Regions followed
Edgar's Workspace
This is where I create drafts for pages/contents for DavisWiki before I figure out their relevance, content, organization, and destination. If you know that the following content already exists, or does not belong in DavisWiki, please let me know by using the comments section.
Pages that I edit
Page: November 18, 2011 UC Davis Police Response to Occupy UC Davis
Connection: The Saturday prior the Nov18 incident (IIRC), I saw the Occupy Davis encampment for the first time when I went to Central Park for Taichi. I wanted to learn more about it and to attend a general assembly. On Nov18, I got an email from Chancellor Katehi directed to UC Davis affiliate because I am an alumni. That night, I was at the Shields library and watched the you-tube videos. I intend to follow up on the incident because petitions for Katehi to resign had already initiated. I felt that I need to catch up on the details so that I could decide fairly whether the chancellor should resign. I went to the page and saw that some of the comments and perspectives seemed biased. Reason to Edit: Considering the potential damage of misinterpretation, I wanted to point out missing but important information. I also wanted to keep the facts straight in the factual sections, such as sorting links under the section "General Reactions" chronologically to show the sequence of events. Questions I find important regarding this event include:
I found the first question important because I needed to know who was at fault to decide whether I should sign the petition. To tell who was at fault, I look at the behaviors of the parties. Simply put, the party that did not aim for a mutually beneficial outcome is at fault. While parties might have protocols that are in conflict of one another, the lack of intent to resolve them and to achieve a mutually beneficial outcome is a more fundamental fault. For the incident to occur, it requires an instigator that tries to prevent the situation from coming into resolution. In this case, there are three potential instigators: The Administration, the Police, and the Protesters. It is easy to justify that the Protesters perceived the Admin and the Police as enemies in the aftermath, because the call for their resignation and removal were the proofs. However, it is not as easy to justify the Protesters' perception on the morning of Nov18. According to the accounts, some of the Protesters did try to cooperate, when the police showed up, the dynamics changed. At that point, it was easy to justify that the Protesters did not try to cooperate with the police. The proof was the linking of arms, turning the situation into a stand-off. At this point, whether the Admin or the Police were trying to cooperate became irrelevant. This is because, given that the Protesters was at least one of the instigators, for them to call for a resignation, they would have to do the same for themselves. The fact that they did not do so made the situation unfair. To me, this was enough justification to withhold signing of the petition.
The second question was important because I needed to know if the parties can resolve the conflict on its own to decide whether or how to get involved. To answer this question, a comparison table is desirable. The following is a table that includes events that were memorable to me. The table is not meant to show a fair assessment of the situation, but to show my memory of the situation. Fairness on this table would come if this table exists on a proper article to get edited. I am showing this as a mean for you to understand my perspective, so that if you may have a better sense of what information I need to draw a different conclusion. I must admit that I do not know very well what the Protesters did because I am not in their loop. It should be very clear that my perspective does not favor the Protesters. But this is not a problem, as I will explain in the next section.
According to this list, I see that everything the Administration had done since the incident was meant to promote cooperation. However, it only takes one determined instigator to deny cooperation. In this case, the evidence points to the Protesters being the persistent instigator.
The third question is important because it concerns my purpose of my involvement. The protesters advocated the petition. I read it and it seemed wrong. I asked questions. The questions were never answered, even though they were still talking to me. Therefore, if I get involved, it is not to fulfill the protesters' request to pay attention, because I had already fulfilled that request. I am involved because the protesters need to know that they could be the problem. I have been asking for a discussion to resolve it. If such discussion does not happen, the next best thing is for me to wait for the Task Force report.
Page: Importance of Using Your RealName
Connection: I saw a surge in Recent Changes in Identity/Talk. There I saw that the discussion was turning a type of deadlock. On one hand was the argument that there is a stigma against users with no RealName. On the other hand was the argument the accuser was dismissing explanations from male editors. Reason to Edit: The communication was breaking up. I was hoping that a female editor would moderate, but since it didn't happen, I entered. As a result of the discussion, I applied changes that I believe are correct on the page.
Groups and Issues that I follow
Group: Agnostic and Atheist Student Association
Connection: I am not a member but I do not subscribe to any religion I know of. However, I felt neither "atheist" nor "agnostic" properly describe my perspective. Therefore I started reading about them on Facebook and started going to their meetings and talks. Reason to Follow: Their stance appear offensive from time to time. I am observing to learn more about their goals and to find a channel to discuss. I do not know how to comment on their Facebook page without joining their group. But I don't want to join their group unless I know their intent and practice.
Group: I am Happy Project
Connection: I was at International House to meet my friend when I learned that they were having a movie screening. I missed the screening but wanted to learn more. Reason to Follow: about their group because it seemed like the kind of purposeful and un-offensive group that I might actually fit in.
Issue: Dental service billing fraud
Connection: I was a patient and the office refused to itemize the charges. Reason to Follow: The office could have been ripping off many people. I have contacted the insurance company and intended to report to Davis Wiki, either at Dental Fraud or on the page of the actual office. The violation in question was the first item: "Charges exceeding the amount the dentist submitted to the insurance company". I need more time to discuss or to think about whether and where I should post the incident. If you know the answers to these questions please reply in comments. 1) When should an editor report a fraud that happens at a particular business? 2) Where should the editor report it (on a generic page without naming the business, or on the specific business page)?
Self Disclosures
Editing Guidelines that I follow
The following is a self-disclosure of editing guidelines that I follow. They do not necessarily represent the view of other editors. Some editors have openly opposed any effort to declare guidelines. I am listing them and providing the reasons because some problems on Davis Wiki was caused by the lack of guideline(s). It would be best if the entire community share the same guideline. When that does not happen, it is best if each editor disclose their own guidelines. If you want to make comments please use the comments section, because if you edit here directly you may unintentionally distort my meaning. If you do make an edit in this section due to convenience, I will relocate it to the comments section.
Changes to informative text should be made only if the result is correct. Explanation: An example of informative text is the phone number of a business.
Changes to explanatory text should improve its clarity. Explanation: The text in an explanatory section should not misunderstand the message it tries to explain.
The author of a personal section may decide what stays inside those sections Explanation: Examples of personal sections include the body of a comment, and the non-comment section on an editor's users page. This is done to avoid potentially changing the meaning of the text.
Notes on the Ethics of Discussion
Ethics is a set of practices aimed to maintain fair interactions. In a discussion, ethics is a set of practices that protects the participants from false accusations and vindictive tactics. In general, ethics are self-enforced. If you are told that a practice is unethical and you agree with the reasoning, then you simply forbid yourself from doing so because you intend to be ethical. The following are some unethical tactics that people intentionally or unintentionally use in discussions. By knowing that these tactics exist, you may be able to avoid them to in your practice.
Failure to Clear an Accusation Example: Mary accuses John. John explains. Mary finds that her accusation is ungrounded, but does not clear her accusation. Explanation: An Accuser should be ready to clear their accusation on someone when the Accused provide a satisfactory explanation.
Failure to Address a Claim after trying to Mirror the Claim Example: Mary claims that John made a mistake. John responses by claiming that Mary made a mistake. Mary explains herself. John accepts Mary's explanation, but does not address the original question. Explanation: John should address the original question.
Prior Unethical Treatment as Permission to be Unethical Example: Mary asks John a question. John refuses to answer because he doesn't want to be proved wrong. Both Mary and John know that this is unethical. Now John asks Mary a question. Mary, seeing how John was unethical, also refuses to answer. Explanation: A person's ethical standard is not relative to who they interact with. Mary should uphold her own ethics regardless what John does.
Persistent use of words with different meaning to the audience Example: Mary accuses John of hitting her, without explaining that the word "hitting" means something a third person audience would not expect. Explanation: In a fair accusation, the Accuser should either use words that the accused finds fair, or define the meaning of the problematic words if it could be misunderstood by a third party. Prevention: Every time the Accuser uses a problematic word, the Accused should highlight the problem and ask the Accuser to acknowledge its meaning.
Notes on Protocols in a Discussion
The following are concepts that explains of some protocols in a discussion. When these protocols are violated, usually the violator simply did not know of such concepts.
Concept: Person who brought up an issue should be the one to confirm when the issue is resolved Example: Mary brings up an issue. John replies and believes that the issue is resolved. Mary explains why the issue is not resolved. John refuses to accept Mary's explanation and accuses Mary for ignoring his explanation. Explanation: John is not in Mary's perspective to decide if the issue is resolved. John is not in a position to decide for Mary what is relevant to her inquiry. John should explain to Mary the relevance, and Mary should explain to John the irrelevance.
Concept: Achieving fairness by voicing underrepresented or unrepresented viewpoint Example: Mary saw that an Article's content is biased toward one viewpoint and wrote her viewpoint to make the article more fair. John read it and accused Mary for being biased to her viewpoint. Explanation: The fairness that Mary was trying to achieve was a collaborative effort. Mary supported fairness by offering her view that was missing from the Article. Mary is not trying to be fair by speaking for John's view. Mary is trying to make the Article fair by voicing her view.
Notes on Constructive Discussion
I think that this content belongs to a Wiki Community\Constructive Discussions. I intend to declare these features in future discussion to test their validity before creating that page. I want to make sure that I can adhere to the following first so that I could prove to myself at least that the information could be helpful.
Principles and Perspective
Constructive discussion is a discussion that involves all stakeholder to solve a problem in a way that addresses the needs of each stakeholder with humility. It differs from a debate in that the participants do not take sides. It differs from a trial in that the participants are not fault finding. The use of constructive discussion is based on these principles:
-
No one is omniscient: No single individual knows everything, or knows the best way to do everything for everyone all the time.
-
No one is perfect: No one is perfectly compassionate, rational, and always behave at their highest ethical self.
-
Every problem has a solution: Sometimes the solution requires a lot of creativity.
-
No one is responsible for the solution: No single person is obligated to solve the problem alone.
In a constructive discussion, the participants should understand that they are discussing because in their local community, no one knows a solution that would satisfy all of the stakeholders. They understand that facts and creativity are keys to solving the problems, and when creativity is involved, the question is not whether a problem has a solution, but how it can be solved. Due to the high level of creativity involved, the participants should maintain their humbleness that the very reason they face this problem right now, is that no one in human history had completely solved this problem, thus they are still seeing it in their community. Therefore as far as the timeline is concerned, there is no reason to be frustrated when a solution is not reached. It has not been solved for thousands of years. Human history can wait a year or two. If the solution comes, it is good; if not, it is okay also.
Common Habits to Avoid
The following are features that tend to polarize participants of a constructive discussion. Sometimes I find myself using them out of habit, but I intend to correct my habit.
Rhetorical Questions Example: "If a shovel is all you have, wouldn't you be digging a hole also?" Plain form: "A person with just a shovel can only dig holes." Explanation: I think a rhetorical question offends people because questions usually implies freedom of choice, but a rhetorical question denies that freedom. The person receiving a rhetorical question does not perceive it as plain information, but a restrictive force of their freedom of thoughts. I think that people learned this habit from debates (roughly speaking, debates are not constructive discussions but polarizing discussions). I think that this habit can be undo by acknowledging that at any moment, the best solution of a problem might still be outside the participant's horizon of ideas. Therefore, creativity, open-mindedness, and vision of the big picture that includes the well-being of all stakeholders must be constantly maintained. A focus on creativity naturally prevents a participant from using rhetorical question.
Asking questions that the recipient cannot answer Example 1: A person is being asked for the details of an incident that is illegal for that person to disclose or to comment on the incident. Example 2: (This is one of my comments where I asked for a rubric for evaluating chancellors.) Explanation: The recipient of this type of question could feel that the discussion becomes unfair because the question implies that the discussion could only continue if that information requested is conjured, but that information either does not exist, unattainable, or cannot be disclosed by the recipient.
Figurative descriptions Example: (I will look for an example.) Explanation: The recipient may not share the same neutral imagery. The solution is the use the plain form of the statement and keep it simple.
Sarcasm Example: ??? Explanation: When a person is offended by an innocent sarcastic remark not intended to humiliate, the giver should recognize that they might not have demonstrated enough the seriousness of the topic to the recipient of the sarcasm. In general each participant should try to see the needs of each stakeholder as serious as their own needs, or come to a common understanding of the priority of the needs of each stakeholder. A correct, shared perspective of the priorities is necessary for the understanding and continual support of a decision.
Jargon Example: ??? Explanation: When the participants do not share the same understanding of the jargon, using it could cause unnecessary misunderstanding. When the participants do share the same jargon, but the bystander does not, the bystander is prevented from giving creative input for the solution.
Judgmental Remarks Example 1: (Sometimes comes in the form of criticizing a fellow participant of having myopic view of the situation, or in the form of over generalization.) Example 2: When the explanation expressed by a participant is repeated labelled as an 'excuse'. Explanation: A judgmental remark is one that assumes the intention, or the role of the recipient. The participants should confirm and catalog the variation in roles and concerns of the stakeholders.
Using 'You' in a hypothetical scenario Example: If you have three fires to fight and you could only attend to two. Are you incompetent for letting the third one burn? (Ref) Plain form: If a firefighter faces three fires but only have resources to extinguish two, knowing that one is left burning is not enough to say that the firefighter is incompetent. Explanation: An involuntary recast of a recipient's role could be seen as a dismissal or attack on their identity. Worse, if the role is objectionable to the recipient, it could be seen as an act of ridicule.
Voting Explanation: Voting should be avoided as a mean to reach a decision when possible because the existence of a voting process tends to make participants take sides. Sometimes, conflicts that usually lead to a settlement by voting can be resolved by a rotation schedule. For example, if 60% of the participants wants to go to restaurant A and 40% wants to go to restaurant B, a possible solution could be to go to A six out of ten times and to B four out of ten times. This way, the minority may still have a chance to show the majority why they like B. If the group used majority rule all the time, the group would never go to B (i.e. the minority group would never get to go to B).
Scrambled Timeline Example: Links to a reaction of an event is not organized correctly chronologically. Explanation: Keeping events arranged is important because the order of events could show whether a certain viewpoint is gathering strength or losing strength over time. For example, if the accused provided a convincing explanation that caused the accusations to die down, but a heated reaction is inserted after that explanation, it may inadvertently mislead the reader that the accusers stand firm despite the successful explanation, and make the reader believe that the explanation is unsatisfactory.
Tools for Collaboration
The following are tools and actions that tend to help to keep a discussion focused:
Decision Matrix A decision matrix is a structure that organizes possible proper reactions on a grid indexed by defining factors. Example Problem: When should I wear a coat? Example Defining Factors: Is it hot or cold? Do you have a coat?
Example Decision Matrix:
Explanation: To reach a correct solution usually requires a correct assessment of the situation, and a correct perception of priority given a specific facts of the reality. Sometimes, the process of fact finding and solution creation occurs in parallel (i.e. people are trying to make a decision while facts are still being gathered). A decision matrix helps this concurrent process by separating the two activities, and focuses the participants on the importance of facts.
Stakeholders list A stakeholders list is an explicit list of major stakeholders affected by the decision, and their primary concerns. Example Problem: How should DavisWiki handle accusations against local businesses? Example Stakeholders:
| Role | Concern | Speaker |
| Accuser/Victim | Safety | Person A, Person B |
| Accused | Livelihood | Person C, Person D |
| Bystander | Truth | Person E, Person F |
Explanation: A stakeholders list is an explicit reminder that the purpose of the discussion is not to 'take side'. Everyone involved in the discussion has a responsibility to find a solution that meets the needs of all stakeholders. Creation of a Stakeholders list is a way to account for the variation in the participants, and a way to check if any stakeholder is missing from the discussion. Missing stakeholders should be invited to the discussion to make sure the basis of the discussion correctly accounts for the needs from the actual perspectives of the stakeholders.
Statement of Design Goals This statement is similar to the stakeholders list but without the emphasis of the different types of stakeholders. The reason is that after sufficient discussion, each participant should share the same concerns, either by the inevitable sharing of roles (i.e. a participant fits several roles at the same time), or by the compassionate understanding of what is at stake from the perspective of each participant. Although the stakeholders list may look redundant as it contains half of the information, the stakeholders list should remain because it is the easier document for a bystander to check if their concerns are unrepresented. This statement should be written in a simple, readable format that addresses the concerns of the highest priorities. It is okay to completely drop the lower priorities at the early stage to keep the discussion simple, and return to them later because the list of Stakeholders holds the complete list of all concerns. Oftentimes this simplification step is necessary to assist a step-by-step construction of the solution under the understanding that: If the participants cannot solve a simplified version of the problem, they have no hope of solving the actual problem with all concerns accounted. The participants should consider the simplification not as a dismissal of the actual scope, but an intermediate step for constructing the solution. As such, the Statement of Design Goals builds on itself and advances in complexity over the course of discussion.
Statement of Accountability This is a statement stating who should pay for the cost (including damage to business) incurred during an investigation or a discussion. Example Scenario: I want say something bad about business X to warn fellow people about malpractice Y. Example Accountability Statement (Absolutely certain): "I am hereby accuse X of malpractice Y. I declare that I am doing so in good faith. I am 100% responsible for any damage dealt to X if my accusation is found to be false." Example Accountability Statement (Less certain): "I am worried by X's handling of incident Y and I question the intention of X. I hereby bring this issue to the public and ask for a fair investigation, after agreeing that X and I will share any damage to X's business and the cost of investigation 50:50." Explanation: Constructive discussions are not conducted with a 'win-lose' mindset. However, oftentimes the discussion incurs a cost that needs to be covered. The stakeholders should have an agreement on how that cost should be handled. If there aren't enough facts at the beginning of the discussion, the participants could create a Decision Matrix to set the common ground on which party will handle what proportion of the cost.
Fact Lists, Timeline, Organization Charts, etc. These are documents created along the discussion to keep track of the facts. This helps bystanders to check if any fact is missing or incorrect, that might affect the validity of the decision.
Task assignment chart This is a chart for participants to declare what tasks they are doing so that participants would not unnecessarily duplicate tasks during fact finding or the deployment of the full or partial solution. This would avoid the situation when many concerned individuals flood the inbox of a stakeholder with messages with many similar but sometimes different questions. When the inbox is flooded, important questions may be overlooked.
Voluntary declarations of conduct This is a statement that participants may voluntarily make when they enter the discussion. They may declare what bad habits of discussions they have that they intend to fix and ask for fellow participant's reminders if their conducts go out of hand. No participant should be forced to declare their conduct or take vow to speak the truth. The participants should take a stance to help fellow participants to work on the bad habits they want to work on, and forgive misconducts to focus on the issue. When a participant holds a piece of information that is a defining factor with respect to the decision matrix, fellow participants should first attempt to complete the decision matrix without pressuring the participant to disclose. Sometimes, it may turn out that the piece of information withheld is irrelevant for the subset of the decision matrix when other defining factors are verified. For example, in a discussion about a case of assault, it may be typical for fellow participants to ask for the gender of the victim. However, when the victim chooses not to disclose their gender, the discussion should continue with no assumption about the gender of the victim for the decision matrix. After further discussion, it may become obvious that the gender of the victim is irrelevant. In the case where the missing information matters, the participants should construct a solution with under the assumption that the value of the defining factor is 'unknown' and look for a common ground.
Dry Runs of Constructive Discussion
Importance and Apology These dry runs are attempts to check if the concept of Constructive Discussion lacks important features to represent discussions in reality. To do this, I take controversial discussions here on DavisWiki to check if the most important contents of the discussion can be adequately represented by tools of constructive discussion. I understand the potential harm of re-examining history. I also recognize that forgetting the history is often inadequate to prevent a repeat of the same dynamics that causes a controversy. I believe that past controversies should re-examined, resolved, and properly communicated so that the same controversy will not exist in the future. I understand that there is variation in the cool-off period required for a participant to revisit history objectively. I also understand that the longer the cool-off period, the more crucial that the dynamics leading to the controversy be understood and resolved to prevent future participants from being trapped in the same hardship. If the potential damage to a participant's psychic is irreparable (i.e. infinite cool-off period) then it is paramount that the controversy be studied. I apologize and wish for forgiveness from those involved if I underestimate the cool-off period. I also wish for forgiveness for the delay in this study due to an overestimate of the cool-off period. Finally, I understand that sometimes it is offensive to suggest that certain problem can be prevented. I wish for forgiveness for this attempt to prevent future harm to the emotions of individuals and the spirit of a community.
Dry Run: "Identity/Talk"
The following is my attempt to see what would happen if the content of Identity/Talk (Snapshot Dec29) is rehashed according to the guideline of "Constructive Discussion" above. The following is a summary of the discussion up to 2009-02-27.
Stakeholders List The following list was constructed as I read the comments of the participants.
| Type/Role |
| Wants |
| Editors who have just joined or spoken |
| Inclusiveness, Equality |
| Editors who want to promote human-to-human connections |
| Realness |
| Editors who try to reduce hurtful edits |
| Security |
The issue being discussed The following is inferred from the scope of the discussion. This requires some judgement (my judgement) on what the issue really is about.
- How should DavisWiki editors treat one another?
Decision Matrix These are the actions expressed or inferred by the comments so far:
- Disallow
- Deter
- Allow
- Encourage
The following are the major defining factors summarized based on the content of the comments.
- RealName vs PseudoNym (Observable)
- Edits with Merit, Edits with no Merit, Edits that are only offensive (Observable)
The following is the decision matrix based on my interpretation of the comments.
| A. RealName | B. PseudoNym | |
| 1. Edits with Merit | Allow/Encouraged | Disallow/Deter/Allow |
| 2. Edits with no Merit | Allow/Encouraged | Disallow/Allow |
| 3. Edits that are only offensive | Allow/Encouraged | Disallow/Deter |
This decision matrix shows how we could procedurally refine the stance to identify the specific differences and decide whether they are worth settling. At this point I don't think it is worth going through the history of that page to see how the matrix evolves in the discussion because it seems that a simpler way to proceed is to show one matrix that I believe to be the consensus, and ask if anyone disagrees. If no one disagrees, then the case should be closed, and the matrix should be properly displayed to prevent future misunderstanding.
This is a matrix based on my understanding on what the best action is for each type of situation so that concerns on inclusiveness, equality, realness, and security are met.
| A. RealName | B. PseudoNym | C. PseudoNym(Vindictive) | |
| 1. Non-Vindictive Edits | Welcome | Welcome | Explain |
| 2. Vindictive Edits | Explain | Explain | Explain |
Explanation of the defining factors: Columns: A. RealName - These are editors with a RealName that is in fact their name (Assuming that somehow we know that it is them). B. PseudoNym - These are editors with a PseudoNym with legitimate reasons to hide their real name, and includes those that actually provide their real name on their user page. C. PseudoNym(Vindictive) - These are editors who chose to use a PseudoNym with the purpose to slander, cause harm or disruption. This category includes (Assuming that somehow we know their intention). Rows: 1. Non-Vindictive Edits - This includes all edits that are more or less intended to be truthful (Assuming that somehow we know their intention). 2. Vindictive Edits - This are edits that are intended to cause harm in either a dishonest or overly-harmful manner (Assuming that we can tell). In most of these categories, reasonable judgement is needed to identify the current situation. The method to identify the situation is a related but independent issue. We first confirm that there are different categories and confirm our intention, then we can talk about what to do when we see an editor with a PseudoNym knowing that the editor could be category B or C.
Explanation of the intention assigned to each combination: A1, B1 - We welcome both RealName and PseudoNym users who intend to help DavisWiki C1 - We explain to editors with vindictive PseudoNym that they should consider changing their PseudoNym even if they are making good edits otherwise. Row2 - We explain to all editors who make vindictive edits that there messages are hurtful for the community, and explain .
Explanation on how the concerns are addressed: Inclusiveness is addressed by welcoming both RealName and PseudoNym editors. Equality is addressed by treating RealName and PseudoNym editors the same (decisions in Column A are the same as in Column B). Realness is addressed by explaining to Vindictive PseudoNym users that that we prefer RealName when possible. Security is addressed equally by explaining to all editors that vindictive editing is harmful for the community.
Discerning methods: According to the decision matrix above, two discerning methods are needed. One to tell when an editor is PseudoNym or Vindictive PseudoNym. One to tell whether an editor is making a vindictive edit. Currently, discerning these differences is up to the fellow editors. Each fellow editor may decide if an editor has a Vindictive PseudoNym or is behaving vindictively. Each fellow editor may initiate communication to welcome or explain. Although each editor may have a different perception due to differences in their subjective discerning methods, knowing that they share the same underlying intention would help identify the actual disagreement.
About Edgar
| Ideals |
| To build a culture that can sustain peace. |
| Principles |
| To always strive for solutions that resolves all concerns, |
| To be content when there is nothing to solve. |
| Methodology |
| To envision with goodwill, to accept without prejudice, |
| To think with creativity, to act with sincerity. |
| Contact Info |
| [email protected] |
Acknowledgement
Edgar thanks:
- Alexa Sommers-Miller - Project Compost director. She introduced me to Whole Earth Festival.
- Akshay Nanjangud - Current colleague. Akshay has just passed his qualifying exam (2009-12-08). Introduced me to Pedrick Produce.
- Brennan Bird - Compost partner for a few quarters. Totally cool. He is the director for WEF 2010.
- DTL Corporation - Internship, then job.
- Gary Matteson (WA6TQJ) - Helped me on HAM.
- Jenny Wu - Tree planting and Project Compost partner.
- Jin Echizenya Yamada - Classmate in ENG 35 and Kendo Sensei. Jin is awesome.
- Jock Hamilton - My supervisor when I worked as student assistant at Horwitz Lab in the NPB department. Recommended me for Regents Scholarship. I think I cried. I wish I kept a diary.
- John Berg (K6JRB) - Introduced me to UCDARC. Trustee of UCDARC repeater.
- Lance Halsted - ECE Development Engineer, much help on various things in the department.
- Matthew Lam - Courageous and great character. Currently a peer advisor in BME.
- Michael Porter - Davis Firefigther and coordinator of Davis CERT.
- Nerissa - A cashier at Grocery Outlet who inadvertently brought me to the concept of profit donation capitalism.
- Prof. A. N. Gundes (ECE) - Major advisor. She has a funny way to tell me how bad I am yet easy to improve.
- Prof. Fadi Fathallah (BAE) - Undergrad advisor when I was in BSE. Gave me a programming project.
- Prof. Kent Wilken (ECE) - Contacted me to teach in summer session (ENG 100 2008).
- Prof. Sanjay Joshi (MAE) - Reading committee member. Also gave me a project.
- Prof. T. S. Chang (ECE) - Master thesis reading committee member.
- Rodney Prasad - Colleague. Rodney had graduated.
- Sifu Daniel Quincy - Taichi Sifu, Saber, Straightsword, Push-hand, Forms.
- Wes Hardaker (WS6Z) - Helped me on HAM license tests and others.
- Yih-Chung Chang - Chen Style Taichi (if you want to join us please send an email in case time/place changes).
- ( Unknown ) - An unknown student nominated me for the ASUCD award. If I were to guess I would think it was Zachary Graham. He was always nice. He would be aware of such an award. (I didn't know there was such an award.)
Activities
Current
- Community: Davis CERT
- Graphics: Vector graphic icons and buildings, drawing, uploads to deviantART
- Physical/Sports: Taichi Club
- Listening to Radio: KQED/KQEI 89.3 FM
- Music: Recording tunes on keyboard, writing lyrics (in Cantonese)
- Writing: Trying to blog
Inactive
- Amateur Radio: ARRL, UCD Amateur Radio Communications (UCDARC) (KI6RHE)
- Community: SF NERT
- Environment: Freecycle, Tree Davis, Project Compost, Whole Earth Family
- Game Design: Flash ActionScript / FLEX, Forum discussion at Gamedev.net
- Graphics: Drawing 2D Sprites (Think Nintendo)
- Physical/Sports: UCD Kendo Club
- Professional: IEEE, IEEE Control Systems Society, Tau Beta Pi
- Social Networks: Facebook, LinkedIn, MSN
- Toastmaster: Town And Gown Club
History
- 1994: Attended King's College (secondary school) in Hong Kong
- 1996: Moved to the US, attended North Monterey Country High School at Castroville, CA. Graduated in 1999.
- 1999: Entered UC Davis as a Biological Systems Engineering student.
- 2000: Worked as lab assistant for Horwitz's lab (NPB department), volunteered at UCDMC Orthotics and Emergency Room
- 2001: Changed major to Computer Engineering.
- 2003: Received BS in Computer Engineering with departmental citation. Entered graduate school at UC Davis, TA'ed for courses: ENG 17, 100, EEC 157A/B, 158, 172, 180A/B. Taught as associate instructor for ENG 100 one summer.
- 2009: Received Best Teaching Assistant award in Dept. ECE, nominated for Excellence in Education Award, ASUCD.
- 2010: Interned at DTL Corp.; received PhD in March at UC Davis in Electrical and Computer Engineering (Control Systems Theory); Rehired by DTL Corp. in December.
Stories
3-Pack Salsa
"Do you believe it?"
The cashier asked me. I was at the check out at Grocery Outlet. The question came out of the blue. She was talking about the 3-pack salsa that I decided to get tonight. On the lids of the salsa it read, "All Profits To Charity." I thought:
a) Sure, why else would they print it on the lid? b) No way, what a marketing lie. c) ...
If the cashier didn't mention it, I wouldn't even notice that there were meaningful words printed on the lids. But I am not surprised that I didn't notice. I don't usually pay attention to the surrounding. In any case, I have never heard of a company that would donate all profits to charity. It must be some play of words.
"Nope."
I said. The claim might be so misleading that they could not put them on the shelves of regular stores, but end up at Grocery Outlet, where goods with defective packaging could still be sold. As I put it in my bag I knew that I wanted to find out whether the claim was true. If it really was a lie, I would not want to buy more from that company.
When I got home I goggled and wiki'ed it. Surprisingly there was no review exposing what I thought was a false advertisement. Instead, all reviews pointed to the claim being legitimate. But reviews are just what people say. What is the evidence? On a blog expressing similar skepticism, someone referred to its IRS 990 form that is public. I wish I understand more of the accounting terms, but at least there was a list of the exact grass-root organizations and clubs and the amount that the company had donated. I couldn't tell for certain, but as far as I knew, the evidence pointed to the claim being true. The company really did donate all to charity.
Amidst the shadow of greedy corporations, there is hope.
The next time I see the cashier, I want to buy a 3-pack for her, and tell her:
"I was wrong. It is true."
Comments: Was this a newman company? Daubert Yes. —EW
Topics of Interest
- Civics: Discussion regarding school shooting (2012-12-14). This was a summary of the proposals.
- Education: Chronicle of Higher Education (2009-12-16). This was a discussion thread that started out as a question on how to promote student confidence that got complicated.
- Music: What is this song? (2011-12-22).
Comments
Comments:
You must be logged in to comment on this page. Please log in.
2009-12-08 21:34:24 Hey there Edgar. You were my TA in 157B. Anyway, it's good to see you've been recognized for being such an awesome TA. —WilliamLewis
- I remember you, you were a happy student! —EdgarWai
2009-12-09 09:55:14 What kind of game are you trying to design? —CraigFergus
- I did 2D space shooting and 3D combat with DirectX with Visual C++, but I think I should use a game engine or at least use OpenGL. DirectX was a mess. Because I have been working on my thesis and stuff recently I just do 2D Macromedia Flash (platformer and puzzle), and table-top puzzle game, and most recently I just do interactive story (text). I personally am not into playing computer games. I think I just find it fun to program games but not really playing them. I get motion sickness looking at first-person shooter and flight sim. I would be most interested in designing 3D fighting, 2D shooter, platformer, puzzle, or educational games. I could also design levels and AI for 3D shooters but I will throw up if I were to play test it. Do you write or want to write games?—EdgarWai
2011-11-22 01:03:56 amateur radio? Have you heard of the HAM repeater in LA? —StevenDaubert
- I am so out of the loop. Did something happen to HAM in LA? —EdgarWai
There is a ham repeater in LA that is pretty popular for some reason Daubert
2011-11-25 12:23:36 Edgar, thanks you for your contributions to November 18, 2011 UC Davis Police Response to Occupy UC Davis. I wish you well in you information quest. I replied to your comments there. —BruceHansen
2011-11-26 06:52:03 As of right now nearing 100,000 people have signed the petition, so much more people than edited that wiki page. I think the Nov18 page is complicated enough without a survey. I'm not quite sure where you can put anything like that on the wiki to a good effect. Perhaps on the Katehi's page would be a better location. —RobRoy
2011-11-26 11:15:46 It feels terrible to speak against the decision of 70K (now 100K) neighbors. By terrible I meant the feeling you get when your heart is carved out. At this moment, the police and the chancellor no longer have a fair channel to communicate. Everything they say would sound like an excuse. There is something not right about this. During a protest, I think the university faces these concerns (ordered alphabetically): o Diversion of police that is scheduled for other tasks o Diversion of resources and staff that were schedule for other tasks o Non-protester safety and health o Paying overtime for police and other resources o Potential lawsuits for any wrong doing o Property damage o Protesters safety and health
The chancellor has to make decisions that balances the concerns of many stakeholders. The way I understood the event, the chancellor agreed to let students camp over night on Thursday night, but on Friday night, the chancellor couldn't let them continue in the weekend because there won't be enough staff to protect them or to protect the campus from them. I am not saying that the protesters were expected to damage anything, but I don't think it is sensible for the chancellor to place no additional staff. I believe that the chancellor asked the protesters to remove the camp by 3pm was done in good faith. By 3:30pm, the tents were not removed, not because they took longer than expected to remove, but that the remaining protesters had no intention to remove them. (If this is wrong, could someone correct me?) At this point, I think it is fair to say that the protesters did not cooperate in good-faith. Why is it so important to stay there in the weekend? Why not just return on Monday? Were they looking for an opportunity to escalate the situation.
Comparing the videos during Nov18 and those afterwards, it is true that those afterward look much more peaceful. But this should not erase the fact that on Nov18, the protesters did not act in good faith when they decided to stay.
With this said, I tend to agree that the police was using excess force. In my personal opinion, the police are responsible for these (ordered alphabetically): o Every time they dispatch to do something, the other locations are not covered, they may not be able to response to other events, that they do not know if the protesters, or any outsiders may use that opportunity to do something bad. Therefore, when the police shows up, they are not there to negotiate. They must act as quickly as they can so that the campus does not remain vulnerable. o If they call for mutual aid from the City of Davis, then the security of the City is also jeopardized. The potential threat is not just from the protesters that we could see. o The possession of their equipment, the ones they own or the ones they borrowed. o The safety of fellow officers. o The safety of the protesters. o The safety of the surrounding students
By the time the police showed up, the negotiation phase was already over. The protesters had already refused to comply.
In any case, I think pepper spraying was a wrong decision. I don't know who made the decision. And according to the references, it wasn't even lawful. I have no clue how that happened. I also don't understand the following:
1) Lt. Pike showed the pepperspray to the crowd, but not to the protesters he was about to shoot. To me that meant that he was not trying to warn the protesters, but to warn the surrounding students. But to be fair, he had already talked to the student and even got consent to use pepperspray on them:
Pike: [garbled ]... That pepper spray gun... [garbled] [pats Willee on the back again and starts walking back to the rest of the police] Willee: No, that's fine. That's fine. You're shooting us for sitting here.
I believe what Willee meant was, "It is so wrong that you shoot us for sitting here. You know that you will pay for what you do right?" It was a warning from Willee to Pike. So in this case, both of them had warned each other and could expect what was going to happen.
2) Just before Pike was going to spray, the police officers outside the circle tried to pick up the students, but Pike waved them away. What I want to know is this: Did the UC Davis police try to pick up the sitting students?
3) Many people had comment on Pike's emotional expression when he was spraying the protesters. I want to know, what expression was he supposed to have?
Could we adhere to the concept that people are innocent until proven otherwise, and hold off the judgement until we have facts? Suppose the police had done what they did in good faith, but made terrible mistakes, who is left to protect the police? —EdgarWai
2011-11-29 23:25:46 There is already a legislative proposals section on the budget page — did you notice that? —CovertProfessor
- I didn't see that, sorry. —EdgarWai
2011-11-30 01:37:55 Edgar, just letting you know since it's on this page: Willee was actually Case. —BruceHansen
2011-12-25 17:18:10 Remove the underscores. Also, do you really see this as just a business review site? —JabberWokky
- I don't see this as a business review site. I was referring to what I thought the complaint was about. Different people value DavisWiki for different reasons. For each reason, there might be a different demographic. Since I do not come from her perspective, I was trying to see it from the way she intended to use it to see what the problem was. I personally don't see this as a business review site. I see it as an information site / guide. I value it for its information, reviews, and the discussion about community issues. I don't have anything against anyone who would use it just to look up others' experience with local businesses, I think that is a legitimate use, and people who only review businesses are legitimate contributors. I am sorry that it didn't sound right. —EdgarWai
- 2011-12-26 09:14:04 No worries. It makes complete sense when you explain that it was in the context of a particular slice of the wiki. —JabberWokky
2011-12-27 09:47:34 I don't quite understand your last edit to the Identity/Talk page. Who said something about the number of incoming links? (It's a fair point, but I don't see who you are responding to). And why are you referencing JW in your comments? I just feel like you're responding to something that I missed. —CovertProfessor
2011-12-27 10:47:23 I'm utterly confused as well. Is JW referring to me? I doubt I'm the primary linker to that page, and I don't think I wrote most of it (although some of my stuff elsewhere may have been incorporated). —JabberWokky
2011-12-27 12:16:51 I ask because what you wrote makes it look like I'm against pseudonyms, when I've been a long term supporter of them; you seem to be misrepresenting my position. Note that I'm against aggressive anonymous accounts ("FuckYouNeustrom" springs to mind), or role accounts (where multiple people are using a single account and/or implying a greater jurisdiction), but those are fairly specific and different than the position you seem to be implying on my behalf. You also imply that I'm the only one who links there, when I believe I'm fairly far down in the list of people who use that entry when welcoming people. —JabberWokky
- I was referring to SD's comment on AFB's user page, which was referring to the links at RealName page. There are many links under "Links to this page", I randomly clicked on some of them, and I saw histories like this. I didn't click on all of the links, but it occurred to me after a number of clicks, that the you (JabberWokky) needs that page so that you don't need to repeat the typing the same information. I was talking about this because SD was pointing out that it is unnecessary to delete RealName page, and I agree that it might not be just unnecessary, but disruptive, because it looks like that page is part of the workflow: Someone comes with a pseudoname and makes a comment, then you greet them by telling them your real name with a link to the explanation of the importance of real name. After clicking more links, I can see that you are not the only one using RealName page that way. I don't see anything wrong in particular in this process. It just goes to show the diligence in trying to be friendly and in explaining what the community is about. —EdgarWai
- I can't speak for everyone, but I try to have a few points in each welcome: comment on their edit, ask a question, etc. Basically, start a conversation that hopefully makes them feel welcome. Sometimes there's simply not much more to go on other than their name, and I try to phrase it to where it's pretty clear it's not a requirement, just a slice of what makes the wiki different from big internet sites. -jw
2011-12-28 14:08:54 Edgar, there's a stigma attached to a lot of topics having to deal with sexual assault and/or domestic violence. For an example, click that Enterprise link from my comment. Read the article, then go down through the comments. Victims aren't just concerned about the accuser; the fear of judgement and potentially retaliation from bystanders or the general public is huge. Again, read those comments on the Enterprise article. Think about what victims already went through, and then to get a response like that when you reach for help...it's devastating. Absolutely devastating. There's a whole lot of good (and safety) in anonymity. —EdWins
- I am not asking or demanding people to be open, I am just saying that that is ultimate goal. The prejudice in society needs to be fixed to achieve that. There is a lot of good and safety in anonymity in our current society, but we are trying to build a better future. I hope this makes sense. A lot of people have to make that happen, and the change starts not at the attacked, but at the support circle of the attacked (e.g. the bystanders). There is a problem when people treat others with a stigma and that should change. —EdgarWai
2011-12-28 15:04:28 The signup page is for Wiki Spot and applies to thousands of wikis with radically different cultures, not just Davis Wiki. —JabberWokky
- Do you mean that it is the norm that thousands of wikis of radically different cultures are all using real name? —EdgarWai
2012-01-02 11:59:03 You say that you want to learn about editing the wiki, but you're missing the first step: listening. You already suggested having editors clean up the chronology for others; I explained why I thought that was a bad idea, but rather than responding to that, you asked again. More importantly, when I said my primary reasons for stopping editing the page were that editors are fried and it's winter break, you re-interpreted that in terms of a general rule, even though I said it wasn't, and then show that you didn't really listen to what I'd said in any case because you continue to edit the Talk page! Well, *I* am fried, and I don't have the patience to continue the conversation right now. Perhaps someone else does, but again, I'd ask you to let it go for now. —CovertProfessor
* When you asked me to stop, I thought you were asking me to stop editing the article, which I did. Please feel free not to reply on my explanation on the Talk page until you are ready. I listened to your reason, but it did not make sense to me. On the Talk page, I explained that your reason was equivalent to asking fellow editors not to fix typos. If someone tells me a reason and that reason does not make sense, I have the responsibility to give feedback. Otherwise no one will know that there is miscommunication. My reply was necessary to confirm the miscommunication. Again, please feel free to reply it later. Also please feel free to make changes (reverts) when you are ready. I just want to see the reason of the reverts if you do. I have an explanation about your comment on general rule when you are ready to revisit it. Please understand that I have already stopped editing, and I did not impose any deadline. You have the full control of the pace of this conversation. It is up to you to decide when you want to reply. Please reply only when you are ready. I would also appreciate if you would specify when a group term like "editors" includes yourself. When you replied earlier, I assumed that you were ready and was outside of that group because you were able to reply. Please recognize that you have the control of the flow. Sorry for the confusion. —EdgarWai
2012-01-02 19:42:17 Rearranging a section is not the same as fixing a typo. It's a larger change that chains the structure and layout of the page. Consider that in regards to the previous request, and maybe it would make sense to want more editors coming in after the holiday break with fresh thoughts and ideas on how to proceed. The fact that no one has asked other people not to fix typos, but you were asked to take a break on some of the editing, should be proof that it's not the same type of editing. Nor at least, not in the eyes of other editors (even if it is for you.) Speaking of typos, a few in my comment (curses on autocorrect sometimes) I'm commenting via a smartphone. —EdWins
ES: May I confirm that you are talking about the items in the current "Timeline" section of the Nov18 page? I am asking this because most of the links there were already in chronological order. It is not a typical section with text intertwined. Please also check the "Scrambled Timeline" section in the Talk page, which showed that before I started changing (back in Nov before the break), I asked about it, and in the way I interpreted the responses, I got unanimous support chronological order. When JW said 'horrified', I believed that he was referring to BH's suggestion. Please confirm whether we are talking about the same context. —EdgarWai
2012-02-16 22:22:38 I deleted the talk page, as it seemed to have degraded into theoretical discussions that nobody was really reading or responding to. —JabberWokky I agree that it should be deleted but not for the reason you stated. If you are in such a hurry to turn off the light that you don't have time to ask if someone is still in the room, you should just ask the person in the room to turn off the light when they leave. They way you decided to delete the page like this is shocking to me. You may be used to doing it this way because you are familiar with the norms of Wiki, but I would make a note not to do it especially when a new editor is involved. —EW
- Whups. Sorry about that. I thought that everybody there was pretty much done with the discussion. Who was new? -jw
- I am new. —EW
- Ah. With six years of editing the wiki and over 170 edits, I wouldn't have considered you new at all. You're actually one of the more experienced editors, in the top 2% of all contributors. Sorry if I made any assumptions. If you consider yourself so new that you are unfamiliar with the basic mechanics of the wiki, why are you generating such large volumes of expository material? I'm not saying you shouldn't, it just seems an odd contradiction. -jw
- Six years ago all I did was to post a photograph of Putah creek. Then a few years after I created my user page. It was only in Nov 2011 I started actually editing pages. I never discussed anything on Davis Wiki before that. My online interaction background is in forum discussion. That was why my contribution stayed in comments, because that resembles posts, which I was familiar with. I was new to the editing pages. The simplest things I could do to a page is to add links, that looks most obvious how it should be done so I started with that. That was why when I started editing links, I stopped myself and ask if there was any problem with my edit. In that case there was a problem because I edited too many things at once, and CP told me to break it down into sessions so that people can tell what got changed. There will still be a time gap before I feel comfortable editing content written by someone else. I do not know when I would delete a page. In terms of mechanics, I looked up some tags, and I think the next tag I want to learn to use is the Anchor tag. When I say I am new, I meant I don't get what I am supposed to do at different situations here. For example, I don't know when to reply to your comment on my user page on my user page, or on your user page. Since I come from forums, it would make sense to me to reply where the question was asked. I don't understand why in a conversation like this there is a need to indent. Tonight I noticed that there was a yellow box on the upper right corner that said "Message!" I was clicking on it, thinking "when did someone implement a PM box?" Then I realized that that box meant someone commented on my user page. So overall I consider myself new, especially when it comes to the philosophy of editing page contents. —EW
- No worries. I think you might be over thinking things. This is just a bunch of people working within a common area. There's no "right way" or "wrong way" to do anything per se, just a series of actions by various people with various motivations. If there's any conflict in vision, it's just discussed between whatever individuals happen to be at hand. You're looking for hard rules when there aren't any. Just as with conversations over a table, there are many common conventions that prevent us all from speaking over each other, but there are a slew of exceptions. For instance, somebody suddenly standing on a table and shouting at a discussion would generally be considered bad, but if they are shouting the news that their spouse just had a child and that they are a new parent, the reaction tends to be smiles and applause. The conventions are social, fluid and held by the participants, just as in any culture. Of course, as fits what I am saying, it's just my view, and other people might differ... but then, that pretty much also supports the above statements. Feel free if you wish to reply here or on my editor profile entry. There's no "official way" to do it. People just communicate. -jw
2012-02-17 07:37:39 You "summarized" your long-winded digressions on the pepper spray page by shortening yours and by deleting the replies that others had made. Some of those replies are no longer relevant, but some of them still are. Deleting others' replies is hardly the action of someone who claims to show both sides. What, are others supposed to figure out how to reply again? It was torturous enough having to reply to you the first time. —CovertProfessor
- I did not simply delete the replies. They are in the link of (...). I did that because I need to clear it to make it easier to scroll. That is just the first steps of my edits, I am not done yet. Let me explain my intended procedure:
This is my plan. If you have further questions about my intention, please keep asking, because now that I am alternating between editing and replying other questions, there would be no hindrance in my trying to think through the problem. If you believe that the Article should revert to the version before I collapsed the discussion, please do so. Ultimately I don't care what is on that Article, I just need a way to work on the solution. If my way of trying to find a solution creates a problem, you should let me know, I will find another way. For example, if you reverted it, then I will be looking at the collapsed version when I do my analysis. I readily collapsed mine because I already know what was said there. I can't readily collapse other people's discussion because I don't feel comfortably doing it and I need time to read what they said. Last night I had only gotten to your comment, which was just the 4th segment out of 33 segment from the beginning of that section. —EW
I have several replies. In my opinion:
-
It is not polite to other editors to raise a bunch of concerns, decide later that it's made a mess, and then delete their responses to you. You've left your own comments on the page while hiding others comments in links; it's not even clear what is being linked to, or why anyone ought to bother to click on the "...". Regardless of what your intention was, that was what you did. This is not your own personal page, where it is appropriate to collapse discussions so that you can conduct your own personal analysis. You could just copy whichever bits you like to a word processor on your own computer. Also, another way of dealing with the mess that you initiated is to create a separate page, as was done with Crying Girl Con Artist/Discussion. You would then move entire discussions, not just parts of the discussion.
-
You say you are aiming to list the most important questions. You've already shown yourself not to be very good at understanding the viewpoints of others. Here is an example where you give a long list of reasons why people would sign a petition against Katehi, yet most of these are insulting, and, I would argue, you fail to identify the reasons that most people would sign. (I added my own reason later. Of course, that's not on the page anymore, since you deleted it). In short, I am not confident that you can understand what others take to be the most important questions.
-
For similar reasons, I am not confident of your ability to determine what factors are relevant to resolving facts. Indeed, I would question the suggestion that the answers can be resolved in an objective way at all, by anyone. People have differing values about the issues surrounding the pepper spraying, and the wiki is not a place where those values can be sorted out.
To summarize, I suggest you stick to presenting your own view of things and not try to present the viewpoints of others, or not try to present an unbiased resolution of facts, since you have shown yourself (in the edit I have linked to and other edits) not to be very good at it, and since it's not clear that the wiki is the appropriate place for this sort of analysis. If you really want to perform an analysis of the events, then I encourage you to do it elsewhere. What you are proposing goes beyond cleaning up the page or including alternate viewpoints, both of which would be fine. —CovertProfessor
- I collapsed the comments in response to JW and EdWinS's earlier comments that DaviWiki is not suitable for long posts. According to JT, the problem is that long posts are hard to read. The suggestion was that I write shorter posts. I did not do so just to conduct my analysis. I did so because the content that I collapsed was unimportant to the argument. In the following I will explain why the subsequent comments are unimportant.
- Collapse 1: Why are people ready to sign the petition. I collapsed this because that segment is not in chronological order. On Nov22, there was a townhall meeting that I was not aware. This creates unnecessary confusion. I collapsed it because this can be included when I answer the question: "How did the Admin and the Protesters perceive each other?" The question will summarize the content, because according to the Nathan Brown, if the Admin intentionally sent police to evict the Protesters forcefully, it speaks something about the stance between the Admin and the Protesters. It would show that they were already no cooperating, that one side decided to force affect some goal after communication had broken down. This in itself does not tell which side caused the communication breakdown. That part could be answered if we look at a subsequent question: "What have the Admin and the Protesters done to improve cooperation?" Since these questions cover the meaning of this comment, I collapsed the comment. For this comment, you said that some of the points I made were insulting. Would you pick the first or the most insulting statement? I will then address that statement. I don't think that I should need to guess which statement is insulting. You should be able to tell me.
- If you can't figure out why half of your options were insulting, we have bigger problems. But just to humor you, we can start with the one implying those who sign are spineless and just giving into peer pressure, or that they are signing even though they don't know what happened. Or how about under the options for those who haven't signed? Apparently they are more considerate and wary of signing for an "unjust cause." -M. P.S. The rest of your post is way too long to wade through. This is as far as I could go. Consider being more succinct if you expect responses.
- The first option you mentioned was this: "e) Everyone is signing the petition, if I don't sign it my friends won't talk to me." I put it because I felt the peer pressure personally. I recognized people in the protest because of WEF or some other events. After the pepper spray incident, I met with Skyler at the Occupy Davis camp. I could not tell if the protest was correct or not. We did not talk about it, but online, I found the petition unreasonable and unjustified. I couldn't go to WEF last year because I was busy. I wanted to go this year, but I do not know how to show up and to introduce myself one by one. The direction of the protest did not match what I learned about peace and the concept of family. I did not know how to bring it up. Although I had so much doubt about the merit of the petition, I still felt the pressure to sign it. Every point I listed on that comment, was something I felt personally during the days between Nov18 to Nov24 when I tried to decide what I should do. It wasn't meant to be "fair", but truthful to how I felt. It wasn't meant to be an insult. That was how I felt. I couldn't say for the other perspective because I felt really isolated. May I know your reason to ask for the Chancellor to resign? One of my main objection, is that there should be at least a known replacement better than her before we ask for her resignation. Do you know such a candidate? If not, why do you think that it is not necessary? —EW
- Collapse 2: Have the protesters apologized. I collapsed this because this can be covered by the question, "What have the Admin and the Protesters done to improve cooperation?" My intention is to list the actions that the Admin and the Protesters have done since the event (and ideally, also before the event). When they are compared side-by-side, it should be clear who has been doing want to support cooperation. When you read this, you may feel that my view is biased because for those who signed the petition to oust Katehi, they have already declared that they have no intention to cooperate with her. They want her gone. However, my view is based on the principle of a global family where you would never intentionally try to eliminate a family member if there is a chance that they could change and become cooperative. According to this view, unless the Protesters could show that there is no chance for the situation to improve as long as Katehi stays, the Protesters do not have the correct intention for their action. You said that I am not qualified to summarize other people's point of views, but you have misunderstood my intention. I am not trying to summarize anyone's point of view, but to frame my point of view based on what I think the others do not understand. I cannot accurately explain my standpoint unless I know where people are standing. For example, it did not occur to me to explain the concept of cooperation like this to explain why there was something wrong in the protesters' action. I thought my first comment was enough, "Fundamentally, we are non-violent not because it is "effective", but because we see one another as family members in the same house. Non-violence is not a tactic. We do it because we love people, that includes the police, and the chancellor. This has nothing to do with what they might have done to us. This has only to do with who we are." When I say I am working on a fair discussion, I do not mean that I am going to say thing on behalf of everyone. I meant that everyone should continue to present their perspectives. You show your side of the story, I show my side of the story. Being fair does not mean excluding biased comments. Here are some additional reason why I collapsed this comment. In the beginning of the comment, BH questioned whether the protesters encircled the police. I showed evidence that the student did, but BH never replied. It was my judgement that that comment was unimportant. Then CP mis-attributed the term "trapped" to me. This was also unimportant because they did not address my question. Then the content turned into something more suitable for Talk and were quite irrelevant to the Article. (That was before the time I started posting on Talk.) I reasoned that section should have been in Talk, and Talk just got deleted by JW, I might as well hide that also.
