Do you think we should have a thread here about what we don't like about each other?

[Lucre]

I do think it's amusing how so many people worry about how things will get out of hand, kind of shows something about the average thought process here.

well the nature of this proposed thread is about voicing out unhappiness more so than anything else; which will inevitably create more tension and chaos that we mustn't kid ourselves into thinking we are that magnanimous; most often we are not, but pretended we are and suddenly a next wave of short sarcastic remarks will filled the place; cos we are rarely humble enough to openly admit we are hurt, and masked ourselves behind more callous remarks disguising it off as jokes.

I think such 'airing' should reserve to those who seek to do so rather than start a thread to 'encourage' systematic-war which a thread like this serves to do'

To be amused by genuine concerns of others is a first step to mockery; the inner pride that says, 'haha it's so dumb to care'

[Ken Cheng]

Just to clarify: my idea of having confessionals is different from what Ken's trying to do. I'm not trying to have people bash each other with things they hate about each other.

Me neither. Why do you get the impression that I'm *looking* for new conflict?

I'm looking to end avoidance of old conflicts so that people finally confront them. I think many of us have been running and hiding from them, trying to pretend they aren't there when we *know* they are.

It's like the 500 lbs. gorilla standing in the corner of the room. Are we going to continue pretending it's not there and hope it goes away, or are we going to face it down and chase it out of the room? That's the choice we're facing.

I do think it's amusing how so many people worry about how things will get out of hand, kind of shows something about the average thought process here.

Yeah...that much I agree with. To paraphrase a famous Jedi, I sense great fear here.

Honestly, I have the same fear myself, but like I said before, nothing will ever move forward if we don't look these fears in the eye and face them down.

The process might be painful, but I wouldn't advocate it if one of the possible end scenarios is that we'll all learn and be better for it. Maybe some old relationships can even get a new life.

Ken,

If you want a mediating thread, both parties or all parties have to have a genuine desire to improve friendship or resolve the problems between each other. Otherwise, nothing good will come of airing things out, except everyone here knows your business.

That's where the management will come in. There will be a set of very strict and specific ground rules that all participants will need to follow if they plan to be a part of this. The first of which is that they need to show that they're entering the discussion in good faith (that can be easily determined through the content and demeanor of the remarks offered) and that they are willing to observe the rules of engagement.

But we're getting ahead of ourselves. Just deciding whether or not to do it is Phase 0. Planning out the rules and organization will be Phase 1 after Phase 0 is decided. The actual discussion, if it ever comes, will be Phase 2.

[xJadedx]

I understand that people have reservations about a thread like this (i.e. the one Ken proposed), hence my repeated suggestion of something similar, but much more constructive/fun.

Also, one's expectations is heavily related to how something will turn out, hence my amusement. Also, this is again comapred with my experience at the other forum about such topics.

[xJadedx]

Ken - simple. You are making a thread where people only talk about what they don't like. I'm suggesting for honest opinions that are both good and bad (and again based on experience, more often good than bad). You're making it some serious thing, whereas I'm making it a light-hearted fun activity for the members.

[Lucre]

Yeah, and why would people want to wash dirty linens in the public.

Hard to fathom perhaps, but that was the old ways of early Christians. (washing dirty linens in public) If one person commit a sin, he or she is expected to go before the entire congregation, and confessed, then asked for the community's forgiveness.

Whilst the confession thread works more or less in this fashion, but the thread about attacking others encourage the focus to be away from individual, but onto others.

The ability to recognise one's own faults is a virtue, and a greater one to admit it to everybody else, but focusing on condemnation of others is another matter altogether.

[ByTmE]

It seems like Jaded's "Confessionals" is a bit more [maybe bigger than a bit] light hearted than Ken's proposed thread. The latter proposes that members of our forum "air out dirty panties" or whatever you guys said. In fact, we will be bringing up what we don't like about one another rather than what we do like about one another. I guess, the positive part will remain to be seen? LoL

The basic assumption of such a thread is that our peers will judge us fairly [or fair enough in respective opinions] and not use this opportunity as a means towards abuse. To participate, we are then trusting one another to offer honest, tactful, and mature opinions. There seems to be a deep concern for flame wars and an inherent distrust in the authenticity of well placed intentions. Is this distrust justified? That was an honest question BTW because I don't know the answer to it.

