Clearly, Judy makes it clear that one person's clarity is clearly not always a clarity about which others should clearly agree.
Maybe the answer to most of Judy's "what ifs" is "yes those are flames!" It may be hard to put into "legal" words what actually a flame is, but intuitively speaking, it sure seems to me that I seldom misjudge a poster's energy -- their emotional intent -- and/or whether or not they're handling an issue or trying to besmirch a person instead. Am I kidding myself here? Don't we all know when a fist fight has broken out? I know my narcissism puts a big chip on my shoulder, and I am "looking for a reason to be offended," but gee I don't think I am misreading the energy of a poster very often. When someone tells me to get a checking and doesn't address the issue for which I've taken a POV, then "it's a gratuitous ad hominem dart" is not an unfounded conclusion. Everyone's got intuition bigtime. It's a palpable feel that even the most "brain challenged" persons I've ever met seem to have expertly honed. Who here can't size up folks just from the way they look or walk? Awhile back, I sat in a car outside a college library with my 17 year old son and watched the people come and go. As they did, I, 35 years older than him, would comment on each with something like: "That guy's really depressed. She's thinking she's HAWT! Who does this kid think he's kidding with that outfit?" And here's my boy saying, "Yep, yep, yep." And neither of us thought it a miracle that we agreed -- or that either of us had some sort of oogabooga siddhi for such observances. We're all living in glass houses wearing the Emp's new duds! We're all readable. Not fooling hardly no one no how. And even the driest of text messages here still can drip with tears and blood and venom that children can recognize from 100 yards away. I taught Special Education, and I'm telling you they all had radar equal to my own when it came to reading the emotions of others. The trolls here are, indeed, experts too. They know how to get a scream packed into the silence of words. To me the question is "Why come here to get your nose rubbed into the fact that you are vulnerable, that your ego can be easily targeted and aggravated by the dumbest troll?" It is a personal failure to take personally the failure of others to want harmony, but when that weakness is a major part of every human personality extent, it morally behooves us all not to sanction gratuitous abuse -- it's a no-brainer to find some way to needle someone with their heart on their sleeve. At a birthday party, as they cut the cake, everyone knows that many subjects are taboo at that moment and don't "fit the matrix." If someone speaks about "puke," the chorus of denouncements will be instantaneous. It ruins the savoring of the cake, even though the cake is entirely delectable. That's why I keep saying, "Let's trust someone to be a priest here." We're all priests! Even the trolls here would make good priests if they wanted to be -- all of us have the skill of knowing when a discussion has turned in a southernly direction. Everyone here can see an avalanche starting with the first snowflake's arrival. One of my favorite concepts is that although most folks believe in God and that God is omnipresent, they nonetheless sin "at will," and completely are able to push aside the concept in most of life's experiences. Who can make love with Jesus standing there next to the bed? Hands across nips and covering pubes, right? Well, that's what we need here -- someone we designate as God. God who is always here and reads everything; God who can "just know" when someone is flaming and everyone will know that God's right because everyone also has God's skill to see such things. I really don't think that if ANYONE here honestly tried to be fair and served as the "conscience" of FairfieldLife, that they could fail at the job. It's just not rocket science -- it's tender feeling level stuff and everyone is just about perfectly clear which emotions are afoot. So, who is to be "our God" here? How about you, and you, and you? You're Spartacus too, right? OATH: If I see any flaming from now on, I'm going to appoint myself "Instant God" and mention that I'm seeing the same 900 pound gorilla jumping on the couch that everyone else is seeing but about which no one is doing anything. You should too. If you and I serve as the omniscient eyes here, others will too, and those who would flame will see that they cannot hope to hide who they really are being. So, we'll see. I might run out of my 35 posts in a day, but at least I will have done my civic duty here. Now, my major challenge is to tell someone that they're flaming without being a flamer myself. Edg --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "Rick Archer" <rick@> wrote: > <snip> > > Point 1, below, includes the following: "Please refrain from > > personal attacks, insults..." Since a few members habitually > > ignore this guideline, we're going to try putting some teeth > > in it. On a trial basis, those who can't refrain from "flaming" > > (personal attacks) or indulge in gratuitous profanity or sexist, > > racist, etc. slurs will be banned for a week, 2nd offense 2 > > weeks, etc. > > (FWIW, I won't be "reporting" anybody, publicly or > privately.) > > Since this is a very different kind of rule than > the posting limit rule, in that the number of > one's posts is pretty much cut-and-dried whereas > this new rule is very much a matter of individual > subjective judgment, I would *strongly* recommend > that you do a test drive for at least two weeks > during which you give people who have been > "reported" a public warning, quoting the offensive > part(s). > > That way we'll get to see what you consider > offensive. Hopefully if anybody disagrees with > a particular offense, we can all discuss it > publicly. > > We should also be informed when a warning is > the result of a private "report." The snitch > can remain anonymous. > > (I've been on a few forums where there were rules > against flaming, and in all cases nobody was ever > banned without a warning, so I would recommend > this as a permanent feature of the rule: first > offense gets a warning, second offense a ban goes > into effect.) > > There are three major problems I see with such a rule. > > The first is the subjective nature of the judgments. > > Is it flaming to tell somebody they need to be checked, > when it's obviously meant as an insult rather than a > suggestion for improving the quality of their meditation? > > If I point out that someone has said something that is > not true and don't call them a liar but add "as you > know" to the correction, is that considered flaming? > > What about a flame in which the flamee is not named, > e.g., "Some people on this forum..."? How clear does > it have to be who the intended flamee is before it's > considered a personal attack? > > And how about a flame followed by a smiley face? How > do you determine whether the smiley face is genuine? > > Is it a flame to laugh at somebody when the person > is being quite serious? > > The second problem is related. There are lots of ways > to put a person down without being explicit, e.g., > without saying "You moron!" The folks on this forum > who tend to be the most personally critical (and I > include myself) are pretty good at implicit flaming, > which may give them an unfair advantage. > > The third problem is that once a person has been > banned, there are some here who are likely to attempt > to exploit the person's absence by criticizing them, > even saying things about them that are blatantly > false, when their target can't respond right away. > > This *could* be prevented, perhaps, by a rule that > a person who has been banned can't be talked about > in their absence (but see above about flaming > without naming the flamee). > > Basically, as others have pointed out, the overall > problem with a rule against flaming is that the > only way to make it fair is to make it complicated; > and this type of complexity tends to generate still > more complexity. > > You can't legislate that people like and respect > each other. You can't stop them from expressing > negative feelings about others; you can only impose > an arbitrary subjective standard about *how* they > do so. The bottom line is that the group whose > behavior you're trying to improve will become more > and more like the TMO. >