- Collapse 3: Annotated Fact Sheet. I hide this comment because it is covered by the questions: "How Admin and Protesters see each other?" and "What have they done since?" Since the incident, I have been observing (and continues to observe) your intention to find fault in other people's explanation. In some sense, I appreciate your effort and encourage you continue to do so. The reason is that I am not here to take side, but to find the truth and to solve a problem. If you are a "prosecutor" who is motivated and has every intention to find fault about the Administration, the Police, and the Chancellor, then I think it is safe for me to say that if anyone of them did anything wrong, you will have that hemisphere covered. What is missing though, is the other half of the hemisphere to address the possibilities when the Admin, Police, and the Chancellor are innocent. If no one tries to see it the other way, it would be bad for the society. I am in no way stopping you from explaining your perspective, and finding facts and presenting them in a way that supports your case. By the same token, you should have no reason to stop me from doing the same. You should have every reason to encourage me to keep posting on the Article, to discuss in Talk, and to analyze it here as I see fit. For this comment section, I also collapsed it because I felt that your replies to my explanation were not strong enough logically. And you lack acknowledgement on whether a certain discussion point is resolved. Take the first comment for example. The annotators said the Fact Sheet omitted the purpose of the protest. I said that the Admin does not know the intention of the protesters as facts. You said that the protesters had expressed their intention many times. I then explained that you can't tell what the intention is based on what someone says. You did not reply. Would you confirm whether you understand this difference? If you understand this difference, you should see that your comment was meaningless. You misunderstood my message, and I was explaining it to teach you what it meant. You did not address the actual point of the message. Overall, if you believe that there was any point in that annotated discussion you found particularly important, I think that YOU should add a comment or highlight that in the Concerns section. There is no reason why I am the only one doing this.
- Importance: I listed at least three questions so far, they are "1) How did the Admin and the Protesters see each other?" "2) Did their cooperation improve as a result?", and "3) What should I do?" You claim that these are not the most important questions for the others. I agree also, but in the sense that I do not think that people understand what the most important questions are. I think that they are too distracted and do not see the big picture. As such, I should make it very clear again that I am not trying to re-iterate what people say are important to them. I am looking at the whole situation, to ask, "What are the most important question?" It is highly likely that I do not know the most important questions, because I have been expressing this principle ever since my first comment on the Article. If I knew them back then and no one else did, I would be some sort of Sage wouldn't it??? Given that it is highly likely that I get it wrong, and that is the default expectation, what do you think are the most important questions, and how would you justify that they are more important? If you could justify your perspective, I should focus on your questions.
- Diversity: You wrote: "I would question the suggestion that the answers can be resolved in an objective way at all, by anyone." I understand this statement this way: You definitely do not know how to resolve differences in any objective way, and on top of that you don't believe that anyone could do it. Let's stop here for a second. Do you confirm that this is a correct interpretation of your statement? If you confirm, then I can continue the explanation. If you believe that you wrote it wrong, or that it is misinterpreted, please change it or explain. In the mean time, I think that it might be important to me to write something about ethics in a discussion
One of the ethics in a discussion, is that if I ask you something, and you postpone your answer by asking me the same question, and I answer that same question, you should then answer the question also. Another important ethics is that if you accuse me of something, then I explain it, you should declare whether you accusation was ungrounded. In many occasions, this type of ethical standard is absence in discussion. I do not remember who did what or didn't do what. But from now on, may I have your word that you will follow these two ethical guidelines in any discussion, regardless whether you are discussion with me or with someone else? I declare that I will follow this guideline. If you choose not to follow it it is also okay. I will still reply. I just need to gauge the ethics of this community to determine how much I need to explain. —EdgarWai
2012-02-19 19:23:13 Hi Edgar, I have been keeping an eye in your page because I thought you brought some interesting points to the table regarding the UCD Pepper Spray Incident. However, now I am wondering where you get all the time to write so much about your thought processes and opinions. Is there a way that you can make your valuable contribution to the wiki that I think you want to make without so much verbage? I'm pretty sure I (we) would still understand and respect your points. Just an idea or 3...
- “My father always said that too many words cheapened the value of a man's speech.” — Patricia Briggs
- It is with words as with sunbeams, the more they are condensed, the deeper they burn —Robert Southey
-
Loud speech, profusion of words, and possessing skillfulness in expounding scriptures are merely for the enjoyment of the learned. They do not lead to liberation.— Adi Shankaracharya (c. 650) Hindu reformer
- Am I allowed to edit what I wrote to make them shorter? If I cannot reply because it would make the post too long, may I insert a special word to signify my intention to write more, but I have ran out of words? —EW
- I'm not one to tell what or what not to do, everyone can edit, but I can say less is more. — jsbmeb
- I will try to write less. I beg for your patience. —EW
2012-02-20 19:08:31 I agree that Davis Wiki is not suitable for long posts — thus, my suggestion to move the discussion onto another page, as has been done with Crying Girl Con Artist/Discussion and other discussions that got too long.
I disagree that the content you deleted was either summarized or unimportant. I am not going to respond to your longwinded post with a longwinded reply, because the simple fact is this: I am one of the people whose comments were deleted. I am saying that you did not accurately summarize my views, and while you may think that what I said was unimportant or not relevant, I disagree. The wiki is meant to reflect the diverse views of its community.
If you feel that your views are not addressed adequately, then please add them. But do not attempt to summarize; again, you've shown that you do not do this well. You seem to think that you are seeing things objectively, without taking any position on the matter, but it is obvious to others (at least, obvious to me) that you do at least have certain biases about how the issues should be resolved. Again, that's fine, as long as you don't impose your viewpoint on the rest of the page.
I am going to revert the discussion, and then move it to another page. —CovertProfessor
- How do you define "impose". Could you give an instance where I imposed my viewpoint? What do you think my viewpoint is? If you could not show that I impose my view onto anyone, is it equally valid for me to say that you are imposing your viewpoint that I am imposing my viewpoint on to others? What is the difference between expressing a viewpoint versus "imposing" it onto others? How did you make the judgement to say that I did more than expressing my viewpoint and correcting other's misinterpretation of it? —EW
- When you came and added your views to the page, that was expressing your viewpoint and not imposing. When others replied to you, they were expressing their viewpoints and not imposing. However, when you deleted those replies, saying they were unimportant, then you were imposing your view of what is important and relevant. —CovertProfessor
- Before we continue, could you acknowledge that when you say "delete", you don't mean that I simply deleted the comments, but that I left a link to show the full content. It was a code-less implementation of a feature that Davis Wiki does not have. For this discussion it is important for you to acknowledge this, because here at Davis Wiki, when we commonly say "delete" we mean to erase without any trace. This was not what I did. Do you understand why you must acknowledge this to make the discussion fair? If you understand it, please explicit acknowledge it. It would need to be done every time a new section of discussion starts and you choose to use the word "delete". If you don't do it I would have to attach this explanation. After you acknowledge this, we can talk more about what constitutes "imposing" and we could go back to an instance your found important and discuss its relevance. Do you acknowledge that your "delete" means my "collapse"? —EdgarWai
- Are you serious here? -jw
- You did, in fact, delete others' comments off the page. Nothing is ever erased permanently off of the wiki (except the rare case in which an administrator permanently deletes personal information that should never have been posted); the wiki saves all the edits made. So, in addition to deleting others' comments, you made an ellipsis and linked to those saved edits with the ellipsis as a link. You decided, all on your own (that is, without consulting other editors) to implement a new way of handling others' comments that you found to be unimportant and irrelevant. This is in spite of the fact that the wiki has a longstanding tradition of respecting the comments of others by not modifying or deleting them. When you deleted those comments off the page, the effect was to demote those comments and to make them less obvious; the effect was to give those comments a lesser status. That action was, in my opinion, completely unacceptable. Again, not only was it not consistent with past wiki practice, it would set a bad precedent for businesses who want to demote comments that they deem "unimportant" and "irrelevant." And let me be clear — this is about respecting the views of other editors enough to let those comments stand on the same page with your comments, regardless of how strongly you feel that you are right about those comments' irrelevance. —cp
- Reminds me of the time you guys deleted my Ban William page. -JT
- You, in fact, were the one who finally deleted it. Twice. —cp
- Sure, I did do the last two deletes, but it was definitely deleted a few more time before that. My deletes ended a long, protracted weekend of back and forth fighting that was getting us nowhere. Doesn't mean I can't still be bitter about it. —JT
- You can be bitter all you like, but it shows that it was ultimately your decision to end the discussion and ultimately your deletion of your comments and others' comments. And you'll note that I was not one of the ones to delete the page, so accusing me of inconsistency doesn't seem quite fair. —CovertProfessor
2012-02-22 07:38:45 Edgar, are you aware that you've written nearly 7,000 words for that discussion page? 6,912, in fact. Most of it seems to be trying to create a systematic analysis of every possible reason for any argument against your viewpoint and rebutting it before anyone can make it. You're running into two problems here. The first is that very few people are going to have the patience to engage on this scope on the wiki. I enjoy a lively discussion, but I don't want to have to read or write a book just to jump in. It feels like work trying to read through your comments. The second problem is that nobody likes being dismissed with a straw man. Your repeated approach of trying to categorize every possible response to you really does amount to that: you're creating straw man arguments and rejecting them.
"The less you talk the more you're listened to" - Abigail Van Buren (aka Dear Abbey)
We have an include (basically a tag you can add to a page) for discussion like this on the wiki:
 |
| The comments for this entry overwhelmingly reflect a single or small minority of individuals. They are repeatedly posting comments that make similar points or are adding long essays that overwhelm the voice of others. Keep this in mind when reading the comments. |
- I understand that I write a lot, but I do so because people started misinterpreting my intention, so every reply I had to insert explanation. In your comment here, you made two claims without references. The first claim is that I rebut something before anyone can make it. The second claim is that I create straw man. Could you be more specific and cite the instances where I did so? It is important for you to cite it so that I know exactly what we are talking about. —EW
You know, on reviewing some of the posts, I think I conflated your edits with some of the other controversies that were going on around the same time. You were not making straw man arguments. I apologize. The first problem still remains, though: the sheer volume of questions and analysis creates a barrier to entry into the discussion. —TomGarberson
- Edgar, I would like to suggest, if you truly are interested in a discussion, you wait for people to participate and answer/discuss the questions you have raised. Then, it will not be so overwhelming. Until then, save your part of the "discussion" until you see some feedback. Right now you are raising question after question and it's bordering on over analyzation. You may find that if you back off, we won't be so focused on you and more on your topic questions (that is, in fact, if that's what you want and not more attention). —jsbmeb
- Your suggestion did not work in another forum, because when I have a hidden stack of questions, and deal them one by one, people would accuse me of trying to drag on the discussion. Because of that, I disclose all questions I have at once. What protocol should I use to protect myself? If I deal out questions one by one, should I first compose the entire set and send it to you, so that there is time-stamped proof that I was not trolling? I think that it is equally important, or perhaps more important to change people's perspective of questions. When someone asks a question, the person reading it should cherish it because the person asking the question is opening up and trying to show exactly what keeps them apart. The person bring up the question is trying to get it resolved so that cooperation can happen. If people adopt this perspective, then it wouldn't matter if I deal out questions one by one or by batch. When you see a list of questions, you should feel like you just picked up some treasure. —EW
- When I see a list of questions, I feel like I just picked up the final exam for a course on philosophy and ethics, and am dreading writing 15 essays. I'm hesitant in writing a comment to you, because I worry I'll be asked to break it down. Edgar, you note that people in a different forum accused you of dragging on discussions by asking too many questions. It seems that people on the wiki have responded similarly and repeatedly on the length and the conditions you ask others to follow in discussions. A quick thought that occurs to me is that you seem to think that everybody else should adopt your communication stylings because they're better, for lack of a better word. My instinctual reaction is that some of the ideals you support are clearly from a minority standpoint, and I'm not sure whether you realize that. If you realize that your approach is either a minority opinion, or is seen to others as being rare or uncommon, it might help explain why people (both on the wiki, and any other forum you utilize) do not seem to respond positively to your tactics in the way that you would. Even here, people have told you that they want to try to discuss with you, but you're creating massive barriers to entry in the length of your comments, your conditions, and huge list of questions. If your style isn't working, perhaps you should realize that you're not giving people treasure they should cherish, but instead giving them flashbacks of final exams and long essays. -ES
- There is something I can clarify in your comment, but that is not as important as this: given that length is an obstacle, what should be done to reduce the obstacle? Note that even if I start to post shorter now, it will not remove the text that already exists. Do you grant me the discretion to shorten it? Otherwise, what is your suggestion? —EW
2012-02-23 01:44:39 yeah, people tend to misconstrue my meaning all the time, it got to the point of where I had to explain my rationale / thought process to avoid undue blarghing —StevenDaubert
- If this happens again would you let me know? I want to see why it happens. —EW
CP added a warning to my workspace. I deleted it for two independently sufficient reasons: 1) That edit was done inside my workspace. 2) The added text was redundant to the passage. In the scenario, When Mary acknowledges John's alert, she is also acknowledging that John's explanation. If Mary had any problem with John's explanation, they are resolved at the same time. If you want to comment on it please do so here. —EW
- As a brief note, all content on the wiki is owned by the community, including everything above. Profiles are edited fairly often by a variety of editors, although admittedly less often than other, more collaborative prone entries. ⁓ʝ⍵
- For example, if you were to put up a string of profanity-laden insults about the Chancellor on this page, I would delete them. (Yes, delete). Not that I think you would do that, but it illustrates the point that a person's user page is not entirely their own to do with as they wish. More to the point, I was fairly sure that you would delete what I had written. I didn't write it with the intention of it staying. I had two other reasons for writing it. One reason was so that you could experience the same thing that I experience when you write these little rules on your page, namely, the experience of someone accusing you of acting unethically "intentionally or not" without actually stating anything directly to that person. That is quite rude, in my opinion, and not at all the action of someone who is trying to promote communication, as you claim to be doing. The second reason was that your claim that *I* was the one who was misusing the word "delete" was outrageous, when it was in fact you who decided to invent your own usage of the term instead of using the commonsense meaning of "remove from the page." —CovertProfessor
