Discussion about discussion
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.
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 ?
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.
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
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!
Convictions are more dangerous foes of truth than lies.
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,
Fighting what you cannot see, will only lead you to lash out with violence towards everyone. Know your enemy, and you may find yourself a friend.
You can act real rude and totally removed
And I can act like an imbecile- Men without hats
Training Masters: Carlos.Martinez3 and JLSpinner