I will not, because:

I am interpreting this as a shot at my integrity as an administrator and an accusation of bias.
Ignoring that, I will choose one example and give you a straight answer. I am familiar with idioms such as the pot calling the kettle black. (devilesk posts this here.) I will also recognize to-the-point images that illustrate such an idiom. A concise image referring to a commonly used idiom is indeed, for the a person familiar with such an idiom, quite facile to understand.

They see a big argument and don't want to read it. There is an air of negativity that can be perceived, but for the most part, the fact that they are not reading all of it renders their judgement of "negativity" uninformed.

We're not dealing in terms of mutual respect if you can get away with calling my "non-serious" posts the things you do while I cannot be able to make the observation that your interpretations are a matter of choice.

In other words, I'm disagreeing with you. That's not being disrespectful.

Well, if you understand the idiom's meanings because you were told them or able to read up on them somewhere, then fine. But if you understand them of your own, then you've just interpreted them. I still don't think it's a far stretch to expect an "I'm ALWAYS right!" statement in the context of a serious debate to be interpreted in the only logical way it really can be, therefore.

But if it's any consolation, I'll try to break that practice from now.

Neither of us can speak for them, but when it comes down to the use of "mean" sounding words and language, then yeah. But I feel that it's important to use that language when covering debating ground from time to time as part of exploring the full picture.

As long as it remains respectful, of course.

This is not a debate anymore, it's a personal fight between two people whose egos are too big the let the other one have the last word.
And I'm completely sure that if this happens with any other two random members (not tux and moose) it'd had already been locked a lot of time ago...

I don't think you're necessarily right on that, clokr.

The issues being addressed are just an instance of the basic respect issue (mine, in this case; hence the topic title), but the overall respect issue implied with it is definitely vital to confront.

But now we're just talking about dumb stuff like interpretations and other personal matters, which we're probably not gonna get too far with... meh.



I am kinda getting tired of it now, admittedly.

Find a locked instance of such a thing where it did not degenerate into base flaming. Odds are that the two random members failed to maintain a constructive discussion (or, almost constructive discussion).

Also, there is a debate. (or, parts of this are still a debate) See the last portion of my post for speaker versus listener.

What did I call your "non-serious" posts? I remember describing my reaction to such posts, but I do not recall calling the posts themselves anything.
Okay. You're right on the "I am ALWAYS right" post. Regardless of what I called it, it still added nothing to our debate.
Quotes, please.

Yes, my interpretations are a matter of choice. But, that doesn't mean you shouldn't have to try to mean what you say and say what you mean. That is not to say that the listener is completely absolved of responsibility for drawing meaning out of what is said, but to deny that the speaker's choice of words holds importance makes no sense. In fact, I would say that more of the responsibility rests on the speaker. After all, the speaker is the speaker because he has a point that he wants to communicate. Otherwise, he would not be speaking, or he would be a moron for speaking without anything to say. Therefore, the speaker, in order to achieve his goal, should be doing the best job he can to get his message accross. Ideally, this means that he will make concise and clear points, in addition to anticipating and correcting of potential ambiguities that can arise in his audience.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on May 24 2008, 1:57 am by Mini Moose 2707.

Didn't really appreciate that much.

Well, it's mainly through feedback that I get to know what stuff I say works and what doesn't. But yeah, I do make assumptions more often than I should that others are following the logical meanings rather than just the low-level wording or their own perceptions. That's when I end up on a different page than others. Exacerbated further when others derive personal offenses or other misinterpretations.

But then on the flip side where I do try to be clear about as many details as possible, I get fun stuff like the tl;dr reaction, the "high horse" reaction, the out-of-context reply reactions, etc. So there's risks with that, too.



Sometimes I wonder if it's just better not to talk at all.

Indeed. I have already admitted that I was wrong there.

I am finished, unless you have more to say.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on May 24 2008, 2:25 am by Mini Moose 2707.

No, I'm good. I only really wanted to get that respect stuff addressed with this thread. That was the only important thing.

Are you still implying that it is more the audience's fault when your words are misinterpreted? This implication that we are unable to follow your "logical meanings" is the core of the "high-horse" argument.

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on May 24 2008, 3:02 am by Mini Moose 2707.

At first, I thought this argument WAS the drama..

Well if there's only one "logical" way to interpret something (like an 'I am ALWAY right' statement), and the audience isn't doing it, then they're interpreting it through the filter of their personal perception. Not strictly logic.

But people do that. We're not robots. So it's logical to expect a speaker to have to consider listener perception as well with their logic.

Well, I will agree that it is fairly obvious such a post is sarcasm. However, the sarcasm is both uncalled for (ie, my "nice" response to the post would have been "I am not amused.") and it did not evolve the debate. Those facts lead to the other conclusions drawn.

Well actually I did kinda hope it would end it. Again, the main purpose of the thread was to address the respect issue, really.

Well well now, aren't I being REALLLLLLLLLLY respectful when a posts like this is made?

, amirite?

---

(Yes, I am mocking you. Respectfully. I trust you get the point.)

I do, but it misses the point. And mocking isn't respectful, besides.

Ugh. Have your perception already. I'm not here to try to change it.

I do not find posting in the style of the post that was mocked to be respectful. That was my point. Perhaps I should have just said that instead of mocking you to save time. Regardless, I did not.

Let's move on.

It's fairly obvious that the things you find respectful are not the same things that I find respectful, and the set of respectful things will vary from person to person. Who or what determines what is respectful, anyway? Where are the lines drawn, and by who or what?
Yes, I will acknowledge there are some things that 99.99% of humanity will acknowledge as respectful and some things that are clearly offensive and uncalled for, but our discussion is not often in such areas.

Post has been edited 4 time(s), last time on May 24 2008, 6:03 am by Mini Moose 2707.

Well I'm sorry you perceived that as disrespectful. But making a logical statement != perception-based satire.

But I get your point.


Basic mutual respect is just that: Mutual respect. All that means is no ambiguity between any two parties about minimum boundaries of expression or conduct. Perception is important in that, I agree, but perception is a choice, still.

Edit: And all I mean by minimum boundaries is NOT acting to diminish or lower the other party. Simple.

Post has been edited 4 time(s), last time on May 24 2008, 6:18 am by Tuxedo-Templar.

I agree, but I also maintain that speech and expression are more important choices. I say this because a "good" expression will minimize misinterpretations and the realm of possible perceptions. Expression precedes perception of it.

Post has been edited 3 time(s), last time on May 24 2008, 6:29 am by Mini Moose 2707.

Well that's like saying that a map maker has more obligation to make a good map than a player has to be a good player. Which sadly enough is true, for the most part. At least, if the goal is for the map maker's maps to actually be enjoyed for playing, that is.

But a map maker can't consistently and reliably produce good maps for a player until he has a model of what the player considers good. Usually, in the absence of that, a map maker's only model is what they see as good themselves.


Information. That's the only way to bridge that gap.

Post has been edited 4 time(s), last time on May 24 2008, 6:42 am by Mini Moose 2707.