Kimmio attacking Pinga is making me feel uncomfortable.

Here's my summary

In  a thread on Prostitution that all those who opposed a woman's right to be a sex trade worker contributed to the murders and disappearance of sex trade workers.

Kimmio took this as a personal attack.

Because of this Kimmio does not trust Pinga.

Pinga stands by her comments and won't apologize.

 

Kimmio-Your feelings REALY do belong to you. As one who has been through divorce I have learned that  not all accusations do apply to me. It's really up to me to determine how I take things and how to say-our opinions differ. What you say is NOT true of me.

Kimmio It's really up to you to decide if you want to join wc2 with Pinga as one of the 3 admins.

My suggestion is to try it-as you do contribute to discussions-and see how it goes

While I appreciate that this discussion is keeping the vote thread prominent in the Recent Activity, it does not belong here. Please start a new thread and post a link to it on this one so people know where to go. This thread is about confirming a slate for Council of Wondercafe2 and I don't know if any useful comments have been made because they are going to get buried and, frankly, I'm not reading this discussion to look for them.

 

Tabitha has spoken well above me and I hope we can use that as a starting point for getting this thread back on track.

 

Mendalla

 

This thread would be a good one for the potential future moderators to consider how they would handle it.   Would you lock it?  Issue warnings?  Bans, for breaking rules of conduct?  No need to respond - just give it some thought.

 

So you stand by what you said?

 

If I recall correctly John, I didn't say that Thinkers are cold. Rather, I said that we Feelers often perceive Thinkers as being cold. (I would quote myself, but I don't know how to do that using my phone, which is what I'm currently posting from.)

You Thinkers feel just as we Feelers think.

Rich blessings.

Good point. My personal take is you let it go for a bit, then lock it when it starts to fizzle, but before it can be reignited.

 

Lock it too soon, and it will likely just spill onto a new thread.

 

Nothing here worth bans, suspensions, or even warnings, imo. But then, short of stalking or threats or seriously disruptive behaviour, I don't tend to lean toward those things.

 

 

Hi Dcn.Jae,

 

 

The mistake is in thinking that it was your comment that spawned this discussion.

 

It wasn't.

 

Apart from that it would appear that we are in agreement.

 

Thinkers have the capacity to feel and feelers have the capacity to think.

 

The most common problem, from where I sit, is that thinkers want feelers to think just like they do and feelers want thinkers to feel just like they do.

 

This is reflected in the fact that thinkers will argue with other thinkers who do not think as they do and feelers will argue with other feelers who do not feel like they do.

 

In a nutshell it really isn't about whether we think or feel so much as it is we are in conflict and, to a degree how well we handle that conflict when it happens.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

And the award goes to beloved for being on topic

Hi Inukshuk,

 

 

As far as locking a discussion I agree with Chansen.  Move too soon and the fire flames elsewhere.  When it starts to die down it is more easily dealt with.

 

As far as issuing warnings there might be grounds to throw a flag on a play.

 

Bans for breaking rules of conduct I think are more appropriate for repeated infractions rather than one offs and if we are going to do that it is incumbent on the refs to call fouls.  Still, I think bans or suspensions should be after a proper review with pertinent parties.

 

So to flesh that idea out somewhat . . .if Rev. Steven Davis where to call Qwerty an airhead (this is just an example) as a Moderator I would have my whistle ready to call a foul.  How qwerty responds (retaliation) might be where the whistle blows or if the two of them sort their stuff out straight away the whistle might never blow.

 

As often as possible I like to let cooler heads prevail and the better angels of our nature step forward.

 

I don't, as a rule, like bans because they represent a failure of community.  It might be true that one member of the community wears most of the failure or not.  Any ban is a failure of the whole.

 

If one member cannot do anything but foment dischord then that one member should be cut.

 

What did Jesus say, "better to enter heaven maimed than to remain whole and cast into the fires of hell"?  So amputation will not be the norm save for the more serious offence.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

Agreed.

So you would consider a ban of me because of this?

 

ditto!

I used a bad word it was a personal attack and no matter what I am thinking in the moment I have no right to blurt it out here.

She originally used the words "you (to me) and people like you carry the weight of their murders" those were the exact words unless she changed them and I don't need to go back and look. So, yes it was a personal attack. Especially considering how I'd already expressed my hurt. And that's why I still have issues. I am sorry I swore at Pinga today but where were the swarms of people flagging Pinga then? It's not fair. I generally contribute to thoughtful discussion around here and it takes a lot to get me mad enough to pop a gasket but this is one of those things.

