Posted by Admiral Joe P (Election Coordinator) in Question for the Candidates - About Questions

Posted by Robert Archer in Question for the Candidates - About Questions

Posted by Admiral Joe P (Election Coordinator) in Question for the Candidates - About Questions

SNIP

Hope that makes sense to you Joe, and thanks again for asking.

Robert Archer

So, it doesn’t make sense to me, but that’s because I read your the first part of your first answer and was confused as to whether or not it contains a typo that changes the meaning of your answer significantly. I don’t want to misconstrue anything you said, so could you please check if you’re missing a word in the second sentence of your first answer, and let us know? Then if there are follow ups I can make sure I’m asking the right ones.

Joe

Hey Joe, so to clarify is the part here in bold what you’re referring too on where I got my mistake?

No I do not agree. The reason I do not agree is legitimate questions asking about how a candidate would do XYZ if done in good faith to me should be something that would ‘piss them off’ as you say

If so then it should read:

No I do not agree. The reason I do not agree is legitimate questions asking about how a candidate would do XYZ if done in good faith to me should NOT be something that would ‘piss them off’ as you say.

Does this clear it up?

Robert Archer

Yes it does, thank you. With that ambiguity dispensed with, I have some follow up questions.

I find it interesting that your position seems to be the opposite of Katy’s. Katy in her answer to my same question put the burden on the person answering a question not to be offended by it, to presume good faith because textual communication is difficult. You seem to have put the burden on the person asking not to offend. Do you two actually differ in your opinion on this?

Katy and I do slightly differ on this topic. But I do not think this is a bad thing. If Katy and I agreed on everything then for me that would defeat one of the reasons I wanted Katy as my vice president. I wanted her (or anyone who would be my VP) to have some differing views and thoughts then myself so we can best bounce ideas or such off each other in our own discourse.

So to sum up, I agree with what Katy is saying. While yes, the reader should take things in good faith, the asker should, where able, consider the feelings of potential readers/answerers as well, and also not be afraid to clarify if asked. Because we don’t always agree on everything, one of us may think of a potential solution that other never thought of. We feel that having such difference of opinions and skills is a good thing to have in the club.

Regardless, you applied this theory that the asker has the burden not to offend people by effectively arguing that any time someone does manage to offend someone else with a question, it’s a Terms of Service violation on the part of the person asking:

In addition to my above italizing that section I have bolded and underlined the part which I feel is quite important to remember when we post in heated questions or replies which I think is related to your question. So if a person makes such a question which does those things to someone replying then its a TOS violation in theory and at the least the person should be called for it in a respectful manner appropriate to the situation at hand, this would in my feeling go for any member with no leeway given regardless of their position, standing, time or whatever in the club.

Historically, we have not treated every interpersonal disagreement as a Terms of Service violation, because Terms of Service violations have fairly steep minimum penalties associated with them, such as a temporary or permanent ban from the club. We could change that, but are you really sure that’s what you want to do?

Let’s game it out with a recent example. Several people found Abigail’s recent command post to be offensive because they felt it was defamatory toward an entire class of member. Using your logic, since Abigail’s words did something to people to make them feel upset, she violated the Terms of Service. Is it really your belief that we should apply the Terms of Service to her “with no leeway given regardless of [her] position, standing, time or whatever in the club” by banning her? Wouldn’t that actually worsen the oppressive and depressing atmosphere that she was complaining about?

Finally, assuming you still think that establishing every time someone had a negative feeling from a post is a Terms of Service violation, do you trust everyone who might be President sometime to apply that standard fairly? Wouldn’t that actually grant whoever the President is the justification to ban people they don’t like on the slightest whim? Might that damage what little trust is left around here past the point of repair?

Joe

What I mean by the TOS part was to take each event in question on a case by case basis. Obviously no in no way should someone saying in command to someone ‘you stink and i disagree’ or something mean they get banned. That to me would be stupid reaction by the president not to mention in my mind a gross abuse of the presidential powers of the club and something I would hope if it occurred EGO steps in on or failing that anyone in the club would call out the president for such an abuse.

It is my belief that TOS violations should be judged on a case by case basis as they should be WHEN NEEDED. But that the president should as I said with no leeway given regardless of [their] position, standing, time or whatever in the club. Meaning that if a person who violated was someone in the club for a long time, someone who did tons of good and benefit for the club or whatever is given no favoritism of a ‘lesser punishment’ then say someone who is not popular or hardly does anything in the club beyond roleplaying. This is what I meant by that statement earlier.

Robert Archer