How about the "Non-comunication" Forum?

KK: When the only apparant difference is that a person is no longer a mod, it is hard to not think that a bit of the "bitter ex-mod syndrom" sets in.

this is an incorrect assumption.

 

epic, read what I wrote again.

When people have changed their views and then speak out against the administration, it does us no good unless they provide the context for their change of opinion.

If we feel it is a valid context, it would probably convince us to change our view as well. However, refusing to share such a context means that we have no way to evaluate the views in any sort of a fair manner.

If I had spent months telling you that Vanilla is the best ice cream flavor, and Chocolate was a bad idea, and then after being silent on the subject for a while, started saying Chocolate was better, what reason have I given you to follow my view? None at all.

However, if I explain why I changed such a view, you at least have something to work from.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Epic,
What is being purported to be "valid" at face value in this case is actually generally known as an appeal to novelty fallacy, or otherwise known as the erroneous "newer is better argument."

At face value - just as these modified opinions are being given - newer is not better simply by way of being new (nor by way of being the opinion of any specific users, for that matter ). Any arguments for or against any specific policies need to be justified on their own merits outside of the completely fallacious argument that "It's right, because I changed my mind and now say it's right."

So, great, people changed their minds. That happens all the time. Sometimes for the better (re: Vertical's changing opinions of "fluff" over time) and sometimes for the worse. But, it ought to be noted that when Vertical, for example, changed his mind, everyone darn well knew why.

And when people take the time to reasonably outline their substantial changes in opinion, making their case in such a manner, that's certainly the best way to do it.

No one ought accept some wildly bold claim that "It's right because I changed my mind" for anything other than the fallacy it is.

 

I just did a quick re-read of the thread. Is it against the TOS to post PM's even with the user's permission? I couldn't find it in the TOS, but if that is the case, I apologize to KW who I have been giving a hard time about that for quite a while.

I am curious as to why a PM could not be posted if both the sender and sendee were cool with it. Anybody know?

Edit: I am quite aware that you can't post someones PM's without permission. As is everyone, MeBeJedi.

 

> Is it against the TOS to post PM's even with the user's permission?

No. If the person who sent you a PM is happy for you to repost it or forward it, then that's fine.

 

"I am quite aware that you can't post someones PM's without permission"

I guess that's why they call you Columbo.

 

Ha! That was good. Ca-yum-bo good.