Re: I have a bone to pick with u guys

[Laguna]

Sorry, guys (and gals). I was planning to leave the boards yesterday, but there was something nagging at me: the thread mentioned in the title. It has caught my attention and brought up some valid points. So I'd like to respond to it (again).

Here's the thread that I am referring to:

http://www.emuparadise.org/vbulletin...&threadid=8411

First of all, I know that it is ill-advised to bring up such a topic again and I would have avoided doing so at all costs. The incident involving The Dragon in mIRC was something that I had pushed to the back of my mind and had essentially forgotten about, yet the aforementioned thread started by sakura_st elicits a more in-depth response than was received.

In my view, the thread was locked prematurely, but we can't always be evading the serious issues, can we, though the topic that it alludes to would better be left forgotten and untouched? Apparently, cyberxion101 was in a "locking" mood that day. I think that another thread is necessary to elicit some thoughtful and meaningful discussion regarding the issue. Only a handful of responses could be submitted for her thread and they were from the same few people as well.

Okay, here's what I think: the disagreement in IRC was a valid one - Sarcast had the right (and power) to enforce his rules, which are perfectly acceptable. There is an unwritten code stating that we do not swear in public - though it might seem trivial to some individuals to this board, as I have gathered. The "freedom of speech" issue will inevitably continue to persist - and there will always be people with different opinions. Such a rule in IRC is perfectly justified and enforceable. Rules, and rules, and individuals get sanctioned for failing to follow them, as I said earlier.

Before I get anyone up in arms about my statements, I'd like to mention that The Dragon recently apologized for his actions, and I greatly respect and appreciate him for his humility. It seems like he was somewhat curious to see how others would respond to his situation and point of view. I believe that it was a good and appropriate decision by Sarcast to unban The Dragon from the forums and IRC. Both of the final responses by the members involved in this little dispute/disagreement were very mature and demonstrate forgiveness and respect for the other, which are often difficult things to do in light of the situation. And they are trying to re-establish communication links. I applaud both of them for their actions and am extremely pleased to see a reasonable resolution to this argument. It required both of them to make compromises: Sarcast gave The Dragon another chance, and The Dragon finally decided to "back down" (unlike some other individual whose name is better left unmentioned - he was given a second chance by Cosmic3K and opted to leave). Nightfall Z tried to advise The Dragon by PM, telling him that starting such a thread would be a bad idea, and I appreciate Nightfall for taking such a mature action. Perhaps such an issue would not have been so grossly distorted out of proportion had The Dragon gave in earlier. But I understand The Dragon's position, and he had an obligation to defend his point of view. And it would be difficult (not to mention embarrassing) to "back off", not only for The Dragon but also for Sarcast. As long as they were in that thread, they essentially had to defend their opinions. The words which Sarcast brought up in his discussion were arguably somewhat inappropriate (but such an issue has been discussed). I forgive The Dragon for his actions - I'm sure that they were simply a "mistake in judgement" and should be pardoned. I'm sure that both of them were quite unhappy about the disagreement initially, and consequently their statements were perfectly understandable. Their resolution demonstrated a great deal of maturity.

This brings me to sakura_st's thread in which she essentially expressed her disapproval of the way in which we emuparadise members responded to that matter. In no way am I suggesting that such a thread was unjustified - I believe that it was a valid request, and I thank her for taking the initiative to start such a thread. "Respect" issues do exist around the board, and, inevitably, they will always manifest themselves, in no way or another. We should treat others as equals unless they successively violate the rules (written or unwritten) or they perform some extremely disagreeable action. Only then are we forced to take drastic action against them - and that's the mods' jobs, not ours. And even then we should not address them in a condescending manner - I'm not saying that I have a problem with the mods, but I have seen quite a few blatantly disrespectful posts (with cussing) in my time here by members of this board. I fully forgive them and take their statements in stride. Though it would be much more agreeable if they expressed their view in a more "respectful" manner and chose their words differently.

Ultimately, that brings me to the question of your definition of "disrespect". I believe that pointing out what some people might have done wrong is a perfectly justifiable action (which is essentially what happened in The Dragon issue to both members on the opposite sides of the mild conflict). I do agree that the situation got a bit out-of-hand (and I'm pretty sure that many people would agree with me on that point as well). I'm glad to put this behind us and I'm sure that it was in the best interests of the forum to do so.

But as for disrespectful, the majority of posts in response to the issue was justified in my opinion. A few could be phrased in more "agreeable" terms, but that's it.

As for sakura_st's complaint that we often jump into issues without talking to both sides, I'm sure that we'd all love to do that. But in a practical instance, that's quite hard to do. In either case, some degree of a bias/paradigm is inevitably presented in an individual's response. Consequently, we are left to construct what we can out of the previous posts in the topic. Furthermore, it would be quite an inopportune time to ask the individuals involved in the "conflict" as to "what happened" - chances are you'll receive the "bias" of another third-party member. Now if we could actually get the story "straight", that would be great, but such a clear definition of the situation is only attainable under ideal/theoretical circumstances. Nothing is black and white. So ultimately, we are forced to make assumptions (some bigger than others). Yes, I am guilty of doing that too (and making a very wrong assumption - The Dragon knows about what) and I apologize sincerely for doing so. The safest way if we don't want to make any assumptions is probably not to post in such a thread. But that too is a paradox in itself as the individual involved in such a conflict are inevitably seeking some input/reaction/opinions regarding the matter. The individual starting such a thread probably expects to see some type of response - if not, they usually have a mental construction that individuals disagree with their points of view or simply dislike them as a person. And such alienation is quite hard especially if there is a conflict on hand already. In some instances, the thread could be regarded as a "coping strategy" and an "outlet" for the individual's pent-up feelings- which is why some of the individual's posts (from the first and second party) in that thread were somewhat disagreeable. It's a natural instinct. The other alternative would be to give extremely "wishy-washy" responses to such a thread - but those are generally disagreeable as well. But sakura_st was disapproving mainly of the third-party responses.

Some degree of support from a third-party member is hence expected from the other members of the board (for either side of the issue). But how can we offer anything of that sort without making some notion of an assumption? We make assumptions/generalizations in math. Sociology is a generalizing discipline. Heck, without assumptions, we wouldn't get very far. And if we do make a wrong assumption (as we often do), shouldn't it just be regarded as a "wrong turn" and shouldn't we be corrected but at the same time pardoned for doing so? It's just "another day at the ball part" - another "mistake in judgement."

From sakura_st's post, I also came to the conclusion that she somewhat distrusts/questions the sincerity of the emuparadise members, saying that they welcomed her "what I would like to think of now as friendship. But shouldn't individuals be free to take either side of the issue - it's not because of the "authority figure" that I picked a particular side, it's just that there's a standard code of conduct that should be followed. Ideally, we'd all get the story straight and make benign posts, remaining calm, but such a reaction would essentially lead to reticence, an aforementioned problem. Subsequently, we often take up one side of the issue, basing our posts on the previous ones. In all likelihood, the first few posts are going to be from the individuals with the disagreement. Consequently, that's about all the info we have really; it is difficult to get a reliable account in either circumstance. So aren't those somewhat unrealistic expectations? I believe that individuals should speak more respectfully (in terms of less cussing, using more euphemisms and less forceful language), but to stop expressing our points of view would be to cut off communication and discussion. And that's what forums are ultimately built around, aren't they? Hence, we have an obligation to respond (and hence take one side of the issue or another). Without dissenting opinions, the forums would be a boring place, as Maison Gray would say. I know I'm taking this out of context; he's welcome to slam me a couple times if he disagrees with my point of view. (continued on next post)