11-18-2012, 09:21 AM
I am sure that every one will agree when I say that the vast majority of discussions/topics in RAT are conducted with earnest civility and willingness to assist/respond/educate/exchange or present ideas/further insight etc. Of course, once in a while, there is, thank God(s) quite rarely, the occasional incivility, sometimes a product of (bad) humor, at other times a product of frustration, misunderstanding or even, in a few cases, outright scorn. I think that very few of us have never acted in an unseemly manner and I am sure that most of us know when we do so. I know I have deleted or edited some of my posts after my good sense had taken over my momentary frustration. We are all educated adults and since it all has become a major issue these days, maybe we should decide on exactly how strict mod control we want? Until now, mod intervention has been, as I see it, quite light, I personally thought it worked, but after reading some of the posts I fear that a number of members would disagree and at times have felt offended and unprotected. Would we like mods to intervene more often? Would we like them to intervene when no one has issued a complaint more often and not just in really blatant cases of rules abuse? Would we like them to edit or delete posts whenever they personally judge that irony or incivility is in play? If mods do so, would the "offended party" be satisfied or would they then complain that disciplinary measures (like bans) should also be taken? Do we want mods to act freely and trust their common sense or do we need stricter and better defined rules? Maybe a poll should be held to better understand how members feel about all this? I know I am generally happy with the freedom I feel even if some times I have been (for good or no good reason) angered by certain posts or posters but I would not object to stricter mod intervention also.
On the other hand, there should also be pointed out that everyone is entitled to one's own opinion and way of thinking. Being an "elitist", a "traditionalist", a "denier" etc is within one's rights and such diversity actually makes the lives of many of us here more interesting. If no one or very few agree with one's point of view, one should not feel offended or threatened, which often happens, as long as replies are posted in a civil manner. So what if some or all are very picky about their gear? If one is not, then good for him... And of course, in order for any comment to be deemed offensive it has to be directed at members of this forum in a personal or impersonal manner. Of course attacking nationalities or races may offend members of this forum and should be avoided as much as personal attacks. But saying that General A was a stupid sob or that a certain item is crap can by no means be considered offensive. At worst, such comments can be accused of discouraging constructive discussion. Do we want to guard against such comments too? I personally hate such "humor" but others may not.
As far as promoting merchandise is concerned, we have to first decide whether RAT should function as a window display or as the forum it is. Criticism can be bad for the manufacturer, sometimes it might even sound vicious, and then as members, they naturally feel offended although they have actually sustained no personal attack. No one likes to hear that what they produce/sell is bad/not authentic/crap, but on the other hand they are always happy when they receive favorable reviews... Although my opinion might be met with disagreement on that matter, I think that if manufacturers/resellers want to promote their ware in RAT they should take any bad criticism directed at them as they would any positive criticism. RAT is a forum, not a mall. If someone asks my opinion on sword A, I sure as hell have the right to give it to him without fear that I might offend the manufacturer. If the stuff is good, then no amount of "malevolent" criticism will harm its chances to sell.
On the other hand, there should also be pointed out that everyone is entitled to one's own opinion and way of thinking. Being an "elitist", a "traditionalist", a "denier" etc is within one's rights and such diversity actually makes the lives of many of us here more interesting. If no one or very few agree with one's point of view, one should not feel offended or threatened, which often happens, as long as replies are posted in a civil manner. So what if some or all are very picky about their gear? If one is not, then good for him... And of course, in order for any comment to be deemed offensive it has to be directed at members of this forum in a personal or impersonal manner. Of course attacking nationalities or races may offend members of this forum and should be avoided as much as personal attacks. But saying that General A was a stupid sob or that a certain item is crap can by no means be considered offensive. At worst, such comments can be accused of discouraging constructive discussion. Do we want to guard against such comments too? I personally hate such "humor" but others may not.
As far as promoting merchandise is concerned, we have to first decide whether RAT should function as a window display or as the forum it is. Criticism can be bad for the manufacturer, sometimes it might even sound vicious, and then as members, they naturally feel offended although they have actually sustained no personal attack. No one likes to hear that what they produce/sell is bad/not authentic/crap, but on the other hand they are always happy when they receive favorable reviews... Although my opinion might be met with disagreement on that matter, I think that if manufacturers/resellers want to promote their ware in RAT they should take any bad criticism directed at them as they would any positive criticism. RAT is a forum, not a mall. If someone asks my opinion on sword A, I sure as hell have the right to give it to him without fear that I might offend the manufacturer. If the stuff is good, then no amount of "malevolent" criticism will harm its chances to sell.
