Discussion about discussion

Discuss that thread and content maybe in another thread ? Lol

ZealotX wrote: . But in this scenario the conversation is at the OP's house.

The problem with this scenario is that this is not the OPs house, its OUR house. ALL of ours.

Proteus wrote: I don't feel its unreasonable to back off when someone expresses that they would like a discussion dropped (in a case here, their thread). It simply means that if you would like to continue a branched off topic, you're free to create a new thread that does not involve the OP's original topic or insisting that they continue to participate if they do not want to.

It can also come off insulting when remarks are made about someone wanting to step away because someone else insists on drawing out issues about their position, because "truth".

"What? I thought you were a Jedi? Where are you going? What? You can't play my game? Well I guess you weren't that true to your convictions then were you?" (This is what it comes off as when its brought up).

So the pattern I often see is:
- Someone new shows up and makes a post about a topic/belief/position
- Others reply with dialogue regarding it and then move on.
- One particular person comes along and begins "testing" their view with questions to try to instil critical thinking.
- The OP answers any questions they can to the best of their ability, even with some obvious holes in the answers.
- The "tester" continues prodding the holes to make the OP try to fill them up or somehow confess in one sort or another that they were wrong, but neither happens.
- Others jump in to try to inform the tester of a different way to consider the topic and that testing it isn't really going to go anywhere.
- The tester disagrees and continues poking and prodding.
- A debate about some nit-picked part of a hole breaks out between the tester and 1 - 2 others regarding it.
- The OP, reading the debate, begins feeling their topic is becoming responsible for something bad breaking out on the forums, resulting in them wanting it closed.
- The tester insists that the thread stay open because "freedom of speech" and still continues poking and prodding and debating
- Nitpick debating continues and escalates even more to the point that..
- The thread becomes locked by a mod
- Another thread is either created or responded to with the tester complaining about "censorship", or "freedom of speech", etc etc.

Rinse and repeat.

"But where are you going? I thought you were a real Jedi? I thought you were serious about your beliefs?? Well... I guess not..."

This is what, at least, I tend to see on a regular basis, as one person after another either leaves the temple, or stays but hardly ever again wishes to participate in thread discussions. Because that one person wanted to force a square into a round hole, either not realizing it was a round hole, or not caring because "truth".

Others here try to explain this, in as many ways as I can think anyone can, but when someone is stubborn enough about their personal mission, it just doesn't seem to register I guess? But Idk, because I'm just me, and I can only see from my perspective which is pretty ignorant of much else that must be going on from others' points of view.

This type of discussion happens often here. Some times by the same few. What is it then? If it results in the same thing? Do we stop it or de we allow it ? Do we educate and encourage others to ... do ... what ? If it happens often then it does seem one sided hu?

Proteus wrote: . It does follow the continued formula pointed out in my post above. That's all I know for sure.

No it doesn't. You fail to take into account intent and the posters themselves. Once again you assume WAY to much and make unfounded accusations of future events there is no evidence for. Its minority report mentality. You have no grounds to make such a claim just as you have no grounds to make the claim that the conversation would have gone differently if one of the posters would not have been a "guest". Your idea of Jedi equality is wack.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

ZealotX wrote: . But in this scenario the conversation is at the OP's house.

The problem with this scenario is that this is not the OPs house, its OUR house. ALL of ours.

That's a problem if you see it that way. The website is "our house". My personal journals are not. Everyone does not have access to all content on the website. Access is restricted. I don't own the bank but I do expect my account to be private. It's not shared with other customers. One should have a reasonable expectation of certain things. Being the OP doesn't entitle you to say who gets to come to your thread. However, it should entitle you to say what direction your thread goes in because it's YOUR thread. The OP should be able to steer the conversation or request for it to be locked. Period. If not you're asking for problems.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Proteus wrote: . It does follow the continued formula pointed out in my post above. That's all I know for sure.

No it doesn't. You fail to take into account intent and the posters themselves. Once again you assume WAY to much and make unfounded accusations of future events there is no evidence for. Its minority report mentality. You have no grounds to make such a claim just as you have no grounds to make the claim that the conversation would have gone differently if one of the posters would not have been a "guest". Your idea of Jedi equality is wack.

This response is not only pure and direct hypocricy on every point, but it's also perfectly representing exactly what the pattern lays out. You're upholding my point while trying to deny it.

Your money is shared with other customers, and your accounts are not private.

Additionally the open discussions forum is our equivalent of an outdoor public space. You don't have a house at totjo, you have no keys. We do have some restricted access areas, based on rank, based on topic, and interests. The open discussion forum is for open discussions...

ZealotX wrote:

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

ZealotX wrote: . But in this scenario the conversation is at the OP's house.

The problem with this scenario is that this is not the OPs house, its OUR house. ALL of ours.

That's a problem if you see it that way. The website is "our house". My personal journals are not. Everyone does not have access to all content on the website. Access is restricted. I don't own the bank but I do expect my account to be private. It's not shared with other customers. One should have a reasonable expectation of certain things. Being the OP doesn't entitle you to say who gets to come to your thread. However, it should entitle you to say what direction your thread goes in because it's YOUR thread. The OP should be able to steer the conversation or request for it to be locked. Period. If not you're asking for problems.

I agree with everything you have said here except for the last thing. If the OP wants the thread to go in a direction then its his responsibility to direct it, not abandon it and then just expect it to move they way he wants. And journal threads are respected because there are rules to protect them, parts of the board are private for the same reason. An open thread in an open forum has different rules and thats why they progress as they do, according to anyones desire. Thats the rule. Equal access for all. I would never expect a thread I start would be dictated by me alone as to who could post or what could be posted in. That equates to censorship. To use a version of your real life examples, would you want college campuses to sensor free speech or opposing speakers just because the campus administration did not agree with their thoughts?

Y’all are still taking about that thread ? On another thread ? Hmm

ren wrote: Your money is shared with other customers, and your accounts are not private.

Additionally the open discussions forum is our equivalent of an outdoor public space. You don't have a house at totjo, you have no keys. We do have some restricted access areas, based on rank, based on topic, and interests. The open discussion forum is for open discussions...

there's a difference between open access and open to all topics. One thing doesn't necessarily mean the other. Please consider adding a sticky to the open discussion forum that plainly states what posters should expect. Because what you mean by "open discussion" is not shared by all. And that's fine, but there should be a warning if that's the case.

And as far as money shared... other customers of my bank don't get to see my account and laugh at how much money I don't have. They can't spend it either.

Journals are like this. There is a notice that gives an expectation of some level of privacy, not that people can't see and read your journals... but that they should not jump in and debate the content of your journals unless you, the OP, say otherwise. It is my opinion that every OP should have some reasonable amount of control when it comes to a thread they started. And if it gets out of control (because they don't have mod powers) they should be able to request to have it locked.

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: Y’all are still taking about that thread ? On another thread ? Hmm

why not? Open Discussion means open discussion right? The conversation simply "evolved". I'm not being serious. I agree with you. I'm just pointing out that the same thing happened in the other thread and it's prone to happen if threads are never locked if things get that far out of hand that the OP cannot control the conversation.

Really quick ! Z!

Control is often a difficult thing and some say an illusion and some say possible and some don’t even call it that. The ebb n flow of things exist some says with or without me. Discussion on a forum have different rules as it’s often never just one on one. Controls in that sense often don’t exist or have a very small chance at grabbing them at times - right ? So discussion on the net often have different rules - right ? What are they ? What’s the ediquet ? What’s the manners of the thing ? These are questions we argue about but never pen or identify - often. To discuss ya kinna have to know the “ rules” or the ways they happen right ?

So I think this was an incredibly productive discussion! We all have a better understanding of each others positions. Some agree and others agree to disagree under provisions of compromise.

Suggestions made:
Mods be more prudent in the threads to split instead of lock threads
Posters be more open minded about what goes into the open forum if they really dont want it discussed
Have a bit more description on the open forum thread as to what to expect in its content if you post there.

No one gets exactly what they want but we got the thread reopened and we can all compromise in the end to find a set of solutions that is both positive and productive for all.

I would love to see more of splitting and request for it rather than locking topics truthfully - locking threads has rarely worked.

Threads would generally only be locked temporarily, for various administrative process to occur.

Things like;
1. when insults were starting to be thrown back and forth at high rates, to interrupt the brouhaha with intent to break the focus of those fighting... and reopen it when the hot heads had cooled off.

2. Or if Mods needed time to discuss a course of action in a thread which was heading into deep water and didn''t want it to go further then it already had until they had organized a position on it and contacted relevant parties privately. Which gives staff time to have the conversations, make the edits as required, and reopen when able.

3. the OP's intent has been distorted to be mis-representative of their meaning. Where a split can be done if possible, which takes time and we don't want people posting in there while trying to split them, afterwards both are re-opened. Else if a split is not possible because of the way things are intertwined, then it might be kept locked and perhaps two new threads started if enough interest warrants.

So yes sometimes they stay locked, but its not the ideal for anyone I don't think, and should be avoided as much as possible.

I don't think locking a thread just because the OP asks for it is ok, it needs to be only a function of making the forum work better IMO.

If things were always clear then there wouldn't be any issues except training to do it, but the rules are subjective, the topics varied, the reasons for being here varied, and the forums probably need reorganizing etc. What I have noticed is some people have started throwing their hands up in the air as soon as a thread gets locked, demanding answers why or incredulously asserting why it had happened at all... which does not help and usually misrepresentative of why it was locked to begin with... all publically of course, none of these same people have ever communicated with me about asking these questions, so it seems more a dramatic play out of ego then anything else. Which is why the staff responses are explanatory in boring detail and do not meet the emotionally charged narrative of abuse of power, bias etc etc. Storm in a tea cup and time wasting generally speaking, which is why many Knights get annoyed at the nonsense and bugger off :silly:

@kyrin and @adder
Thank you for not only your side and your solutions!

This is my own opinion - and suggestion for solutions -

I would love also to see if there were bullying or a much rougher type of discussion - knights and clergy come in and defend and state the obvious and solutions rather than just leave these hanging out there. I do memba that used to happen back in my “apprentice “ days. Saw it a few times but wouldn’t it be neat if when we spotted things like that we acted instead of griped - in the thick of it ? That’s prolly just a me thing but I would love to see those who say they defend to actually show up and put rubber where it meets road.
But back to discussion discussions - inwpuld love to see more forum face time from a few more defenders rather than anything else. Some here just need to see some encouragement in action rather than feeling alone. ( I’m clergy so ima clerge- not a real word but it should be! ) not to control discussion here but just to re enforce a few things. Just my own opinion.

Carlos.Martinez3 wrote: I would love also to see if there were bullying or a much rougher type of discussion - knights and clergy come in and defend and state the obvious and solutions rather than just leave these hanging out there. I do memba that used to happen back in my “apprentice “ days. Saw it a few times but wouldn’t it be neat if when we spotted things like that we acted instead of griped - in the thick of it ? That’s prolly just a me thing but I would love to see those who say they defend to actually show up and put rubber where it meets road.

I am so glad you have said this. I think its a brilliant suggestion. It is an area I have always felt is deficient in the temple and one I used to bring up during my time as an apprentice. It seems that achieving rank is closely associated with also disappearing behind the veil of the privileged boards. This is something I have never understood about this place. The complaint is commonly made that this temple fails in its charge to be a safe place for Jedi to come and speak on various subjects. Well I ask, who are the defenders of this safe place but the clergy and the knights!

I completely agree. We need these voices of reason. There is nothing special about locking threads, warning, bans and the lot. If jedi indeed focus on knowledge and wisdom we rarely ever show or share it.

I haven't read this thread, but I will

I remember awhile back I was a young and brash buck who would run into defend OP's and others who felt they were being bullied. Now that said I have grown a bit and at this point i tend to not step into them as it creates an emotional attachment to the outcome of the conversation. In this mentality I had stopped giving solutions or guiding back to the original topic because in time I would feel attacked, then respond in kind and fear disciplinary action.

Ironically, I realize at that point I was very much in opposition to my own ideal of freedom to express one's self. There will never be a perfect discussion that does not irritate/offend some people. It is why, I asked about manners in another thread. When do we consider them to be restrictive of free speech or is it possible that we simply can act with in the confines of a system of basic protocols avoiding the purposeful demoralization of someone to speak their minds or not?

In agreement with most, I would like to see less locked threads and even contrary to many less split threads as one topic may give birth to another discussion only to circle back. But, again I am going to stress manners. As an example: Are you at a protest just chilling with a sign or are you the guy whacking people with the sign post. (this is just prevalent right now in the US as far as public demonstrations). In this media how do we decide someone is person hitting people with the sign post?

These are just some questions I have as I want more free expression of thought without enforced silence enacted by any party that finds a way to ensure it.

"Both good and evil should be averted by more speech, not enforced silence."-Authority Zero

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos