board77

I've been thinking of your analogy to PJ's LOTR, Cerin, and my gut response was, of course, your right, i couldn't choose that.

But after thinking about it some more, there ARE some choices I could make that would ease my watching of the films. I would probably still not really enjoy them, because I don't consider them particularly good movies. However, I could choose to forget Tolkien while watching them.

I've learned a lot since I argued the films were so horrible. Both about myself and others who love them.

you'll notice Iavas and I never argue about the films any more. I'm fairly certain neither of us has changed our opinions. however, we recognized that if there was any hope of peaceful coexistance between us, that was a topic we would have to leave alone.

So could I sit and watch the films with him, and choose not to think of Tolkien for the 12 hours it would take, and thus enjoy the films better with him? Yes, I could, because the priority is not myself, not Tolkien, and not the films. It is time spent with a friend.

You may not be friends with the poeple who have started the thread. You may not like them, they may not like you. But if we're all going to coexist in this place together, something must be done to facilitate that.

It is possible, one thing that could accomplish that, is for you to put aside the extremely strong attraction you have to this one set of rules for this one forum. I can't honestly believe this is the most important thing about B77 for you. And if it is not, it might be beneficial for you, and for the board, if you let it go.

That said, another possability, is that the rest of the board could capitulate and give you exactly what you want. What will that have accomplished? You will have your bikeracks back FOR YOU. You will have completely (but not irrevocably) alienated a much larger group than you may think. There will be a large group that thinks the bikeracks is even MORE of a joke than it is now, and people may be less likely to take things to the bikeracks out of a fear that thier discussion may not be allowed.

You're fighting for what YOU think the bikeracks should be. For what YOU think the charter says about the bikeracks. It's completely irrelivant what the actual words are, what they were intended to be, or what a team of supreme court justices would determine they mean. What matters is that you're only fighting for what YOU want for the boards, not necessarily what is best for the board.

Yes, each person thinks what they want is what's best for the board. Compromise, is acknowledging that what you think is best for the board, MIGHT not be.

(edited attempting to be more clear)

halplm wrote:

What matters is that you're only fighting for what YOU want, not for what's best for the board.

I don't agree with that. It would appear from Cerin's posts (not trying to read your mind Cerin!) that what she wants is what she believes to be best for the board. I think she's said so...that allowing those joke threads are detrimental to the board.

I hope I haven't upset you with this post Cerin.

Quote:

Compromise, is acknowledging that what you think is best for the board, MIGHT not be.

Now that is a good point.

that's what I meant, Eru. I hope that's not what gets focused on and provides a hang up for the rest of the post.

I have a sneaking suspicion that there are a whole bunch of people out there breathing a huge sigh of relief at the turn this thread has taken.

Thank you, all, from the bottom of my cynical little heart.

halplm wrote:

However, I could choose to forget Tolkien while watching them.

It is a rare talent, to be able to choose to forget something. I find I am not able to forget Tolkien while watching the films.

Quote:

It is possible, one thing that could accomplish that, is for you to put aside the extremely strong attraction you have to this one set of rules for this one forum.

It is not about an attraction to a set of rules, for pity's sake. It is what the rules represent - the safety and trust for me to make myself vulnerable by openly and honestly discussing difficult situations under the scrutiny of the rest of the board.

The comparisons people have made to ToE are apt, the efforts to minimize the similarities notwithstanding. The idea that BR is somehow less permanent than ToE is illusory. Of course we are not always there, but BR is always there when we need it, and it is no longer there for me, just as ToE would no longer have been there for Estel, or tp, or Wilma if a safeguard had not been put in place and they had had to delete their posts. IIRC, Eru did not at that time protest to any of those people that if they felt they would have to delete their posts, then that would be their choice to feel that way.

The three forums that have portions of the Charter devoted to their use all have something in common. They fill a special need, and they require members to make themselves vulnerable to some extent in order to participate there. In Bike Racks, you are speaking frankly and openly about personal feelings in view of the whole board; in ToE, you are revealing intimate knowledge about your personal life; in the role play forum, you are revealing your creative efforts to others. In each case, the act of making oneself vulnerable requires a certain level of trust, and that trust depends on the expectation that others participating in the forum will honor these revelations by acting in a respectful manner and taking the offerings of other members seriously. Having mock resolutions in Bike Racks destroys that atmosphere of trust for me.

