|
Post by The Scrac that Smiles Back on Mar 31, 2012 0:12:46 GMT -5
Then Drew was within his rights to chastise everyone for talking with each other. I did very little to chastise. I made one message about it after pages of just general chat on the Taco while the 'Bloids was dead. I received messages that were more than chastising in return, yet didn't pursue the topic. A bit of chat is not banned forever in the Taco, but we're talking about pages of nothing but discussion, and I'm not the only one that gets slightly upset by this. That's all I have to say on that. Okay. I asked around to see if anyone else felt the same way, and no one would tell me that they did. As for the time we're talking about, I sort of wanted to rp, but I didn't really want to start it. I was also fearful that with being as busy as I was I wouldn't be a good rp partner. Making people wait hours for your response when they are online right then has always seemed a little rude to me. If anyone had rp'd with me I would have warned them that I was going to have long absences, but no one did. It didn't feel fair that you were upset that we hadn't rp'd when you hadn't either. That's sort of what I've been saying a while now about the main board and me. I can't go there and be myself. I have to change the way I act and the way my characters act in the main chat, or else people get upset with me. Or I have screaming at me and I have no idea why. The way I've been seeing things is that a new board would be made with the freedom to do stuff, the main Taco will still be just that, The Taco. I know I've been skimming most posts, but the first time I heard of anything about a new board being for the ones who want a safe spot is from you, but I could be wrong since I did say I was skimming. So while you say you're being persecuted, what about me? I've been wanting and trying to get into the Taco for well over a year now, and just about every attempt ends up with me in a bad mood and angry because there are several people who get upset with me and the way I want to do things, yet they say nothing until after it's been done. A few people I liked to talk to from time to time, and now I can't even talk to them because I just think of them hating me because of the way I RP or because of my characters. So sorry for not wanting to just have a peaceful chat on the street IC. Well.... I've watched you when you come in, and all it ever seems like your characters want to do is stab everyone and leave. I'd be okay with that if there was more depth to it. I think if your characters showed that they had more then one side people would be interested in them. It's not just your characters that mine avoid, though. I have a habit of avoiding characters that mine could easily hurt because I don't want to chance that happening without both writers being okay with it. So I wait for others to interact with mine, which they usually don't (unless they are written by Chloe, Omni, Wolfer, PFA, or Torkie). I gave this some thought before posting, and I hope I can get this out right. I'm sorry if I can't. I am getting that you are hurt by this, Scrac. And that makes me sad, too. You are a friend, you know? And I understand the sentiment, I've felt it before. It's really not meant to be shoving you guys out. If it's coming across that way, then we're still not being clear enough. It's supposed to be more of a thing where the board as a whole offers more opportunity. We've tried to reconcile this before, between the rough and tumble and the more relaxed, calm approach. At first we thought the Arena would work. And honestly it's still a cool idea, and I have some stuff I intend to put up there in the summer. Then it was thought maybe the VS. thread would help. …I honestly don't know how that turned out, since I never followed it. I think the reason those never worked out is because that was a case of "Okay, we don't like what you are doing, please move it". And that wasn't very well liked. I wouldn't know for sure if that was the case. If there were two simultaneous threads, that would allow both styles of RPing to be respected. It's not the people that matter in the thread, it's the preferential style. As long as one respected what the thread was for, I don't see why anyone would be mad if you or anyone else showed up to interact with us. I know I wouldn't be. I agree that moderator involvement has been a sore point in the past, but if you remember, we've tried to involve them more over time because it became a problem we just couldn't handle on our own. Leo was the one we went to mostly, though Zylaa and Celestial have been extremely helpful in this discussion also. *This thread started because the mods came to us and said it was okay to discuss what was on our minds, and that we wouldn't get in trouble for it. I think it's been a great help in improving Mod-Tacoer relationships overall and also helping the former understand the mechanics of what it is that we do. (*Note for the Mods: As I told Dan… I have to say, incidentally, that that was the main reason we felt uncomfortable asking people to stop; we didn't feel safe doing so.) I don't want this to go forward in any misunderstanding. The point isn't to break off, it's to make it more balanced. Right now the use of two simultaneous threads sounds like a plausible and fair solution, since it gives people of both RPing preferences a definite place where they can "be themselves". As things are now, I feel I cannot be myself. That's one of the reasons why I have been gone from the Taco for months and months (school and Tumblr contributed too, but not to that big a degree; I'd say about 60-20-20 contribution). We could try and keep things the way they are now… but I'd probably just stay away. I don't think other people would be too happy, either—and I'm talking about from both RPing styles, here. I can't think of anything else to say… I'm sorry. I just hope I've made sense. You make sense, but I'm of the opposite opinion on the mod-Tacoer relationship subject. And while I still don't like the idea of separate threads, I'm still standing by what I said in my first post. That I'm willing to try it. If it goes horribly wrong we can hopefully fix it. Rp-wise the two squares can be explained pretty easily, since cities normally have more then one.
