Reply to Topic
You could explain why it's important to you. Or why you think it's more important than the other considerations I mentioned. Or anything other than "it'll be mostly films that have been on other lists" and letting that sit there as if it speaks for itself. Anything that might advance the discussion/open some kind of dialogue/maybe even persuade some people.
I'm starting to get the impression that you regard private messages as somehow aggressive or hostile. They aren't. It's actually the opposite: calling someone out in public, demanding a response in front of everyone else (like what you're doing now), is the more aggressive thing. Contacting someone in private takes discussion impediments like pride and face-saving out of it, and (in theory) allows for more candid and nuanced conversation. It also means not subjecting other people to all this kind of stuff if it isn't strictly necessary.
Once again this is your opinion, and in a surprising twist you somehow don't agree. I was pretty clear how uncomfortable I was with your pms. You said you were going to ignore my feelings on the matter. Now if this were about following board rules that would be one thing. But we aren't talking about board rules we're talking about a discussion topic. You might not have thought that your pm's were threatening that certainly wasn't the vibe or tone that I got. It's one thing to express your opinion and preferences on an open forum when you decide to exercise your preferences through pm you are doing so in office as the moderator.
If you're only speaking for yourself, then you would have to go on to make some kind of case for why it's a problem. But if you don't ever really make that case, it implies the problem is self-evident, which is how we get to speaking for other people: not elaborating implies the problem is obvious and/or universal, rather than idiosyncratic.
I'm willing to believe you when you say this was not your intent, but hopefully you can see how it comes across that way.
It's pretty disingenuous to repeat the thing we've argued about before, in a clearly dissatisfied way, and say it isn't arguing. Complaints are inherently argumentative, because complaints mean something isn't right. You wouldn't tell your waiter the order's wrong and say "but don't fix it, I just really wanted you to know."
It's pretty disingenuous to repeat the thing we've argued about before, in a clearly dissatisfied way, and say it isn't arguing. Complaints are inherently argumentative, because complaints mean something isn't right. You wouldn't tell your waiter the order's wrong and say "but don't fix it, I just really wanted you to know."
Well, first, I didn't say "all the time." So yeah, it's factually wrong. It's also factually wrong to say I said it. You can quote me loosely, or you can be pedantic about what you said, but you can't do both.
Second, this can't be refuted with calendar time ("I last said it a year ago!") because we only do a couple of countdowns a year to begin with. You could bring it up every countdown and still honestly say you "haven't brought it up in eight months!" or something like that. Before the last time, you mentioned it twice in (relatively) short succession. What matters is the hit rate.
Second, this can't be refuted with calendar time ("I last said it a year ago!") because we only do a couple of countdowns a year to begin with. You could bring it up every countdown and still honestly say you "haven't brought it up in eight months!" or something like that. Before the last time, you mentioned it twice in (relatively) short succession. What matters is the hit rate.
Here are the facts the issue was brought up in January of 2022 and June of 2021. I did not bring this topic up in the last two countdowns, as you've pointed this out we only do a couple of these a year. Now try and put yourself in my pedantic idiosyncratic shoes. I make a post that I feel is innocuous but accurate then I log back in thinking maybe theirs a conversation to be had or a simple noted...but instead a PM from the moderator bringing up something from years ago. Mind you that you aren't refuting that I'm wrong that this actually isn't going to happen but rather you don't see the point. Not only do you not see the point is so minor or peculiar that it needs to be censored edited and basically hidden.
Third, the frequency is the least important part. The more important thing is the repetition of bringing it up and just sort of leaving it at that, repeating the opening each time. I'm fine with you making an earnest case every single time if you want, but that's not what happens.
Also, I'm not sure you appreciate how significant it is for you to throw out an accusation of authority abuse. It's the most serious accusation you can make towards a moderator, and it basically forces me to address all this in public. And I'm not seeing any explanation or defense of it, still. From what I can tell, you invented a fear about me banning you for arguing (literally over my own reassurances inviting you to respond to me), it made you uncomfortable, and you just transferred that onto several otherwise innocuous communications and decided it must mean I was doing something wrong.
This is what I like to refer to as a logic pretzel. I just spent an hour attempting to refute what is in essence your opinions. When confronted by facts...those facts don't matter (to you). When I make a case you don't say the case isn't good enough rather you seem to argue that it doesn't exist. You say it's innocuous but it's also pedantic and idiosyncratic and you just don't feel like the posts are valid. Here is my suggestion for you...try and think that maybe you are wrong about 20%. In place of thinking that everything I'm saying is wrong put it on a scale of what is the most wrong to the least wrong.
).