Replies

Click to skip to bottom of this long post about objections to FR policy.

In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled Q ~ Trust Trump's Plan ~ 01/04/2023 Vol.444, Q Day 1895, RitaOK wrote:
Now THAT is community organizing! Sincere congratulations! 👏
Ignoring the foul and disgusting has brought America down APATHY TRAIL, about long enough, buried in losses to the pig’s trough we are in today.
And cutting the branch out beneath our own feet will set us free.....
There is no comparison between the move to defund Free Republic until the board owner is 'brought to heel' and the apathy that brought America down.
I wrote a response to the current issue re troll that I was going to put on the thread but its long and some despise such long posts. So I'll post my entire post in Festival and just link it here.
From the first fist-shaking 'demand' posts that the board owner allow Q to be posted throughout the forum, I thought to myself that this particular tactic/tone will not work at all. Later, demands that funds will be withheld to force FR into compliance underscored my belief.
There's more than one reason I see this issue the way that I do. For example, I have long suspected that so long as FReeQs actively contend with Q thread trolls, admin doesn't usually push them off our thread. To the outside observer, it looks like a 50/50 fight if it's joined in progress and I suspect that when FReeQs walking away or ignore trolling is taken as a signal 'we're no longer participating' and beyond that, if a troll is nagging with no reasponse, they stand out in a crowd and are pushed off the thread. Just my theory.

I base part of my world view on experience with forceful demands as MQD. Some issue arose and a collection of FReeQs/FReepers wrote me to criticize me into behaving (intervene with a contentius person on-thread) and threaten to leave the thread if I didn't. Meanwhile other people wrote to sneer that if I was enough of a narcissist to think I had the right to intervene, then they and all their friends would leave the Q thread.
This actually helped clarify things - every action pro or against has a cost. It made the unavoidable task of just doing the best that I could, no matter who threatens to leave, a bit less unpleasant.
Had I been perceived as 'caving' to either side, then I would have essentially been showing people 'what works' with me, how they should phrase their demands to get the response they want. Word would get out that 'she wouldn't do the right thing until I told her I'd leave...'
I have hundreds of people on the ping list. Each has the capacity (if not the desire) to make such demands. It is impossible for me to satisfy all expectations, or even the expectations of a 2-sided issue. But how many are on the Free Republic website? How many threats to cut funds would the board owner receive for all sides of all contentious issues if he allows the tactic to 'work' for this particular issue?
A friend pm'd me to say that she/he disagrees with me only in that it's a fairness issue, not an 'ignore' issue. It's possible that one or more other issues take priority once the contention is presented in a way that an organizational leader does not want to instill as policy. The issue of fairness, for example. Is it fair to respond to threats of funding cuts in one instance and not in other instances? Isn't it fair to do so in an 'all or nothing' manner?
It's possible that what has been witnessed over the intervening months on both sides of the conflict resulted in raising other issues which took priority, and informed the decision not to delete/ban. If it seemed to passing Admins that 'our side' appeared to have options but continued to go back, and back, and back again to score points, then the priority may switch from "should a FReeper be allowed to treat others this way" to become, "they are over engaging and will be encouraged to do so in the future if I act here."
It's always more complex than it seems. There were times when I was leading a team where I could not tell people WHY I made decisions they disputed.
I could not reveal confidential information
I might make matters worse for harmony if they understood my reasoning (e.g., someone they don't realize was a fault - this person becomes the new target, the originally accused wants payback)
I lay myself out for furture manipulation because I outlined my criteria, then they will shift to manipulating my perception of the criteria
I can't make myself fully accountable to this many people and be expected to meet all their requirements all the time, especially for sensitive information, particularly in a timely fashion
I personally don't like threats and intimidation and will make significant sacrifices to terminate the appearance of the 'usefulness' of this tactic
I know what I know after x years of experience in a variety of fields and sometimes cannot crystalize my knowledge into a tidy explanation on demand (a portion of which I internalized as 'judgement' and no longer remember or perceive as a conscious ideology or 'policy' decision).
etc. etc. etc.
I'm serious when I say our Q threads would not be here if heartfelt insistance, even if 'community organized' heartfelt insistance, that donations would cut until until our threads were deleted, was a strategy that the website wanted to support.
I've thought for some time that the approach/format of various demands posted to me, some of which obviously should have been given to the board owner, or SOME thread posts couched in threats that FR funding will be cut, guarantees they will not be granted. The way I've seen (some of) them delivered seems unsupportable because it would pull apart and/or disrupt more than perceived.
There's so much more than just the problem of "threats work precedent" that others would pursue on other issues (and once again raise the fairness issue - you banned X so you have to ban Y). For example there would likely be threats of funding cuts until he was reinstated (if banned). The only people we're hearing from are on the 'please ban or delete his posts' side; we've yet to hear from the other side. How far back (retroactive?) should this potential post deletion (purge) or banning go? How are such decisions going to be adjudicated in the future? Who will debate the way this situation is different from some future decision (fairness questions).
I think it's more complex than acknowledged, and that after all these years of FR, we can give JR the benefit of the doubt instead of suggesting he or Admin are 'enjoying' watching suffering. That kind of commentary ensures what is sought will not be granted. I say this as someone who worked in a corporate environment for about 20 years - I've never seen tactics remotely like this work; I was considered a highly resourceful organizational strategist.
I've received emails over the past 5 years telling me, based on my inaction in response to certain requests, that I'm not really a Christian, that I secretly am working to supress the truth from getting out, that I support evil, that my ego demands that I destroy the Q thread etc. None of those kinds of comments motivated me to do as the writer wished, although they truly seemed to think that all it would take is just the right innuendo to make me defend my honor by giving them what they want. I have no choice but to do the best I can and expect that some will despise me for it.
I'm not saying I agree with everything Admin has ever done (e.g., I recall seeing bagster banned for no apparent reason). But that's the exception, not the norm. I know there are sincere people invested in the best outcome for FR who are seriously troubled by the board's decisions. I don't wish to make light of their dedication; only to explain my own reasoning.
All this has no relationship to our failures as individuals, and as a nation, to come to grips with the Satanic evil in possession of power in the US.