That’s Marx, isn’t it? Now please, don’t hijack this thread, so don’t start about Marx or marxism. The man is unimportant for what I want to tell here. The title is about how debate/dispute ideally should develop. Someone has a thesis, someone else has an antithesis. A debate, or possibly a dispute, will develop and if all goes well there will eventually be a synthesis.

Both parties must be able to take position, to provoke, to confront, to be sharp, to polarize, to generalize. And both parties must give the arguments of the other party a fair chance. Both parties must not start the debate with consensus. Instead, they must try to end it with consensus, eventually.

In the previous paragraph one word goes almost unnoticed, but is nevertheless of high importance: able. Parties must have the ability, but also they must be allowed, must be enabled. Ability is influenced by personal talents and interests, cultural factors, education, age, experiences in living and the like. Enabling refers to an environment that allows and encourages parties to debate, by first of all allowing free speech, but also by creating the conditions that must prevent that things get out of control, that wars actually start, that people are harmed physically or mentally, by moderating.

Many ‘chats’ here on the UT develop along the ideal line. Some, however, do not. What we then see (okay, what I then see) happening is that some involved apparently have not yet developed the ability to try to reach consensus, or mistakenly interpret the other’s initial position (the thesis or antithesis) as offending or even worse, or start with a negative opinion about provoking, polarizing and generalizing, or want to at least prevent the other to win the dispute at any cost even if that requires ad hominem attacks.

The results are wellknown to all who followed the recent chats here. Eventually Michel Fournier decided to threat to stop with the chatter section. Many people here were apparently impressed, or intimidated, who’ll tell. All of a sudden they were silent. All but some, one of them was me. I reacted in Michel’s thread in a constructive way, as I see it. However, Jim Nelson nevertheless decided to hunt me down there. (I am really amazed about his recent behaviors online, because I always have thought of him as a buddy here.) I decided to file a request to Michel to ask Jim to stop. Michel’s reaction was not to my satisfaction, because he didn’t answer my question. So I asked him again. He told me that the UT will not discuss such issues with other members. Puzzled by that reaction (I’m not merely an ‘other member’ in this case) I rephrased and asked whether he was prepared to intervene. He didn’t answer the question and asked me to stop asking. I asked him whether that implies I must stop asking him to intervene, to file a complaint. Finally he showed me where he stands by telling me that I hijacked that thread, and he told me he’d no longer reply.

So, where are we now? Where am I now? Although there is a Terms & Conditions page here that clearly suggests that there is moderation in effect, that complaints can be filed, that messages can be marked as sensitive on request (huh, I’ve never ever seen a message marked as such here, did I miss something?), that the essence of freedom of speech is guaranteed here, I must conclude that the problem of this site is not so much with its members, but it is with its owner. The owner does not enable the members to have a full swing debate according to the ideal principle as promoted above. Although there have been interventions in the past, no intervention was done in this case and it is my big hunch that no interventions have been made on many more occasions in the past that required it.

It was said by several people here that Michel is not the police, that policing is a bad thing, that only childish people need to be policed. These people have a wrong idea about the police. Children are dealt with by their parents, not by the police. The police is an invention by society to deal with adults, some adults. Like all other sites where discussion is (part of) the culture, this site too needs some policing, some moderation. Everybody here who disagrees on this should reread the Terms & Conditions (I guess that includes Michel Fournier himself). The atmosphere of that document is “We’ll moderate on request or if we think it’s necessary for the image of the UT”. What I have noticed is that moderation has considerably failed here over the past year(s). And the consequence is that things indeed got out of hands recently. The way Michel reacted to me is only one anecdote. If it’s the only one, then I am wrong, but I’m afraid I’m not wrong here.

So, where am I now? I have decided to no longer participate here in debates, not even in apparently innocent ones, not even in apparently technical ones, although I preserve the right to jump in in special cases. All offends, insults and derogations by other members have never been taken for granted by me, meaning that I have always tried to clarify my opinion or eventually to strike back. But all those acts have never (I repeat: never) upset me. Michel’s reaction however has upset me, has made me really angry. The difference is that he has real power here, where those others don’t have. If the person who is in control of the environment does not provide the conditions to have good debate, does not enable us/me, then it’s over and out, for me. I am not willing to participate in debates that require silk gloves when typing in order to prevent that someone, whoever it be, decides to call my words offensive, will complain and give Michel finally a reason to shut down the chatter section. If there’s no willingness to moderate for the sake of good debate, then I have no willingness to debate at all.

Some will think “Good news, byebye”. They are wrong. My contributions have put much more weight on the positive side of the scale. The site is again losing another positive thinker. But I think most who left here blame other members. My opting-out is because of the actual policy of the site. I don’t blame any of its members, because their behavior was quite appropriate for the Wild West, which was characterized by a lack of police and law enforcement.

I started this message with a request to not hijack this thread. But I’m quite sure that it will gonna happen anyway. Whatever, do as you please. I won’t react anymore. If people want clarification on aspects of my explanation, or seek debate with me on this one, they can send me an e-mail. I promise I will reply.

One more thing: I have had good times here and learnt a lot, not only about technical issues. Many thanks to all, esp. to those who took me serious. And to the others ... there are no hard feelings on my side. Afterall, life in the Wild West has its own romantic side. ;)