Ryan Neely
Contributor
This has been a fascinating read. I am only tangentially aware of (what I believe to be) the original thread that prompted this one. I haven't followed this thread "live," but read it in one sitting. My point is, I don't have a frame of reference for the specifics of the complaint but I can understand the general points.
From a purely academic standpoint, what I find most fascinating is that this serms to be a group of people disagreeing about the methods in which they disagree with one another. Is there anything more human than that? It's truly amazing.
For what it's worth, people in every community disagree from time to time and there will always be a need for others to pacify that disagreement. It's never going to perfect and will often be perceived as unfair but, again, that's human nature.
This becomes exacerbated in a strictly text-based community where body language, tonal inflection, and even the lack of proper sentence structure obfuscates intended meaning. Add to that the time delay between posts (e.g., if I type something I believe will be super clear and helpful on day one and my post is interpreted differently two hours later and I don't return for two weeks, it's too late for me to explain my original meaning), its a wonder any of us are capable of understanding each other at all.
My default state is to approach a subject or a topic or even a group with the understanding that I don't know nearly as much as the next person. This allows me to ask questions when the next person says something that runs counter to my knowledge base or belief system. It keeps me open long enough to see their point of view and decide if I want to adopt it or keep my original perspective (or modify to a happy medium).
It is this reason that drives me to never use the "Report" feature or to "Ignore" a user. I want to be exposed to all the varying ideas and opinions because, just maybe, I'll learn something new. This also means I need to be very thick-skinned and also understanding that other people do not share my views and beliefs.
What this thread has taught me (because of my personality) is that I would make a terrible moderator.
From a purely academic standpoint, what I find most fascinating is that this serms to be a group of people disagreeing about the methods in which they disagree with one another. Is there anything more human than that? It's truly amazing.
For what it's worth, people in every community disagree from time to time and there will always be a need for others to pacify that disagreement. It's never going to perfect and will often be perceived as unfair but, again, that's human nature.
This becomes exacerbated in a strictly text-based community where body language, tonal inflection, and even the lack of proper sentence structure obfuscates intended meaning. Add to that the time delay between posts (e.g., if I type something I believe will be super clear and helpful on day one and my post is interpreted differently two hours later and I don't return for two weeks, it's too late for me to explain my original meaning), its a wonder any of us are capable of understanding each other at all.
My default state is to approach a subject or a topic or even a group with the understanding that I don't know nearly as much as the next person. This allows me to ask questions when the next person says something that runs counter to my knowledge base or belief system. It keeps me open long enough to see their point of view and decide if I want to adopt it or keep my original perspective (or modify to a happy medium).
It is this reason that drives me to never use the "Report" feature or to "Ignore" a user. I want to be exposed to all the varying ideas and opinions because, just maybe, I'll learn something new. This also means I need to be very thick-skinned and also understanding that other people do not share my views and beliefs.
What this thread has taught me (because of my personality) is that I would make a terrible moderator.
