Oh and to dearest Cegorach, as tempting as it may be to preach manners and respect before closing threads... we're on a forum where I'm inclined to think those are as much subject to debate as anything else. It's a debate that I don't think your moderator powers necessarily give you the freedom to conclude.
You can debate them all you want, I simply stated an opinion on the matter and the reason for which your thread was closed based on the rights which this forum protects.
If you manage to present an argument with enough logical validity that any of the Admins agree with you enough to debate it then it will be discussed amongst them and a decision will be made.
Being an Admin means responsibility for the decisions I have the power to make, I will read debate, I may participate, and I will make every effort to refine myself towards sensible decisions, but don't think that I have no right to tell you to behave yourself according to my current understanding of what "behaving" is, that's how a forum is moderated and how conflict is resolved regardless of whether I am infallible or not; it is my capacity as an Admin and also my reponsibility.
You are assuming that I am mocking a specific member and not a general behavior that I see pretty much everywhere, myself included.
Secondly, you are assuming that provocative posts are going to discourage discussion. If people don't want to post in a thread that offends them, they have the right to make that decision, but it doesn't mean they're going to stop posting altogether. And it definitely doesn't mean others can't make reasonable discussion of the thread.
My example was reminiscent of it being directed at a specific member, but my response also concluded with "the same applies for groups", which expanded the idea beyond the example towards a broader concept.
I think you may be projecting the reasons you would do such a thing as choosing a specific font onto others, where your experience very well may not be the case.
If you're deterring people from posting then you are deterring discussion with them as well, regardless of whether it is possible discussion may pop up at some point with some random person; you were given almost an entire day to turn that into a debate thread, but continued with mocking replies to any members who asked questions or argued the concept.
Don't assume I closed it the second I became aware of it.
Moocow said:
From another angle, is there not truth to be found in the raw ways in which people react? Isn't teasing or "trolling" just an inquiry into feelings, what a polite question can not truly access?
Trolling, in the definition as I understand it, is the act of provoking an emotional response with inflammatory remarks. This appears to be
exactly what you're proposing you should have the right to do, hence it could be considered exactly that, assuming this is correct.
You think you should have the right to provoke such responses and I think others should have the right to be protected from provocation, there is a familiar divide here within many areas of the web, and should you wish to take up your right to do so then it's suggested that you locate yourself elsewhere where those particular artificial "rights" are protected.
Rights are simply artificial elements of whatever community you happen to take part in.
You assume you have a right to access information by force and emotional manipulation, and despite whatever information may or may not be gained in such an action this forum is attempting an environment distinct in that it encourages logical debate. You do not have to be "nice", you can be blunt about facts, if someone asks you "do you like me?" and you don't, feel free to say so.
On the other hand, there will be no fishing for reactions or insulting just because you "feel" like it; if the point of mocking is to encourage discussion, then maybe skip directly to the discussing and cut out the superfluous variable.
Our forum members have a right to choose the information they disclose, there is no need to force anything.
Moocow said:
Perhaps it would be unacceptable in real life, but on the internet where we all hide behind usernames and avatars, and have the freedom to choose where we involve ourselves, what exactly is being put at stake?
I could care less whether it is acceptable in real life, but assuming there is reason behind the argument of what is acceptable then it should apply to all arenas that have similarly converging principles.
This doesn't mean objective morality, I consider such a concept naive, but rather that I fail to see how anonymity should make any difference in how we act towards others.
If you're implying that they have the choice to evacuate the forum if they don't like how you act then I think perhaps you may be misconstruing which of you will be the one leaving in such a situation; you have a choice to leave if you disagree with the rules.
Moocow said:
On a last thought, is font choice really comparable to sexuality or race?
No, not directly, you have to abstract the concept behind each example to understand how they relate, I was not speaking directly about font choice but rather the choice to mock instead of discuss.
Each is derived from an individual's preference and their imposition of that preference onto other individuals of a target group or groups, this preference in any of the cases provokes negative emotional responses in the target group and does not serve to create understanding between the separate parties in most cases.
The comparison is in that of preference imposition, and that without logical fundament it has no place in discussion.
Racism and sexual discrimination are considered unacceptable for that exact reason.
...
...
