Civil debates and dissenting opinions

[s_forbes]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

I'm not a moderator, but other anonymous posts seem to have been allowed to persist either because they got pre-approval to make an anonymous account or they're trying to protect their identity when seeking advice for internal team issues. Your post openly decreed it was anonymous for other reasons. I suspect that was why it was taken down.

"Creating multiple accounts for a single person is not allowed." - this is how the rule is stated. Allowing only some alt accounts based on context will lead to a slippery slope.

I can see the need to retain anonymity in some instances given the general CD reaction to some opinions. I have no problem reposting said controversial opinions with my own single account.

[Chinmay]

Originally Posted by s_forbes

I can see the need to retain anonymity in some instances given the general CD reaction to some opinions. I have no problem reposting said controversial opinions with my own single account.

I see this as clearly one of the cases where this should have been permitted. My frustration today stems from the fact that some things are allowed despite being against the rules, and others are taken down. This inconsistent way of interpreting what is taken down is equivalent to the moderators on CD censoring the public opinion.

In this particular case, I don't think their moderation was done neutrally.

[ScaredSilly]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

When you openly flirt against the rules, then come back with another post in direct defiance of the reason your old one was taken down, and follow it up with an implicit challenge to remove the post, you're sort of creating a self-fulfilling prophecy, no?

I'm not a moderator, but other anonymous posts seem to have been allowed to persist either because they got pre-approval to make an anonymous account or they're trying to protect their identity when seeking advice for internal team issues. Your post openly decreed it was anonymous for other reasons. I suspect that was why it was taken down.

My apologies on being unclear. I was in no way making an implicit challenge. It was me actually wondering how long the post would last. As I originally posted, fear of reprisal was what prompted me to make an anonymous post, those were my other reasons. The original post was intended to highlight my concern about the intimidation tactics that I felt were being employed, and seemingly in response, the thread was removed. I understand that I broke the rules here, but very little that has happened has made me feel in any way more comfortable about making this account no longer anonymous.

[Matt_Boehm_329]

I dislike when posts get torn down but understand why some do. From what I have read here it seems like this one doesn't quite fall into the game piece leak category which I totally understand getting pulled. This one seems to have actually made a good point but sadly I don't have the ability to read all of the thread. I read the rules up top but am still unsure so I will ask. Is it against forum policy to request or post links to a deleted thread for historical purposes if the reason a thread was pulled was because of a duplicate account to protect a team or person from direct retaliation? Especially so with the sensitivity to cyber bullying today?

In regards to some of the threads that may have stemmed this original post. I think we also need to remember that there are people among us who are new to forums and their etiquette. It is up to us to gently guide them to the proper way to deal with situations rather then bash them down. Many times what seems like an attack from them could simply be unclear wording. I read some of the posts made in one of the mentioned threads and I think one point to take away is if Derek Jeter said something wasn't cool many would agree with him on it. Big names carry weight and with that weight comes responsibility.

[Koko Ed]

I call CD the Clean Room.
Compared to other message boards I frequented CD is far far more polite. I had a troll banned who went after a friend of mine who previously tried to kill herself by suggesting she use a gun next time to make it memorable.
It's all a matter of perspective.

[hardcopi]

While CD is better than some, it is also highly cliquish and judgmental as well. It is difficult for a lot of people to post here because if they aren't agreed with they are treated like they are stupid or picked on.

Your example was a good one of someone that should be banned. No question about it. That said that wasn't what this deleted message was about. They basically said "I want to discuss this but feel like my team might be held accountable if you disagree with me."

The post was then mocked and deleted. I only saw the first 3 messages of the post before it was deleted though.

[Matt_Boehm_329]

Originally Posted by hardcopi

While CD is better than some, it is also highly cliquish and judgmental as well. It is difficult for a lot of people to post here because if they aren't agreed with they are treated like they are stupid or picked on.

Your example was a good one of someone that should be banned. No question about it. That said that wasn't what this deleted message was about. They basically said "I want to discuss this but feel like my team might be held accountable if you disagree with me."

The post was then mocked and deleted. I only saw the first 3 messages of the post before it was deleted though.

I was able to locate a version of the original post being discussed here with 12 replies. Is it allowed for me to post a link to it for transparency and informational purposes so that we may better understand what is being discussed here and can keep the discussion open, focused and informed?

[MrJohnston]

I believe I was the "1" in the "1 v. 5" that has been referenced in this thread.

First, I need to clarify: I was pushing a bit on a tough subject and, after some sleep, see more clearly that I was not as tactful or well-worded as I typically am. I can see how my wording could draw some ire. Did others make mistakes? Sure.

What really surprised me, however, were some of the private messages I received. A few were rather rough. That's okay, I have thick enough skin and I really wasn't bothered by what folks said to/about me. I generally believe that what a person says about others reflects more about that person than those of whom s/he speaks. Besides, I would agree that my wording was poor and at least one of my messages was of questionable judgment. The messages that did get to me were those that were supportive of me.