|
|
|
Post by Andrea on Mar 31, 2012 0:40:20 GMT -5
I did very little to chastise. I made one message about it after pages of just general chat on the Taco while the 'Bloids was dead. I received messages that were more than chastising in return, yet didn't pursue the topic. A bit of chat is not banned forever in the Taco, but we're talking about pages of nothing but discussion, and I'm not the only one that gets slightly upset by this. That's all I have to say on that. Okay. I asked around to see if anyone else felt the same way, and no one would tell me that they did. As for the time we're talking about, I sort of wanted to rp, but I didn't really want to start it. I was also fearful that with being as busy as I was I wouldn't be a good rp partner. Making people wait hours for your response when they are online right then has always seemed a little rude to me. If anyone had rp'd with me I would have warned them that I was going to have long absences, but no one did. It didn't feel fair that you were upset that we hadn't rp'd when you hadn't either. If you want to talk more on that, then you can feel free to send me a PM. I'll state that my intentions weren't to sound really harsh, but more of just to make a request, so it upsets me a bit that it came across differently this whole time. But it's still forum rules that just extended discussion belongs on the 'Bloids. If there's still thought that nobody agrees on that, Icon himself expressed that it should be the "In Character chat" a few pages back. Beyond that, Torkie said what I would've, so that's all I had to say. Apologies if this is too much of a personal thing.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2012 0:45:58 GMT -5
Rp-wise the two squares can be explained pretty easily, since cities normally have more then one. This is a very good point. I've always held the view that the city is much larger than what we've seen, parts of it abandoned. I've actually done RPs involving a second, mostly abandoned square. It would be interesting to see how it would all play out with two active ones.
|
|
|
Post by Omni on Mar 31, 2012 0:47:25 GMT -5
In response to how Scrac's post is now (or actually Chloe's post, really): I've seen that someone would try to bring in their character and ignore whatever happens to be going on, yet get ignored. They get a "Hey, (name)" at most, which doesn't really interact with the character they brought in. If they keep getting ignored, they might decide to just stop trying, which might get viewed as not trying enough. Honestly, it does tie in with the rules of the 'Bloids a bit- if you jump in and say "Hi!" and nobody responds to you, you don't give up... I agree with this part. We already have an Arena and the VS. board. Let them make their No-fighting zone thread. General chat was what I got in trouble for most recently. Certain individuals seem to have decided the Taco is for RPing only and failed to let others have a say in the matter. It was not certain individuals. It was what Taco was created around. No it wasn't. I'm pretty sure the Taco was created because we wanted to chat and casually RP - at the same time, though not necessarily intertwined - but people wanted the 'Bloids to be just chat, so we were forced out. The mods may make the rules, yes, but it was the users that made the Taco. I'm also pretty sure the 'keep chat in the 'Bloids' thing wasn't mentioned to us until fairly recently. And you, personally, have also never been a Tacoer. You may have helped lead to it's creation, but you, yourself, did not take part in the creation itself if I recall correctly. It's one thing to talk about now, but please, unless you were closely involved in the creation itself, don't talk on what you think the Taco was made for so definitively. So even if you disagree or do not like that... It is the rule. Period.Pardon, but it sounds an awful lot like you're saying (or at least implying) that one shouldn't protest the rules, even if they think that doing so would help lead toward something better. With all due respect, I do not consider 'Because I'm *insert authoritative position here* and I said so' - and other things that are similar - to be a valid argument. (To reference a movie I saw, it's not a reason, it's an excuse.) People in authoritative positions are still people, and still just as likely to make mistakes, and as likely to set up flawed rules. Not to say that other statements can't be reasonable, but I don't consider 'it's the rule' in of itself to be much of an argument. I request that it not be used again as such. And for the record, you are wrong. I was instrumental in the creation of the Taco. It