• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

The umpire is calling strikes..................

Started by ImageMask,

5,775 posts in this topic

comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted
I read Arch's post a dozen times trying to find something for the out of context thread

 

one day

 

 

As many times as he uses the words "member" and "posts" its GOT to happen someday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ChrisInBaltimore

ChrisInBaltimore

Posted
Posted
I vote for witch hunts. If not, can't we at least tar and feather them and run them out on a log?

 

I love seeing people say "Witch Hunts." I'm teaching The Crucible right now and most of my students have never heard of a witch hunt. The obvious fear of terrorism today helps, but they still don't seem to grasp it.

 

I'm glad people still get it.

 

And if I was home, I'd throw up my John Proctor Witches Be Trippen' meme...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted

 

2. Is it reasonable to go for years without a strike and suddenly get several? Is it a predictable pattern? Yes.

 

--a. If you're an aggressive poster who is often just short of the line, who then trips over it and gets a strike, and

--b. If that person has the personality type that escalates the aggression when held accountable instead of backing things down, then

--c. It becomes likely that more strikes will be issued.

 

Of course, that depends entirely on what the definition of "aggressive" means.

 

And since there is no official definition of what that means, it comes down to opinion. Many people think simply disagreeing with them is "aggressive" posting.

 

hm

 

We prefer instead to work through a series of actions to check their behavior - that can ultimately lead to banning if that is required.

 

If the point of the moderation system is to elicit behavior that conforms to the standards of moderation, then "just below the line" behavior should have been addressed long before the need for multiple strikes issued in a short period of time.

 

So, no, it's not reasonable at all for people to "go for years without a strike and suddenly get several", unless the people who are supposed to be making sure that behavior conforms to stated standards aren't really doing their job, and especially when additional strikes are given as a punitive, rather than corrective, measure. If they really are corrective, reason states that you have to give the recipient the chance to correct.

 

N'est-ce pas...? Surely, this is reasonable.

 

One must be very careful to not take a "superior" view when in a position of authority, as tempting as that might be (and is!), and be unwilling to listen to those over whom one exercises such authority. Reaching conclusions about people that may not be merited is bad enough in equitable relationships, but it is exponentially magnified when coming to such conclusions about people over whom one exercises power. One must always be willing to dialogue with people under their authority, without allowing personal feelings or opinions, or even past experiences, to color, or outright dismiss, what that person may be saying, if they are making an earnest effort to work out differences.

 

Being willing to hear someone out, giving them the chance to air their grievances (regardless of the ultimate outcome) can go a very, very long way. It's amazing what people will do when they feel they're being heard instead of dismissed out of hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dano

Dano

Posted
Posted

 

2. Is it reasonable to go for years without a strike and suddenly get several? Is it a predictable pattern? Yes.

 

--a. If you're an aggressive poster who is often just short of the line, who then trips over it and gets a strike, and

--b. If that person has the personality type that escalates the aggression when held accountable instead of backing things down, then

--c. It becomes likely that more strikes will be issued.

 

Of course, that depends entirely on what the definition of "aggressive" means.

 

And since there is no official definition of what that means, it comes down to opinion. Many people think simply disagreeing with them is "aggressive" posting.

 

hm

 

We prefer instead to work through a series of actions to check their behavior - that can ultimately lead to banning if that is required.

 

If the point of the moderation system is to elicit behavior that conforms to the standards of moderation, then "just below the line" behavior should have been addressed long before the need for multiple strikes issued in a short period of time.

 

So, no, it's not reasonable at all for people to "go for years without a strike and suddenly get several", unless the people who are supposed to be making sure that behavior conforms to stated standards aren't really doing their job, and especially when additional strikes are given as a punitive, rather than corrective, measure. If they really are corrective, reason states that you have to give the recipient the chance to correct.

 

N'est-ce pas...? Surely, this is reasonable.

 

One must be very careful to not take a "superior" view when in a position of authority, as tempting as that might be (and is!), and be unwilling to listen to those over whom one exercises such authority. Reaching conclusions about people that may not be merited is bad enough in equitable relationships, but it is exponentially magnified when coming to such conclusions about people over whom one exercises power. One must always be willing to dialogue with people under their authority, without allowing personal feelings or opinions, or even past experiences, to color, or outright dismiss, what that person may be saying, if they are making an earnest effort to work out differences.

 

Being willing to hear someone out, giving them the chance to air their grievances (regardless of the ultimate outcome) can go a very, very long way. It's amazing what people will do when they feel they're being heard instead of dismissed out of hand.

 

Is Arch guilty of the last two paragraphs, or is this a hypothetical statement?

 

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RockMyAmadeus

RockMyAmadeus

Posted
Posted

 

2. Is it reasonable to go for years without a strike and suddenly get several? Is it a predictable pattern? Yes.

 

--a. If you're an aggressive poster who is often just short of the line, who then trips over it and gets a strike, and

--b. If that person has the personality type that escalates the aggression when held accountable instead of backing things down, then

--c. It becomes likely that more strikes will be issued.