- I understand the ownership of the text, but I was talking about ethics, not ownership. As an analogy, suppose I am going to write something to criticize the university, and the medium I write on belongs to the university. It is not ethical for the university to change my words even if they own the medium. It was about ethics, not ownership. Just because the university owns it doesn't make it right for them to change its words. Since these topics have come up a few times, I think I should write something about the difference and relation between "lawful", "ethical", and "honorable." The gist is this: what can be considered lawful is usually just a subset of what is ethical. When a person tries to reason what is right based on the law, they are omitting the majority of the argument. And to some extend, that is how we get "crooks"—people who obey the law by do it in a way that take advantages of its loopholes to their own benefits. —EW
- To CP: I deny your accusation. The following is an explanation. I agree that I should tell you directly if I find something I dislike about you. I agree that it is wrong if I don't tell you, but instead make fun of your behind your back, or accuse you of being unethical in another medium. I deny your accusation because I DID tell you directly that I thought you were being unethical. This is the proof. In the proof, I told you directly what I felt and what I was going to do. I asked you to confirm whether you would follow the same ethical standard. Then I added the section about ethics. Therefore I deny your accusation. By my ethical standard, you should state whether you withdraw your accusation, because your intention to retaliate was based on your false understanding of the chronology. I did not do what you thought I did to deserve your demonstration on my workspace. If you could justify your accusation, please specify your chronology. In addition, may I have your word that if you think that I did something wrong, that you will continue to tell me directly and discuss it here, without mocking me elsewhere where I do not visit? If you do not follow that standard it is not my responsibility to force it onto you. If you have a better standard, please explain. I also want to emphasize that my section on ethics is anonymous and does not serve to persecute anyone. I wrote it to as a separate section because people shouldn't need to see these conversations to see the list. —EW
- You continue to insist that your way is the right way and that everything should be done your way, even though you are the one who has blundered onto this wiki with little appreciation or respect for the way things are already done. I have no reason to agree to any of your terms. I expressed the viewpoints that I hold. If you don't accept them, fine, but I will not retract them because you disbelieve them or because you have different criteria than I have for making them. I say once again that for someone who professes to be interested in communication and conflict resolution, you have a lot to learn. You cannot engage in these processes by insisting that everyone do things the way that you do. You have to learn that reasonable people can disagree on some topics, and that there is more than one way to do things. —CovertProfessor
- I agree that I have a lot to learn. But according to what you say, could you disclose your way of handling it? Are you more effective, or equally ineffective? What lessons can you teach me? For instance, how should I have shown respect for the community? —EW
- Since you asked, my advice: "Listen" more and write less. Genuinely contribute to the wiki by adding content to pages about which you have an interest; don't just focus on one or two hotly contended pages. Don't use the wiki as a personal platform to learn about human behavior and to devise communication rules, and then insist that others follow them. See how others are editing the wiki and recognize that while practices can change, and that you can be part of that change, they generally change slowly and over time. Read Wiki Ethics. —CovertProfessor
- There are a few things I could address in your comment, but the most notable one is this: You said that there are multiple ways to do something, and that I insist others to do it my way. What do you mean by "insist"? Although this is not in the dictionary, the word "insist" implies a demand is unreasonable. Every time I talk about a way of doing something, I have always explained the reason. I did not ask you to adopt it, although I do ask you to disclose and explain your way. I am not asking you to explain what others do. I am only asking you to explain what you do. I ask because to you, what you do might seem like a free choice that is only subjected to your own preference. But that is not the reality. The way you interact is incorrect or unethical at times. If you think that it is a matter of preference, it is because you are not the victim of your action. In some of these interactions, I am the victim of your action. I am telling you that you are hurting me, and I was telling you what you could do to stop that. In our last conversation, you said that I was rude for talking behind your back. I explained that I did not, because you got the chronology wrong. In return, I asked you to withdraw the accusation. In response to that, you rejected withdrawing the accusation, and asserted your position that people could express their viewpoint and have no responsibility to clear any false accusation they made. At this point, I am asking you: Do you have a reason for your behavior? If you do not have a reason, isn't it fair for me to claim that, between you and me, actually you are the one who persistently insist to be correct, and insist that others follow your way, because you do not explain your reasons? —EW
- There are numerous contradictions in the above paragraph. You state that you are not insisting on your way of doing and seeing things, and then proceed to insist on your way of seeing and doing things (not to mention your very own definition of "insist"!). It is you who are being hurtful and acting unethically by making accusations against those who fail to do things your way. My comment to you had nothing to do with the chronology of events, yet you insist that it must have, because you cannot see the world from anyone else's point of view but your own. I am not insisting that you act my way. Act however you like. If your edits violate wiki norms, I will delete them. If you do something I disagree with, I will say so. But I don't try to set the terms of our conversation the way that you do. You asked me for my advice and I gave it; I would not otherwise have done so. —cp
2012-02-24 11:01:53 "Fairness" not about having all sides of an argument voiced. If there was an article about how child abuse was bad, would it be "unfair" because it didn't include the arguments for child abuse? No. —MeggoWaffle
- Moreover, the Davis community is biased. Ideally, that bias shows here. Seriously — that's an ideal. Otherwise we're just creating a dry encyclopedia with poor coverage of most topics. There's lots of support for bikes and solar. A community in rural Pennsylvania might loath those things. It's the Davis wiki, not "nationally balanced articles about topics that happen to occur in Davis". It should reflect the bias of the community. And I don't know if you've looked out the window, but there's a lot of pro-activist types. That's not to say minority opinions shouldn't be voiced... but simply recognizing that there is a dominant viewpoint of the community as a whole is a good thing. It documents the culture and mindset of Davis in a very vibrant way. ⁓ʝ⍵
- Bias on the Wiki is only promoted by one set within the wiki community, actually. The Neutral Point of View page has many arguments for unbiased, objective editing, which I myself still partially lean towards. A lot of people have argued for having a diverse set of views as well. Again, both sides are represented, both for and against bias, but we shouldn't make blanket statements about how a page should or shouldn't be edited based on just one of those opinions. —JT
- It's de facto, not de jure. And I'm arguing for a diverse set of views. I'm only saying that omiting any and all recognition or record of community opinion is silly for a community based wiki. Or, as put above, "...simply recognizing that there is a dominant viewpoint of the community as a whole is a good thing. It documents the culture and mindset of Davis..." ⁓ʝ⍵
- About Fairness and Bias: I do believe that fairness is about having all sides of an argument voiced. If the demographic is a pie chart, omitting any slice on the pie chart is unfair. For this argument, who has the burden of proof? The argument that representing all views is fair, or the argument that omitting some views is fair? To me it is so obvious that representing all views is true fairness, that I had not thought of how to prove it. Sorry, I am not a philosophy major. If someone knows how to show it either way please jump in. In the meantime I will also think about it. Therefore my answer to the question is that Yes, arguments "for" child abuse should be included if they exist, and the people suffering a lacking mean to express their needs to abuse children should present their argument. In problem solving, this step would help both those against child abuse and the abusers to solve the child abuse problem. There are a few principles underlying these concepts, including: 1) If you want someone to stop doing something, you need to know why they are doing it. Simply forbidding them from doing it does not solve the problem because as long as the cause of their action is not resolved, they will find another way to express their needs. 2) Majority does not imply correctness. Many people have the misconception that majority rule is a best practice. It is not when the majority is wrong. When the majority is wrong, and you let it suppress the minority view, you get a downward spiral. I think that we are having this discussion in part because of this misunderstanding. I personally have no concern about showing which view is the majority view, because that knowledge has no weight in my deciding what is correct. 3) I understand the desire the show the majority view of Davis community, but that itself does not exclude the minority views. For example, one could simply show the percentage of people who have certain view, then both views could exist and there will not be confusion on which one is the majority view. 4) For the record, I don't think I have an agenda for a Neutral Point of View page. NPOV implies that there is some sort of judge that tells what is neutral or not. I don't think that is necessary. We have a game night, every participant is asked to sit at a round table and place their weapon of choice on the table. Everyone puts down a sword, but I put down a bagel. I am not asking for any neutrality, I am just asking if I can still put down my bagel because it is in fact my weapon of choice. Is it fair that everyone gets to place their weapon of choice, or is it fair that only the usual choice gets placed? Suppose I agree with you that the later is fair (as in I give you a freebie), may I ask "in what way do you support Diversity?" If you define fairness like that, it would be even harder to define diversity, unless you intentionally do not support it. By this reasoning (not a proof, just reasoning), the definition of fairness should be the first kind. Fairness should be defined with respect to a rule. When a rule is applied equally to a population, then it is fair. Fairness itself does not state if the rule is right. You could have a very wrong but fair rule. Do you see the differences? We are talking in this granularity because the question called for it. Please read when you have time. Sorry for the late warning. —EW
2012-02-24 12:41:46 Ditto for what JW and ES have said. The wiki is for the whole community. You methods are not welcoming a community discussion they are frustrating. —jsbmeb
- According to the current situation, I am involved in two main discussions. One is about Nov18. One is here about the volume of my writing. On Nov18, if you understand my perspective, could you continue the discussion? This is because I don't need to be the one discussing it. It could be any one. If you can do that then I will withdraw. If you cannot do that and no one answers my questions there, then it is okay because my understanding is that the chancellor should not resign, and according to the trend, she will not. If the Protesters had a better strategy they would have answered my questions easily. Therefore this was evidence to me that their strategy was unsound. They would dissolve on their own. A discussion is no longer needed. But if they reply I will continue.They should have more incentive to address those questions than I do. I was doing them a favor to tell them what they need to answer to convert someone like me. If they don't care, why should I? —EW
2012-03-03 08:45:51 You appear to be operating from the starting assumption that there are circumstances in which using pepper spray on seated protesters is justifiable. Most of the people who signed the petition probably do not share that assumption.
Edgar, the thing that's bothering others is that you seem to be instructing everyone else here. You're going on at spectacular length about how people should think, how they should interact, and how they should edit. That may not be your intent, but that's how it comes across. —TomGarberson
- Making judgement, giving suggestions, arguing, and urging for actions were normal in the discussion (e.g.: v96 v108 v111 v135 v143 v149 v154 v155 v159 v161 v164 v168 v188 v195 v198 v199 ...). Outside Davis Wiki discussion, most of the open letters serve the same purpose (e.g. Brown's Petition Letter). The pepper spray incident itself was a national and international dialog on how people should interact. Are you objecting that I did it, that I explained it, or that I wrote too much? Please re-examine or affirm your position. —EW
If you don't see a difference in tone between the bulk of the cited examples and your systematic lists of how certain types of conversations must be had, I really don't know how to continue this discussion. It's obvious that everyone here is just talking past you. —tg
Here are some phrases that others use that you (EW) rarely use: "I think..." "It is my opinion that...." "It seems to me..." "Perhaps..." Liberal use of these and similar phrases would make a huge difference in the way that you come across to others. This isn't the whole explanation of the difference, but it's part of it. —cp
- I rarely use those phrases because in my vocabulary there is a difference between "opinion" and a "conclusion". Opinion cannot be disproved. Conclusions can. I only use "in my opinion..." if I have no reasoning to support my message. Otherwise I mean that I am ready to support my message. Because the issue was serious, I was not in a mode to just give opinions. I had thought about everything I said and I was ready to support everything I said, and at the same time open to counter-reasoning that might undermine my conclusions. If I used the phrase "in my opinion" instead, I would be tossing my judgement without making they available for discussion. I understanding that you may not draw this distinction. I am just explaining why I do not use those phrases. —EW
- Well, ok. Once again you can continue to use your own preferred definitions for words and insist that everyone understand them in the exact way that you do. In this case, however, if you continue to fail to preface your claims with phrases such as "in my opinion," my prediction is that you will continue to come across as utterly dogmatic and you will be a complete failure as a communicator. I feel sorry for you. You seem to genuinely want to help people, and yet seem totally ill equipped to do so. Good luck to you. I genuinely mean that, because I see you headed for loneliness and disappointment, and i would not wish that on anyone. Alternatively, you could listen to what everyone is telling you, and change your ways. I recommend the latter. —CovertProfessor
- Your concern is that my messages appear too definite and opposes any further discussion. My concern is that if I mark my message too softly, people would not recognize that they are supposed to rebut them if they disagree. Is it okay if I start writing this instead: "My conclusion is ........ My reasons are ....... If you see anything wrong please explain." ? I cannot readily use the four terms you suggested interchangeably because they have the following connotations in serious discussions:
It is my conclusion that you should take caution in using these phrases in the discussion about the pepper spray because the claims made in the discussion may have serious consequences about the reputations of the parties involved. If you have a conclusion to make, say it without leaving any backdoor to escape, and be ready to accept if your argument is disproved. The discussion is at this level. If you disagree with this conclusion please explain. —EW
I was just reading this over this morning (several times) and have to agree with TG. I don't think it's your attempt but it definitely has that feel. —PeterBoulay
- You previously encouraged others to sign the petition. I wanted to sign it because I had no starting reason to assume that your reasoning had a flaw. But when I looked at events, I did not see the logic to draw that conclusion. May I ask you questions about your reasoning? —EW
2012-03-03 10:19:25 "In some of these interactions, I am the victim of your action." Maybe we would get somewhere if you stopped seeing yourself this way. "Simply put, the party that does not promote cooperation is at fault." Wow. This statement is so problematic I don't even know where to begin. —MeggoWaffle
- The passage has been updated. Please review. —EW
- Sorry, still problematic. You are ignoring exploitative and oppressive relationships, differentials in power, hegemony, etc. You seem to think every interaction is only ethical if it maintains the status quo. Your underlying assumptions are quite troubling and I don't have the time or patience to explain them to you. Disengaging now. Will not waste time responding to any more of your attempts to convince everybody of the proper/ethical/fair way to engage or assess situations. -Megan
- A goal of mutual benefit is does not mean maintaining the status quo. If Mary and John have been misunderstanding each other for years and get into fights they don't want, the status quo is let them continue for the rest of their lives. A goal of mutual benefit means that somehow they resolves their differences and live happily every after. This is what is called a Win-Win outcome. A Lose-Lose outcome may be Mary and John both decide not to talk to each other and the anger remains in them for the rest of their lives. —EW
- To be clear, my not responding does not mean I have no rebuttal. It means you completely missed the point and I am not willing to waste any more time trying to educate you. -M
- There is honor in having hope and the patient to educate, and to work efficiently just to make time to do so. When you return with your rebuttal I will have to declare that you deserve such honor. —EW
2012-03-03 13:32:23 EW, as our conversation has led from one thing to another, I must admit that I have lost the point of our discussion. So, let me summarize events from my point of view. I have no doubt left out some things; if so, that may be because I am just summarizing, and not trying to capture every nuance, or it may just be accidental on my part.