was spun off as a matter of necessity (as viewed at the time), not the high ideals you think caused it. Someone may have created the thread with that in mind, but the idea was there and discussed before new topic was clicked. Then Drew was within his rights to chastise everyone for talking with each other. I apologize to him, I was never aware that the Taco was for rp only. Since this is the case, I second Omni's recommendation to bring this to the city hall and vote on it. I never mentioned that. ^_^; Though I wouldn't mind Tacoers speaking up on what they created the Taco for. While harsher than I would prefer, I do agree with a lot of what Scrac's said. It does feel like we've been pushed around a lot just to satisfy the will of (what at least appears to be) the majority. If we split, I would ask that the non-fighters do so if only for the sake of courtesy. Logic and reason will win out over volume of voices. If she can provide something for us to think on, a minority voice will not be a detriment. Perhaps you're right. When one is sobbing is not a good time to try and sound reasonable. This topic hurts me very deeply. I would love it if everyone could get along and agree, but I see no need for a separate board on which anything but your best behavior is allowed. If this board was created it would quickly no longer be a side board, as people such as myself would spend all their time there out of fear of going to the other board and being persecuted for just being themselves. Stal, you asked for my reasoning, and here you have it. You said that some would lose if we stick together, but really, someone loses anyway if we split. Personally, I see things getting worse if we stick together as only a vague possibility. But if we split, I think things getting worse is a probability as it adds a physical (well, digital) wedge to existing emotional ones, even if not intended that way. I really, really think that making another thread over this issue will only make it harder to heal relations in the long run. When something's a temporary solution, that's one thing, but with the way this Forum works, it's more likely to be something permanent. (*Note for the Mods: As I told Dan… I have to say, incidentally, that that was the main reason we felt uncomfortable asking people to stop; we didn't feel safe doing so.) This is basically why I think giving 'getting along' another shot could work (even if it's a stretch), or at least make steps in the right direction. Before, we were more afraid. Now, I think we're more generally more open. I'd really like if people would at least try before deciding to split for certain. Also, you mentioned that you don't want to go forward with a misunderstanding. I kind of agree, though I think that it shouldn't be done at all while tension is this strong. (Pardon me if I was mistaken, but it sounded to me like you pretty much were suggesting that we go 'no, that's not what it's for - let's get this going.') If we're going to split the Taco, we should at least wait for emotions to calm down a little; doing it now would add insult to injury. So while you say you're being persecuted, what about me? I've been wanting and trying to get into the Taco for well over a year now, and just about every attempt ends up with me in a bad mood and angry because there are several people who get upset with me and the way I want to do things, yet they say nothing until after it's been done. A few people I liked to talk to from time to time, and now I can't even talk to them because I just think of them hating me because of the way I RP or because of my characters. So sorry for not wanting to just have a peaceful chat on the street IC. Well.... I've watched you when you come in, and all it ever seems like your characters want to do is stab everyone and leave. I'd be okay with that if there was more depth to it. I think if your characters showed that they had more then one side people would be interested in them. It's not just your characters that mine avoid, though. I have a habit of avoiding characters that mine could easily hurt because I don't want to chance that happening without both writers being okay with it. I don't mind randomness and such, and I've gone with something I wasn't so okay with and found other possibilities that I found myself growing on. A little more depth to it - or at least not stabbing characters with absolutely no warning - would probably help. Personally, I'd like it if we would not destroy portions of celestial bodies. ^_^; Randomness is one thing, though that tends to be a bit much. Just my two cents. The terms 'Hard Taco' and 'Soft Taco' keep coming to mind...
