board77

Quote:

I'll tell you right now, you're not going to get that level of control If you can't handle that, this argument will never end.

It has nothing to do with me getting a level of control. It has to do with the fact that the membership ratified a Charter, and that Charter contains specified uses for the Bike Racks. This argument will never end as long as people continue and are allowed to stage mock resolutions in Bike Racks under the current wording of the Charter.

halplm wrote:

I'm going to ask the rangers or the loremasters what can be done about Cerin at this point. She is unwilling to change, compromise, or drop this issue. Is the ONLY course of action to simply ignore her? Because that's rude, very difficult to do, and may represent an ongoing animosity that will tear this place apart. I don't think one poster should be allowed to do that.

hal,

I agree that Cerin is unwilling to change, compromise her stance, or drop this issue.

I also have come to believe that the people still determined to have their obstreperous merriment are as unwilling to change, compromise, or drop this issue. And, I am forced to point out the hypocrisy in demanding that Cerin do these things while you do not.

Is the only course of action simply to ignore everyone who insists on continuing this fight? Because that's rude, very difficult to do, and may represent an ongoing ignoring of way too many people to be fun - not to mention that I consider many of you friends.

This does represent an ongoing animosity that could well tear this place apart. And I don't think anyone should be allowed to do that.

Cerin wrote:

Quote:

I'll tell you right now, you're not going to get that level of control If you can't handle that, this argument will never end.

It has nothing to do with me getting a level of control. It has to do with the fact that the membership ratified a Charter, and that Charter contains specified uses for the Bike Racks. This argument will never end as long as people continue and are allowed to stage mock resolutions in Bike Racks under the current wording of the Charter.

That is not the issue. What is the issue is your interpretation or "vision" for the bikeracks is not shared by others, and this does not fit in with what you are willing to accept.

That is, you cannot control what it is. If all you wanted was the bikeracks to be exactly how you say it, you would try and ammend the charter to be clear. You've refused to do that, and have to have your interpretation be correct. That's about control.

tolkienpurist wrote:

halplm wrote:

I'm going to ask the rangers or the loremasters what can be done about Cerin at this point. She is unwilling to change, compromise, or drop this issue. Is the ONLY course of action to simply ignore her? Because that's rude, very difficult to do, and may represent an ongoing animosity that will tear this place apart. I don't think one poster should be allowed to do that.

hal,

I agree that Cerin is unwilling to change, compromise her stance, or drop this issue.

I also have come to believe that the people still determined to have their obstreperous merriment are as unwilling to change, compromise, or drop this issue. And, I am forced to point out the hypocrisy in demanding that Cerin do these things while you do not.

Is the only course of action simply to ignore everyone who insists on continuing this fight? Because that's rude, very difficult to do, and may represent an ongoing ignoring of way too many people to be fun - not to mention that I consider many of you friends.

This does represent an ongoing animosity that could well tear this place apart. And I don't think anyone should be allowed to do that.

I appreciate the irony, TP, but I am willing to change, if any discussion about such change ever happened. I won't speak for Lidless on this one.

The problem is, that discussion has not and will not happen as long as Cerin refuses to have it. I WILL not let her bully us around until she gets her way. That is not the same not being willing to change.

halplm wrote:

She is unwilling to change, compromise, or drop this issue.

I am quite willing to drop the issue of the misuse of Bike Racks at this time. My request was denied. If someone starts another mock thread in Bike Racks, I will again complain, because I believe it is a violation of the Charter and harmful to the community. Until that happens, this particular matter is practically closed as far as I can see.

However, I will continue responding to people who address me in this thread and to ideas I wish to respond to, and I eagerly look forward to a response from Lidless and halplm regarding the other matter I posted about.


I believe you are the one, halplm, who will not drop the issue.

Chill, babe. Lighten up.

halplm wrote:

What is the issue is your interpretation or "vision" for the bikeracks is not shared by others, and this does not fit in with what you are willing to accept.

No, that is not the issue. The issue is people using the forum for a purpose not among those listed in the Charter.

Perhaps someone who sees a problem with the specificity of the current Charter wording will take steps to initiate an amendment to clarify this issue.

are you intentionally infuriating? Because the whole "Chill babe" thing is an attempt to make people think you're perfectly fine with all this, and the FUCK YOU type posts of last night seem a little different coming from you.

The issue you will not drop is the continuation to complain, not this one issue. The statmenet you will ALWAYS complain about this IS the issue, and you will not drop it or compromise.

And don't give me that garbage of "go find me hard evidence." I don't go around keeping a record of what people do. And it's not just you, it's you and truehobbit, but you're always there to back the other up.

