Yes it is degenerating, in no small part because of statements such as this: "Masa, I don't think it's really worth it. Afterall, these people who never spam know far more than us, who do."dj_venom wrote:<snip>
However, it seems a lot of this arguing, it's degenerating, it's nitpicking, and frankly, not really going anywhere.
It's why I posted that other post. Perhaps this is just about removing 'mastodont' (o, not a), or it's against spam. We don't know. I don't know.
You seem to draw the conclusion that people speaking out against "you" and "your" stance, doesn't know "spam" or don't "spam". Simply because people didn't post in the "mastadont" thread do not mean they neither "spammed" or haven't done so in the past. And quite frankly it is such generalization and statements which lend to the fact that few are willing to discuss what actual went on. It isn't directly marked towards you - but it is an "argument" I've seen used multiple times from various sources.
dj_venom wrote:<snip>
@Xan: I wasn't implying you were obligated to reply in this thread. I have been asking though, for further reasoning behind this, which is why mods were needed, since they saw the discussion.<snip>
I and most other saw the dicussion yes. However seeing it, and not wanting to participate in it due to being hunted for your opinion and needing to defend yourself is two very different things.
Had this thread stayed rational and logical, and had events revolving this issue been kept that way - you'd have had much more response from moderators, and perhaps even Buck. I for one would not have minded to explain my stance on this issue.
But because this whole issue turned to a witch hunt with peoples personal grugdes and half-truths and even blatant lies beeing spread, it simply held no sensible reason to start trying to post constructive to reply. It would drown and even been swept away by the ones shouting largest.
Fact of the matter is - that irregardless of how the proposal first came to be - that this was voted on and voted in as beneficial to the moderators of SYM - not because of any other conspiracy theory. But this will be largely ignored I'm sure, because it doesn't fit into the setting of the people who'd rather belive it is a "crusade against "spam" in SYM" or what other arguments which could be fronted. Jumping to conclusions is always a bad thing to do, both in cyberspace as in the real world, yet it is the easy way out.
Remember also, that people on the other side of the fence might not disclose all the details they know for various reasons either.
