Ad hominem attacks (was Possible Change to the Main List Settings)

[Tom Wall]

Iggy wrote:
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.

Tom:
Oh, Iggy, I'm not talking about anyone's *intelligence.* Not at all. 

I'm talking about the way decisions are occasionally made according 
to the Admin team's *personal feelings.* I have no doubt that we're 
all intelligent people. But intelligence and emotional control 
aren't the same thing at all. Just ask them about what happened in 
April, or what happened on FAQ. 

Or about the way that at least three elves have abruptly cut off 
personal communication with me without any attempt at explanation. 
One of these elves actually *invited* me to throw some vitriol her 
way. I write back in good faith, and get stone-cold silence in 
response. Why do you think I'm starting to pipe up here after weeks 
of silence?

The fact of the matter is that some people just let personal 
feelings get in the way of Admin business. Some people think that 
criticisms of the Admin team - or pet theories - are the same thing 
as criticisms of *them.* It's happened before, and it's happening at 
present. But you wouldn't necessarily see that, so I'll cut you some 
slack on this count.

(On that note, I'm still waiting for those responses, guys... you 
know who you are.)

This is the reason I've been prefacing my statements lately... I 
want it made publicly clear that I'm following the rules to the 
letter. Like I said before, you can never be too careful. 


Iggy wrote:
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.

Tom, laughing:
Iggy, my man, keep it up! You are well on your way to being invited 
onto the Admin team... comments like this have a long history of 
getting people in. And criticism has a long history of keeping 
people off. Just ask some of them. ;-)

Or. Even better, why don't you ask some of the ex-FAQ-members who 
are still lurking around here; they can relate to the Admin-related 
debacles that took place over there a few months ago. Frankly, I'd 
bet that the lurking members could cite even better examples than I 
can; unlike me, however, they probably won't talk about it on-list.

Rest assured, history demonstrates that the members of the Admin 
team don't behave the same way on the support lists as it tries to 
on the public ones, for starters. You'd probably be surprised at 
some of the bombs that get levied behind the scenes. Really 
surprised.


Iggy wrote:
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.

Tom, quoting message 277, replies:
"Considering that your post consists of the same old prententious, 
elitist, self-centered blather you always spew, I find that hard to 
believe."

And also: 

"But I hate the way you prance onto center stage once in a blue 
moon, make your divisive, ill-tempered little pronouncements, and 
then flounce back into your dressing room."

Tom again:
Iggy, I feel like we're very much on the same page here, sans the 
cleverly referenced vulgarism. This post (#277), which strikes me as 
very much in line with the tenor of your hypothetical example, 
should have been deleted according to the Admin team's rules.

It should have been deleted because it's a direct and personal 
assault on another member. Now, whether or not that other member 
might be pretentious, and whether or not she included veiled 
assaults on elder members who aren't around to defend themselves is 
off the point. 

That other member didn't allow her onlist behavior to devolve. And 
the author of post #277 did.

Not to mention that the author of post number #277 is actually *on* 
the Admin team. But that's not a total surprise. I could also cite 
about ten cases off the top of my head in which the Admin team has 
afforded leeway to their own members when the rules were violated. I 
even suppose that doing that publicly on Feedback would be allowed, 
as long as I had a pleasant tone.

Hey – when you're the ones enforcing the rules, it's easier to cut 
your buds some slack. I understand how that works. Believe me.


Iggy:
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.

Tom:
Thanks for the permission; I'll be sure to do that. ;-)

-Tom