Xandax wrote:Well - it has to stop somewhere. So might as well start here?
As I said - if people didn't have all the facts, then it is bad to jump to conclusions. Why is that a bad thing...?
Xandax, I agree with you up to a point. Rushing to judgment and acting as if you know everything when you don't have all of the facts is indeed "A BAD THING". However, some people deserve more credit than you're giving them when you dismiss their "conlcusion jumping" as "a people-thing" (or however you phrased it earlier). Even though we're basically hairless, hardheaded apes, some of us actually use the scientific method in our daily lives. We see things happen (i.e., we make observations). We know we don't have a full explanation, but we develop a hypothesis
(which is to be distinguished from a conclusion
) to give ourselves some way to understand what has happened. If we are truly rational and openminded, we will test our hypothesis and subject it to scrutiny and debate to see if it holds up. Sometimes, that is what discussion is all about--we're not just stating our preformed opinions; we are actively searching for answers by airing our own ideas and listening to other people. Sometimes there is no good way to acquire (experimental) data, so all we're left with is a hypothesis and possibly a consensus regarding that hypothesis. But in my opinion that is better than saying, "We don't know anything, so let's forget all about it."
Luis Antonio wrote:Xandax, by the Gods, have you not noticed this aint only about the policy? It is about the attitude. Look around, open your eyes wide. This is despotism, I had pointed you that.
Luis, I do not know
why you were demoted. But given the fact that it happened, it's only natural for us to speculate why it happened. My hypothesis is that Buck's reflex is to demote any moderators who do not support his policies wholeheartedly. You can call it "despotic" or call it a "strong arm tactic", but it is certainly something I can understand (which is exactly why I formed that particular hypothesis). Personally, I wouldn't have demoted you myself because I would have been afraid to hurt your feelings; but that does not rule out the possibility that Buck is a much more pragmatic and effective leader than I could ever be.
Like it or not, I think he did the right thing. He did what a leader has to do.
We could test my hypothesis, you know. All we need to do is get a few of the other moderators to rebel, and then observe how Buck reacts. Then we would have scientific evidence to prove or disprove my hypothesis. Of course, it wouldn't be a pretty sight, and I don't recommend it. In this case, ignorance is preferable to certainty.
@Xandax: You see, that is the logical alternative to "jumping to conclusions". Be careful what you wish for.