Big Island Circus Fined $50,000 by DLNR

[missydog1]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anxious Messiah

Actually it was the page that was still open on that particular tab.

I take issue with your (or anyone else's) hypocrisy in declaring what is or isn't acceptable for a thread (started by someone else, no less) and then ignoring your own declaration.

_________________________________________
Don't speak unless you can improve on the silence.

---

I don't care where the topic goes. I was trying to get kalakoa interested in starting topics on specific concerns he has instead of posting the same or similar comments on almost every thread ... and he did start a new topic. That was the only point of my post that you are all uptight about.

Well if you haven't refreshed your page and it is still showing a two week old post, maybe you ought to refresh before you bump the topic in reply?

I honestly don't care if you want to argue that any further comments on Graham or HVC need to be on a topic that lists any and all allowable Graham-related tangents. What bothered me is with all the conversation on being nice going on, you came on and bumped a two week old post in a confrontational fashion. What did it matter at this point? The topic isn't even active.

Kathy

[Rob Tucker]

One thing I learned many years ago that I try to teach my kids is this:

Just because someone puts a hoop up in front of you does not mean you have to jump through it.

[missydog1]

But dialogue is more complex than a hoop. There is always the hope that dialogue will communicate, Rob.

Much better than asking people to constantly avoid "hoops" would be if people can learn to stop putting hoops in the same place over and over again. I think your advice is fine for one or two times.

But seriously, if you took your analogy seriously and visualized it, imagine that wherever you are walking, or trying to walk, the same few people jump in front of you and put a hoop there. So that you either have to walk through or divert your course. That's what I experience every day on Punaweb from the same group of people.

I doubt you would put up with that very long without asking them to knock it off, because ... you ought to be able to walk somewhere you're trying to go without someone putting a hoop in the way.

Kathy

[Rob Tucker]

Actually my post was a small hoop too.

[kalakoa]

There is always the hope that dialogue will communicate, Rob.

That's what I was hoping, but Punaweb doesn't have a very good signal-to-noise ratio lately.

Will be interesting to see how it goes after the lava.

[Wao nahele kane]

It's seems that no matter what the topic is, someone comes in with a personal level straw man and shakes it around. It's extremely annoying. Calling them on it does no good, tried that. Ignoring it does no good, tried that too. It boils down to just not writing anything to end it. It becomes exhausting. I left this site a couple times, once for almost year and another time for a few months, that doesn't seem to help much either. Same old nonsense starts right back up and I can see it was just as bad when I was gone.
I'm not whining about it, I'm just pointing it out.

I have identified this and also realize it's not possible via central moderation. The moment it questions another on a personal level... it's probably a good time to shut them down a while. The moment it misrepresents what another may have said, time to shut em down. The only way this is possible is when there is a personal ignore feature.

[HereOnThePrimalEdge]

Over on the Negative Posts thread I read some good advice for this type of situation, which I plan to follow in the future:

"I then ignore the post because Rob has instructed not to respond if baited (if possible). If I have ignored posts, it's for that reason."

[Wao nahele kane]

I have talked with people in person who are members here but refuse to post because they are afraid of being attacked for their opinions. In theory it's easy to say just ignore a person who is offensive etc. In the reality of a forum it's not like the reality of being there in person where you can literally ignore someone who is way out there by walking away and joining another discussion elsewhere.

I don't know for certain but I would speculate that a personal ignore feature would keep civility and create an environment more inviting to the less intrepid members. Therefore actually enhancing the dialogue with more members joining in.

[Wao nahele kane]

If one considers a board, council or community meeting, you see a typical establishment of order though at times that breaks down as we often see here in Puna at such public assemblies. If you note, the majority are often people who sit and make no comments. They also have opinions but aren't sharing them.

If we take that same majority and put them in a social gathering at say a casual party or what have you, those opinions are often brought forward in such circles.

What's the difference? Why share their opinions at a social party but not on the floor at a public assembly?
It all boils down to their comfort level. They aren't comfortable with being scrutinised by the general assembly.

Here we have something more like a general assembly and that's good but it's also restrictive to many for the purposes of presenting their opinions.

Something in between might reduce the noise and allow dialogue to flourish.

[Anxious Messiah]

10/16/14 - "All of which belongs in its own topic, kalakoa. If you want to discuss that, start a topic and stop hijacking this one. This topic is about VGS and HVC and Graham Ellis."

10/29/14 - "I don't care where the topic goes."

There is no argument Kathy. Those are your words. Own them.

Hoops be damned.



*Edited to correct a typo and reflect the correct date of 10/16/14 for Kathy's post.



_________________________________________
Don't speak unless you can improve on the silence.