|
tm11
sorry, i originally misread your previous reply when quoting you in my response to psychoSnowman. you too misinterpeted what i originally meant. please read my response to psychoSnowman if you havent already. there, i corrected the misconception people had about my original post. to sum up, a) i wished peope would make worthwhile posts more often b) when replying to quality posts, to respond sincerely, and if not, not at all. no where in my original post did i state that everyone must reply with 200+ words for every post or suffer a penalty. nor did i implicitly state that 200+ words were needed to qualify as a quality post. the 'penalty' that you were refering to was to affect only to those who thoughtlessly responded to threads started by quality posts, to preserve it of its quality.
but your next argument struck a chord. i had not realized then, my lack of foresight, that peoples perception of what is quality and not are different. thus, because there is no real standard to compare the quality of each post by, it would be biased and unfair for me to penalize people only by my perception of the matter.
which brings us to ajy's post and how i handled it. if you refer back, his two posts that he was penalized for were made prior to yours, and before all the overwhelming negative feedback i received from the policy. from an adminstrator's standpoint (and forgive me for using my status as an excuse), i took his second post as a direct challenge to my authority, which really gave me no choice but to penalize him (as he said i would) only to prove the point that i was willing to follow through with my word. however, since then, and since your post, i realized such a penalty was biased, as it was based solely on my decision, and decided, atleast for the moment, to suspend any future penalties.
but as much as i let dissent be openly discussed, i would have much rather prefered if you did not openly question my past administrative decisions (though i prefer it much more than talking behind my back). it is an unwarranted attack to my credibility whether or not you intended it to be. try setting up your own community, manange it, and pay for it. only then will you truly understand how thoroughly disjusted i am by your statement, as politely as you said. next time, please use private messages to convey such concerns. this isnt only intended to you, but everyone else who were quick to chip in without giving me a chance to defend myself. in all honestly, i was very well aware of my 'apparant unfairness' and was going to explain myself regardless of your asking.
crazydeb8ter
as much as i would like to refute your arguments in the same offensive manner youve presented, im going to refrain myself. i feel admist personal feelings, i lost my sense of objectivity. i reread the entire thread, and admit that i was the first one that came off as offensive, and for that, i apologize. i dont want to delve into a petty (if i may say) argument revolving around technicalities and logistics. those things tire me, and itll bring about no progress to the original argument save of insulted feelings. go read all my previous replies, if you havent already. maybe youll understand where im coming from. if there was a fault in my new policy, it would have been my inability to see that there is no such thing as a 'standard' in quality that i tried to argue for. i do remember you saying something about this in your first post, but the meaning became lost in your misinterpretation of my intent. nevertheless i apologize for overlooking.
yet i still dont understand how you could have missed my entire argument and come up with the idea that i thought quality posts were 200+ words and that i was going to require that for every post.
and no, there is more actually to why i thought it would be the forums best interest to enact such a policy (thoughtful posts getting sincere responses), but chose your example because it fitted well in my argument. yes, that means i still dont understand how you can say that you put as much effort and thought into that one word reply as you say you did. no, im not here to argue about the intend, that was never my original arguemnt, but of the final outcome. in the real world its the final outcome that counts, not the means to go about to achieve it (as shallow i may be by saying this). and from that standpoint, i think you can also agree with me that there was much left to be desired in your one word reply. in any case, you seemed to think that my reasons for inacting such a policy was solely because of your response. it is not. if it brings any consolation to you, originally, it was over my frustration for such a post in the exprience forum wehre i started a thread with what i perceived to be a well thought out post. had i not known kenvsryu personally, i would have been more frustrated, and yes, i did get somewhat discourage to see such a reply. so my decision actually came from personal expereince, not some assumption as you put it. but i do apologize nevertheless for my misleading argument. you might have influenced in my decision, but it wasnt because of you, so dont take offense. and last but not least, i also apologize for calling your post garbage, taht was uncalled for. i never intended it to be meant literally, but damage is already done. better wording i will use next time.
psychoSnowman
hey. thanks for replying so courteously amidst my rudeness. my tactlessness came from my overwhelming frustration that no one read my original posts as they were. if it helps, i did kind of mellowed out in the latter half of my reply. but yes, i agree that your original post was not meant to offend me, its a misunderstanding in my part, again in my frustration, and for that im sorry. but i am glad that you finally see my point and understand where im coming from. i read your original unedited post, almost in despair, until you abruptly stopped after some further clarification in my part. yes, the beam of hope.
yet i would like to point out agian that i never implicitly stated that a quality post warranted 200+ words. i understand that it was bad word choice to use "200+ words", i meant 'meaningful' in the back of my mind, which is hard to do with trite responses (though not impossible), my reason for in saying "200+ words" in my haste. but to futher clarify that statement: "i wished more people would make meaningful posts more often".
and to elaborate on the new form of beauracay that i forgot to mention earlier - yet something very crucial that could have erased your doubts about it in the first place - the reasons (though lost amidst my argument) for wanting to try for a democratic government was because i honestly believed it would lead to a more fairly governed forums, where users have actual voice in administration. in the current structure of government, i am the sole decision maker, as there isnt a checks and balances system (i may seek counsel with everyone from time to time, but i still ultimately have the only decision making capabilities). by introdcuing a more democratic government, it will limit my power drastically, and prevent me from making any harmful decisions. i was to shift from a dictator position to a 'president' figure (my thoughts were lost in my original post, but let me follow through). there were to be 3 supermoderators, voted by the moderators, who in turn were to be voted by the forum population. any decisions i was to make would first have to be ratified by all three supermoderators first. if there was to be a disagreement between the supermoderators, i could then turn to the moderators for support, where the majority vote was to rule. if i was still to be displeased with the outcome, then, as my last resort, i was to turn to the forum population for popular support. so, without any support, i would not be able to introduce any new policies. this could go either way, where the lower body could challenge the upper body's decisions. as you can see, such a government would drastically crumb my ability in decision making, and have everyone feel included as opposed to creating an elite class. you probably can see now as to why i was bewildered by your arguments (though it was my fault for not conveying it properly in the first place). my communication skills have much left to be desired, it was such a crucial point, that i had in my head, vaguely explained, and only assumed taht you guys would understand what i meant by 'democracy', so naturally i was dumbfounded and even insulted when you asserted that i was trying to create elitism, when i went as far as to offer to lessen my power to fight against such thing.
ladi jay
no, i wasnt thinking of anyone when i decided to make such a rule. please read the second half of my reponse to psychoSnowman as to the real reasons why. and no, i never said i would requie 200+ posts for ever posts made. please reread my original thread, or the countless responses ive made to defend myself from that assertion that everybody somehow concluded. i feel sorry that you felt this way, but no, you need not to be 'smart' to get your point across. i never made such assertion.
ajY 2k
the reasons i took off 200 posts were because you blatanly asked for it. you posted intending to see whether or not i would actually follow through. as the admininstrator, i was left with no choice but to, so to stay firm in my decicions, sorry. read the latter part of my response to tm11 for elaboration.
niggoreanboi
no no no. youve also misread my original argumetn. please go read it again, or the replies ive made. and no, as much as i should have taken off some posts of yours, ive decided against it, as i was recieving overwhelming negative feeback about the new policy (which everyone misconcluded anyways). go read the latter part of my response to tm11 for further clarification.
|
From where did you make that jump.
01-28-2003 06:32 AM
