Accepting other peoples views and beliefs, knowing when and what to contribute at the appropriate time, not critizing style or substance of a post, but drawing out the point and focusing on that. And most importantly, debate the question at hand with your own perspective and information, not throwing insults and hostility at the replier instead; it doesnt work. Also where are the moderators? This would help!
May I just add we all do things to antagonise each other here, some worse than others, ''he without sin caste the first stone'', hows that for what would Jesus do? I actully find Perplexity to be a goog bloke, very understanding and I find his remarks more humourous than insulting. After all he was just voicing his point of view, since when has that been wrong? Is this a case of 'ganging up'?
Always out numbered, never out gunned!
I woke up this morning as saw I have become a moderator overnight.
Pilgrimshost- there was something happening on this board when I arrived here. A sure sense of growing agitation. I think what has transpired might be simply a democratic vote for the well being of the group.
I think new groups often go through awkward moments when they first begin. People do not know to what degree they are able to interact with eachother. "Societal norms and values" are not established (so to speak). There is a high priority to share, create, grow, become "more intimate", create light...I would think and hope! with the idea of "feeling at home".
Who do we want in our home and who do we not want in our home? We look at the perceived values of a person and in what ways they add to the group, or take away from the group. We assess our own personal intents for this group, we assess others intents and see if they match our own.
This is only my experience with this particular poster--but what good does it add to the group to have a poster who continually illustrates why any particular thread is not worthy of discussion? Or who continually finds the "downside" to things? Do we require a person in this group who views his role as "playing devil's advocate" because he feels he possesses the sword of Manjushri?
If at many turns this poster has evoked an agitated response from other contributors, does the fault lie with the reactee or with the evokee?
If this poster has come to this group stating that he has come here after being banned from other groups, does this speak to his overall character--or does it state that others have much work to do on themselves?
You seem to be saying that you were able to find a certain value in this poster that "we" did not perceive. That this was a "good bloke" that perhaps got a bad rap.
What I can say, is this was not my experience AT ALL. I felt there are people who deliberately find joy in being forum rats or trolls. The discernment about whether to allow them to post or to ban them takes consideration of many variables.
The turning point on my assessment, was reviewing the last group (sciforums.com) in which this poster was banned. Upon reviewing this forum, and the barbaric behavior of the majority of its members--I could not begin to fathom what a person could have done on a group of this particular caliber to get banned. It simply seemed absurd to me.
These were some of the elements that went into my personal 'vote' FOR the vitality of the group. That does not mean I am unwilling to hear you out or change my perspective on this at all.