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Mar 31, 2012 1:09:38 GMT -5
No it wasn't. I'm pretty sure the Taco was created because we wanted to chat and casually RP - at the same time, though not necessarily intertwined - but people wanted the 'Bloids to be just chat, so we were forced out. The mods may make the rules, yes, but it was the users that made the Taco. I'm also pretty sure the 'keep chat in the 'Bloids' thing wasn't mentioned to us until fairly recently. And you, personally, have also never been a Tacoer. You may have helped lead to it's creation, but you, yourself, did not take part in the creation itself if I recall correctly. It's one thing to talk about now, but please, unless you were closely involved in the creation itself, don't talk on what you think the Taco was made for so definitively. Pardon, but it sounds an awful lot like you're saying (or at least implying) that one shouldn't protest the rules, even if they think that doing so would help lead toward something better. With all due respect, I do not consider 'Because I'm *insert authoritative position here* and I said so' - and other things that are similar - to be a valid argument. (To reference a movie I saw, it's not a reason, it's an excuse.) People in authoritative positions are still people, and still just as likely to make mistakes, and as likely to set up flawed rules. Not to say that other statements can't be reasonable, but I don't consider 'it's the rule' in of itself to be much of an argument. I request that it not be used again as such. Go back and look over those threads, Omni. You may be remembering it under a banner of personal freedom and persecution, but it was never a choice. The thread was given as the solution and told what would need to come for the continuation of -extended RP based interaction-. The separation of the two was the point. Hunter (IIRC) made the thread, even while people argued against it. But there wasn't much of a choice there. The fact a taco spin off was brought up was based on that one fact--and not what you personally put on it. Even if you wanted it to be a casual chat, that was never the purpose for which Taco was allowed to exist on this forum. Never the reason given for why it could be a separate thread. Intentions and desires did not matter there. Second, Omni, as stated, it is the rule. It is a matter of moderation. We already have places for that. And also? The NTWF and the forum are not whatever government or movie analogy you want to pull out when you feel like. This is not a democracy. This is not a republic. There is no house of representatives or senate. There is no revolution or occupy movements. The fact is the forum has rules, by being a member here you agree to abide by the rules-- you don't pick and choose or just take up residence and expect to have a philosophical say in things because of something you saw and read and disagree with. You're here by choice. That choice includes the rules of the forum. This is much closer to a business contract and agreement of parties than a government. I want that made clear. Protesting rules is one thing. Outright stating you refuse to abide by rules because you didn't agree to them is another. And rules aren't up for popular vote among members.
|
|
|
Post by icon on Mar 31, 2012 1:17:22 GMT -5
If we're getting into the reasons and criteria that lead to the creation of the Taco, I feel like I should point out a comment I made earlier that might have been overlooked: But we have to keep in mind that this is the IC, or In-Character Chat, and it's supposed to be made for character interaction. The creation of the Taco was not because people wanted to "force RPers out", it was simply because the stories were getting too involved. Allow me to quote a thread from over a year and a half ago (which would probably be worth a good read-over now, come to think of it). I'mma bold important points as well, for the sake of getting my point across: ...[Excessive RPing on the 'Bloids] drove people away as they became disinterested in chatting there, with that kind of thing going on. Even trying to break into the group was not easy to do. The chatters involved in it became almost exclusively IC roleplays (keep in mind roleplay here is just the only way to describe it), and without a significant group of non-RPers there, it was nigh impossible to carry on a normal conversation or different line of posting. That ended up driving people away. It was changing the very atmosphere of the 'bloids. So instead of squashing your fun altogether, we asked it be taken to a separate thread. Which shouldn't be a problem for you guys. A thread is nothing except where posts collect. The forum is altogether more than just one thread and it's not even like you were being asked to move to a different room or table. Just collect the posts elsewhere in a thread made for that. This isn't the first time this has happened, either. A couple years ago, there was a phase