 

Of course, that depends entirely on what the definition of "aggressive" means.

 

And since there is no official definition of what that means, it comes down to opinion. Many people think simply disagreeing with them is "aggressive" posting.

 

hm

 

We prefer instead to work through a series of actions to check their behavior - that can ultimately lead to banning if that is required.

 

If the point of the moderation system is to elicit behavior that conforms to the standards of moderation, then "just below the line" behavior should have been addressed long before the need for multiple strikes issued in a short period of time.

 

So, no, it's not reasonable at all for people to "go for years without a strike and suddenly get several", unless the people who are supposed to be making sure that behavior conforms to stated standards aren't really doing their job, and especially when additional strikes are given as a punitive, rather than corrective, measure. If they really are corrective, reason states that you have to give the recipient the chance to correct.

 

N'est-ce pas...? Surely, this is reasonable.

 

One must be very careful to not take a "superior" view when in a position of authority, as tempting as that might be (and is!), and be unwilling to listen to those over whom one exercises such authority. Reaching conclusions about people that may not be merited is bad enough in equitable relationships, but it is exponentially magnified when coming to such conclusions about people over whom one exercises power. One must always be willing to dialogue with people under their authority, without allowing personal feelings or opinions, or even past experiences, to color, or outright dismiss, what that person may be saying, if they are making an earnest effort to work out differences.

 

Being willing to hear someone out, giving them the chance to air their grievances (regardless of the ultimate outcome) can go a very, very long way. It's amazing what people will do when they feel they're being heard instead of dismissed out of hand.

 

Is Arch guilty of the last two paragraphs, or is this a hypothetical statement?

 

Dan

 

We're just discussing "political" philosophy, here. It is unwise to make direct accusations of those in authority, is it not? It applies to anyone who is in, or has been in, a position of authority, including myself.

 

I've been in the position of having people under me that I did not care for (justly or not), and made the incredibly foolish mistake of not being willing to hear them out because of my personal opinions/experiences about/with them. :eek: It almost always results in making enemies, frequently for life. It's a terrible course to take.

 

:(

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dano

Dano

Posted
Posted

 

2. Is it reasonable to go for years without a strike and suddenly get several? Is it a predictable pattern? Yes.

 

--a. If you're an aggressive poster who is often just short of the line, who then trips over it and gets a strike, and

--b. If that person has the personality type that escalates the aggression when held accountable instead of backing things down, then

--c. It becomes likely that more strikes will be issued.

 

Of course, that depends entirely on what the definition of "aggressive" means.

 

And since there is no official definition of what that means, it comes down to opinion. Many people think simply disagreeing with them is "aggressive" posting.

 

hm

 

We prefer instead to work through a series of actions to check their behavior - that can ultimately lead to banning if that is required.

 

If the point of the moderation system is to elicit behavior that conforms to the standards of moderation, then "just below the line" behavior should have been addressed long before the need for multiple strikes issued in a short period of time.

 

So, no, it's not reasonable at all for people to "go for years without a strike and suddenly get several", unless the people who are supposed to be making sure that behavior conforms to stated standards aren't really doing their job, and especially when additional strikes are given as a punitive, rather than corrective, measure. If they really are corrective, reason states that you have to give the recipient the chance to correct.

 

N'est-ce pas...? Surely, this is reasonable.

 

One must be very careful to not take a "superior" view when in a position of authority, as tempting as that might be (and is!), and be unwilling to listen to those over whom one exercises such authority. Reaching conclusions about people that may not be merited is bad enough in equitable relationships, but it is exponentially magnified when coming to such conclusions about people over whom one exercises power. One must always be willing to dialogue with people under their authority, without allowing personal feelings or opinions, or even past experiences, to color, or outright dismiss, what that person may be saying, if they are making an earnest effort to work out differences.

 

Being willing to hear someone out, giving them the chance to air their grievances (regardless of the ultimate outcome) can go a very, very long way. It's amazing what people will do when they feel they're being heard instead of dismissed out of hand.

 

Is Arch guilty of the last two paragraphs, or is this a hypothetical statement?

 

Dan

 

We're just discussing "political" philosophy, here. It is unwise to make direct accusations of those in authority, is it not? It applies to anyone who is in, or has been in, a position of authority, including myself.

 

I've been in the position of having people under me that I did not care for (justly or not), and made the incredibly foolish mistake of not being willing to hear them out because of my personal opinions/experiences about/with them. :eek: It almost always results in making enemies, frequently for life. It's a terrible course to take.

 

:(

 

I agree - good stuff. That is why I was a bit taken aback, as I feel Arch demonstrates a fair and even hand in his leadership responsibilities. I've yet to see him succumb to the power grab you described.

 

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing