That's an exceedingly politely worded 'Fuck you'. I certainly return the sentiment, Mr. Ben. Don't enter a discussion you don't respect and don't want to be a part of. The matter will be closed when you close the site, or you change the feature enough to be unrecognizable. That's just the way community sites work - Saying "You consider the matter closed" is literally meaningless. May as well talk about how your colorless green dreams are sleeping furiously. I'm ready to give up on this site, given the power users and mod team's response - It clashes with the stated goal of the site, utterly eliminating the possibility of thoughtful discussion. I can't trust that any discussion I see contains unbiased opinions from varying sides, because each discussion is censored for unknown reasons by an unknown party. I appreciate the hope the site gave me, for a few days, that it'd be somewhere where freedom of expression and thoughtful discussion would be lauded. I'll keep looking. I advise the rest of us to do the same. Sadly,
Dirkson PS. Seriously, fuck you, Ben. I find your comment very rude, so I hope you'll forgive me being rude back. Or, y'know, don't.
This is the best we could have hoped for. It's supposed to be discussed internally, after the people who actually run the site read and consider the arguments from both sides. To be irritated is understandable, but to blame Ben and the people who run the site for not immediately bowing to every single wish is petty. I agreed with you quite a bit through the last few days, but I can't agree with your sentiments here. If you expect to find a site that's going to please you 100% of the time, it's just not going to happen unless you build it yourself. Sometimes there are bad days and sometimes things we don't like happen. That doesn't mean you should just give up, instead more effort needs to be put into community building and culturally changing what couldn't be changed administratively. b_b: thanks for making sure all points from both sides are considered internally, it's all anyone is really asking for.There have been some decent suggestions that we will discuss internally, but we won't eliminate it, nor will we ask people to apologize; we're not your parents.
I understand where you're coming from, CashewGuy! I responded with open hostility to someone who I felt was displaying veiled hostility, and the veiled hostility is arguable. I'll explain myself a bit, more to show you where I'm coming from than to try to change your mind. My anger is not because the site isn't immediately bowing to my wishes, but rather due to the nature and wording of the response. So there are three quotes I feel are important, in not-quite chronological order.
If I'm honest, this insult was the one I was most strongly replying to. If you're going to engage the community, engage the community - Don't just sit up there in your ivory tower, handing down pronouncements. On a public forum, an issue is closed when everyone agrees it is - Otherwise someone will just start the conversation right back up again. Believing that won't happen is a belief contrary to reality. Alternatively, he could be saying he'd take action to silence anyone bringing up the issue again - From what I've seen of hubski, pretty unlikely, but a common enough solution on other sites. So he's probably just throwing a baseless insult, like the last few - "Shut up about this, guys, I don't value your input." But why does it clash so badly with everything else he's saying? He's suggested, time and time again, that he doesn't value this discussion, would like it to stop, and won't listen to anyone talking about it. But he's going to consider the issue? There's a couple different ways to read that. Maybe he's playing it straight, and bad at PR - He wants us to shut up, but will consider a couple of the better suggestions to fix the problem. That's your reading, I think, Cashew : ) I read it more cynically, though. I've heard this kind of patter before - "We're conducting an internal investigation". "We will discuss the events at a future date." Almost invariably, nothing happens from sentences like these. They're just a way to give the illusion of potential change, when none exists. I'd love to be wrong about that. Here's hoping I am! Basically, I feel like Ben there is insulting the community as a whole - Those in favor of large changes, small changes, and those who want things to stay the same. Everyone involved in the discussion. And if there's one thing that gets my dander up, it's someone being hostile towards other people. Cheers!The mute feature isn't going anywhere.
This is a minor insult - It shows he's aware of the problem, and states his unwillingness to consider one possible solution. If this were the only issue with his message, I wouldn't have even bothered replying.Our hope is that we can go back to using the site to share and discuss interesting and provocative content, as that has always been the intent of hubski's continued existence.
This sentence is a slightly more pointed insult - It shows he's aware of the issues that the community considers important, and considers them unimportant. Same level of insult as when someone asks you to stop talking to them so they can watch their TV - What you value is unimportant to them; they value something else more.FYI, I will not be responding to any comments on this post, as my headache grows worse with every comment about muting, ...
Oooh, now THERE's an insult. Whereas in the last quote was "shut up so I can watch my soaps", this quote is "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU". He's chosen to engage with the community, to tell them he noticed their problem... And then telling them he won't discuss it. At all.and I officially consider the matter closed.
This is either a sign of insanity, a threat, or, more likely, a poorly thought out insult.There have been some decent suggestions that we will discuss internally...
Hey. Now wait a moment. This sentence is completely unlike the others. This is the one you focused on, CashewGuy. And you were supposed to - It's thrown out as a bone directly towards the anti-mute side.
Cool. I could rip apart most of your comment, but really all I need to say you said right here already: Have you ever heard of, like, this thing, uhm, I think...it's a quote...it's like..."A hoof for a hoof..." No that's not right...Oh yeah. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind?" Also known as "Two wrongs don't make a right" and "You're throwing a temper tantrum because you didn't get your way" ? And then basically asking for it to be excused because your behavior is merited. Good job. Also, "censored for unknown reasons by an unknown party" - completely inaccurate, the party is always known in the case of mute, it's the person who puts up the post. Jesus.I find your comment very rude, so I hope you'll forgive me being rude back
I pulled it apart already for CashewGuy, take a look at my response to him. I thought I made it pretty clear that I wasn't actually asking to be excused, I was merely throwing a little jab his way. Apparently not! I don't actually want his excuse or approval, I want to offend and insult him, because I believe he insulted the community. If I intended to stick around, or still needed to deal with Ben, I might have gone with a guilt trip or an honestly empathic response - Both stand a better, albit still negligable, chance of changing his mind. But I don't intend to stick around, so a burnt bridge isn't a problem - And letting him know I saw through his bullshit (If my reading of his reply is correct) and letting him know I detest it, both of those things please me. "unknown party" - You know, you're right. More accurately, I should have used 'arbitrary' for both. It's still got the catchy ring I was going for, but it's more correct in the second case. Hindsight is 20/20 and all that! Cheers!