[Ken Cheng]

Ken - simple. You are making a thread where people only talk about what they don't like. I'm suggesting for honest opinions that are both good and bad (and again based on experience, more often good than bad). You're making it some serious thing, whereas I'm making it a light-hearted fun activity for the members.

I don't think having fun with it is out of the question, but yes, it is a serious endeavor. The way I picture it (which is idealized, I know), there won't be much hostile or angry mud-slinging because the rules that will be implemented will require the discussion to be almost stiltedly polite. Participants will be frank about what it is about some fellow members that disturbs them, but in doing that, they will do it in a respectful, measured, non-confrontational manner. I understand that it's hard. It walks a narrow and fragile wire, so we'll need to be very cautious in how we proceed. I also believe, however, that people are truly committed to it, it can be successful.

That's one of the reasons we're taking a month to decide if we'll even do it. People need time to reflect upon the question, "Can I really do this?"

[Ken Cheng]

The basic assumption of such a thread is that our peers will judge us fairly [or fair enough in respective opinions] and not use this opportunity as a means towards abuse. To participate, we are then trusting one another to offer honest, tactful, and mature opinions. There seems to be a deep concern for flame wars and an inherent distrust in the authenticity of well placed intentions. Is this distrust justified? That was an honest question BTW because I don't know the answer to it.

Yes. Your understanding of this is perhaps the most accurate so far, and I echo your question of "Is this distrust justified?" The very fact that this question needs to be asked is one tenet in support of the argument that such a discussion might be good for the community.

I believe that the Hebrews have a tradition of something like this in their culture/religion.

[Suet Seung]

Why not? Why doesn't Phase 1 relate to Phase 0?

You can't sell your idea to a company or a buyer, if you don't have the prototype with the rules of the game written, organization, and plans laid out for presentation.

If you want to propose a plan, you got to have something to convince people to buy it. Otherwise, all voting will just be based on people's thoughts and perhaps, fear, not just whether or not they're interested in it alone.

A draft of what could be would suffice.

[Ken Cheng]

Why not? Why doesn't Phase 1 relate to Phase 0?

You can't sell your idea to a company or a buyer, if you don't have the prototype with the rules of the game written, organization, and plans laid out for presentation.

If you want to propose a plan, you got to have something to convince people to buy it. Otherwise, all voting will just be based on people's thoughts and perhaps, fear, not just whether or not they're interested on it alone.

Phase 1 isn't nearly ready to go yet. In fact, it hasn't begun. Before time or energy is wasted in its development, however, the first thing to consider is whether or not we even want to do it. If nobody wants to start the business, then there's no need for a business plan.

We're starting with a goal...and consideration of the risks involved in attaining that goal. If we decide the risks are worthwhile, then we'll proceed on building a plan to minimize those risks.

If we decide from the beginning that the risks aren't worthwhile, then we need not bother.

The selling point is the end result, not the process. The process is simply what we go through to achieve the result, and the question now is simply whether or not the result should be pursued.

[Ken Cheng]

A draft of what could be would suffice.

It's not going to be just my plan. All of us who plan to participate in it will help build some aspect of the plan (or at least have the opportunity to do so, if they wish). I'd introduce some aspects of it, and others will introduce other aspects of it. In the end, before we proceed, we must all agree upon the rules that are in place.

Just as an example, without the assumption that we will ever proceed in the discussion (that must be said), here are the rules I would introduce:

1. Obviously, there would be no open insults/personal attacks. That should be obvious, but it still must be said.

2. In criticizing, we will choose the most neutral and inoffensive words possible. For example, let's say that Member A thinks that Member B "whines too much." The problem is that the word "whine" is a loaded word: it suggests that the person who does it is infantile and incapable of being reasonable. Conflict is built into the word "whine." Therefore, Member A would substitute the more neutral word "complain," which carries the essence of the problem, but without the conflict-conducive pejorative that "whine" carries.