Part of what you did that fits into this whole thing was an insistance on ABSOLUTELY strict adherance to the rules in the whole TOE ammendment business, when it was clearly unnecessary and only caused delays and hurt feelings. you were unwilling to see the greater good because you didn't like how things were turning out. You say you devoted a lot of time and effort to making that work. From outside, it looked like you did everything you could to make it a painful process and control the situation because you thought you knew what was best.

Please don't go off on refuting that argument, it's irrelivant. It is mearly an example of how this is not the ONLY time you've been a stickler for the rules.

We're fighting to try and get you to see that you CAN change, and things CAN work between us, but you are fighting to get us to see that ONLY YOUR way is correct, and ONLY YOUR way is acceptable. We're being inclusive, you're being exclusive. We're trying to find a way to coexist freely, you're trying to find a way to fit us into a box so you don't have to coexist with what you don't like.

Yes, we could drop it, and wait for the next time you piss us off, but we want to resolve the underlying issue so we don't have to keep dealing with this issue.

Don't you DARE say it's us who need to drop it.

Cerin wrote:

halplm wrote:

What is the issue is your interpretation or "vision" for the bikeracks is not shared by others, and this does not fit in with what you are willing to accept.

No, that is not the issue. The issue is people using the forum for a purpose not among those listed in the Charter.

Perhaps someone who sees a problem with the specificity of the current Charter wording will take steps to initiate an amendment to clarify this issue.

Someday, you MAY learn that saying the same thing over and over and over and over and over again, does not advance your argument and just annoys people.

Cerin,

I would be happy to gather evidence, but that four letter word that pays the bills, work, means this will take a few days given the length of the post it will end up as.

As to other posters coming here and publically stating their opinion against you, that I cannot force. Many I would guess are timid to get involved publically in a shouting match. If they do not post, or have not been following the thread and haven't seen your request, that is no evidence that they do not exist. I'm certainly not going to go round and try and shepherd them in here.

God strike me down! Now!

Oh, still posting. But that wasn't evidence of God's non-existence. See what I mean?

Since I will be busy with this request of yours, I have a request to ask of you. Since I cannot possibly do this *and* come up with a compromise, how about you come up with a compromise. Share the load. A real compromise - one that will satisfy both sides of this debate. One that will allow posters to make self-referential self-mocking threads (one of the core esprit de corps of B77 and the old TORC) and the occasional healthy flexing of the rules which everyone can live with.

And as for your inability to go into a forum because of a joke thread there, the infamous quote - the one I use that gets me through life better than any deity could - is:

Pain is inevitable; suffering is optional.

Try it.

halplm wrote:

Someday, you MAY learn that saying the same thing over and over and over and over and over again, does not advance your argument and just annoys people.

Hal, I love you and everything, but the irony of this statement coming from you is just scrumptious.

Please consider that many of the behaviors you are complaining about from Cerin are ones you yourself exhibit and are exhibiting right now.

I suggest that the discussion might advance if you were to answer Cerin's questions about her history on the board and when you have seen her try to control other people. That is apparently the root of the issue for you, yet you won't address it.

Edit: So, we can look for a considerable amount of hard data on Tuesday? Excellent. I look forward to it.

Quote:

Voronwe, then that is your choice as well. Lidless has said many times he wasn't mocking you or the situation you were mediating. I'm guessing you don't believe him or TED who also says the same.

Eru, I'm afraid its not that simple. I'm not sure that you comprehend the delicate balance that is necessary to successfully mediate a serious dispute. Both the mediator and the mediation process have to have a certain standing for there to be any hope of success. The joke bike racks threads have had the effect of eroding that standing, particularly with the jokes about needing a mediator to resolve the issues. There is a disdain for the dispute resolution process that is expressed in those threads, whether the thread-starters consciously meant to be mocking or not. And the existence of that disdain would make it more difficult for to retain the kind of standing necessary to steer the parties to a serious dispute through the inevitable rough spots that come up in a mediation, because the parties would naturally latch on to that disdain in order to avoid making the hard choices that are necessary to come to a mutually acceptable resolution of a serious dispute. That too is reflected in the pyschology books you are so fond of reading.

You can say, "well, that is just your opinion" and of course you would be right to say that. But consider that I am a conflict resolution professional; that is what I do professionally. And I did successfully mediate a serious dispute that no one thought could be resolved. No one else here can make that claim. So I do think that my opinion on this matter has some weight to it.

Cerin's inability to concede that the Charter might even possibly have two different meanings is not helping either, Prim. It's almost religious in nature.

I don't have time for this right now.

Dammit, I don't!!

