Text 4707, 78 rader
Skriven 2005-01-09 10:41:04 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
   Kommentar till text 4624 av Matt Bedynek (1:106/1)
Ärende: Pee-Four
================
Hello Matt,

 >  MvdV> What I contest is that cutting feeds will gain the moderator
 >  MvdV> respect. It will not. Do you /respect/ the policeman that
 >  MvdV> gives you a fine? well I don't. I respect policeman that get
 >  MvdV> people not to run red lights in the first place.

 > I guess it depends on your outlook.  When one breaks the
 > rules one has to be willing to accept the consequences of
 > that action.  At least I have and I guess that is why I
 > have only received two citations since I started driving.

And again the difference in culture is illustrated. You stop for red lights
because of the cop that might catch you and give you a fine.

I stop because running red lights is dangerous! With or without a cop watching.

 >  MvdV> Of course. Criminals go to jail. But that is not the
 >  MvdV> task of a moderator. The task of a moderator is to prevent
 >  MvdV> people from becoming criminal in the first place.
 >
 > How presumpuous of you.  Who are you (or me) to define the
 > task of the moderator?  I say simply provide a secure
 > environment for the moderator to operate and if he chooses
 > to operate your way then so be it.

That's not a moderator, that's a dictator.

 > In a discussion I once had with a psychologist over
 > conflict scenarios and discipline, he suggested that
 > sometimes you just have to spank your child when common
 > sense and reason do not give in to compromise and order.

When I had to spank my child, I considerd that a failure on my part.

 >  MvdV> It appears to me that we have totally different ideas
 >  MvdV> about what a moderator is. Cutting feeds should be a
 >  MvdV> very last resort, only to be used if nothing else
 >  MvdV> works. A moderator should /moderate/, not /police/.

 > So what we have here are two schools of thought.  You want
 > it your way and others want it their way.

And as the two methods are incompatible, we will never find a way that suits
all.

 > So, when the incident that occured in fn_sysop you showed that
 > you were not willing to compromise and would settle for nothing
 > less than "you way".

What incident?

 > Therefore, the statement, "agree to disagree and live with it.",
 > only means something to you when it suites your desire.

I am always willing to compromise. The problem however is that what I see as a
compromise often is not recognised as such by the other side. Conversely what
they offer as a compromise often isn't.

 >  MvdV> Of course it didn't. For it to work you first have
 >  MvdV> to adopt it.

 > In other words, either we are with you are against you.

Those are your words, not mine.

I merely say that EP1 can only work for those that adopt it. You choose not to
adopt it, so of course it didn't work for you.

In fact you (as in you guys from Z1) did not adopt any echomail policy at all
and even declared echomail outside P4. Your choice of course. But by your own
words, you have to face he consequences of your actions. And the consequence of
rejecting all rules is chaos.

Cheers, Michiel

--- InterMail 2.50
 * Origin: If privacy is outlawed, only outlaws have privacy. (2:280/5555)