The most time effective tool is leading by example.
Even the best rules will fail if unobserved.
Anyone violating the spirit of the forum encourages more
of the same. We all see what passes for normal here, &
that establishes the de facto behavioral standards & limits.
So positive change depends upon everyone intending it.
Did I mention "everyone".
Absolutely. and I have no knowledge of anyone acting as is they are "above" the rules.
However the rules are broken from time to time, and people find themselves excluded for a period of time or even permanently. It is usually the case that such people do learn to conform to the ethos of the forums.
Provided a large majority do share the same ethos and transgressors are duly excluded. it becomes the prevailing and established ethos going forward.
Consistent application of these rules and reinforcement of that ethos, has kept these forums the happy place it is. This is no small achievement when you consider the diverse membership.
However it must be remembered that what passes for normal good behaviour here, is a standard rarely achieved elsewhere. It takes a little while for new members to fall into line.
Even during our lowest points we are usually better behaved than can be found on many forums.
- What you seem to be unable or unwilling to grasp is that nothing in your post addresses my fundamental complaint.
- Consequently, I find myself challenged by my inability to convey to you the reason for my complaint in such a way that
- you ultimately recognize and comprehend my reasoning and,
- even if you don't agree with my objection,
- you at least understand it and,
- even more importantly, you realize that you have nothing rational and reasonable to offer to me that will persuade me to abandon my objection.
- The only thing I can think of doing is telling you a story.
- Now, I encourage you to read my story, because:
- After I share it with you, you will understand my objection and either agree with it or you will not agree with it. In either case, you will not post another message to me on the matter unless your post says: "I now understand your objection and agree with it."
- My story:
- In Fall of 2018, my wife's niece, her husband, her mother, and her step-father gathered at my niece and nephew-in-law's house after dinner, and the mother brought up a recent Trump story. [Although the step-father had initially voted for Trump, he had soured on him.] I excused myself from the discussion about the story because, I explained, I was still annoyed over his meddling in the matter of football players who kneel rather than stand during the standard playing of the national anthem before a game begins.
- To my slight surprise, the step-father opined that he thought they should stand. Silly me, I pointed out (a) that football is a fairly "recent" phenomenon and neither a federally- nor ecclesisastically mandated event; (b) that singing the national anthem before a game was not a revelation from God, but is a custom introduced several years after football became popular here in the U.S.; (c) that fans of either side often occupied themselves at refreshment stands or in restrooms, or coming in or going out of a stadium ... within earshot of the music; and (d) that I am not a sports fan of any sort. Ergo, I thought Trump's meddling did not contribute anything constructive to the "national" dispute over the matter.
- The stepfather then proceeded to repeat his opinion, with no interesting or relevant explanations added.
- I then pointed out that he had just restated almost exactly the same thing that he had said previously, to which he replied: "I have a right to my opinion."
- I assured him that I agreed that he had a right to his opinion, just as much I had to mine, and now that he and I had stated our two irreconcilable opinions, there was no reason to repeat them. To which he replied: "I just think players should stand during the playing of the national anthem."
- With some stress but considerable self-restraint, I pointed out that he had now expressed the same opinion, virtually unchanged, a third time and that mystified me. Did he think that I would change my opinion, if he repeated his often enough? I then said that I strongly suspected that when someone repeats the same opinion, slightly changed or virtually unchanged, I conclude that they are not really arguing, they're just metaphorically and intentionally urinating on my foot.
- He looked at me and smiled at me, but before he could restate his opinion once more, my niece jumped up and stood between us, and I said no more. She later told me that she had intervened because she thought I was going to hit him. I assured her that I wasn't.
- The evening finally ended without further altercation and shortly thereafter, following some reflection, I stopped talking with him.
- If you have read my story, do not post another message to me unless and until you are ready to explain to me why the stepfather felt that he had to tell me his opinion three times.
The step father probably repeated himself three times because he felt that he was not getting through to you. the final time because he wanted the last word.
People do repeat themselves constantly. it seems to be a normal human failing. why it afflicts your
stepfathers is another matter entirely, and one I am not privy to, but it can not be thought unusual or unexpected.
In most cases repeated repetitions are as harmless as they are irritating.
It is the stock in trade of Politicians at every level.
It is one of the foundations of effective advertising and campaigning.
I am surprised that you are so sensitive , offended and so put out by it.
However in relation to the rules of these forums "repetition" has never been in any way a matter of concern, and would be impossible to legislate for.
On another level entirely, nearly all the topics we see on these forum have been repeated endlessly . Every crop of newcomers start the same threads, repeat the same arguments, and attack the same people and faiths in the same way as their predecessors have always done. we become inured to such repetition.
It take a little while for newcomers to understand how this forum works, and it is only when the light dawns on them, that they move on to become useful contributors.
It soon becomes clear to us that not all members operate at the same level of education or understanding, or indeed the ability to tolerate the same level of criticism or contradiction. and we must all make allowances for those aspects we find irritating, or indeed unacceptable in others.
At times we are all offended by what we read, but rules can not legislate for our personal feelings, especially when it is impossible to define what individuals might be or might not be offended by.
New faces are the life blood of any forum, and is the powerhouse of advancement and change. This forum is like a living thing. it grows and changes all the time. new members eventually become new members of staff. new ideas inform new rules... and new sub forums... life goes on.
The forum founder Owner, like God, sits unseen (mostly) in the background, and is the final arbiter of all things RF... No doubt the Administrators know more about the direction he wishes the forum to move in, than a mere ancient member like myself.
However we should never forget that this is a privately owned forum, it is not a democracy.