In the light of all the fun of this thread, I SO WISH I was a moderator! So if one of the mods on the slate wants to be treasurer instead - I'm on board!

I just checked back to the thread that seems to have started, or fueled, the bad feelings.  For heavens sake - it was a year ago, and it went on for pages and pages, ad nasum.  

 

At one time Chansen called me a liar and posted about how low I had stooped.  It surprised me because I didn't think I had said anything offensive.  But apparently I had touched a sore spot of his - and I seem to be particular sensitive about calling anybody a liar.   So our posts went on and on.  Eventually, it petered out without anybody making an explicit appology.  But that was in the past.  I still get annoyed at Chansen and I'm sure that, if he thinks about me at all, he gets annoyed at me.  He once made remarks about how 'I wasn't likely to change' that I interpreted to mean 'not change because of my age'.   And sometimes he's put words in my mouth.

But I got past it, and continue to get past it - though I'll probably get my back up whenever I see him calling anybody a liar.  

He'll be a good admin.   Especially when working with Pinga, Mandella, and all the other good, trustworth, honest, hard-working people on our executive.   Thanks guys.

 

Thanks seeler.

 

And my daughter is 6, and in her personal approach to things, I doubt she'll change much. Some people are stubborn. You and I both are.

 

People who are new mods are going to hate being mods by July. You can's just come and post. There are alerts. There are judgement calls. You have to think. Someone is always going to disagree with you. Eventually, someone will go full Godwin and call you a Nazi. It will happen.

 

If you're the treasurer, you collect a couple of donations, you pay two or three bills a year, and that's about it. It's a sweeter deal, but everyone loves the idea of having mod rights. Initially.

 

It wasn't a year ago it was a few months ago, seeler.

Hi Kimmio,

 

 

Is this comment being addressed to anyone in particular?

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

You I think, John.

I forgot: With treasurer, there are also embezzlement opportunities.

 

Hi Kimmio,

 

 

In that case.

 

As a result of this thread no.  I wouldn't be thinking about a ban.

 

I would flag the character attack and that would count as a warning.

 

Although I note that you have apologized for the comment at this stage in the thread and so that is as far as I would go as moderator at present.

 

If getting heated up and losing control of yourself was a regular habit and proved to be disruptive I would probably give warnings that you need to exercise more restraint.

 

If you decided to ignore my warnings I would talk with the other Moderators to see if they felt your behavour was becoming an issue.  If they did I would look for a suspension first.  If they didn't I would state that I'm not going to take a step back from interacting with you (from a Moderator's perspective) just to see if it is my perception of events that has resulted in the warnings.

 

That will be the same broad strokes I use for everyone.

 

If I feel that a flag should be thrown I will throw a flag.

 

If I fell that more needs to be done about it I will do more about it.

 

I will not be working alone of have the final say.

 

Nor will anyone else on the Council be working alone or have the final say.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi chansen,

 

 

Been too close to that too many times.  No thanks.

 

Sorry Steven.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

so, that would make the treasurer the CEO - Chief Embezzlement Officer?

Is it really an apology when the word 'but' is used?  It has been my experience that when someone uses 'but' in a sentence, that everything before the word 'but' is negated.

I am not a racist, but....

I am not homophobic, but....

I am sorry, but....

I'm sorry I swore at Pinga.

 

John's right. I wouldn't ban you, either. A warning, perhaps, but I'd likely stomp my foot loudly and post something in the thread warning you and others involved to cool off first. Possibly, if the thread seemed completely out of hand, lock it to force the conversation elsewhere and maybe get people to take a breath and think about what is being said.

 

If that did not work, then warnings but I haven't seen anything suspension-worthy by our standards (Though, do note, that on at least one board where I hang out you would have been suspended a page or two back. I don't go there too much anymore because the modding is getting a bit excessive and I'm trying to avoid having that kind of modding on WC2.).

 

Mendalla

 

It's more of an apology than no apology.

Aaaaaaand back on topic:

 

We are on track to have our best voter turnout for a Wonderpoll yet. So, if you haven't voted, get in there and do it. It isn't just about getting your say for the membership of our first Council, but also a chance for us to see how much support there really is for the new forum.

