RE-SEND - - RE: [HPFGU-Feedback] Re: Ad hominem attacks

[Iggy McSnurd]

> Iggy wrote:
Iggy here:

I apologize if this comes through twice.  I am resending it because 45
minutes after the first send, it still hasn't hit the list.  So I'm
trying again.



> Iggy:
>
> 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.

Iggy here:

Ok, why don't we agree on two things here.  

1:  Intelligence doesn't always guarantee objectivity.  Trust me, I know
quite a few people (doctors, scientists, engineers, lawyers) who are
very intelligent, but can't keep their emotions from altering their
perceptions and decisions.

2:  Nobody has the ability to remain objective all the time.  It's human
nature, at times, to skew things in their own favor (even if it's in
their own mind) in order to feel that the decisions they are making are
right.  The best we can do is attempt to make the right decisions with
what we know, and how we feel.


> Tom:
>  
> 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?

Iggy here:

I don't know why you're piping back up, since I am unaware of what you
said in your letters, or what they said in their original e-mails.  All
I know about your motivations are what I read in your letters, both I
the words and the tone.


> Tom:
>  
> 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.

Iggy here:

I most humbly thank you for cutting me slack in my perceived ignorance.

Why don't we do this to correct some of this situation, and enlighten
everyone who might not know what you are referring to:

In your reply to this post, inform us as to exactly what you know about
the Admin team decisions you are referring to, and how you see them
happening again.  Feel free to inform me as to what happened on the FAQ
list, and what happened last April.

I'm sure that, since a member of this list is specifically requesting
illumination, that they will not have any serious enough objections.
Then, perhaps the Admins (and former Admins) you are referring to can
reply and we can make sure that everyone involved in this discussion
knows where everyone stands and why.

I would also like to point out that everyone has their own side of the
story, and their own pet theories that they try to prove... even if it's
something that they don't realize one.  It's how one's perception of
situations tend to work.  If they have a feeling or perception that they
wish to prove is right, on either side of an equation, then that's one
of their pet theories... especially if they feel strongly about it.  We
all have them.

> Tom:
> 
> 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 here:

To be honest, and I'm not saying that it applies here (but it's
something to think about), prefacing or post-commenting on posts doesn't
always make things ok or in the clear.  I am currently in a situation
where a teacher in my on-line schooling tried to politely preface
discriminatory statements against me.  He's currently under review and
will most likely lose his job.  (No, it's not simply because he said
something I didn't like... He actually expressed a personal bias and
discrimination against a learning disability I have... which not only
breaks a federal law, but also pretty much shows that the man should not
be teaching.)

The best you can do is don't worry about the preface, be more concerned
with what you actually say and how you say it.  Also, it's not always
the letter of the law that's important... the spirit of it is also
something to always keep in mind.  If the intent is to keep things
respectful, it's more important to have that understood than listing
each and every things that can and can't be done.


> 
> 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. ;-)

Iggy here:

I've already been an Admin on MUDs, lists, groups, and run RPGs... I
know what it entails, and I'm not interested in getting involved in it
right now.  Besides, I have too many of my own opinions and can be just
as bull-headed as anyone else.  I'd rather not have to fight over how to
run a place like this, since I'd stop liking being here if it became a
struggle.  I'm satisfied enough with how the lists are being run, even
if I might not agree with everything.  I am also one of those people
who's self aware enough to know what happens to me and my personality
sometimes when I am placed in a position of power or authority.  Usually
I'm a good and objective guy, but on some occasions, I've wanted too
much autonomy or control... and that doesn't work in an Admin group.


> Tom:
>  
> 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.

Iggy here:

*shrug* Like I said before, I'm all ears.  They can feel free to tell me
their side of it, and the admin can tell me theirs as well.  I'll just
state in advance a few things:

1 - I quite often am more aware of many things than people often think.
(Usually this is because I have some skill at not only reading what
people are saying, but how they're saying it, or even what they aren't
saying.)

2 - I am open to hear what people say, and for them to relate their side
of the story, but I'm not going to get involved in politics.  Don't like
them, won't play them, just give the facts as you see them and let me
make my own decisions.  That goes for both sides.


> Tom:
>  
> 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 here:

Tom, to be quite honest, I hear you alluding to many instances that have
happened, to events happening in a certain way, and telling me to trust
you... but you're not giving me any information or examples... 

If you wish for me to "rest assured," then you need to do more than just
hint at things.  History doesn't demonstrate squat to me if I don't know
the history.  I, unlike most people, want as much information as I can
gather before I make a decision.  Allusions, fourth party information,
rumor, conjecture, and hints don't work for me.  I approach things like
this as a judge:  Objective, direct, and as well informed as possible.