Awhile back, you came to the wiki presenting the reasons for which someone might sign the petition asking for the Chancellor's resignation. I took offense at that list because it seemed to me that all of your presented reasons were patently ridiculous, and so it seemed to me that you were implying that it would be ridiculous for anyone to sign the petition. What was most offensive about this to me was that you claimed to be neutral about the topic, even though the list of reasons you presented was anything but neutral. You later said that you were just trying to sort things out for yourself. It would have been helpful if you had been clearer about that from the beginning. You've also since specified a list of questions that you insist need to be answered for a reasonable person to have signed the petition. But again, I cannot accept this list, as it suggests things such as one must have a replacement in mind in order to think the Chancellor should resign. That is a highly contentious claim, and, I would say, a false claim. If someone is incompetent, then they are fired; you do not wait until you have a replacement. You may indeed get a worse person. If so, that is unfortunate, so you do your best to hire the best person you can. But you continue to declare that people must answer the questions you have outlined in order to have good reason to sign the petition. You cannot seem to see that this is *your* list and *your* reasons. Fine, you use the reasons that you like. It's when you try to declare that your reasons are objective that I take offense. And when you insist on lengthy replies that comply to your specifications, I refuse to continue, because I don't find these conversations productive and I refuse to adhere to the rules of conversation that someone else has dictated to me. Note that I am not the only one who has objected to your setting rules for how communications should proceed — see above.
Setting those incidents aside, awhile later you deleted others' responses to you from the page. I objected to your deletions. You then quibbled about what "delete" meant, even though I had used it in a perfectly ordinary way. You then accused me of acting unethically by changing meaning of the term "delete," even though you were the one who had changed the meaning of the term. You insisted on my retraction. You then, from my perspective, added insult to injury by writing a little blurb on your page about people who act unethically in conversation. When I objected to that, you spoke of the order of the edits that you had made, even though that was completely irrelevant to my objection about your little blurb. You again demanded a retraction. Not wanting to get bogged down in discussion that was dictated by your rules, I decided to simply point out that you continue to insist that your way is the right way and that everything should be done your way, even though you are the one who has blundered onto this wiki with little appreciation or respect for the way things are already done. You asked me to clarify, and so I did. You then began to quibble about the word "insist" and redefined that term as well. At this point the conversation has really degenerated into ridiculousness, as far as I am concerned.
So, where is this going? Nowhere, as far as I can tell. I am not going to apologize for what appear to me to be imagined slights. From my perspective, you have acted objectionably on more than one occasion, but I am not asking for an apology because it really doesn't matter to me. As far as I am concerned, this conversation is done. We can discuss other topics as they arise. But I would urge you to listen to what many people (not just me) are telling you — that the way you are interacting with others on this wiki is counter-productive and off-putting. Consider the possibility, however remote it might seem to you, that you are in fact not promoting communication and conflict resolution, but rather, prolonging it. Consider that others may have different values and different ways of addressing questions such as the resignation of the Chancellor. But now I am starting to repeat myself, so I will finish here. You need not respond. As I said, I think I am done with this particular conversational thread. —CovertProfessor
- You said you were offended the most by my claiming to be neutral about the topic. Where did I make such a claim? —EW
- When you first presented your long list of possible reasons why people might have signed the petition, it appeared as though you were taking a poll. Again, since all the reasons you presented seemed stupid to me, and that you'd left off all of the more plausible reasons, it seemed as though you were asking, "which of these stupid reasons explains why you signed the petition?" Again, I don't think you realize how your very approach to the question biases your answer. You've set an extremely high bar for calling for a Chancellor's resignation. It would probably never been done if your approach were used. But then you later added to your edit, saying that you wanted "to systematically explore the viewpoints people have, rule out the bad responses" — which are the words of someone who has not made up their mind and is thus neutral. —cp
- Sorry I was not taking a poll. I was providing sample response so that people understand I wasn't asking for essays. I don't think that I set an unreasonable high bar for calling for a Chancellor's resignation. Here are the reasons I listed, ordered by their legitimacy if they are substantiated:
You might disagree with the ordering. Some of the reasons approximately have the same legitimacy but I don't know how to let a cell have multiple lines. For someone who signed the petition with reason (b), they could have just said something like, "Provost Hexter should replace her because...." Or "Professor Brown should replace her because...." Or even "We don't need a chancellor at this point, that position is unnecessary because...." This would have been enough for the discussion to continue. About the word "neutral", I was mostly perplexed because the original issue called for signing or not signing the petition. There is no apparent "neutral" position. If undecided is neutral, would you explain how being undecided added to the offense? —EW
- Edgar, I'm quoting what you wrote below: "Opinion cannot be disproved. Conclusions can. I only use "in my opinion..." if I have no reasoning to support my message. Otherwise I mean that I am ready to support my message. You seem to like defining words, but conclusions can be disproved as well, just as opinions are often based on reasoning. Ultimately, this table above is *your* conclusion and is based on *your* reasoning, which makes it *your* opinion. Your list of "most legitimate" is absolutely subjective (as it's based on your reasoning). I know many, many people who laugh at the idea that 'I know who to replace her' is the "most legitimate" reason to sign a petition. There are a lot of factors at play, and these things aren't easily defined. In many aspects of life, there will never be a unanimous consensus, where gray issues are resolved to shades of black or white. Meggo touched on this in her above comment, "You are ignoring exploitative and oppressive relationships, differentials in power, hegemony, etc. You seem to think every interaction is only ethical if it maintains the status quo." Legitimacy is subjective. The point I think others are making regarding a high bar is: 1) you list out your reasoning, and ask that others agree to it or 2)at length, debate and discuss it until you both come to agreement. You are free to have whatever opinions you want, but not that many people have the patience to (at great, great lengths) justify their own if it is outside your scope of thinking or understanding. Neither are they obligated to. -ES
- I think you misunderstood what I said. You said, "... but conclusions can be disproved as well." There shouldn't be a "but" there, that was what I said. When I think of a conclusion that I believe to be correct, the best person I can find to review it is not someone who share my perspective, but some who does not. When I don't label what I say as an opinion, I am expecting objections. This is not because I wanted to write something that people object. That is the normal result due to people having different perspectives. I am ready to be disproved because that is part of the learning process. If you have a different perspective and you have reasons to support your perspective, then I want to know it so that we can both see our perspective and create something that would include both perspectives. The table above is based on my reasoning. If you come from a different perspective and see it in a different order, please disclose your order and your reasoning. If you cannot disclose your reasoning, then your message only qualifies as an "opinion". Please also read my reply to Meggo in this edit where I addressed your other misunderstanding. —EW
- I understand now that you were not taking a poll. I was responding to your question about why, at the time, I was angry about the inconsistency between your biased list of reasons and your claimed neutrality. In other words, it seemed like your claimed neutrality was BS. You've missed my main point, though, which was to show how our conversation was going nowhere, as you continue to redefine words and then call for apologies because I am not using your preferred definitions. Since our conversation was going nowhere, I said that I was done. I subsequently foolishly thought to clarify your question about where you said that you were neutral, but I see that that only leads to more pointless quibbling. The last thing I am going to do is to get into a discussion with you (you!!!) over substantive issues about reasons to sign the petition. It is impossible to have a conversation with you. Hello?! Are you listening?? Everyone is telling you that. I AM DONE. —CovertProfessor
- I did not ask for an apology, I asked for a withdrawal of an accusation. Mary came to class and found that her seat was wet. She thought that John did it so she wrote a note saying "John did it" and pinned it on his desk. John came back and showed Mary that he didn't do it. He asked Mary to remove the pinned note if she understood that he didn't do it. John was not asking for an apology. John was asking Mary to remove something that would continue to mislead. It is not about the past, but the present. I did not ask for an apology because misunderstanding is completely normal. I am not asking you to apologize for what you said, or to adopt my definition. I am using the definitions to explain my perspective, and asking for a confirmation if you understand my perspective. For us to discuss, you need to understand my perspective just as much as I need to understand yours. I can't tell if you understand my perspective until you confirm it, and I can't tell what your perspective is until you disclose your reasoning. Both of those steps are necessary. Do you understand that I never claimed to be "neutral"? At that point when I wrote the list, I had not signed the petition, therefore I was on the "Not yet signed" side. I was not "neutral", I was constantly making the decision not to sign the petition, and my reasons were mainly (a) (d) and (e). In your definition, I was "undecided", which I could understand because I was still open to the chance that I might sign the petition if I get the information I needed. Therefore, in the way I understood what you said, you were offended because I claimed to be open to signing the petition but you felt that I already have a perspective against signing it. As I am explaining it, I had reasons against it and I did not hide that I had such reasons. My perspective was at least 51% against the petition. In my recollection it might be around 65%. It was not very high and I was quite hopeful that people would not hesitate to give me answers. The list I posted expressed I had reasons against the petition, but I was also asking for rebuttal, because I had exhausted what I could analyze based on my perspective (with the conclusion that I should not sign the petition). To updated my conclusion, I needed to discuss with others to get their perspectives. Were you offended because you didn't see it this way, or were you offended because you did see it this way? —EW
2012-03-03 14:37:05 I read your response to me early this morning and was so put off I immediately wrote a reply. Then I deleted and walked away for fear it would be a reply I would regret later. Now that I have had some more time to think about it, I will give one final contribution, after this I will not engage you any longer. You said, "if you understand my perspective, could you continue the discussion? This is because I don't need to be the one discussing it." To answer you: No. I will not continue a discussion just because I understand YOUR perspective. And, yes, exactly, you don't need to be the only one discussing it. But you are. And I frankly don't care about the topic enough to waste my energy on, before or now. The pepper spray incident is over, Katehi was not recalled. Move on. If you were speaking to me during a personal conversation the way you have responded as you have on this page, I would think you were an incredible boor. I hope you aren't really like this.I understand this may not be the opinion of you of others, and I'm ok with that. But as I said, I'm done. —jsbmeb
- In real life, I am an observer. I do not speak in most meetings when people are discussing. I went to general assembly on a day when they voted whether the encampment should continue during winter break. My vote was abstain. I did so because I did not know enough what was going on to think that I should affect their decision. On Davis Wiki, you cannot tell how long I have been sitting here reading the comments. You only see the moments when I speak. Therefore, you have no way to know whether you saw 1% or 99% of my behavior. Another point to make is that if I am the only one who saw a problem, I am actually ethically obliged to present my perspective until someone resolves it or takes over the responsibility. The following is going to sound quite unintuitive given the popular acceptance of democracy. When Mary and John have the same perspective and they are trying to make a decision that is good for all, one of their perspective is redundant because that is a duplicate. Mary could have just made the decision on her own. If Sam enters the discussion with a different perspective, and the three still wants to make a decision that is good for all, then the discussion requires Sam, and either Mary or John. The popular concept of democracy that people accept does not aim for a Win-Win, but a Win-Lose. That is a fundamental deficiency of the system. It has been in use for hundreds of years, but that is not a compliment. —EW
- This is real life. The people here are actual people you are conversing with. The medium may not be face to face, but the people are no less real, nor are the interactions less real. Second, neither the wiki nor any decision regarding the Chancellor is based on any form of democratic method, so I'm not really sure why you bring it up. -jw
- Please replace the term "real life" I used by a term that meant "in my day-to-day interaction with people that is not done through a virtual environment where people can only see my action but not my inaction or body language." I brought up the democratic method because there was also a petition (or a request) to ask for a vote by the students to remove the Chancellor. That request was brought up during a town hall meeting. Do you know of that? —EW
- Ah, I see. There was no contextual information to link the items. You seem to have encountered great difficulty in presenting clear and logical chains of thought here on the wiki. -jw
- The contextual connection was this: 1) I said to jsbmeb that I do not need to discuss if someone can take my place. 2) Then jsbmeb said that he understood my perspective but he would not take my place because I was the only one with that perspective, and told me to stop discussing. 3) Then I explained that if I am the only one with the perspective, actually I can't stop. At that point, I detected that his thought that I could stop because I am the minority, is based on the concept people have about majority rule. 4) You asked about the democratic method, and said no decision regarding the Chancellor is based on any form of democratic method. 5) I pointed out that was at least an intent to use a democratic method to oust the Chancellor. 6) You claimed that there was no contextual relation and that I have difficult presenting a logical chain. 6) I show you my chain. 7) (Now it is your turn.) —EW
- I must correct you because you are SO WRONG and are now skewing facts and putting words in my mouth, but since I'm sick of you I will correct on one important thing: I'm a woman, not a man. That cannot be disputed or talked to death by you. Nothing else I will say about this whole mess of a topic on you is going to change. I have less respect for myself now because I have replied to you when I said I wouldn't and its not worth the effort. — jsbmeb