I made an effort to understand the concerns of those who posted in ToE, and having achieved a certain level of understanding, I devoted a significant portion of my time and energy to do everything I possibly could to ensure that those concerns were adequately addressed, in so far as was possible on the now open board. Now when I have similar concerns about the use of a forum that was precious to me being lost to me, what I get from others is spit in the face. It is more hurtful than I can say.

Quote:

I can't honestly believe this is the most important thing about B77 for you. And if it is not, it might be beneficial for you, and for the board, if you let it go.

As it might have been beneficial for the ToE posters and the board to let those concerns go, since we can't honestly believe that was the most important thing about B77 for them? But they didn't let it go, and we didn't let it go, because being able to continue to use that forum was important to those people.

Quote:

That said, another possability, is that the rest of the board could capitulate and give you exactly what you want. What will that have accomplished? You will have your bikeracks back FOR YOU. You will have completely (but not irrevocably) alienated a much larger group than you may think. There will be a large group that thinks the bikeracks is even MORE of a joke than it is now, and people may be less likely to take things to the bikeracks out of a fear that thier discussion may not be allowed.

Do you know what? I don't give a flying fuck if I alienate people who put their desire to have fun above another member's need to use the forum for dispute resolution. I don't care to make an effort to know those people, because I obviously don't share enough of a value base with them to make the effort meaningful or worthwhile for any of us.

As for the idea that requiring that the intended use for Bike Racks be respected the way the intended use for ToE and role play forums are respected somehow infringes on anyone else's right to benefit from that forum, that is bullshit, plain and simple.

Quote:

You're fighting for what YOU think the bikeracks should be.

No, sweetface. I'm fighting for what every one of us knows God-damned well the Bike Racks is meant to be. It is meant to be a place where members can go when they need to resolve personal disputes and prefer to do so publicly. It is no longer that place for me, because you and others had to have your fun there, and you put that need above the need of others -- perhaps only one other -- to benefit from the forum in the way it was intended.

Quote:

What matters is that you're only fighting for what YOU want for the boards, not necessarily what is best for the board.

No, that is exactly what you are doing. I am fighting for the ability to use the Bike Racks as it was intended to be used when necessary by all members including myself. Is the forum still there? Yes. Would the ToE forum still have been there had we not passed an amendment? Yes. Would people have been able to continue to use it? They said no, Eru would apparently say yes, and if they felt they could no longer use the forum, that was their choice. Well, I don't believe it would have been their choice had they felt they could no longer use the forum because the level of trust in it had been destroyed for them. That same ability to use a forum is lost to me now, because some people childishly and selfishly put their 'need' to have joke threads in the forum above my need to be able to resolve personal disputes when necessary.

Quote:

Yes, each person thinks what they want is what's best for the board. Compromise, is acknowledging that what you think is best for the board, MIGHT not be.

Care to take your own advice for once? This might be a good time.

for Cerin

I still think you're wrong about how you're interpreting the Charter - as I would think the Ranger's inaction would support - but I'm sorry you don't currently feel secure in this forum.

Editted to add:
I note that Anthy's request that hal and Lidless actually propose a reasonable compromise they think Cerin should make was ignored. I've made the same request several times now and it's been ignored too. If it continues being ignored, I'll be convinced that this is because they are not looking for a compromise either, which would look quite hypocritical.

Our hippo is becoming critical!

Still, this potamos is well-loved by a lot of us.

Thank goodness I was warned by a couple of other b77ers about what's been happening here while I've been away. A few people acting like kids who think that they own the sandbox and others being like kids running to mommy to complain about it, escalating into a full-blown witch hunt, name-calling, mudslinging and being mean in general.

And now, the situation resembles two male deer that, having been fighting over territory, have got their horns stuck to each other so that they can't get free.

In that case, there are two things to do: Either to tranquilize them and cut their horns off, which lets them survive but ruins their chances for mating that year. Or, to shoot them altogether.

Which one is it going to be?

Don't wonder if I won't show up here for a while. For me, the beer in this pub has gone sour.

Lidless, if you're still there, I would like to ask you something now.

