"I'M BEING MONITORED!"
- Thread starter Matthew Schenker
- Start date
Larry,The Woodentop said:
IMO, there is a fundamental difference between critical thinking and personal attacks. And a difference between adding content to a discussion, and subtracting content or destroying a conversation.
First, consider the user moniker, "festeringtool". This alone implies an extremely negative bias toward the company and tools.
It's analogous to walking into racial or ethnic group wearing a tee shirt that say, "I hate ". While not good, it's probably normal to expect that some people will be biased against a racial or ethnic group. However, it it NOT even remotely reasonable to walk into that group and shove your biases into their faces just to cause trouble!
Second, consider these two statements:
1) "I disagree with your concept that a tablesaw is a superior tool. Here's why..."
2) "YOU are a jackass for buying a tablesaw!"
The first statement is meant to add to the discussion; the second is meant to destroy it...
The first statement is the start of good dialectic - the representation of a different view for the purpose of discussion WITHOUT attacking the other person or that person's values, ethics, or intelligence! It opens the door for meaningful discourse and sharing of ideas. At the end of the discussion, each person probably walks away with value - increased knowledge, a shared understanding of the other person, and/or maybe a synthesized solution to both their needs. I.e., GOOD STUFF.
The second statement is a personal attack. It is meant to demean the other person. It has nothing to do with the tablesaw and everything to do with reducing the other person to a pile of workshop dung and/or destroy the conversation.
The key problem with forums and other forms of written conversation is that only your words form the content of the communication. Things like your facial expression and tone of voice are not present. The only thing that gives us a hint of your thoughts and motives is what you write. Emoticons give us a hint about what you are feeling and add to the message, but they aren't perfect either.
To readers, you are what you write. It is your responsibility to ensure that we receive your message correctly. It is not our responsibility to decipher what you mean. If I write something that does not convey my meaning well, it is MY screwup as the writer and NOT your mistake as the reader.
Regards,
Dan.
dirtydeeds
Member
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2007
- Messages
- 1,009
i agree
NOBODY can infer ANY reason as to why a guy has chosen to have a username such as festeringtool
this sort of thinking is wrong it denotes "the thought police" / "pre-crime" / "reds under the bed" / "politcal correctness gone mad" or the wanderings of an overactive imagination
it is all in the mind of the person making the judgement, not the person with the username :
NOBODY can infer ANY reason as to why a guy has chosen to have a username such as festeringtool
this sort of thinking is wrong it denotes "the thought police" / "pre-crime" / "reds under the bed" / "politcal correctness gone mad" or the wanderings of an overactive imagination
it is all in the mind of the person making the judgement, not the person with the username :
Matthew Schenker
Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2007
- Messages
- 2,619
Everyone,
In an online forum, we have to test certain scenarios. What would we do in this kind of situation, or in that kind of situation? Of course, we could discuss it and agree on rules, but nothing prepares you better than a real-life situation to test out the idea. So, I'm kind of glad festeringtool came around. It gives us an opportunity to show that we can deal with such things with humor, that we have a place in the forum to discuss it, and it helps display the strength of the community.
Any time, festeringtool is free to post, and if the complaints stop for another couple of days I can stop making him red.
In general, people might disagree with my decision to label festeringtool. If so, that's OK, and again it strengthens the community in the end.
Matthew
In an online forum, we have to test certain scenarios. What would we do in this kind of situation, or in that kind of situation? Of course, we could discuss it and agree on rules, but nothing prepares you better than a real-life situation to test out the idea. So, I'm kind of glad festeringtool came around. It gives us an opportunity to show that we can deal with such things with humor, that we have a place in the forum to discuss it, and it helps display the strength of the community.
Any time, festeringtool is free to post, and if the complaints stop for another couple of days I can stop making him red.
In general, people might disagree with my decision to label festeringtool. If so, that's OK, and again it strengthens the community in the end.
Matthew
I don't disagree with your decision to apply the label on those rare occasions when it might be warranted.
