@poetaster, I fail to follow your line of arguments and line of thinking.
Starting with @Steve_Everett’s last paragraph, to which I wholeheartedly agree:
Where I do agree is that there is nothing productive to be gained by guessing who the flagger(s) was/were. He, she or they will know who they are and might, having read all of this, choose to act differently in similar situations in the future. In my book that will be progress.
How can that be “[…] a veiled threat for someone that has ‘thin skin’. […] I don’t take it that way. But someone probably will.”?
To me this is a logically incomprehensible and distinctively vague (“probably someone”) statement, probably just to express some counter-“argument” for the (thin) argument’s sake.
Unfortunately, I also cannot concur with any other statement in this last post of yours (which is sad, because conversations with you seemed to be based on some mutual understanding in the past):
- You do propose to treat “moderators” differently, although they are not marked as such, hence are not recognisable in this capacity.
Additionally it is unclear which duties, responsibility and measures a “moderator” has.
- You do propose to treat “sailors” (i.e., Jolla employees) differently, although they are not marked as such, hence are not recognisable in this capacity.
In addition to aforementioned points, which cannot be taken into account by forum users, because they are opaque, I fail to believe that you seriously consider that thread to be “critical of his employer” (i.e., Jolla).
And in my understanding this post and the very existence of this thread shows that Steve and I well understood and positively reacted to Viges’ request. But as usual, there are always some people counteracting to get a derailed thread back on track (e.g., you), because it takes some time for that message to “sink in” (i.e., be properly honoured by a critical mass; “by all” has been proven to be unreachable) to move to a different thread (i.e., this one here).
Hence from my point of view more than a “modicum of respect” was ultimately shown.
But your central statement simply leaves me puzzled:
When will someone finally acknowledge responsibility and stop trying to pass the buck?
- Who “tries to pass the buck” to whom in your opinion?
- Which responsibility taken by whom shall be acknowledged by whom?
What and who do you intend to address with that?
I hoped (originally even “expected”) Jolla to take this derailed thread (which is not at all a catastrophe, but rather a minor accident, which happens) as a trigger to analyse how their rules and configuration of this forum software fostered the derailing.
To me it became obvious by that incident and all the discussion which followed:
- Encouraging users to flag posts quickly is a speedy path to escalation.
This guidance should be strongly toned down.
- Only ad hominem attacks should be off limits, because everything else is subjective and debatable, for example terms like “foul language”, “derogative statements” etc.
Without such a clearly cut and simple rule, which is easy to comprehend and (most importantly) to apply, the rule itself is problematic, because it can be abused as it leaves a lot of room for interpretation and will always be non-congruent with someone’s perception.
- The configuration of this forum software with “the first flagging suppresses a post, the second flagging fully censors it” while retaining full anonymity for the censor, constitutes an invitation to play malicious “power games” for some and thus is by itself “evil”.
And I seriously wonder why you fiercely defend Jolla’s silence on this topic (e.g., in this thread, which @vige explicitly requested) and lack of adaption of their guidance, rules or the configuration of this forum software as something positive, only to conclude with “so I’m muting this thread. I don’t have time for this. Sorry.”!?!
Excuse me, that I feel strongly encouraged to reply, that this is not nice behaviour at all in my perspective.
