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.

[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.

[Lil' Lavery]

I have rallied against the bullying and groupthink that happens on Chief Delphi, both publicly and in private messages. The free expression of ideas without fear is important to having a healthy community. It's something I will continue to push for and an issue where I will continue to privately challenge those who stand in it's way.

However, holders of the minority opinion are not the only ones who can be bullied. It was not the "FIRST Royalty" who were bullying yesterday. When you strip away the context of their remarks, you lose what really happened. Openly questioning the accomplishments of teams and the integrity of mentors is bullying. The flagrant disrespect exhibited on a public forum is what led to their emotionally charged responses. The "threats" (which are being completely overblown) and "tactics" were not the result of a civil debate, but rather a response to attacks on their teams' (and students') achievements and their own character. Nobody is proud of what transpired. Everyone should have the ability to share their opinion, but that doesn't mean you're allowed to bully others without fear of confrontation. And that's exactly what happened. It was the "FIRST Royalty" (and their students) that was bullied, and they pushed back.

I'm glad that individuals expressed what their fears where, because I was honestly at a loss for what reprisals they were expecting. The individual who fears physical retribution is shocking to me. In the excess of a decade I have been in this program, I have never experienced or witnessed a physical confrontation at a FIRST event. Not even once. To "ScaredSilly," you have nothing to fear. The post you made yesterday would not have earned you any "blacklisting," nor would any of those you have made sense. I'm not so naïve that I don't think "blacklists" don't exist, but I also know there's no shadowy cabal of mentors who are going to get you banned from pick lists everywhere. I know that there are inter-team politics that can cause harsh relationships between teams, but that usually extends far beyond what is said on Chief Delphi. There are offenses far greater than what has been conducted on CD this week that have blown over quickly. Teams and individuals move on, and frequently mend fences later on.

If you conduct your business respectfully and tactfully, you have nothing to fear. If you're going to challenge an individual or team, then you should not be permitted to hide behind an anonymous account.

Originally Posted by JaneYoung

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

It violated the anonymity rules of the forum. That is a valid reason.

[JaneYoung]

Thanks, Sean.

True, and I started to add something along the lines of the leniency of that rule given to so many current anonymous posters, before I submitted my post.

Based on the current trend towards anonymous accounts, I had no reason to believe another anonymous poster was not allowed to create, and post in, a thread.

But, you are absolutely correct.

Jane