Toby wrote, incredulously:
Given the context of this post, it would appear that Ed thinks that people are ganging up on RK, and then we're trying to excuse this because RK reacted badly.
No, Toby, you got the cart before the horse.
Rather, I think what happened the last time is that: (1) People ganged up on RK (or it seemed that way to him) (2) He defended himself (in a way people thought was inexcusably bad) (3) They used his 'defensiveness' as an excuse to ban him
I am not saying that people used (2) to defend (1), but that they used (2) to defend (3).
Oh, what's the use! No one listens to me anyway. Cunctator picks apart everything I say and ignores my main points just because I don't start right. Erik (on the talk page) puts words in my mouth.
I guess it's time for me to start threatening to "resign" again. How long has it been since my last 'threat'? Mav, are you keeping track?
Ed Poor
Ed-
Oh, what's the use! No one listens to me anyway. Cunctator picks apart everything I say and ignores my main points just because I don't start right. Erik (on the talk page) puts words in my mouth.
I don't think I put words in your mouth. In any case, maybe you should stop trying to be everywhere at the same time and understanding every dispute that goes on. Don't take this mediation thing too seriously. The idea is that there will be a central place - a message board, for example - where people can go if they want help. I don't think mediators should necessarily actively seek out disputes and try to help. Nobody can complain that you are condescending if they ask you - or rather, the mediation team - for help. I think your quick poll on Talk:Silesia was a good idea.
One fundamental problem is also that if the person trying to mediate has already established an opinion on the subject in question, they may not be accepted in the same fashion as someone who approaches a dispute with their hands clean. So you may make a comment and feel like everyone should treat you like the unbiased mediator, while people perceive you as being on either side of the dispute. Whether you anticipated that or not, I believe the mediator function compels you to be even more careful with expressing strong opinions.
Regards,
Erik
Ed Poor wrote:
Toby wrote:
Given the context of this post, it would appear that Ed thinks that people are ganging up on RK, and then we're trying to excuse this because RK reacted badly.
No, Toby, you got the cart before the horse.
I see from below that you're discussing what happened the ''last'' time that there was a bunch of RK talk on the list. Not about what's happening today. OK, I understand now!
Rather, I think what happened the last time is that: (1) People ganged up on RK (or it seemed that way to him) (2) He defended himself (in a way people thought was inexcusably bad) (3) They used his 'defensiveness' as an excuse to ban him
I am not saying that people used (2) to defend (1), but that they used (2) to defend (3).
Well, that's probably valid. Or it might be, depending on specifics. (2) could never justify (1), but it might justify (3), in some cases. Especially if (1) only ''seemed'' that way.
But in general, I would be wary of using (2) to justify (3), since it might encourage people to try (1) in order to rile people up. I would rather limit bans to cases with, as Jimbo says, a "clean paper trail". That means no (1), or at least no (1) that is more than just seeming.
-- Toby