where discussions of Phoenix Wright got really overdone. What happened then? The fanclub thread was set up to collect those posts for that purpose. Around the same time, Kit and Shade were asked to tone down their rather "exclusive" KitShade chats on the 'bloids. Rather longer back, original characters came in the shape of children of 'bloid couples. A separate thread had been spun off for them at that time when it got to be too much, too. When something gets to be too much for the 'bloids, it gets spun off into it's own thread. It happens often and it's not evil or exile.Suppose we take that last part and replace "'bloids" with "main IC Chat thread". When something gets to be too much for the main Taco, it gets spun off into its own thread. It happens all the time and it's not a bad thing. That's what's happened before, as is previously mentioned. Off-topic discussions, mini-arcs and extended debates get moved off elsewhere. It's not necessarily a bad thing. This is similar to that point. It's gotten too much for the main Taco, and it should get spun off into its own thread.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2012 1:18:06 GMT -5
While harsher than I would prefer, I do agree with a lot of what Scrac's said. It does feel like we've been pushed around a lot just to satisfy the will of (what at least appears to be) the majority. If we split, I would ask that the non-fighters do so if only for the sake of courtesy. I again say we do not mean to be pushing around. If it's coming off that way, then it's still not clear. This is not meant to push anyone out, it's to open up multiple possibilities. I will say this as many times as I have to because it is very, very important. This is basically why I think giving 'getting along' another shot could work (even if it's a stretch), or at least make steps in the right direction. Before, we were more afraid. Now, I think we're more generally more open. I'd really like if people would at least try before deciding to split for certain. Omniscia… no. And let me tell you why. I think it would be more fair to people if we didn't have to tell them to move at all. And as people have just stated, keeping the way it is now still does not adequately service those who want to use it. Also, you mentioned that you don't want to go forward with a misunderstanding. I kind of agree, though I think that it shouldn't be done at all while tension is this strong. (Pardon me if I was mistaken, but it sounded to me like you pretty much were suggesting that we go 'no, that's not what it's for - let's get this going.') If we're going to split the Taco, we should at least wait for emotions to calm down a little; doing it now would add insult to injury. Now you are just being insulting. I find this very insulting. I am hurt and disappointed that you think that of me. Why do you think I've put so much effort into this thread, Omniscia? I don't want it to be a case of "We're fed up with you so we're leaving." Because that isn't fair to anyone. I've put in all this effort because I've been trying to help people UNDERSTAND. Draco is hurt because he feels he can't be himself. I am VERY hurt because not only can't I be myself, but I feel I have been used as a tool to incite emotion to support arguments. And that's not cool. Other people are hurt (PFA, Bettyming, and Azzie to name a few) because they see all this pain and anger caused by the arguments. I could go on and on for quite a while. Of course we can't just move on like this ignoring it. That never was the point. If you really feel so strongly over who gets what thread… Then fine. Honestly at this point as long as we got something that was fair to both groups, I wouldn't argue the point overmuch. It's a dumb thing to argue over, if every other part is agreed upon. Would I be happy? Far from it, at least at first. Maybe later I wouldn't care. I can't speak for the others, though. One last thing. The terms 'Hard Taco' and 'Soft Taco' keep coming to mind... …I can only guess you are trying to lighten the tension by keeping it lighthearted? Maybe you're even serious. But I don't think this sort of thing has a place here right now… it's kind of distracting.
|
|
|
Post by PFA on Mar 31, 2012 1:29:24 GMT -5
You know, I'm starting to get the impression that a lot of our issues could be resolved by being more open about it. XD; I mean, it seems like just in the past few hours of this discussion alone it seems like there's been a lot of misunderstandings cleared up that were causing tensions themselves.
At any rate, ultimately I'm happy to go along with whatever everyone's comfortable with. I was mostly arguing against the split simply because I don't want things to run sour like they did with the Taco/'Bloid split—feelings were hurt, resentments formed, and people started treating it like a divide. I'm fairly certain most of us don't feel that way anymore, but it took a lot of effort and reconciliation that I don't want to see repeated.