I think any form of censorship should be applied very cautiously. Just the possibility of censorship stimulates a great deal of comments, confirming a fundamental concern regarding our right to 'free speech'. This is not a trivial issue.
OTOH, this is a congenial community, which exists for the benefit of its members. In that regard, it is a 'private club'.
I have no problem with criticism, even when it borders on the obnoxious. But I do have a problem when I look up a member's profile and find nothing but a long series of negative comments, and a complete absence of any positive contributions to the site. No meaningful questions. No thoughtful advice. Nada. Just snide remarks.
Who needs it?
I think the "I'm Being Monitored' strategy is perfect! It calls attention to the problem, while specifically avoiding the act of censorship itself, which is what is disturbing to most people. It will be interesting to see how this issue plays out, with this particular member, and with other situations that may arise in the future. First, I'll bet it happens very rarely. Second, I bet most members would be at the very least embarrassed, and/or apologetic. These situations generally arise when someone becomes a little more passionate than necessary over a topic they really care about. When feathers are ruffled they usually step back, take stock of the situation, perhaps sleep on it, and then tone it down in the future.
NOTE: When this is not the case, as happens from time to time with flame throwers, the discussion takes quite a different course. They will keep needling, and poking, and jabbing, just to see how long they can keep the turmoil and disruption going. They delight in seeing prior forum members entering into the fray, and fighting with each other! And rarely, if ever, will you find them making any sort of positive contribution to the group. In fact, they will often just fade away into the night, reveling over the stink bomb they just tossed into the coffee shop. End result? They're gone, and we're still bitching at each other!
Anyone wanna take odds on this one?
iggy
I think any form of censorship should be applied very cautiously. Just the possibility of censorship stimulates a great deal of comments, confirming a fundamental concern regarding our right to 'free speech'. This is not a trivial issue.
OTOH, this is a congenial community, which exists for the benefit of its members. In that regard, it is a 'private club'.
I have no problem with criticism, even when it borders on the obnoxious. But I do have a problem when I look up a member's profile and find nothing but a long series of negative comments, and a complete absence of any positive contributions to the site. No meaningful questions. No thoughtful advice. Nada. Just snide remarks.
Who needs it?
I think the "I'm Being Monitored' strategy is perfect! It calls attention to the problem, while specifically avoiding the act of censorship itself, which is what is disturbing to most people. It will be interesting to see how this issue plays out, with this particular member, and with other situations that may arise in the future. First, I'll bet it happens very rarely. Second, I bet most members would be at the very least embarrassed, and/or apologetic. These situations generally arise when someone becomes a little more passionate than necessary over a topic they really care about. When feathers are ruffled they usually step back, take stock of the situation, perhaps sleep on it, and then tone it down in the future.
NOTE: When this is not the case, as happens from time to time with flame throwers, the discussion takes quite a different course. They will keep needling, and poking, and jabbing, just to see how long they can keep the turmoil and disruption going. They delight in seeing prior forum members entering into the fray, and fighting with each other! And rarely, if ever, will you find them making any sort of positive contribution to the group. In fact, they will often just fade away into the night, reveling over the stink bomb they just tossed into the coffee shop. End result? They're gone, and we're still bitching at each other!
Anyone wanna take odds on this one?
iggy
Eli,Eli said:"My actions hint that I may be a troll" ???
Nah... Like Fred wrote, we know you're just "different" (in a good sort of way). ;D ;D ;D
I agree with Iggy, we need to be careful about protecting free speech but be vigilant in protecting it too. There's a massive difference between being emotional (sometimes overly so) in expressing our ideas and posting for the sole purpose of causing trouble.
Sometimes we choose words that we later regret because we're excited, tired, or distracted. We phrase things poorly. Or maybe our English is not as good as we would like. (That's especially true for Americans. 8) ) Later we realize that we need to rephrase and/or tone down. In the end, all is well.
OTOH, there are people who like to yell "Fire!!!" in a crowded theater or wear offensive clothing for the sole purpose of stirring people up. We call them trouble-makers, thugs, trolls, and worse.
