WebSlave said:
Sorry, but no, I disagree. I used to do that in the past. Post a proposal of what I had in mind doing to get some feedback and ideas, and invariably a few people would get their panties in a wad over it, claiming the sky will fall afterwards,
Which, admittedly might be seen to be the case for any number of failed initiatives that are no longer in effect on the site.
and try their best to convince me that their perspective or ideas were much better than mine. When I failed to agree with them, they then became convinced that I most certainly must not understand them, because how could I POSSIBLY disagree.
*Some* of those discussions had pretty open wording, seemed to invite comment on the entire topic rather than a specific aspect. That may be less the case recently as you've been more selective in your language when approaching a topic asking for member input but traditionally many of them came across as something where that member approval or disapproval was solicited.
So they continued posting the same arguments over and over again, quite certain that with repetition and ever more forceful suggestions, I will FINALLY understand and agree with them. How could I not?!?
And that's just basic human nature. We tend to view others as being intelligent or not, right or wrong, ethical or not... good or bad... based on how closely their thoughts an opinions align with our own. Anyone who really believes they are correct will need to be hit over the head with a stick before they change their mind about a given subject. In many of those past threads, you didn't come across as having a view of what was going to happen; but frequently came across as looking for the insights of others as a means of assisting the eventual decision. People may have pissed you off by espousing the views that they held to be correct in the manner of a debate but I'd wager that most (perhaps not all) of those participants were well intentioned individuals who truly believed that they were actively
helping by hashing out the details back and forth. If a point of contention that they feel is overwhelmingly important in that final decision is overlooked because your mind was already made up; it'll often be seen as being summarily dismissed rather than examined, analyzed and subsequently rejected. They'll repeat it, perhaps with a new nuance or inflection or wording- hoping to communicate the idea they see as being so important.
The way this causes problems has something to do with the time delayed effects of a message board. It is not the same as a realtime discussion, debate or argument (as the various threads might be termed) since not every participant arrives at the same information at the same time. Poster A might be babysitting the thread adding a response every third post and treating it almost like a chatroom, interacting with other babysitters. Poster B may check the site once a day and have twenty four hours of thread to read. Poster A may present nuances of the same basic concept multiple times in response to individuals who disagree or seem to require clarification, it's an active process for them. Poster B comes along, sees forty pages with one third of the posts being poster A and the perception shifts, it's not an active responsive process, it's someone bulldogging an idea or not shutting up even though poster B decided on page two that they disagreed and weren't going to change their mind. I think it's probably obvious how that can be compounded exponentially with multiple threads, in both directions. So Poster A is getting frustrated because every half hour someone is coming along who doesn't seem to grasp this precious nugget of truth they have presented and they're compelled to address the subject again... and Poster B is angry because this stupid poster A wouldn't shut up for thirty pages.
The disjointed timelines can result in friction because it's simply not always clear when a "
Final Decision" (note caps) has been reached or just what point would be considered excessive in the discussion. Not to say that this was neccessarily the case with any specific or recent discussion... I present this as a generalized concept which might explain why some discussions turn into debates that turn into fights that turn into headaches. I'd tend to say that the majority of these escalations weren't intentional or malicious (although some certainly have been) but rather are a biproduct of the limitations inherent in the form of communication.
... plus, how could anyone come back with a smarmy attitude of superiority to say "I told you so." if they didn't holler before it all began?
Maybe you think you are above the rules?