I think the second thread could work as long as any such misunderstandings are cleared up before it's created, though.
|
|
|
Post by Omni on Mar 31, 2012 4:40:51 GMT -5
Go back and look over those threads, Omni. You may be remembering it under a banner of personal freedom and persecution, but it was never a choice. No, it wasn't. But what the people who made it still wanted to be able to do was still there. Okay, technically there was a choice: Make a new thread or not be able to do something we enjoyed. Still, not exactly the most... open of choices. Intentions and desires did not matter there. I find this contradictory. Intentions and desires of the 'Bloiders (as opposed to what would become the Tacoers) were pretty well there, or at least intentions and desires of the mods. Protesting rules is one thing. Outright stating you refuse to abide by rules because you didn't agree to them is another. ... Isn't saying you refuse to abide by rules because you don't agree with them basically protest? Omni, as stated, it is the rule. It is a matter of moderation. We already have places for that. And also? ... This is not a republic. There is no house of representatives or senate. No, but it shouldn't be any form of tyranny, ether. Right now, you're sounding pretty tyrannical, since you've stated several times that apparently only mods have a choice in several matters. I sincerely hope other mods don't take that stance. The idea of this thread was to work with the members. That means that we're meant to be able to voice our opinions and be able to have an effect on things, including the rules, even if just for this area. When I take part in a community, I should to be able to have an influence on things; not necessarily to have the final decision, but certainly not to have no choice in the matter. If I truly didn't have any choice in the matter, I wouldn't have a choice whether or not to speak up - and if I did have to speak up, I'd have no choice on what to say. If I choose to stay somewhere where things are bad, it's because I want to be able to make things better, not to be forced to leave things to their own devices and become worse and worse. I do not take kindly to being told I have no choice in a matter. Agency (choice) is one thing I believe in and stand for very strongly as a Latter Day Saint (Republican, Constitutionalist, Objectivist...). If nothing else, I have a choice to speak up and say when I see something that's unfair. Position does not automatically make one more right than others, nor does it mean one can make other people's choices. Stal, I noticed that earlier on the 'Bloids, you said that you do not disagree with Ayn Rand's philosophies. One of those philosophies is that force destroys freedom and prosperity. Another is that one should not simply follow a leader because the leader says so; one should look into things for himself or herself. I'm not trying to say anything about the rules themselves. I just don't like what your apparent stance is on them. *takes breath* Anyway, it doesn't take a mod to see that this is starting to off-topic. We probably all need to sleep and calm down a little. I'm going to apologize in advance for not keeping cool (I did try to see if I could edit as much of that... upsetness as I could out of this post, though sorry for that which may remain), but I still stand behind the principal principles, and I stand by them openly. In the meantime, I also request for other mods to try to be more involved and state their views on things. Bit of a tangent, but do you realize what you're basically calling me when you use my full username? ^_^; As people have just stated, keeping the way it is now still does not adequately service those who want to use it. I'm not saying we should keep things as they are. I'm asking that we try a different method of dealing with each-other: one where we're more loose and request things gently, rather than just getting angry about them. I don't want it to be a case of "We're fed up with you so we're leaving." Because that isn't fair to anyone. I'm not saying that, and if I somehow implied it, I didn't intend to. By 'get this moving' I meant 'move ahead to our proposal,' regardless of the details. 'That's not what it means' was meant as 'clearing things up (so we can get going).' Why do you think I've put so much effort into this thread? ... I've put in all this effort because I've been trying to help people UNDERSTAND. I echo this statement, and would like to add that I've been putting in so much effort in hopes that things will improve without there having to be division. You could say I want to bring things together, if at all possible.Other people are hurt (PFA, Bettyming, and Azzie to name a few) because they see all this pain and anger caused by the arguments. Don't forget Scrac. And don't forget that everyone involved is affected by this, myself included. I don't want to see pain and anger continue, either. If you really feel so strongly over who gets what thread… I don't feel it strongly, I just think it makes sense and would appreciate it. ^_^;
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Mar 31, 2012 9:08:51 GMT -5
Making this quick and only touching one part: Omni, the rules are the user agreement, essentially. Your choice is 1) be a part of the community and enjoy the rules or 2) not be a part of the community.
When I go to the store, I don't get to set the price on something. My choice is to buy it or not. When I go the theater, I can use my cell phone during the movie and violate their policy, but I have no choice in the policy itself or the consequences (ejection).
