One more thing...
5. I have been appalled by people's discussion of me. Some have made up their mind about me, obviously, and I have abandoned any hope that such minds could be changed. I have not abandoned Board77, though, because if the principles of the board as it was founded actually are important to the members here, if people here can treat other members with respect, no matter what the disagreement, then people's biases and past abhorant treatment of me doesn't matter... because I can always expect fair treatment and discussion. I have not found this to be the case for a long time. I have felt that any time I wish to present a strong disagreement with people, i am ganged up on, and some pretense is presented for me to be characterized as a troublemaker and instigator, thus nulifying any argument I can put forth for my own opinion.
Who's going to listen to the percieved troublemaker? Who's going to listen to the sick, depressed, asshole who lashes out at everyone and everything just for attention? How can that person have a viable opinion about anything?
This thread was deliberately split so as not to be about you. If you want to talk about your treatment on this board, and you tell me that you're willing to listen to my opinion, I'd be happy to discuss the topic in the original thread.