But I just want to say that I see both sides of this so clearly... Cerin is NOT, in my opinion, trying to keep this alive in any way. She's admitted defeat of her request that the thread needed to be moved. I get the picture she's not too thrilled with that decision, but there you go. I think she's accepted it, and moved away from trying to move the thread. She's not shaking her rattle at establishment, or the anti-establishment, I don't think. That's not my take on it at all.

As far as I can tell, she's responding to people wanting her to, it seems, change her mind, by saying she cannot change her mind... she believes her feelings are valid, and moreso, she feels they are right.

Could be they are wrong, in the Cosmic Scale of Rightness and Wrongness. Who knows? Who really cares? It's one thread in one forum, she disapproves of it, and after all this chat, she still disapproves of it.

Isn't that allowed?




hal, I do understand your side. More than you may think, IF you care what I think at all. But constantly trying to get Cerin to say something she doesn't believe in is counterproductive to the peace and harmony you say you want on these boards. She is NOT going into your threads and raining on you. She's really not. She's not throwing fits in the Ranger thread. She's not doing anything, that I can see, but reacting to what is being said about and to her, and standing her ground.

She just is going to keep addressing remarks made to her. She's not going to lie about what she feels. Should she have to?

Really, should she?

So, in my honest and oft-ignored opinion, we all need to just accept that there will be differences of opinions about this, and let it go.


Can we do that?

Anthriel wrote:

So, in my honest and oft-ignored opinion, we all need to just accept that there will be differences of opinions about this, and let it go.


Can we do that?

Can we?

Cerin wrote:

If someone starts another mock thread in Bike Racks, I will again complain, because I believe it is a violation of the Charter and harmful to the community.

I would be with you, because I believe it would be harmful to the community.

Having said that, I need to respond to your question from yesterday morning, and then I'm out of here for most of the day.

Quote:

It seems this must mean that you do recognize that this use of the forum is a violation of the Charter and should not be allowed, and yet you seem to feel that that deliberate violation by this particular group of b77 members should be allowed while in the future it should not be allowed. How can this be viewed as anything other than an elite class of posters with special privileges? I can see no ethical grounds (speaking of the stated principles of the board) for prohibiting this use of the forum in the future if it is allowed to stand now.

I do not believe there is an elite class of posters with special privileges. I think there are things that are acceptable or even funny once - but not ad infinitum. This is often true with humor that may be funny to some, but offensive or disturbing to others.

Additionally, the primary purpose of the BikeRacks is indisputably the one you keep referring to, Cerin. Anyone who wishes to contest this through contorted readings of the Charter is being pedantic. There may be a legitimate difference of opinion on "bending the rules" once. However, repeatedly bending the rules destroys the primary purpose of the forum, IMO.

I have felt the same way since October 20th, the day the thread was started. I just consulted my YIM chat transcripts from that day to see what I said. I stated to another poster that someone might object that we were "misusing the BikeRacks" and my response was, "I think it's ok as long as it's a one time thing for laughs. If everyone decided to do something, it would be more of a problem." [Do not browbeat. You have no idea how much I regret that thread, due to its aftermath.]

My "If everyone decided to do something" thought had nothing to do with the fact that *Steve* was the one to start the first thread. It had something to do with the fact that the thread was right on the edge, that it did push boundaries. Such forms of humor quickly use their fun value when injudiciously repeated. The second thread, IMO, had at most fleeting humor value, because a malicious side to the thread (thinly veiled references to a specific group of members) quickly emerged. A third thread would be even differently situated than the first two, regardless of the identity of the poster who started a putative third thread.

Also, it's pretty clear that I've changed my position considerably from the time this discussion started (on October 21). So, I will just add this.

Quote:

...the delicate balance that is necessary to successfully mediate a serious dispute. Both the mediator and the mediation process have to have a certain standing for there to be any hope of success.

My first very serious, real-life experience with this process (from the standpoint of the mediator) earlier this week, has given me a vastly different and far more respectful view of the concept of mediation - and of the demands on the mediator. It's pushed me very close to an outright change of heart on the b77 issue.

Primula_Baggins wrote:

Anthriel wrote:

So, in my honest and oft-ignored opinion, we all need to just accept that there will be differences of opinions about this, and let it go.


Can we do that?

Can we?

Yes, yes I can. Done.

All hail Anthy!!!

I think that everyone who is still arguing should put their name in the Ranger pool if they haven't already.













.

Where is that pool Maria I think it's time I get my feet wet

Boy, MH, that's cruel and unusual punishment, dontcha think?

Muaaaaaaa haaaaaaaa haaaaaa!