The tough challenge is separating the two categories - how keep out the second category while maintaining free speech and not mis-labeling people who fall into the first category. One way is to use the "average man-on-the-street" test. You contact a bunch of "average men" (gender notwithstanding) and ask them what they think. If there's a common theme, it's probably a good indicator.
Our "average man" is the "report to moderator" button. If there are lots of hits, then a common theme exists. I
didn't appreciate the power of this feature before. Now I do.
Regards,
Dan.
Matthew Schenker
Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2007
- Messages
- 2,619
Dan Clark said:
That's a good way to put it.
When this forum was first getting going (way back one whole year ago) I didn't know how I felt about the "report" feature. But as the forum has grown, it has become one of the most powerful tools I have for reading the pulse of the community. People don't always use the "report" feature to complain. Sometimes, it is used for off-line suggestions and comments, or even positive statements. Whatever the nature of the "reports," I've learned to trust that when they reach a certain threshold, it means something and I should act on it.
Together with forum posts and PMs, the report feature gives me a lot I can use to keep moving the forum in the right direction. I believe this kind of tool fits perfectly into the "open" philosophy of the forum.
Matthew
chrisrosenb
Member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2007
- Messages
- 1,265
I have seen the term the right to free speech refered to in many forums. The only place the right to free speech exists is when dealing with Uncle Sam.
The owner of a forum can limit speech any way they want.
The owner of a forum can limit speech any way they want.
Matthew Schenker
Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2007
- Messages
- 2,619
Chris Rosenberger said:
Legally, and constitutionally, you are correct. However, any forum owner who limits free speech, in my opinion, is commiting forum suicide, harming himself or herself, as well as the community, more than the individual whose speech is being limited. That's why I believe in following a community-wide consensus in 99% of such cases.
Matthew
I think Chris' point is that there is no external requirement for you to allow anything you, the forum owner, don't care to. A successful forum owner--that's you--meets the needs of the forum's customers--that's us, but doesn't have to care about some (otherwise uninvolved) third party's opinion.
You are correct that it is wise to allow a wide range of speech on a forum, and in fact you show your good judgement in minimally managing FOG, but you do so without consulting regulations or fearing lawsuits. Instead, it is your personal sense of what is right that guides you. As it should be.
Ned
You are correct that it is wise to allow a wide range of speech on a forum, and in fact you show your good judgement in minimally managing FOG, but you do so without consulting regulations or fearing lawsuits. Instead, it is your personal sense of what is right that guides you. As it should be.
Ned
The Woodentop
Member
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2007
- Messages
- 238
Is there still only one member in the "I'M BEING MONITORED!" group? And how long will people who find themselves in this group (due to a difference of opinion) remain there? I still feel a little uncomfortable that people have to put up with that moniker for too long. How would you like it if you were a member of a forum and someone labelled you as 'I'm a raving homosexual' or 'I'm watching you as a potential paedophile'?
I realise I am exaggerating somewhat but, please, do you think he/she has learned a lesson yet Adolf?
I realise I am exaggerating somewhat but, please, do you think he/she has learned a lesson yet Adolf?
The Woodentop said:
I was tending to agree with just about everything you wrote, but you lost me with the reference to "Adolph". That is grossly out of line with the way things are handled here and, whether you agree or not with the particular manner being used, I think an apology to Matthew is in order.
ROb McGilp
Member
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2007
- Messages
- 430
Hear, hear, Greg. Totally out of line!! 
I don't know any other info other than just reading the offending posts. But it would seem to me that high-lighting a name in red for a few days is a somewhat harmless but firm way of letting not only the offender, but all members know that the situation is being watched. This may help to stop some of the back and forth venom that can build up to actually kill not only a thread, but a forum. I assume that an offender could publicly to the members, or privately to Matthew, plead his or her case and get a fair hearing. Maybe even a reversal decision. I personally like the steps Mattew has taken.
The End.. Dan
The End.. Dan
F
festeringtool
Guest
You must be a pretty wimpish lot if criticism of festools warrants a warning - what the heck is wrong with being critical of overpriced tools why must criticism be effectively censored?
Similar threads
