Avoiding the Politics threads - You, too?

Major generalization there, don'cha think?

Let's see Roger and hobitbob get into it right here on this out-of-control thread.
Msolga can moderate, as she is well known as a very tough cookie who can handle characters like Roger and hobitbob with one hand tied behind her back.

'Struth, Diane. A word from msolga and I'm gone. I promise - I'll just go off and leave him running.

Well, continuing my meander, maybe people would really rather have adhoms be okay, or somewhat ok. Or, more complicatedly, have them be against the rules but not fatally so... sort of like guidelines to Aspire To.

Thanks for the smile msolga. We were practicing our self parodies - honest.

MsOlga, does your continued participation on this thread mean you will dip your furry toes into the Politics threads more often (please?) ?
I would love ot know more than I do about Australian Political structures, and what I know now would safely fit into a gnat's nostril!

I don't care what you have to say,
It makes no difference anyway,
Whatever it is, I'm against it!
No matter what it is or who commenced it,
I'm against it!
--Groucho Marx

That works for the folks who are settled and comfy in their niche at A2K. However most newly arrived folks won't do that when their first impression is something like the political threads we've had in the past week. They just go away and never return.

With the survival of A2K at stake, I wish to do whatever it takes to make new people feel welcome to not only join in but also want to return and maybe even tell their friends about the great place they found.

Maybe that is where the decision point is for each of us. Is A2K a rather exclusive place that requires we sometimes kick in some money to keep it going but allows us to have a loosely moderated level of dialog, or, is it open and welcoming to all flavors so that advertising revenue is increased by the higher number of repeat visitors and doesn't require as many donations from us to keep it going?

If the second option is the chosen one, A2K must keep the visitor turnover rate high and needs us to help keep the quality of the community's environment at a level high enough to retain repeat visitors at a self-sustaining level? Is it not true that Abuzz's failure at that is why a lot of people came here to A2K?

I'm sorry, but I don't see where informing the Moderators of problems translates into losing revenue. God knows A2K isn't an exclusive site. That's never been our intention. But it's also not a place which tolerates nastiness. The Moderating Team isn't going to waive the Terms of Service just to squeeze more revenue out of advertising. If there are TOS violations, they'll be dealt with as appropriate. This doesn't always mean banning and in fact it very rarely does.

Newbies aren't going to feel very welcomed if it's a free for all. It isn't and it never has been. Funding or no funding, this is not going to suddenly become a nasty person's paradise.

I think that was Butrflynet's point, Jes!

But I am sure she will clarify when she is back online.

Craven said:

and what I'm getting at is that sometimes a different level of verbal jousting is incorrectly interpreted as animosity.

As someone who has been called on the carpet for not having a sufficiently sensitive awareness of the difference between intent and effect, there are indeed important distinctions and each must stand alone.

The American legal system is very attunded to intent. Effect is a great deal more complex, varying as it does from the filtering process of each individual's brain, values, past experiences, neuroticisms, and on and on.

But if someone's verbal statements are to be criticized, then intent should be first and foremost. The effect, in others, of such verbal statements is a totally separate and secondary issue. Unless one wants to add on the idea that the intent was insufficiently modified by an awareness of what the effect might be in most reasonable minds. And by reasonable I mean most individuals, not those whose minds are predisposed to a certain construct of interpretation by say, neuroticism or some other such distorting construct.

As far as I can tell, Butrflynet, Jes, and I are all saying the same thing:

If you see a violation of the TOS, report it to the Moderators, so they can deal with it and make the place friendlier for newbies.

No?

yes.

Msolga started this thread as a gentle way to let those of us who are intimidated or turned off because of the political threads, to breathe a sigh of relief and laugh about how terribly serious we can all get at times. If there needs to be a tutorial on how we should communicate with one another, please start a different thread.

Olga started an innocent, gentle thread full of good natured humor. It has been hijacked.

Politics!!

Dang. Couldn't find a smirkicon.

Can I offer another point of view ????

Yes, it was started as a fun thread, but I also feel that we tend to be far more senstive to anything which is said by Craven - he being the owner of this site - which IMO is a bit unfair to the wee laddie

I mean, will such a furor be created should, say for eg, I, make the exact same remarks as Craven did ?

After all - the irony which is pointed out in this thread *was* true !

<ducking to avoid the missiles thrown at me>

G, no missles, just yellow sauce.

Diane dahling - I look really sexy in yellow ya know

Isn't it interesting the posters that make the political forum what it is has made this thread what it is? What's that definition again, do the same things over and over again, yet expect a different result.