* I was called "brave" for speaking up against "FIRST Royalty." I thought this strange. I just look at others as "people" or "fellow mentors" just as fallible as myself. Was this brave? I didn't think so - it was just an argument. If there is a perception that some people are more "special" than others or "royalty" with special privileges, we need to do some internal reflection.

* Some folks said that they agreed with my thoughts but feared stepping into the conversation. I sent them a note back, asking "why." The response: A fear of physical reprisal against their team. Really? I'm shocked. We spend a lot of long hours together and competing. We get tired. We make mistakes. Some conflict is simply going to happen: We are hall human. However, if we have mentors fearing a physical reprisal from another mentor, we have more serious issues.

Could these folks be over-reacting? Sure. However, I've been around competitive organizations for a long time and have seen good folks lose sight of sportsmanship, gracious professionalism, or whatever a particular organization might deem "good behavior" all in the name of competition. I can certainly believe that such a problem is possible in any organization - including FIRST. Sometimes we disagree on what "good behavior" might entail. However, there are some universal lines - one of which is putting somebody in a situation where they are fearful. This does need to be evaluated and investigated at a higher level.

[marshall]

Originally Posted by MrJohnston

I believe I was the "1" in the "1 v. 5" that has been referenced in this thread.

First, I need to clarify: I was pushing a bit on a tough subject and, after some sleep, see more clearly that I was not as tactful or well-worded as I typically am. I can see how my wording could draw some ire. Did others make mistakes? Sure.

What really surprised me, however, were some of the private messages I received. A few were rather rough. That's okay, I have thick enough skin and I really wasn't bothered by what folks said to/about me. I generally believe that what a person says about others reflects more about that person than those of whom s/he speaks. Besides, I would agree that my wording was poor and at least one of my messages was of questionable judgment. The messages that did get to me were those that were supportive of me.

* I was called "brave" for speaking up against "FIRST Royalty." I thought this strange. I just look at others as "people" or "fellow mentors" just as fallible as myself. Was this brave? I didn't think so - it was just an argument. If there is a perception that some people are more "special" than others or "royalty" with special privileges, we need to do some internal reflection.

* Some folks said that they agreed with my thoughts but feared stepping into the conversation. I sent them a note back, asking "why." The response: A fear of physical reprisal against their team. Really? I'm shocked. We spend a lot of long hours together and competing. We get tired. We make mistakes. Some conflict is simply going to happen: We are hall human. However, if we have mentors fearing a physical reprisal from another mentor, we have more serious issues.

Could these folks be over-reacting? Sure. However, I've been around competitive organizations for a long time and have seen good folks lose sight of sportsmanship, gracious professionalism, or whatever a particular organization might deem "good behavior" all in the name of competition. I can certainly believe that such a problem is possible in any organization - including FIRST. Sometimes we disagree on what "good behavior" might entail. However, there are some universal lines - one of which is putting somebody in a situation where they are fearful. This does need to be evaluated and investigated at a higher level.

As likely one of the 5, I want to formally and publicly apologize to you and any other individuals that I might have come across to as rude. I know how I came off and it was not as professional as it could have been. I don't think any of us are enemies and I certainly am involved in this to build friendships, not just robots.

[kgargiulo]

I did not read all posts, apologies if this has been said.

We need to have debates and we need students, mentors, parents, sponsors, and volunteers in FIRST who are passionate about their beliefs. That said, I think there is ample recent evidence to support these two points of view about how and when we can productively have those polarizing discussions.

• A discussion forum like this, without the benefit of body language or tone of voice from a personal discussion, web cast, or phone call, is the worst possible communication channel in which to conduct a discussion on a polarizing/emotionally charged topic. There are too many unintended consequences with damages and it is simply too hard to convey complex opinions through this medium. No offense to CD at all, it's implicit in the format and equally applies to FB, twitter, or email blasts.
  
• Having a polarizing discussion immediately after events that lead to the discussion is also the worst possible timing for having the discussion regardless of the means of communication. Everyone needs some space, decompression time, and, frankly, sleep. Then figure out another forum

Keith

[wireties]

It is difficult to convey emotions and complex ideas in a few words. Plus engineers tend to be blunt about technical topics in person, let alone in a forum. I miss the early days of the Internet when miss-spelling, bad grammar (who hates the spell-check engines?) were overlooked and emotional contexts were rarely inferred from online threads. So unless you write a novel and are good at it one will ignite a fire on CD from time to time.

It is difficult enough to glean a person's intentions in person. I recommend that people not take anything posted on CD too seriously. Life is too short.

[Adam Freeman]

Originally Posted by MrJohnston

* Some folks said that they agreed with my thoughts but feared stepping into the conversation. I sent them a note back, asking "why." The response: A fear of physical reprisal against their team. Really? I'm shocked. We spend a lot of long hours together and competing. We get tired. We make mistakes. Some conflict is simply going to happen: We are hall human. However, if we have mentors fearing a physical reprisal from another mentor, we have more serious issues.

