[HPFGU-Feedback] Re: Ad hominem attacks (was Possible Change to the Main List Settings)

[Iggy McSnurd]

> 
> Tom replies:
> Well... I agree with your stance on this, but the Feedback rules also
> specifically mention that there are to be no criticisms or attacks of
> other members on this list. So, naturally, I tried to point y'all in
> the right direction without risking violation of the rules and a
> subsequent ban from Feedback.

Iggy here:

Tom, with all due respect, I think that we're all intelligent enough to
understand when something is meant as an attack, and criticisms (if
presented politely and diplomatically) are usually accepted as well
intended.  (Trust me, I've had to take a diplomatic approach in critique
a few times on here.  It's simply pointing out inconsistencies, errors,
or other mistakes or contrary opinions in a respectful manner.)

While the admin of the list has had to make their authority known on
occasion and has had to flex their collective muscles, they are by no
means tyrants.  If I said something to the effect of:  "We have had some
interesting situations arise on the lists since I have joined.  The
controversy around Cindy comes most easily to mind as an example," then
I don't think they'll see that as breaking the rules.

On the other hand, if I said something like (and this is picking a name
out of my head.. I apologize if it IS someone's alias, as any link is
unintentional):  "You know, Benny is a complete moron.  He loved to stir
things up, take revenge when he was disciplined, backstab anyone who
disagreed with him, was completely two-faced, and tried to completely
*&@# over the list after he left," then I think everyone would agree
that what I had said would be a breach of the rules.

The main objective of the Feedback list (and the admin will correct me
on here if I'm wrong) is to give people more latitude to express their
opinions about the list and how it's run, compared to the stricter
guidelines on the main lists.  So long as you are diplomatic and
respectful, then be direct.  If you have to name names specifically to
make sure what you are saying is made clear, then do so.  Just be
respectful about it... even if you disagree with them.

You can criticize me, for example, on here if you wish, and I won't have
a problem with it... so long as you respect me, my views, and my
feelings even as you are disagreeing with me.  If you want an example of
how I have done something like this in the past, just look at my post
where I pointed out some inconsistencies that I saw with Cindy's post on
the main list... (or was it on OTC?)... anyhow... I don't quite have the
post number (and don't have a clue on how to find it) but I'm sure it'll
be easy enough to track down.

> Tom:
>
> Besides, I'm fairly surprised that it was allowed to remain at *all,*
> since, er, I'm aware that there were off-list consequences for the
> post anyways. I actually just realized the other day that it was
> still up.
> 
> So, since you brought it up, it's message 277.

Iggy here:

Is this the post you were surprised still remains?

> 
> Thanks for asking for a direct response. ;-) I nearly always prefer
> directness to roundabout discussions. But still, one can never be
> sure.
> 
> -Tom

Iggy here:

As I stated earlier...

Rule #1 - Be respectful
Rule #2 - Be direct
Rule #3 - If you can't do both, then follow Rule #1
Rule #4 - If you can't abide by Rule #1, don't say it.

(And that's not just directed at you, Tom... that's for everyone, even
me.  *grin* And trust me, Rule #4 has zipped my lip more than you can
imagine at times.)


Iggy McSnurd