> 
> 
> 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."

Iggy here:

*nod* I have actually received posts like this, both on this list and
others.  While I don't expect the offending posts to be removed,
subsequent posts in the same thread will show that people stepped in and
reprimanded the offending parties.  I have also been informed on some
occasions that the person making the offensive remarks had been dealt
with off list as well.


> 
> 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.

Iggy here:

Like I said, I don't expect the posts to be deleted, but I expect the
posters to be reprimanded as appropriate.  If you delete the posts, then
you'd have to delete all posts that refer to it directly, not to mention
possibly having to delete the rest of the thread.  This would be a
logistical nightmare, not to mention an unreasonable thing to expect,
IMHO.  Also, if you require the Admin to remove these (and consequently,
all related posts) you will have an even greater cry of censorship and
accusations of the Admin as tyrants than some might think they are
guilty of now.

IIRC, the rules state that usage of inappropriate language and
disrespect of others will result in reprimands, possible howlers,
potential re-moderation, and ultimately banning.  I saw nothing that
stated that one's posts would be required to be deleted.  (You or the
Admin can feel free to cite passage and edition of the rules if I am
wrong here.)

After I posted the WARP from the Breakfast Club (which contained a good
amount of swearing), I was reprimanded and issued an apology to the
group for my oversight.  To my knowledge, however, the post itself has
not been removed.  (Of course, since it's a stand-alone post and the
only reply was from me as the apology, then if those two posts had been
removed, I would understand.)

As to the issue of "being around to defend themselves," I don't worry
about that too much.  I have seen some rather disrespectful posts aimed
directly at me, and I have also seen others step up to my defense before
I even got a chance to read the original post against me.  If you've
made friends on these lists, you will know it by how they some to your
support in whatever comes along.


> Tom:
>  
> 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.

Iggy here:

Hmmmm...  If my information is correct, the Admin who wrote that post
was Joywitch, and she hasn't been on the team since they stepped down
about 6 or more months ago.  When the post was written, she wasn't an
Admin.

I would also humbly suggest that you also re-read the post, as it was a
reply to Gwen that was made (at least, as far as I can see) in the same
manner as Gwen's original post.  I will concede that Joywitch could have
phrased things differently, but the same could be said about Gwen's
original post.

A couple of examples from her post:

> Okay, so on the subjects of TBAY, FILK, and similar things.
> 
> First off, those folks who are on the Admin Team (whatever the heck 
> you call it now):

another quote:

> What am I saying here? I'm saying that TBAY was preserved because
> moderators on the mod team wanted it to stick around, and because 
> they defended it maniacally, almost to the point of hysteria, when it 
> was attacked.

A third quote:

> You might think that all this is leading up to another diatribe on
> why filk shouldn't be allowed. Wrong. I detest HP filk because so 
> much of it, forgive me Caius, absolutely stinks.

And a final example:

> Most people cannot write anything worth the cyberspace it's published
> in.

All of these are excerpts from Gwen's post that fit right along with
your complaints about Joywitch's post, and are included in the now
infamous Post #277.  Do you wish Gwen's original post removed as well?

A good piece of advice, if I may, would be to present the information in
a complete manner, rather than selected snippets.  If you wish to
convince people that your cause is in the right, or that your point is
correct, making sure that people are fully informed as to the situation
will aid your cause more than it would hurt it.  For one, it would show
that you are paying attention to all of the facts, and that you also are
not trying to sway the audience simply by omission of information to
show yourself in a slanted light.  Benefit of the doubt, however, will
consider that this is merely an oversight on your part.

It's always best to do as much research as possible and double check
your post to avoid such oversights.

> Tom:
> 
> 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 here:

Yes, that unfortunately happens at times, and cannot always be avoided.
I would also like to point out that any of us would be guilty of such a
bias on occasion in the same position, whether intended or not.  Me,
you, the list elves, Cindy, Gwen, Joywitch.  It's human nature and,
unfortunately, unavoidable.  The best we can do is strive to be
objective and see things in a clear light, unclouded by our emotions
when neutrality is called for.

But, you also need to realize that the authority of being an Admin is
not without it's price.  The main thing is blame and accusation when
something doesn't go the way a non-Admin (or, a fellow Admin at times)
wants it to go.  No matter what decision you make, someone's going to
get their feelings hurt, be disappointed, take it personally, and blame
you for their woes.  Believe me, as a former admin in many other
situations, I know this routine all too well.  This can lead to
festering resentment, backbiting, dissention, and any other number of
problems that can overtly or covertly cause difficulty for the group...

> 
> 
> 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
> 

Iggy here:

So long as you can take as well as you give, then we won't have a
problem.  *grin*


Iggy McSnurd