Your choice, Omni, has not been taken away. Stop trying to be a martyr for your philosophy. The choice is there. What you don't have a choice in is the actual administration. Just as the all heavy discussion on the bloids is required to be moved elsewhere, just as extended IC-centric chatting has no place on the bloids, the same style is true for Taco. It is a matter of housekeeping. It is policy. You have a choice to obey it or not, but when one disobeys and chooses not to conform, there are outcomes.
So no, flagrantly not obeying the rules is not protesting. It's breaking the agreement of being a part of the community. Signing up and being a part of the community implies "I will obey the rules" and not "I will obey only what I like." Protesting would be to disagree with the rules and have constructive discussion about them and see if change can be affected.
Omni, you can hold your own personal philosophies, but that doesn't mean we'll follow them. The framework of the forum is the staff sets up and manages the rules. It's done as equitably as possible, and often community input is sought. But the final say rests with the staff. Disagreement does not give someone the right to disobey. Their choice was made when they decided to become a part of the community.
You will also notice that it's been stated many times, here and in the past, that even the Tacoers have no right to come up with an enforceable agreement or enforceable rules. The mods are facilitating a discussion to work through interpersonal issues and the reasons people can't get along with each other. This isn't a platform for people to set up a Taco governance or even vote on the ideas. The ability to enforce anything comes only from the staff, as being in the administration, and not from the members, though they may choose to personally agree to a set of things.
This is not a matter of being philosophically right or wrong. The administration can be wrong, but again, we're not a government. This is an online private community. There are decisions made I disagree with. That is true for all the staff. But it's the decisions that work for the forum. Even if they're wrong, it's not a big deal, in the end. And the staff has the right to set the framework of the forum by nature of being forum staff (just as a board of directors has the right to make corporate policies and direct a business).
This discussion, if you wish to continue it, should be taken up elsewhere. This thread is for focusing on the interpersonal conflicts and solving them. Let's focus on what matters.
|
|
|
Post by The Scrac that Smiles Back on Mar 31, 2012 9:16:44 GMT -5
Okay. I still don't like divide, but what we haven't isn't working, despite all efforts on the battler's side to continue doing what they like while respecting the non-battler's wishes for less conflict. So two boards it is. This won't be that hard, really, I'm already active on the main board and a handful of mini-arc boards at the same time. Many of you only appear once in a blue moon, for reasons that have been stated and reasons that haven't. So, from future me's perspective, nothing will have changed, aside from I get chewed out less. Tyro field trips are the sort of thing that may find themselves on the 'peaceful' board. As someone has already stated here, you don't really want the five year old child to bear witness to two men murdering each other.
Stalos, stating you will not follow a law because you believe it is unjust is a form of protest. It is known as civil disobedience. Are you familiar with Thoreau, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr? Something I take issue with is your efforts at intimidation and less-then-subtle threats, especially when it was stated we could express our opinions on this board without fear.
|
|
|
Post by Andrea on Mar 31, 2012 9:31:26 GMT -5
What exactly is "division", anyway? That implies that it's dividing us and there will never be the chance to talk to one another again. Division is not as minor as some people posting on a different internet thread because, when you get down to it, there's no law that says they can't post on another thread also, and no group is being "divided". It's like saying that you're dividing the Tacoers when they go post on the Forum Gates, or even in the 'Bloids. If you're the type who says "My friends and I divided to go home and to the coffee shop"... I'm confused. The fact is, paying attention to #3, there is the misconception that this is a more permanent and serious matter than it should be. True, the problems on the Taco are serious and I'm definitely one of those hurt by them (it shouldn't be hard to find one of my long rants), but the thing is that this isn't a full Split. This is a "full Split" if you want to treat it like that and post only on the new board and never return to the Taco again. The truth is that this should have as much of a Split effect as creating VS. did. We're creating a thread so that both groups can be happy, not that one group can lose. This isn't supposed to be a "you go here because you're XYZ and can't come in if you're XYZ" thing. And if the new thread is created, I'm actually really wanting to post a bit there also. There's many of the Tacoers who would be interested in posting there, and that's because it's not a gated-with-barbed-wire community that only some Tacoers are allowed in. It's a new Taco Cart thread. Omni, I'm going to sound like I'm pointing fingers here, but you oppose this idea when you realize that there are two very distinct groups that want two very distinct things and this happens to oppose each other. I'd like to ask you a question. Let's say you're a teacher in charge of whatever a class of 20 young students does. It's recess time and 10 want to go play sports outside. 10 of them don't want to go outside because they really dislike sports. The latter group won't be hurt if they're forced to go outside, but then they'll be sad and only one group wins. What would you do? If you kept one group inside and let the other group out, then both have fun, and the students aren't banished outside forever- nobody said they couldn't come back in to chat. Does that make sense? Right now, we can't necessarily function by being told to play nice. This doesn't even have to be a super permanent solution. I think we've expressed that if people don't like/use the other board, we can try something else. Right now, it's simply that you're opposing trying something to help us by stating that you don't like it. If the fact that fighting itself wouldn't be allowed on the main board is a problem, one can't go have a long RP in Off Topic if they really feel like it. This should seem less like "kicking out" and more like making a proper place so that everyone can be happy. Anyone can still post in the main board, or even cause a bit of random chaos.
