That, sir, is your defamatory slant on my aversion to the material you regularly reproduce here. ("Thinking" is an interesting spin on mystified cud.)
now enforcing through social intimidation
Every non-congratulatory review of your output is now what you call "intimidation." Which is an abuse of the language. You usually follow up with a psychogram of the user who dared to think your "thinking" is poor.
The basic problem seems to be, as with brekin, the message board discussion format itself. Or, at least, this particular message board. There are so many places where you need not face what you are saying is abuse.
a fairly narrow span of narrative promotion.
No place can be all things to all people. There are literally millions and millions of subjects that aren't being discussed here or are being discussed here in ways unrelated to how they are discussed elsewhere. It's a big wide Internet.
Maybe RI isn't the club for you.
It is not an appropriate path for small communities or large communities.
"Communities" is another one of your vague terms, certainly in this context.
This is an Internet board with a modest defined mission, an owner, a history, a manager, and an ethos, but if it is a "community" then that is a way of saying that being polite is one of the desirable criteria, if not always primary, and that it would be great if collaborative projects and real-world friendships ensue from here --- as they have! I hope that's been so for you, too.
I'd say you're making the mistake of expecting too much, thinking that this is supposed to be the model of a complete society, with an online social contract.
I'd say that, but I don't think you really believe your own talk. One could also see what you are doing as gumming up the board, and wasting the time and testing the patience of the unpaid management with bad-faith litigation using nice-sounding terms.
Good news! It's okay if we don't share the same vision.
I want to start a thread called Saving the World and this will be difficult given the nature of this space which seems to pretty much match the bigger world.
I love it that now we're being preemptively accused of disliking your future project, no doubt in a totally repressive way.
There's good news, however. Try it. You won't be exposed to non-communitarian replies, you'll be the boss of your own thread, you can turn off comments, the works.
0_0 wrote:Sounder was giving a reasoned point of view on this open topic and on top of that relatively fair in his assessment. You have to have a crooked balance sheet of "malicious, inflammatory personal characterizations" to single him out. The fact that the two moderators gang up doesn't paint a pretty picture either - all imo.
I love that you too have dropped in. I'd have never guessed. /s
The fact that the two moderators actually agree suggests a place with its own character and not necessarily anything else.
Some may like our policy, others may not.
Luckily, contrary to the strange ideas suggested by some, we are not the state. We are not a "community" in some all-encompassing sense. We are a moderated discussion board on a set of issues that are evident from the thread and forum titles -- indeed within certain bounds that have been specified, and are suggested even in the name.
If it's not the right place for you, luckily it's a huge Internet! There are so many options where you don't have to tolerate responses that you find
so abusive.