You said somewhere and perhaps several somewheres that I complain often and people are getting sick of it. It isn't true that I complain often. This is the only issue I have ever PM'd a Ranger about (that being the first time a mock thread was started).

So I am calling you out. Either back up the statement, or withdraw it.

Now I know it is difficult to provide actual quotes from past incidents if you haven't saved them. But when you make a sweeping assertion like that (and that goes for you too, halplm, because you are another person who has said I constantly complain and am trying to control EXACTLY how other people behave), you ought to be able to recount your recollection of at least a few real examples.

So I ask you, when, other than with regard to these two Bike Racks incidents, have I made a complaint against anyone's behavior? When have I complained? When have I tried to control how someone else behaves?

With regard to people being sick of me complaining, it seems that if people are complaining about me complaining, then they are doing it to you privately, Lidless, and not to me on the board or privately, and not to the Rangers, since I have never received a communication from a Ranger that a complaint has been received against me. That would go to you, too, halplm, as you referred to a vague and mysterious contingent who would be alienated if *gasp* I should get my way again. When have I gotten my way in a board matter except in the case of the last mock thread being moved out of the forum? What is it that you are referring to? If you can't provide an answer, then obviously your statements are bogus and they mask some other problem you have with me.

I feel that this kind of gossip that is apparently going on behind the scenes -- this apparent discontented murmuring about my complaining and getting my way all the time -- only poisons the atmosphere of the board. So I invite anyone who has told Lidless that they are sick of my complaining, and told halplm that they will be pissed if I 'get my way again' to come here and tell me what I have been complaining about, other than these Bike Racks incidents, and when I have gotten my way, other than with the first Bike Racks thread. If no one comes forward, then I will assume Lidless and halplm are just blowing hot air.

I wonder if the problem isn't something else. I wonder if it is that a fair number of people just don't like me. That wouldn't surprise me. I am really quite likable in RL, but I don't think I'm particularly likable on a messageboard. My writing style is stiff (not intentionally), I'm strongly opinionated and not afraid to state my opinions frankly, I'm not good at small talk, I don't have an expansive sense of humor, I am often overcome with the urgency of communicating an idea over the concern for the feelings of the person I'm speaking to. So I understand if a fair number of people don't like me very much. But if that's the case, let us not disguise it in terms of me complaining, because I don't believe I have complained except in this particular case.

What I do do, and maybe this is what people don't like, is express my opinions forcefully on subjects I feel strongly about. When it comes to matters of the board, I often seem to be on the opposite side of the fence from Lidless. So maybe this issue of 'complaining' and 'getting her way' is all about me being inclined to state my opinions expansively on board matters, and the fact that my opinions usually seem to differ from Lidless' (and presumably, then, from the hordes who are complaining to him behind the scenes), and because the outcome is not to his liking. This is not me getting my way. This is me happening to be a vocal (but not official) representative of a certain point of view that may have held sway at certain times. So call it what it is. It is not me complaining, and it is not me getting my way. It is you, Lidless, it is you, halplm, not getting your way and wanting someone to focus your wrath on.

If I am wrong, make your case. If you do not make a case, then everyone will know you are full of it, and everyone will know that you and your misplaced anger are the real cause of the nastiness on this board that several people have referred to during the course of this latest incident.

Now if the problem here is that people just don't like me, then that problem isn't going to go away, and the related problem of the nastiness that crops up isn't going to go away, either, because I'm not breaking any rules so you can't get rid of me, needer needer.



Thank you, yov. That is appreciated.

Quote:

Oh, no. It's not your problem when you choose to deliberately violate the Charter by misusing a particular forum knowing that others will be upset and complain about it to the Rangers. No indeed it is not your problem

.

We aren't violating the charter plain and simple. We are using the BR to discuss issues we have with eachother. Are they serious issues, not particularly, but they are important to us none the less, and it doesn't state that the BR is only used for serious discussion.

Quote:

I understand perfectly what you have said, and in my view you are completely in error in what you say. I don't believe we are going to understand one another, so my suggestion would be that you not bother repeating yourself at all.

That last bit seemed a bit snarky, but I'll let it go. And coming from some who has done nothing but repeat herself this entire time, instead of trying to come to a resolution, I think your suggestion stinks.