The above is only a brief, very crude example of the ground rules that would govern the discussion. The full set of regulations that I'm envisioning would be far more extensive. This is just to give you a very small sample of some of the guiding rules that would be in play if the discussion is to take place (again stipulating that we have not decided whether or not the discussion will even happen).

Right now, looking at the vote, it does not appear that the discussion will happen...in which case any time or energy spent on developing the complete set of rules would be a wasted effort. Let's take such plans into consideration again at the end of the month if enough members decide that they want the discussion to happen.

At this point, "yes, we should" or "no, we shouldn't" will suffice.

[wkeej]

Actually, its design purpose is to extract and eliminate old grudges. If we work it right, it'll achieve that effect.

Call them disagreements. Being disagreements, they are not likely to be resolved. The most outstanding disagreement is about YG. It will never be resolved. It will have lead to some unhappiness. But then, life is filled with unhappiness too.

Any other old grudge which need to be eliminated? Please enlighten me.

[Ken Cheng]

Call them disagreements. Being disagreements, they are not likely to be resolved. The most outstanding disagreement is about YG. It will never be resolved. It will have lead to some unhappiness. But then, life is filled with unhappiness too.

Any other old grudge which need to be eliminated? Please enlighten me.

For once, Yeung Gor (or any wuxia related topic) has nothing to do with it.

As for old grudges...can't discuss that in detail right now. To do so is to essentially start the discussion, and that isn't happening until we clear Phase 0 and Phase 1.

As of right now, it doesn't look hopeful that we'll even clear Phase 0, but there's still a long time until September 30.

[remember_Cedric]

I certainly hope the "No" will rule til 30 Sept and that this "Fight Club" won't happen. Because if it would happen, we will, later on, need a "Charlie's Chocolate Factory" aka "SPCNET Looney Bin".

[Ken Cheng]

I certainly hope the "No" will rule til 30 Sept and that this "Fight Club" won't happen. Because if it would happen, we will, later on, need a "Charlie's Chocolate Factory" aka "SPCNET Looney Bin".

I hope it isn't destructive either, cedric...but you know even from the Bible: before the blessed end, there must first be an apocalyptic showdown.

[remember_Cedric]

I hope it isn't destructive either, cedric...but you know even from the Bible: before the blessed end, there must first be an apocalyptic showdown.

Oh yes....... but God is not among us. This apocalyptic showdown may not be one we can control beautifully in the end.

Remember what the Martian in Mars Attack said? "We come in peace." $this->handle_bbcode_img_match('http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/61.gif')

[Ken Cheng]

Oh yes....... but God is not among us. This apocalyptic showdown may not be one we can control beautifully in the end.

Remember what the Martian in Mars Attack said? "We come in peace." $this->handle_bbcode_img_match('http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/61.gif')

Well, it doesn't *have* to end disastrously if those who come into the process don't have ill intentions (or even reckless negligence) in mind.

Remember: it's *meant* to be a good thing. It *can* be a good thing as long as people do it right.

Many people are assuming, however, that there's just no way we can do it right.

[remember_Cedric]

Well, it doesn't *have* to end disastrously if those who come into the process don't have ill intentions (or even reckless negligence) in mind.

I don't think some of the lost friendships in here are due to "ill intentions in mind.".

I don't know about reckless negligence, but unless you're God, there's no way you can stop misunderstanding from happening possibly due to miscommunication.

Don't overlook the fact that there are some people who aren't good with phrasing their words such that it won't cause the other to get upset or hurt.

Remember: it's *meant* to be a good thing. It *can* be a good thing as long as people do it right.

What meant to be good, doesn't mean that it will turn out beautifully. That's reality in RL or Cyberland. Implementing this is simply leaving chance to see the count of casualties. You know what I mean.

[Han Solo]

Turning things upside down and fighting all the time.

And mod banning everyone.

All this will happen with time.

[LuNaR]

im rdy for all the negative comments about me just keep it within 10 pages plz