|
|
Would rather not argue
Guest
|
Post by Would rather not argue on Mar 31, 2012 9:42:09 GMT -5
Stalos, stating you will not follow a law because you believe it is unjust is a form of protest. It is known as civil disobedience. Are you familiar with Thoreau, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr? Yes, and civil disobedience in the real world, at least as far as Gandhi and King practiced it, includes peacefully accepting whatever punishment results from not following said law. Stal is only reminding you of the fact that there are things that will result for not following the rules. Nobody is stopping you from expressing your disagreement with the rules, but not following the rules has the same consequences for everyone, whether you think your reasons are valid or not.
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Mar 31, 2012 9:55:24 GMT -5
Okay. I still don't like divide, but what we haven't isn't working, despite all efforts on the battler's side to continue doing what they like while respecting the non-battler's wishes for less conflict. So two boards it is. This won't be that hard, really, I'm already active on the main board and a handful of mini-arc boards at the same time. Many of you only appear once in a blue moon, for reasons that have been stated and reasons that haven't. So, from future me's perspective, nothing will have changed, aside from I get chewed out less. Tyro field trips are the sort of thing that may find themselves on the 'peaceful' board. As someone has already stated here, you don't really want the five year old child to bear witness to two men murdering each other. Stalos, stating you will not follow a law because you believe it is unjust is a form of protest. It is known as civil disobedience. Are you familiar with Thoreau, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr? Something I take issue with is your efforts at intimidation and less-then-subtle threats, especially when it was stated we could express our opinions on this board without fear. Again, Scrac, this is not a government. Yes, I'm familiar with the philosophy of civil disobedience. But as anon just pointed out, part of that is still accepting the results. And second, there is a huge difference to stating your opinion and acting like a troll. You were and still are acting like a troll. And you will stop that. That is not debatable and not part of the freedom of this thread. You are the only one doing so. There is also a huge difference to pointing out fallout for actual rule breaking and "intimidation." None of the fallout comes from stating opinions. In your case, how you go about stating your opinion needs addressing. The fallout itself is for rule breaking. And open discussion is not a freedom to break rules. So, Scrac, get yourself together. There was quite a bit of constructive dialogue before you attempted to derail it. Citing that you're hurt and emotionally charger is no excuse. Act civilly or don't participate. Very simple.
|
|
|
Post by Dan on Mar 31, 2012 10:04:46 GMT -5
Just going to chime in with two brief points here--
First, I want to make plain that it is not our intention to have this discussion result in a punishment for anyone, despite what you may think. I want to reassure those feeling like we're coming in and smacking people around that no one's going to end up on the wrong side of a banhammer at the end of this. Just taking that off the table. The title still stands -- this is an open discussion. Just remember to keep it focused on the matters at hand, as Stal just mentioned.
Second, I think we need to remember that this is at the end of the day a small forum of writers on the internet debating some changes for an IC board. So let's try and tone down the rhetoric of revolution, tyranny, and government protest, because in the end that's just going to make this far more melodramatic than it needs to be. We're willing to speak with you guys about the issues here on the Taco, not about how we are oppressing the masses, etc, because that just sends things right over the top.
|
|