Jn: How'd you get so smart and do you ever sleep?! For the love of Pete rest yourself!

TheMary wrote:

We are using the BR to discuss issues we have with eachother.

Bullshit. You are pretending you have issues to resolve so you can stage mock resolutions in Bike Racks to amuse yourselves. Any of the things you want to discuss playfully, with pretend insults and offenses, you can do on a number of other forums.

Quote:

Are they serious issues, not particularly, but they are important to us none the less, and it doesn't state that the BR is only used for serious discussion.

The Bike Racks is for real, genuine attempts at resolution, either of disputes, or of conversations that have derailed another thread but aren't appropriately broken off into a separate thread in that forum. That is not what you are doing. You are playing. The BR forum was created for people who needed a place to resolve certain types of things. You can have your playful conversations and pretend disputes in any number of other places, you don't need the Bike Racks to do it in. You are using the forum in a way that was not intended; you are misusing it.

Edited to clarify.

Quote:

you are misusing it.

Noooooo you think we are misusing the forum, I do not.

Quote:

The Bike Racks is for resolution

You should probably go read our thread. We haven't resloved anything in there, it's a ginormous mess. I think it's gonna take us awhile to sort through all of the issues, sometimes people can be so difficult even when the facts are right in front of them! Clearly Chicago is not in Indiana, until TED sees this I will continue to discuss this issue in the BR.

yovargas wrote:

I still think you're wrong about how you're interpreting the Charter - as I would think the Ranger's inaction would support

The reason given was that moving the thread would be too inflammatory.

As to wrong about how I'm interpreting the Charter, what do you mean? Do you honestly believe that the people who wrote that text intended that the forum be used in every way not specifically prohibited, rather than it be used in only the ways specified? If that is your belief, then you are simply wrong. I was one of those people, I know that it is not what was intended.

Rowan, I don't think that things are as bad as they look--or as bad as they were the first night this started. The interactions are taking the shape of a real dialogue.

Cerin, *I* like you.

TheMary wrote:

You should probably go read our thread. We haven't resloved anything in there, it's a ginormous mess. I think it's gonna take us awhile to sort through all of the issues, sometimes people can be so difficult even when the facts are right in front of them! Clearly Chicago is not in Indiana, until TED sees this I will continue to discuss this issue in the BR.

You make my point better than I could possibly have done. Thank you.

Tinsel, thank you. I like you, too, very much indeed.

But I hasten to request that no one else make statements about liking me here, as I don't want to be seen as currying favor or of trying to factionalize, or of trying to elicit support.

All I want is answers from Lidless and halplm, evidence of the accusations they have brought against me time and again. If there are no answers, if there is no evidence, well then, there you are.

Cerin wrote:

TheMary wrote:

You should probably go read our thread. We haven't resloved anything in there, it's a ginormous mess. I think it's gonna take us awhile to sort through all of the issues, sometimes people can be so difficult even when the facts are right in front of them! Clearly Chicago is not in Indiana, until TED sees this I will continue to discuss this issue in the BR.

You make my point better than I could possibly have done. Thank you.

Hey I'm always willing to help

Cerin, sometimes I don't know if you've understood a word of what's been said here.

You're unwilling to compromise.

Yov asks that Lidless and I come up with a compromise, but compromise is a two way street. We cannot come up with ways for Cerin to compromise. Every time I've come up with a bad Idea, it's been mocked and laughed at. Cerin has not ONCE offered any sort of compromise. It has always been "I'm 100% right, you go change the charter, I'm not bending at all."

And don't call me your dear, or sweetface, thank you. It's condescending and patronizing.

I get this is very important to you. But I wonder if perhaps it is simply where you must draw a line in the sand and make a stand to maintain the level of control you feel you need about this place. I'll tell you right now, you're not going to get that level of control If you can't handle that, this argumetn will never end.

The thing is, you don't NEED that level of control. The place is not going to go to hell of something like a joke thread in bikeracks. It's not going to go to hell if someone puts a nasty sig pic up. It's nto going to go to hell is someone uses sexual innuendo frequently. What WILL make it go to hell is if people aren't allowed to be who they are.


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.

I think action should be taken, and I don't know what that actions should be.

Chill, babe.

Cerin wrote:

Chill, babe.