Ummmmmm . . .

i can only speak for myself, but my glance was Not averted

If my post contributed in any way to you leaving free-association, I am very sorry. I meant no implications or accusations, and in no way meant to encourage anybody to rat anybody else out. Until your post it never even occurred to me that my words could be interpreted that way.

> The real question is why was Jon omitting people from the list . . . and why he wanted us to add other names to the list?

I was responding to Rockstar's statement 'What looks like "discussing problems" to you looks an awful lot like libel and systematic harrassment of friends to me.'

The people I listed were people I thought it was likely that he would agree had spent a huge amount of energy discussing free-association's problems and had not engaged in libel or systematic harrassment of his friends. I did not intend to send any messages by who I included and who I didn't; these are just the first few people who popped into my mind where I thought he and I would see things the same way.
In other words, if his answer to my questions #1 and #2 was both "yes" (and I thought based on his previous statements and behavior it would be), then his statement was wrong: what looked like "discussing problems" to me also looked like "discussing problems" to him. In that case, we could go on with the discussion I was trying to have before he brought up "libel and specific harassment".

I thought my "feel free to add more names here -- you get the idea" made it clear that there are plenty of others that were also discussing problems and not libeling or harassing anybody but that I had listed enough to make my point. It's really hard to see how this could be understood as an invitation to rat somebody out but it clearly was; at some point, I'm up for suggestions as to how I could have said it better.

Apologies again, this time more broadly including to Mike C and anybody else I inadvertantly offended.

jon

Mike,

> Honestly Sonya, I don't think you found a pattern. I think you just intended to create
> one and was fishing for corroboration on your faulty thought process.

And that's just the kind of thing I'm talking about. The original *original* postings I was referring to as being part of the pattern continued in the thread I referenced on Tribe was the one in which you just broadsided Tribe Refugees asso with the accusation that all the content on FA at the time was "boring."

It was an insult to the site and everyone taking the time to post on it, accompanied in that original post by no real constructive input. You've still never really satisfactorily explained what you felt was "missing", either there or here. When you described content you "loved", you described content of a sort that was, and is still, very much being generated over on FA.

As for where the pattern is...in the first instance, you snarked on FA and its members as what you alleged later in that thread to be some sort of helpful critique. In the second, you defended that same tactic when Strongvoice was talking about how to make tribes less antagonistic in nature, essentially dismissing her argument as also being counter to the ends of progressiveness and creativity.

FA Link: free-association.net/index.php
Tribe link (defending snark as acceptable "critique"): brainstorm.tribe.net/thread/...fd9066d4

You even started a thread in this very tribe with the subject heading, "If free-ass is going to die within a few months", and detailing how we should pick over the (non-)corpse of our site for posterity, which to me came off a lot like Michael Dell telling people that Apple should just close its doors and sell off all its assets and give the money to the stockholders when asked what a "beleaguered" Apple could do better back in '97...believe you me, I wish I'd invested back then. If you think I'm wrong, that's fine...let's talk about it.

> Maybe if you explain what you perceived in my pattern of conversation it would help me define whether this
> was flaming or baiting on your part . . . or mine, or if this all was simply a misunderstanding of my objective.

I was very clear in my posts that I was talking about patterns of accusational "critique" without the constructive elements of either elaboration about what the critic perceives as being problematic or suggestions for improvement. Just saying "This is boring. Why is that?" is needlessly antagonistic and doesn't serve any objective I can see. What I don't understand is why you would be surprised that people got their dander up and weren't very open to your message.

> As for the original thread, the only thing I was offended by was your three attempts to pin blame.

I'm sorry if you're offended, but your posts just happened to be perfect examples of what I was talking about, and the example was made in the service of improving thngs there, not blaming people "posthumously".

> That seemed to be a distraction from striving toward anything progressive or creative, certainly it
> went against the current sitewide campaign to devalue conflict by submitting it to the juicing process
> and turning it into a sort of form letter requiring a stamp of approval from the group.

Snark toward other members of a site ≠ "progressive" or "creative". It's just bullying and gets in the way of any legitimate point you're trying to make. The old saying about the comparative merits of honey vs. vinegar in getting what you want applies here.

There's plenty of room for snark in an online community, be it FA, Tribe, or what-have-you...but the place for it isn't directed *at* the other members unless you're actively trying to sow dissention and spark flames. Collectively snarking over the people that piss us ALL off, now that's more creative. ;-)

> Then again, maybe you needed a scapegoat to boost flagging activity and took it on yourself to
> start the campaign . . . as an experiment.

I don't play those games, and I think anyone who's actually dealt with me either as friend or "foe" will tell you, I'm nothing if not direct. If I meant to blame you, I would have blamed you. The worst I accused you of was, essentially, not helping matters.If someone is acting in a way I don't like, I at least tell them what it was I think they did, why it bugged me, and what I'd rather see in it's place.

But the topic at hand was commonalities vs. divisions, and I was pointing out examples of verbal tactics that I found to be needlessly divisivem, regardless of whether that was their intent or not. And you were just not helping. You and Rocky both have this tendency to see any analysis which concludes that you contributed anything at all to the air of hostility that prevailed during the middle part of this year on FA as being that you had "The Blame™" (singular).

That's preposterous. No one person, or even one group of people, can be "to blame" — be the "scapegoat", as you say — in a case like that. It took the active and diligent contributions of many to create a flame war of that magnitude. And there was never a "Satan of FA"...not you, not me, not Rocky, not Critter, not even Tattfiend. Just a whole bunch of generally bright folks who all let themselves slip to varying degrees into patterns of accusation, defensiveness, judgmentalism, petty vindictiveness, and hurt feelings...and brought all their brainpower AND stubbornness to bear in doing so.

> Of course, that experiment would be undertaken for the good of the site; and not to satisfy any
> sort of personal agenda . . .

Discussing how to disagree usefully is good for any group of people, not just FA. I could point to several posts and threads of my own during that time as negative examples of other kinds of bad behavior (and I'm sure others would be happy to do it for me). Just not that particular behavior...if anything, my tendency is quite the opposite, as you've no doubt noticed.

And the fact remains that we still have a community on FA, however small it may be, and can sustain the site indefinitely given our current outlay on it. It's not going away anytime soon. If you want to help us make it a better place, then I welcome that...just be open to critiques of your style of critique and approach the members and admins of the site with a little more consideration so that we will be more receptive to you and benefit from what you have to say.