A while back, Cruciform received an infraction (resulting in his temporary ban) basically for spam. In my anger, I wrote a thread, not so much objecting to the moderator who administered the infraction, but in defense of the so-called "spam" that Cruciform writes.
The answer that the moderator who administered the infraction gave (nor should this thread, mind you, be seen as a protest against moderation; I offer my sincere respect and gratitude to the moderator in question, in general, for her service as a moderator), and one which I very much approve, was as follows:
TOL is for dialogue. Dialogue is what drives TOL.
I disagreed then, and I disagree now, that Cruciform's "spam" is anti-dialogue.
Nonetheless, there is a certain element on this website which is exceedingly anti-dialogue. These posters, in effect, are "hit and run" posters. Get in. Throw an insult. Put the ones who disagree with them on ignore. Continue mocking said person(s). And then abdicate the thread. All, of course, without engaging in dialogue in the least.
We see an extreme case of this with the Horn. I am, in fact, not fully convinced that he's even human. If he is human, I'm not convinced that he's not on somebody's dime, one of these "hit and run" propaganda people hired by political organizations. He certainly doesn't display any signs of actually reading the threads in which he posts.
But various other subscribers, in particular, many of those of the social liberal bent, certainly do not seem interested in dialogue. They seem interested in high-fiving each other and mocking, not dialoguing with those, who disagree with them.
Therefore, moderators, I issue this "challenge" in a spirit, not of defiance and disrespect, but of jovial encouragement:
Is TOL for dialogue or not?
Was Cruciform deserving of an infraction or not? And yet his "spam" at least reveals a willingness to engage with his opponents; he evidences at least the fact that he read what his opponents have said.
The liberals? Not so much.
The answer that the moderator who administered the infraction gave (nor should this thread, mind you, be seen as a protest against moderation; I offer my sincere respect and gratitude to the moderator in question, in general, for her service as a moderator), and one which I very much approve, was as follows:
TOL is for dialogue. Dialogue is what drives TOL.
I disagreed then, and I disagree now, that Cruciform's "spam" is anti-dialogue.
Nonetheless, there is a certain element on this website which is exceedingly anti-dialogue. These posters, in effect, are "hit and run" posters. Get in. Throw an insult. Put the ones who disagree with them on ignore. Continue mocking said person(s). And then abdicate the thread. All, of course, without engaging in dialogue in the least.
We see an extreme case of this with the Horn. I am, in fact, not fully convinced that he's even human. If he is human, I'm not convinced that he's not on somebody's dime, one of these "hit and run" propaganda people hired by political organizations. He certainly doesn't display any signs of actually reading the threads in which he posts.
But various other subscribers, in particular, many of those of the social liberal bent, certainly do not seem interested in dialogue. They seem interested in high-fiving each other and mocking, not dialoguing with those, who disagree with them.
Therefore, moderators, I issue this "challenge" in a spirit, not of defiance and disrespect, but of jovial encouragement:
Is TOL for dialogue or not?
Was Cruciform deserving of an infraction or not? And yet his "spam" at least reveals a willingness to engage with his opponents; he evidences at least the fact that he read what his opponents have said.
The liberals? Not so much.
lain:
