Is Speech Suppressed on the ECCIE Boards???

Excellent idea.

Unfortunately, many people don't understand the concept of "gentle." Or they interpret their comments (or those of an ally/friend) by a different standard than they apply to comments by others. Originally Posted by Chevalier

Some people don`t understand gentle because it keeps them doing what they do. Sometimes a good shout and pointingly sharp messages directed at them brings across the message better :-). And more time efficient.

I am not getting paid here for applying some "gentle therapeutical approach" for those who are slow at the uptake and severe at mobbing and chasticing.

Time is our most precious unrenewable resource and being blunt and direct saves us that precious of all goods. Subtle and gentle requires a level of self reflection some narcissists don`t seem to have, so you have to put it in their face so even they can comprehend.
Some people have their nose up so high that they don`t understand when shit hits the fan that they are the reason too for that, because they only see the glass splitter in the eyes of the others, and never themselves. So you have to make it blunt to get them off their high horse :-) .

Some people don`t understand gentle because it keeps them doing what they do. Sometimes a good shout and pointingly sharp messages directed at them brings across the message better :-). And more time efficient.

I am not getting paid here for applying some "gentle therapeutical approach" for those who are slow at the uptake and severe at mobbing and chasticing.

Time is our most precious unrenewable resource and being blunt and direct saves us that precious of all goods. Subtle and gentle requires a level of self reflection some narcissists don`t seem to have, so you have to put it in their face so even they can comprehend.
Some people have their nose up so high that they don`t understand when shit hits the fan that they are the reason too for that, because they only see the glass splitter in the eyes of the others, and never themselves. So you have to make it blunt to get them off their high horse :-) . Originally Posted by ninasastri

Your approach is certainly more efficient, and may be better at getting their attention. And I'm sure it's more enjoyable for you.

Do you find that it also is more effective, in terms of persuading them to change their behavior? Because that was my point. My observations over a course of many years is that "blunt" turns into "harsh" turns into "nasty" -- and the target reciprocates in kind, escalating the anger.

If the goal is to feel good and inflict pain on the target, the approach you describe may be effective. If the goal is to improve the "environment" by driving the target away permanently, it may also be effective, at a short term cost to other members who dislike drama. But it may not be effective; often, those people are just spoiling for a fight themselves. And if the goal is to improve the "environment" not by driving the target away but by persuading the target to change their behavior, the approach you describe seems very unlikely to be effective. Or, as someone else once put it:

A gentle answer turns away rage, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

So, what is your goal?

If the goal is to improve the "environment" by driving the target away permanently Originally Posted by Chevalier

And of course, if that were the goal, there would be the follow-up question of whether it was also the owners/management's goal. And whether we should leave the decision of whom to drive away up to them, rather than claiming the right for ourselves.

I do not care too much for blunt in debate or in personal interactions. One can be straight forward without being blunt and hurting other people's feelings. I care for it slightly more than passive aggressive remarks or humor. They are both intended to hurt people’s feelings or to tear someone down in the eyes of others.

Other than TTH’s careful breakdown on the limited occasions were speech is suppressed or moderated, I find that there is very little suppression of speech or ideas here on ECCIE. I would say that unsupported stating of one’s opinion as fact is challenged as it should be. Because of these challenges, I find this is a wonderful place to debate.

Your approach is certainly more efficient, and may be better at getting their attention. And I'm sure it's more enjoyable for you.

Do you find that it also is more effective, in terms of persuading them to change their behavior? Because that was my point. My observations over a course of many years is that "blunt" turns into "harsh" turns into "nasty" -- and the target reciprocates in kind, escalating the anger.

If the goal is to feel good and inflict pain on the target, the approach you describe may be effective.

And if the goal is to improve the "environment" not by driving the target away but by persuading the target to change their behavior, the approach you describe seems very unlikely to be effective. Or, as someone else once put it:



So, what is your goal? Originally Posted by Chevalier

My goal is to be left alone from judgemental , chasticing and outrageous evaluations that are not explained thouroughly.

First of all, A target is not necessarily a victim, like you portray it, some targets inflict tremendous pain on others and never apologize. I think we are all grown ups here aka self empowered and responsible. If someone pisses ME off for various reasons, it is within my powers to "defend" myself and not within my powers to "change" their behaviour. Who am i to make people change?

This comes close to having a god complex or as therapeutical value. I am not the therapist here. I am here for myself and to engage in discussion and not to be a soft pillow where people can test their attitude and not get some grown up response , but rather therapeutical understanding (that is a paid job - book hours and you get that from me any time). Here I show my boundaries, effectively, but in no means i do or want to change anyone. That is none of my business. I am not here to fulfill missions on ethical or "good vs. bad" behaviour.

I think subtle hints to manipulate other people`s behaviour have failed and backlashed badly and its- furthermore - my ethical belief that people do not deserve to be manipulated, so if you have something to say towards a person it should be played with open cards and not with hidden games of manipulation (we are adults here......), and i is my experience that people usually never change - unless they WANT to and unless they SEE their flaws and ADMIT them. Since that is the case, all i do and want to do is showing my boundaries and limits. ANd therefor my method is VERY effective.

ps: it`s more enjoyable only for me when i feel the "target" is a hypocrite serving on a silver plate for me :-))))))..... (lol)....Other than that it can also be a pain in the ass when you have to defend yourself against outrageous accusations and chasticing comments. .. There is nothing worse than stupidity or self righteousness, believe me! You can`t win against a stupid and self righteous person (not saying they are necessarily here on the board, just talking generally) because they won`t have the capacity to understand you, no matter if you talk until your mouth is dry. Been there done that - numerous times in my life. It just makes me angry that is all. No joy here.

pps: there is the old joke of the lightbulb and the psychologist: how many psychologists do you need to change a lightbulb? Only one, but the bulb has to be willing to change..
and the joke of the fountain and the broken cup:
It says that the cup goes to the fountain taking water until it breaks (which is to say that people never change and continue to do their behaviour all the time similar until they have to or encounter resistance or boundaries )

some targets inflict tremendous pain on others and never apologize. I think we are all grown ups here aka self empowered and responsible. If someone pisses ME off for various reasons, it is within my powers to "defend" myself Originally Posted by ninasastri

But who is say whether their behavior is acceptable and whether yours (in response to theirs) is acceptable?

Just pointing out that they may feel as justified in what they say as you feel justified in what you say. If you both say it harshly, it may detract from the atmosphere of the forums for everyone else. You are not necessarily any more entitled to "defend" yourself in that fashion than they are to "inflict tremendous pain." Ultimately, it's not my call and it's not your call -- it's the call of owners/management.

But as a general rule, in a communal gathering place like this, I personally think civility is a good goal. Or, what I refer to as gentle rather than harsh. Some degree of self-control is the price we pay for civilized society and a more pleasant atmosphere.

But who is say whether their behavior is acceptable and whether yours (in response to theirs) is acceptable?

Just pointing out that they may feel as justified in what they say as you feel justified in what you say. If you both say it harshly, it may detract from the atmosphere of the forums for everyone else. You are not necessarily any more entitled to "defend" yourself in that fashion than they are to "inflict tremendous pain." Ultimately, it's not my call and it's not your call -- it's the call of owners/management.

. Originally Posted by Chevalier

To your first statement i have to say that it`s no ones right to say whether behaviour is acceptable and which is not. I am not the one running around pointing fingers and then hide behind mods when its my turn to get some fingerpointing. I think its a matter of philosophies. I am entitled to defend myself when i see fit. Others may not see what their comments do to other people. Neither at some point i may see. So - that is what is defense there for. I expect from grown up people that they are capable of engaging in discussions or making a point without getting mods involved and crying a river. That is immature. One who has a mouth to babble should be capable of using it when necessary as well. One who screams into the woods has to handle the echo. Nothing happens without a reason. Stuff like that is a tremendous value for a personality to grow.

I tend to be one of those people when something happens to me then i ask first and foremost "Why does that happen to me" and i see my own flaws, agendas and unsolved tasks first. Then i empower myself and learn a lesson. Or teach one. If people get critizised you can`t say its only because the critics have a screw loose. Its not that simple. Its a give and take. I believe in synchronicity. Hiding behind a mod and fingerpoint and pretend to be so much better than anyone else does not do personal growth a favour.

People have different boundaries and different ways to manage them. This is not about judgement. No one has to behave like "I" would behave or want myself to behave. Its about co-existing.

I disagree with "its call of owners/management" for ethical reasons. (Of course a site owned privately has the right to do as they see fit , that is not my point) . Because owners/management may be unfairly flawed/biased and not necessarily the best judge. I do think though that a good moderation reminds me of a good TV discussion - you meditate - be a diplomate and let people be at their own pace.

We have a profound philosophical difference. You seem to argue you should be the only judge of your behavior and free of the constraints of others. In some circumstances, sure, but not here. Would that apply at a dinner party at someone's house? Or in the middle of a store? Well, this is closer to those situations than to Hyde Park.

Might owners/management/mods be biased or flawed, or exercize poor judgement? Certainly, and you're free to try to persuade them to change. But ultimately it is -- and SHOULD be -- their choice. Your options are to accept their standards or find someplace else to go. This not your only option. And this is not a free speech zone.

But they're extremely lenient here. I've found it very easy to express disagreement, argue, crticize, and debate without crossing their boundaries. I don't always agree with them -- or the standards of the hostesses of private dinner parties or store managers -- but I can behave. If it were too strict, and I couldn't persuade them to change, I'd go elsewhere. Most people should be able to do that.

Those who insist on the right to act how they choose, whether that's demeaning and stereotypical statements about escorts/clients or harsh personal attacks, are -- in my opinion -- selfish in substituting their standards for those deemed appropriate by management.

Your opinion may vary.

IDK, just asking the question. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

In a word..yes! For certain people it is. Usually, those who don't agree with the majority are the ones who can't have a voice.

In a word..yes! For certain people it is. Usually, those who don't agree with the majority are the ones who can't have a voice. Originally Posted by London Rayne

Nonsense! As long as you treat others with respect and civility, you may say anything you like in D&T as long as it conforms to general Eccie rules.

After all, PJ, WTF and Charles have been doing it for years and years and years...

We have a profound philosophical difference. You seem to argue you should be the only judge of your behavior and free of the constraints of others. Originally Posted by Chevalier

First of all that was not my point: The point was that i am not - like you - trying to change people. I am setting my boundaries. That is telling "how far" people can go with me. That is not the same like saying i am the only one who is allowed or capable of judging my behaviour. Feel free to judge any time, if that is your style (with profound explanation of course....) I am just not a friend of stereotypical one liners that make generalized assumptions without references and explanations. It is a difference to call someone a "bitch" without any grounds for justification and generalize whole groups of people then calling someone a "bitch" and explaining why that is the case. Both not nice, but the last is at least giving people the chance to respond. Its basic communication technique. The first is just plain mobbing.

As to be free of constraint of others? Don`t we all want to be that? But its kind of not possible , is it? Because why interact socially then? You misunderstand my point - which was taht people are responsible for their actions and for defending themselves and making a point. They are not responsible for "changing" other people`s behaviour. That is manipulative. WHo are you to try to "change" people?? Why would you do such a thing?

As to me judging moderators: I was placing an ethical opinion /reasoning with pointing out the realistic one as well. Not what you seem to read into my posts. Hypothetically life is autopoietic. No one needs mods. But reality - sure life is darwinism at some point and hierarchies. Evolution has not come that far (neither has intellectual capacities) because there was someone "drawing" a line....Jesus :-))))

Nonsense! As long as you treat others with respect and civility, you may say anything you like in D&T as long as it conforms to general Eccie rules.

After all, PJ, WTF and Charles have been doing it for years and years and years... Originally Posted by John Bull

true....and others too i might add obviously :-)

Indeed m'lady, indeed.

Nonsense! As long as you treat others with respect and civility, you may say anything you like in D&T as long as it conforms to general Eccie rules.

After all, PJ, WTF and Charles have been doing it for years and years and years... Originally Posted by John Bull

Well...thanks for clearing that up bud!

Indeed m'lady, indeed. Originally Posted by John Bull

do i have to blush :-)?? am i caught.....(big grin)