I think I saw the thread most people are referencing, although I'm not 100% sure, a lot of them were talking about essentially the same topic over and over.

Either way, I think everyone was getting pretty defensive by the end of it and things obviously escalated to a level of disrespect that I don't anyone is really proud of today.

But, never even once have I thought about or feared any sort of physical confrontation between one mentor and another at a FIRST competition. Maybe within my own team, things could have gotten heated enough that something could have happened, but definitely not with another team.

Online disagreement or arguement...yes, a team being "black-listed" temporarily...maybe, fearing phyisical confrontation from another mentor...that seems pretty out there.

But, if that is the case then you are correct, there is a pretty serious issue that needs to be addressed.

It's interesting that some people are being called "FIRST Royalty" as something that is condesending, like they annointed themselves this title. I think I know some of them personally, and if anything they have been raised to these "cult" level statuses not by themselves but by all the people in the FIRST community that they have helped.

I'm pretty sure none of them are going to confront someone in a physical manner. But like I said, maybe I'm just not as well informed as I think I am.

-Adam

[Chinmay]

Originally Posted by marshall

As likely one of the 5, I want to formally and publicly apologize to you and any other individuals that I might have come across to as rude. I know how I came off and it was not as professional as it could have been. I don't think any of us are enemies and I certainly am involved in this to build friendships, not just robots.

Marshall, I think your posts after the incident have been very respectful, and I appreciate you stepping up and apologizing, both in this thread and others.

I think you know this, but in case it wasn't clear: For me, this isn't about the individuals involved, this is about a larger question of bullying on CD. I don't think that this forum is always a safe place to disagree, and thats what I've been trying open a discussion around.

[JaneYoung]

Full disclosure:

Some may have noticed my absence from posting in ChiefDelphi until a very recent return. It was due to bullying. Likely because of a post I made in one of the forums, I was removed from private forums such as NEMO and my reputation count was completely removed. I was able to get everything back in place but, the experience was hurtful and scary. "ScaredSilly", the username, caught my attention and I immediately had a sense of why.

Control, Success, And Power are fickle - they need constant monitoring and vigilant re-evaluations or they can turn. In a community that gathers because of the FIRST programs, members expect, and hope to see, the reflection of the FIRST ethos within these forums and their management.

I came back because of the enormous changes that will be occurring over the next few years. I care very much about the programs and all of the teams. CD is in need of the wisdom and knowledge that many of our longtime members in the community are withholding for whatever reasons. That saddens me more than I can say.

If this post brings about a negative reaction from those who can control my access to the forums or ability to give well-deserved greenies, then I can leave again. I will be very sad but I will deal.

Take care,
Jane

P.S. There was no valid reason for the thread to be removed. It was fine.

[Chinmay]

Originally Posted by Adam Freeman

Online disagreement or arguement...yes, a team being "black-listed" temporarily...maybe, fearing phyisical confrontation from another mentor...that seems pretty out there.

....

It's interesting that some people are being called "FIRST Royalty" as something that is condesending, like they annointed themselves this title. I think I know some of them personally, and if anything they have been raised to these "cult" level statuses not by themselves but by all the people in the FIRST community that they have helped.

Adam, I think the FIRST Royalty is meant to acknowledge the role that some high profile mentors hold in our community. When someone wants to do a motor calc, and they use JVN's calculator as a starting point. Ether tends to have detailed answers to almost everything. Some users (yourself included) have a rep as people who you just know after being on this forum and in FIRST for long enough (I think of strategy genius when I think of you btw). As you said, they are raised to this status by the people they help. Its a good thing, just sometimes an intimidating thing at the same time. Imagine trying to hold your own in a debate against one of these great mentors. It could get scary, especially if they started using charged language directed towards you personally. The point is that sometimes, reputation is conflated with what people are actually saying. I don't really care how nice a guy someone is if online their posts are threatening. Royalty status does not excuse you from this.



Fear of confrontation in a physical manner is not what I am afraid of, and others can chime in about what they're afraid of, but I don't think physical repercussions are it. I am afraid of being mocked on Facebook, twitter, CD etc. and am afraid that this might cause others to take issue with me or my team at competitions. This can be as simple as not coming to our pit and learning from/teaching me/my team, or can be as complex as not cooperating/blacklisting me/my team.

The original post was referring to online confrontation, repercussions, bullying and other "intimidation tactics being employed to quash any dissenting opinions" Many people made implicit threats to both scaredsilly and MrJohnston. I was intimidated and i wasn't even part of the discussion until I joined to express my disapproval of these scare tactics. What would i even think if someone said they would end me online....

Adam, that you mention that a temporary blacklist is even a possibility is something that warranted the creation of this thread anonymously.



*I would reference posts to support my point, however, I have realized that by linking these posts, I am causing problems for the people who wrote them. This isn't about individuals, this is about feeling safe to say what you want online. Our discussion should hopefully move beyond the topics over the last few days, and into a discussion about why people feel scared to post their opinions, and how we can help solve that.