Guest guest Posted May 17, 2001 Report Share Posted May 17, 2001 Anne-Louise: I really don't appreciate your questioning me in my own forum :-) Yes, at times I can be blunt. And I appreciate your feedback. But if you have a problem with my moderation, you should take a page from your own book and contact me offlist about your issues. While I appreciate your participation, I'd also like you to understand that discussion forums are not really a strict democracy; for the most part, they are designed to focus on a certain area of thought and discussion, and more gets done if there is a higher signal to noise ratio related to that topic area. Have a look at this humorous view of the moderator's role in a forum: http://www.emoderators.com/moderators/rauch.html#job People are free to discuss what they want off list or on other lists, and always have been. Unfortunately, some people do not like to experience moderation or authority of any kind and chafe against it or challenge it when they perceive an opportunity to do so. The reason I said that I am not here to make anyone like me is valid, and I stand by it. My leadership style is not a matter of debate, here... but thank you for being concerned about it ;-) I've been doing this for a couple of years now. If there is a problem, then it can, and should, be dealt with off list. If there is a persistent problem, it can be dealt with by moderating posts, unsubscription or banning. I very seldom do anything like that, preferring people to use their own reasoning capabilities to understand what is on topic and what isn't, and when it is time to drop something that is unproductive or becoming contentious. Sometimes I just have to say " stop " . For the most part, I think people understand what that means. If you were truly wanting to be constructive, you would not be implying, on the list, that I am bossy, indiscreet and tactless <LOL> Thank you. Caroline Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2001 Report Share Posted May 17, 2001 The reason why I " questioned you in your own forum " was because the email that it was sent in response to was also in " the forum. " I was not trying to be indescreet. I was merely replying in the same way that the email was originally sent. My response was not fueled by a dislike of experiencing moderation or an objection to authority. If anything, I believe I have showed such things respect. The reason for my email was a genuine objection to the style in which it was written. Not you saying " no " to something. You say that your " leadership style is not a matter of debate " , but wouldn't you agree that it is the sign of a good leader to be open to criticism of their style and consider it honestly? I was not looking for a window of opportunity to challenge you. If I was deliberately doing so, there are many opportunities here in which to do it. I believe I have only voiced my feelings on these issues twice in quite some time. And it has only been when I absolutely felt I must. When I do, it is always done without attacking you as a person. That is what I mean by " constructive. " I criticised your style, not who you are. The two are not the same. After this email, if I have such criticisms again I will respect your wishes and email you directly. Even if the original email was put directly in the forum. Best wishes, Anne-Louise. > Caroline Abreu <carocrow > > Thu, 17 May 2001 11:28:14 -0400 > > [ADMIN] ??? > > Anne-Louise: > > I really don't appreciate your questioning me in my own forum :-) Yes, at > times I > can be blunt. And I appreciate your feedback. But if you have a problem with > my > moderation, you should take a page from your own book and contact me offlist > about > your issues. While I appreciate your participation, I'd also like you to > understand that discussion forums are not really a strict democracy; for the > most > part, they are designed to focus on a certain area of thought and discussion, > and > more gets done if there is a higher signal to noise ratio related to that > topic > area. > > Have a look at this humorous view of the moderator's role in a forum: > http://www.emoderators.com/moderators/rauch.html#job > > People are free to discuss what they want off list or on other lists, and > always > have been. Unfortunately, some people do not like to experience moderation or > authority of any kind and chafe against it or challenge it when they perceive > an > opportunity to do so. > > The reason I said that I am not here to make anyone like me is valid, and I > stand > by it. My leadership style is not a matter of debate, here... but thank you > for > being concerned about it ;-) > > I've been doing this for a couple of years now. If there is a problem, then > it > can, and should, be dealt with off list. If there is a persistent problem, it > can > be dealt with by moderating posts, unsubscription or banning. I very seldom > do > anything like that, preferring people to use their own reasoning capabilities > to > understand what is on topic and what isn't, and when it is time to drop > something > that is unproductive or becoming contentious. Sometimes I just have to say > " stop " . For the most part, I think people understand what that means. > > If you were truly wanting to be constructive, you would not be implying, on > the > list, that I am bossy, indiscreet and tactless <LOL> > > Thank you. > Caroline > > > > > **************************************** > Visit the community page: > For administrative problems -owner > To , - > > All messages, files and archives of this forum are copyright of the > group and the individual authors. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2001 Report Share Posted May 17, 2001 Anne-Louise: If something about me bothers you, perhaps you should take it as a mirror and look at it that way. There must be an issue there, for you to " absolutely feel you must " respond to me in the forum with open criticism, constructive or not ;-) Running a list is like having people over for coffee. If you don't want certain subjects discussed in your living room, then it is your decision to ask that they not be. If your guests persist, you have several choices... you can ignore them and subject your other guests to off topic conversation, you can ask them to leave, show them the door, or if all else fails, call the police and tell them that you've just had an accident, and would they send an ambulance around? ;-) The guests? Well, they generally defer to the host on those matters, or they can leave, can't they? Think of it this way... you're having an Earth Day party, and a couple of evangelists stop by with their paphernalia. You go ahead and invite them in for coffee, but ask them not to apostate. They do it anyway. You ask them to stop, but they keep handing out brochures and your guests are starting to get restless and leave. When you try to hustle them to the door, they loudly protest that you are going to hell because you will not listen to their dogma. Hmm. They looked like good people, before they got carried away. If you could get them talking about trees and endangered fish again, everything might settle down. Hmm. Do you (a) confiscate their tracts (b) boot them out the door or © put some Valium in the snickerdoodles? I *am* open to *truly* constructive criticism, *not* on the list, but in an appropriate manner, in privacy. Thank you. Caroline Anne-Louise Lasley wrote: > The reason why I " questioned you in your own forum " was because the email that > it was sent in re sponse to was also in " the forum. " I was not trying to be > indescreet. I was merely replying in the same way that the email was originally > sent. > My response was not fueled by a dislike of experiencing moderation or an > objection to authority. If anything, I believe I have showed such things > respect. The reason for my email was a genuine objection to the style in > which it was written. Not you saying " no " to something. > You say that your " leadership style is not a matter of debate " , but wouldn't you > agree that it is the sign of a good leader to be open to criticism of their > style and consider it honestly? > I was not looking for a window of opportunity to challenge you. If I was > deliberately doing so, there are many opportunities here in which to do it. > I believe I have only voiced my feelings on these issues twice in quite some > time. And it has only been when I absolutely felt I must. When I do, it is > always done without attacking you as a person. That is what I mean by > " constructive. " I criticised your style, not who you are. The two are not the > same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2001 Report Share Posted May 18, 2001 Oh good call here Crow. I've been reading this *discussion* with interest and this paragraph calls me to a book that I've read of late which is wonderful. I love it when psychology is brought to the masses in a form that works well. The book is called Dark Side of the Light Chasers by Debbie Ford. Its a NYT bestseller. All about projection. Owning your projections. Great reading. Kate At 01:40 PM 5/17/01 -0400, you wrote: >Anne-Louise: > >If something about me bothers you, perhaps you should take it as a mirror >and look >at it that way. There must be an issue there, for you to " absolutely feel you >must " respond to me in the forum with open criticism, constructive or not ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2001 Report Share Posted May 18, 2001 I think it is important here to recognise that action comes from two processes within the mind: responce or reaction. If one reacts, it is action stemming more from a conditioned or learned protective mechanism. It does not involve thought but reflex. A responce is a genuine thought-out objection raised by a person. Clearly it is important that one understands why they feel compelled to do things, and I can assure you that my action has been the result of responce. Had I reacted, then yes.. Crow's mirror analogy would be applicable. =) -Anne-Louise. > Kate Strong <kates > > Fri, 18 May 2001 11:13:58 +1200 > > Re: [ADMIN] ??? > > Oh good call here Crow. I've been reading this *discussion* with interest > and this paragraph calls me to a book that I've read of late which is > wonderful. I love it when psychology is brought to the masses in a form > that works well. The book is called Dark Side of the Light Chasers by > Debbie Ford. Its a NYT bestseller. All about projection. Owning your > projections. Great reading. > > Kate > > At 01:40 PM 5/17/01 -0400, you wrote: >> Anne-Louise: >> >> If something about me bothers you, perhaps you should take it as a mirror >> and look >> at it that way. There must be an issue there, for you to " absolutely feel >> you >> must " respond to me in the forum with open criticism, constructive or not ;-) > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 18, 2001 Report Share Posted May 18, 2001 I disagree. With all respect. Just because you thought something through doesn't mean there wasn't the same underlying feeling behind your response. You perhaps maybe chose to reword it differently, or take away the heat. Nothing personal, just a debate here. Kate At 07:46 AM 5/18/01 +0100, you wrote: >I think it is important here to recognise that action comes from two >processes within the mind: responce or reaction. > >If one reacts, it is action stemming more from a conditioned or learned >protective mechanism. It does not involve thought but reflex. > >A responce is a genuine thought-out objection raised by a person. Clearly >it is important that one understands why they feel compelled to do things, >and I can assure you that my action has been the result of responce. > >Had I reacted, then yes.. Crow's mirror analogy would be applicable. =) > >-Anne-Louise. > > > Kate Strong <kates > > > > Fri, 18 May 2001 11:13:58 +1200 > > > > Re: [ADMIN] ??? > > > > Oh good call here Crow. I've been reading this *discussion* with interest > > and this paragraph calls me to a book that I've read of late which is > > wonderful. I love it when psychology is brought to the masses in a form > > that works well. The book is called Dark Side of the Light Chasers by > > Debbie Ford. Its a NYT bestseller. All about projection. Owning your > > projections. Great reading. > > > > Kate > > > > At 01:40 PM 5/17/01 -0400, you wrote: > >> Anne-Louise: > >> > >> If something about me bothers you, perhaps you should take it as a mirror > >> and look > >> at it that way. There must be an issue there, for you to " absolutely feel > >> you > >> must " respond to me in the forum with open criticism, constructive or > not ;-) > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.