Shai Gar
3 Apr 2005, 11:58 AM
I've noticed a lot of threads whose topics members want to discuss shut down.
I understand the reason. People don't stay civil. It is the admin's (and mods) decision that they want a civil board.
And it's entirely theirs to make. If they want to edit every word they don't like out of our posts for any reason, they pay for the webspace. Freedom of speech is not a right you have from anyone but a government. Here, we have the right to say what we please as long as the admins like what we have to say.
And here is the problem. It would be a lie to say it was any other way.
This is an INTP board. We have almost universal knee-jerk reaction against that state of affairs, and yet it is neccicary to keep a board running.
We hate authority and would likely prefer a democracy, yet can't agree on anything long enough to get anything done if we had one.
So, how to cater to this audience? How can you ask civility of us from a position of authority when you've made a board for argumentative anti-authoritarians? How can a board of people who can't agree on anything come to any democratic decision?
I don't know. But I do have a feeling that the few things we do have in common are ignored simply by how the rules of these places are designed. I believe this way of doing is grating a good many here, and I feel it could be made less so.
Not demanding anything be done. But at the very least it may be useful as a meditation on the INTP nature, no? Rules and systems are designed for our SJ and SP friends, as they are the majority of the population. What possible way of doing things for INTPs would find the middle ground between effective yet grating and pleasing to the masses yet toothless?
I understand the reason. People don't stay civil. It is the admin's (and mods) decision that they want a civil board.
And it's entirely theirs to make. If they want to edit every word they don't like out of our posts for any reason, they pay for the webspace. Freedom of speech is not a right you have from anyone but a government. Here, we have the right to say what we please as long as the admins like what we have to say.
And here is the problem. It would be a lie to say it was any other way.
This is an INTP board. We have almost universal knee-jerk reaction against that state of affairs, and yet it is neccicary to keep a board running.
We hate authority and would likely prefer a democracy, yet can't agree on anything long enough to get anything done if we had one.
So, how to cater to this audience? How can you ask civility of us from a position of authority when you've made a board for argumentative anti-authoritarians? How can a board of people who can't agree on anything come to any democratic decision?
I don't know. But I do have a feeling that the few things we do have in common are ignored simply by how the rules of these places are designed. I believe this way of doing is grating a good many here, and I feel it could be made less so.
Not demanding anything be done. But at the very least it may be useful as a meditation on the INTP nature, no? Rules and systems are designed for our SJ and SP friends, as they are the majority of the population. What possible way of doing things for INTPs would find the middle ground between effective yet grating and pleasing to the masses yet toothless?