 

The poll can be found at:

 

https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/Wondercafe2CouncilSlate

 

Mendalla

 

You would make a great mod.

I like the diversity of the new mods. Good job!

Embezzlement? I'm your man.

 

And you expect a congregation to call you as pastor?

 

 (Yes, I know you meant there to be a smiley there. I hope.)

 

Mendalla

 

It's a poll so nice, I voted thrice!

I'm not sure how to take that. Did you?

 

Goodness no. You don't think I'd stop at thrice do you?

Lol! No he embezzled the votes silly.

Hi Inukshuk,

 

 

If I was going to be really, nit-picky I would have to say no.

 

If I have to choose from:

This and that,

This or that.

Not this but that.

 

I would opt for either of the first two.  The third, where all that comes before the conjunction is actually negated is problematic.

 

 

 

I agree.  That is the way but functions when employed as a conjunction.

 

I am aware that some of us are sloppy in some of our grammatic or rhetorical conventions.  I am painfully aware that grammar is not now nor ever will be a strong suit of my own so I try not to let grammar things push my buttons.

 

The "but" thing is typically something I flag.  It didn't feel appropriate this time around.

 

So . . . I have to work with what is given.

 

And what was given, even if not rhetorically or grammatically ideal was a start at resolution.  I do not know if resolution will be fulfilled, I'm willing to give some credit for it being begun.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

I am torn, due I honour the post initiators request or continue to respond

I am going to try to both.

I recognize that an apology was made.

I recognize that I chose to respond in a thread when it would have been better to take it to a new thread and by responding I assisted in derailing this thread

I feel that apologies need to mirror action so if i am addressed again regarding the off topic items, I will take it to another thread

I acknowledge the apology made to me

This is what I said. Who flagged Pinga for attacking me like I was flagged today? I am sorry I swore. I am. It was an inappropriate thing to say. I am also wondering why the offense at personal attacks is unfairly applied to me. I am not sorry for asking that because I generally do conduct myself okay here so I wonder why I was furiously flagged. I never even flagged Pinga back then. I think I've flagged purposely and not just tapped flag by accident when wanting to quote- two individual times in three years.

I also said this and I meant it.

If someone voted more than once, I'd count that as an attempt to derail the site and I think we'd all be very upset with that person, to the point that I, at least, would advocate suspension from WC2.

 

If you did vote more than once, tell us how many times, and from where. We'll remove the votes.

 

OK you two, enough already - out behind the wood shed.....

 

 

Oh he didn't! I don't think he did. Jae...? He's joking just like the embezzlement stuff. I think it's a Jae-ism.

People flag me all the time. The first warning is a generic message. I'm guessing that Aaron gets a handful of flags from bleeding hearts, and presses a button that sends an automatic message about stopping that behaviour or you risk being banned, or cut-and-pastes it from somewhere. Over a site that won't exist in a month. By now, it's the weakest threat in North America. Don't worry about it.

 

Later, Aaron makes the appeals more personal, again suggesting you risk being banned. I get them every 8 months or so. I have a collection. I only have one more month to get the complete set.

 

It was my first warning ever here and it wasn't an auto message. And I was told that several people flagged me today.

If Jae thinks it's a joke, he can tell us, and all is good. If he or anyone else voted multiple times as a joke or a mistake, we'll remove the votes, and no worries. Now he's got me thinking if the vote is close, we have to investigate the sources of the votes. We have more votes cast for this one than any other WC2 vote, which I certainly didn't expect. If a bunch came from his neighbourhood, how are we supposed to react?

 

We have John here taking the high road and refusing to vote for a slate he is part of. I respect that. Voting once for a slate you're part of? I don't really have a problem with that, either. Voting multiple times, making your opinion worth more than anyone else's and effectively derailing this website and causing a large discussion about moderators and requiring the admins to go back and get a new slate? That would be sick, not funny. I think we'd be justifiably upset.

 

I voted no and I voted once- from BC- and if I had thought it through better or waited, I probably wouldn't have.

To be fair, you called Pinga a bitch. That's like a giant "flag me" sign, and ranks somewhere north of "idiot", I'd guess. People looove to tell admins and mods how offended they are. Some admins and mods love to delete posts and issue warnings. Theirs is a symbiotic relationship.

 

Move on. It won't show on your criminal record.