- Sorry about the gender. In terms of my skewing facts, were you referring to point (2), when you said, "No. I will not continue a discussion just because I understand YOUR perspective," you didn't mean you understood my perspective, but you won't continue even if you understood, and you didn't. If that was the problem I misunderstood your meaning as the former. If this was not your accusation then someone who saw it would need to clarify. Please note that since jw asked me to disclose my chain of thought, I had to disclose what I interpreted from your message. Misinterpretation would have happened even if you were there. Instead of accusing me of putting words in your mouth, you could have either specified what I misunderstood. When you say that someone is putting words in your mouth, you are making a conclusion about their intention. A negative conclusion about someone's intention is an accusation. When you were gone the first time, I did not accuse you of anything. But now you are leaving an open accusation behind. What I say here is not an accusation because I am aware that people acts out of habits and they may not realize what they do constitutes accusations. —EW
- That is still not a clear and logical chain of thought. Those are your internal ideas in a simple list form absent any social tools to convey them in a manner that will be received. Note the above reply to you from jsbmeb. You are having tragic and terrible difficulty in communication. Are you unaware of your difficulties in communicating with other people? -jw
- Would you demonstrate what you meant? You are using some keywords that you had not mentioned: "internal ideas", "simple list", "social tools", "received". If you could, would you demonstrate your style by explaining your chain of thought leading to you conclusion that "There was no contextual information to link the items." ? Since I do not understand that conclusion, if you could demonstrate with that you could combine two purposes. —EW
- Edgar, I'm curious... do you feel that any progress has been made in the underlying discussion whatsoever? It seems like in the past couple of weeks you and every other editor who's replied to you have been talking past each other. I hope you don't mind my saying so, but it seems at this point like you're arguing for the sake of arguing. I reach that conclusion because it doesn't seem like it's getting anything else done. —TG
- In terms of Pepper Spray, the main progress was the table that compared the Admin and Protesters actions side by side. I think that might be a good way to show which party is mending the situation. In the discussion, I also identified many misconceptions, and protocols that were not understood. It may be too late to benefit this discussion, but listing them would benefit a future discussion. The latest ones are about protocols on what words to use:
- The protesters should demonstrate that public university education is a public good. That they acquire the ethics, skills, and patience to invigorate the public despite odds but not against odds. In no instances should the protesters present themselves as a source of discourse but as a solution that resolves differences. Any act of disobedience should be done only as a last resort. I want to write responses to this, this and this to show them what it would take to sway me to their cause. If my intention is to oppose the protest, I don't need to do this. The protesters would need to understand this difference in the intention and that someone who criticizes and explains is an asset for a just cause. —EW (continue below)
- As a starter, I will point out the follow. In this, the admin wrote "The campus’s efforts to manage these situations have been, and are, guided by patience and restraint." The annotator wrote, "This is the mentality of abusers and victim blaming. The underlying statement here is that protesters deserve less restraint and patience." I cannot speak for the admin directly because I am not in their shoes. But as someone who writes similarly, I assert that if I wrote a statement like this, this is a declaration of conduct. Its intention is to set a common ground for communication. It is an attempt to reason with someone with misconduct. It meant this: "You have been impatient and without restraint. I want you to be patient and restraint, but I am not going to force you to do it, or to punish you if you don't. I want you to do it voluntarily. Since it would be unreasonable to ask you to be patient and be with restraint if I am not, I hereby declare that it is my principle that I will be patient and exercise restraint. By making this declaration, I am opening myself to be accountable for my words. Here you have my words." It is not an expression of blame, but a self-accountable expression to offer a fair discussion. The proper response is a reciprocal declaration of conduct. In a good faith discussion, it should have gone like this: Mary declares to John that she will be patient and listen. John declares that he will do the same. If John wants, he could one-up Mary by declaring more ethical values, and Mary would declare the same if Mary came in good faith. Therefore, when an Admin opens up like this, they are basically saying, "We will match all ethical values that you declare, because we by default uphold the highest standard possible." If the Admin was not ready to uphold the highest standard, the PR of the Admin would collapse if the protesters declare a higher ethical standard that the Admin cannot meet. By doing so, the Admin is leaving itself no escape route not to meet any ethical standard. Therefore, that statement alone is a very strong piece of evidence that the Admin was being completely accountable. —EW (continue below)
- The protesters should understand that the Admin has no channel to give this explanation because it is like trying to teach while being accused. The message cannot get across. Therefore they should understand that I am doing them a favor of explaining this. I am and have been trying to show them a way out. Of course it could turn out that the Admin were totally deceptive, but that should not stop the protesters from declaring their ethics. This is because even after you have declared that you will discuss, the Admin has no ethical reason to stop any investigation or lawsuits. So if the Admin turns out to be liars, they would just take double damage. Therefore, for this additional reason, that gesture was a very strong evidence that the Admin was honest. —EW (Chronologically this comment was written just after v165)
2012-03-05 21:51:41 Two things:
-
When I added the second link, the Davis Enterprise article lacked the explanation of the basis for the impending TRO.
-
Links to the Davis Enterprise should be avoided as much as possible. Their paywall changes frequently and dead links are the result. If there is another source covering the same material, we should use it.
-
And I was thinking that Davis Enterprise links were so great. That was an important reason not to use DE links. —EW
2012-03-07 20:54:44 Why do you guys keep wasting your time talking to this guy? It's weird. Just ignore and revert when he says stupid shit. He will never understand you. —ScottMeehleib
2012-03-07 21:07:33 I'm sorry Edgar, but you are apparently seriously mentally ill and you need help. Perhaps severe obsessive compulsive disorder? It's probably best if you abstain from the wiki until you get it. Meds might help. —ScottMeehleib
- Where have you been? I mistook jsbmeb as a guy because I thought that was you. —EW
2012-03-08 06:04:54 I prefer to sit on the sidelines rather than participate with a Monty Python skit in progress. But sometimes enough is enough. —ScottMeehleib
2012-03-08 07:04:31 You're rebutting a point of view that you clearly don't understand. The bulk of your discussion is irrelevant to the viewpoint of (most of) the people who signed the petition.
Signors' view: the administration should be held responsible for violating the public's trust when they authorized, or failed to prevent, or supported after the fact the use of chemical weapons on seated protesters.
-
Subsequent actions aren't relevant. Beyond the spraying and the immediate aftermath, during which the administration supported the officers, nothing the administration has said or done is relevant. It might help save their image, but it doesn't change whether they acted unethically. Negotiations with the protesters after the fact are completely irrelevant.
-
The relative culpability of the protesters is irrelevant. Even if they've acted badly, it does not absolve the administration of their responsibility, if any.
These things just aren't relevant to the position you're trying to rebut.
Of course the administration is going to put on a good face after the fact. Maybe they're being 100% ethical now, maybe not. Either way, they weren't ethical at the time of the spraying. It's the actions at the time of the spraying that people want them held responsible for. Your focus on subsequent actions shows you don't understand that viewpoint.
Maybe you think the administration can absolve themselves, and that's fine. Many people disagree. For for those people, the initial failure to act reasonably and protect their students is sufficient to warrant the removal of the administration. You're not talking about it in those terms, so you're not actually responding to their view. —TomGarberson
- Your concern is that the administration is not taking responsibility. My concern is that resignation is not the proper way to take responsibility. What solution would satisfy both of our concerns? —EdgarWai
- I'm not sure. But if you're looking to respond to the people who signed the petition (I didn't, although I considered it), you should probably start by responding to them, rather than ignoring their viewpoint and discussing your own concerns. —tg
- I responded to their viewpoint on Nov24, Dec11, Feb22, Mar3, Mar4. I understand that many people believe that initial failure is sufficient justification, but a belief in itself is not a justification. For instance, on Mar3, CP replied that "If someone is incompetent, then they are fired; you do not wait until you have a replacement. You may indeed get a worse person. If so, that is unfortunate, so you do your best to hire the best person you can." This statement was not a justification of itself. There were at least two logical relations and two conditions that should be justified. The two logical relations expressed are: L1) In this situation, if someone is incompetent, they should be fired. L2) In this situation, it is okay to fire first and assign the fault to bad luck if the outcome is worse. The two conditions expressed are: C1) Katehi was incompetent. C2) It would be easy to find a replacement who would have handled Nov18 better. —EW (Continue below)
- For C1 and C2, I had already explained on Nov24 that part of the perception on her incompetence could be wrong and needs to be justified, and I questioned the signers' knowledge about the role of Chancellor. According to CP's explanation on Mar3, if CP could not justify back in November that Katehi was incompetent, nor that there was a better chancellor, CP's decision to sign the petition would be premature even by their logic, which would be my conclusion on Nov24 and Dec11. Since the discussion wasn't just about whether it was the right call back then for her resignation, I offered to create a rubric and help look for a replacement if they are willing to discuss (Mar4). —EW (continue below)
- For L1, I am using the principle of cooperation to argue that the decision was wrong. Under the principle of cooperation, in any situation, a Win-Win outcome is better than a Win-Lose outcome. For L2, I am using the principle of diligence to argue that people should try to remove uncertainties before committing to an action. In this situation, the action was Katehi's resignation. The uncertainty was that the replacement would be worse. I was not asking for a perfect prediction of the future, but the signers should have diligence to check if there was a better candidate. In this argument, CP said on Mar4 that the level of diligence I would put was "extremely high", therefore CP had already accepted that my level of diligence was at least sufficient. However, I did not get a justification that CP's level of diligence (which was lower than mine) was sufficient. —EW (Continue below)
- CP's response also read: "It would probably never been done if your approach were used." My interpretation of this statement was that resignation was a goal in and of itself. This type of goals violates the principle of cooperation. In every day life, this type of goal is called 'punishment'. 'Taking responsibility' and 'accepting punishment' are not the same. A person could take responsibility by mending the aftermath and addressing the concerns of the other party. If that is done but punishment is still being sought, then problem is not in the party who caused the problem, but in the party who cannot forgive. To reason why the mindset of punishment is not good, I would argue that it is a better culture of ethics for people to do what is right in the absence of any punishment if they don't. In such a system, a community would save a lot of cost on law enforcement and litigation. The saved resource could then be used to promote actual growth (i.e. education). To create and maintain a culture of ethics, people cannot focus on punishment. Acceptance of punishment corrupts the understanding of ethics. Mary tells John that if he doesn't move his trash to where it belongs, she would dumb them onto his bed. John moves his trash. Did John do it because he understood his fault, or did he do it to avoid the consequence? If Mary did not mention anything about the consequence and John moved his trash, then it would be easier to conclude that John did it because he listened. To the party seeking punishment, they could always discredit the ethics of the accused by saying that they only complied to avoid punishment. That lack of faith in good intentions of others is itself a concept that erodes the culture of ethics, and the petition itself was an evidence that the culture lacked this understanding. Please understand that I did not explain this because I didn't know that I have to. There are many depths if we start asking 'why?' Currently my explanations are at a deeper level their those provided by the signers. If this explanation is not enough, I can continue my explanation by going deeper and making comparisons. —EW (Continue below)
- In summary, to rebut the logical argument, I used the principles of Cooperation, Diligence, and Ethical Culture. Some of these principles were hinted as early as Nov21. To rebut the conditional arguments, I asked the rubric and the replacement candidate, and offered to help get those. —EdgarWai
- You're saying that because you have a higher standard for calling for resignation, no one should have called for resignation unless they can prove it was necessary under your standard. That just doesn't make sense. You've clearly demonstrated that you don't think she should be asked to resign, but you haven't addressed the viewpoint to which you're responding: that the chancellor should resign because she permitted or failed to prevent the pepper spraying, or because she supported it immediately after the fact. For many, that is obviously sufficient. —tg
- I updated my response while you were replying. Please confirm which one of your questions you want me to respond first. —EW
- On level of standard: I justified by level of standard to sign a petition. The petition did not justify. I was asking for their justification. Until they provide a justification, the only justification that exists on the table is the one I gave. If there is only one justification on the table, and no one could argue against it to knock it off, then it is the conclusion that people should called for resignation only when they comply with my justification. Otherwise their decision would be wrong or premature. To interpret this otherwise, the petitioners have to justify theirs and knock out mine. —EW (continue below)
- On 'Permitted or Failed to prevent pepper spray': For this argument, you need to make it clear whether your position is defensible. We all understand that no protocol is perfect, and that no one has complete control over another human being's action. You need to define what you meant by 'permit', and how resignation is the proper action corresponding to the incident when it happens on campus (in this case, pepper spray). If you do not define these properly, you could have signed a petition to oust Katehi on the ground that she failed to prevent students from vandalizing restroom stalls, she could also be fire on the ground that she failed to prevent an outsider from harming the encamped students in the weekend when there was less police presence. A line needs to be drawn somewhere, and those requires definitions or a rubric. Please provide your definitions and rubrics. —EW (continue below)
- Reply by TG: Again, you clearly don't understand the argument. No one's saying she could have or should have exercised absolute control. The circumstances and evidence all clearly show that she was at least negligent as to the safety of students. In light of immediately prior events in Oakland and elsewhere, she was more likely at least reckless as to their safety. It could even be argued that she knew a result like this was substantially likely, and failed to take steps to prevent it. If she knowingly endangered students or was negligent or reckless as to their safety, she should not be in a position where she is responsible for making decisions which could affect their safety. Period. —tg
- On the decision to not use police after Mrak eviction: I responded to this argument on [Dec11, Feb15 and Feb23. My argument is that given the police evicted the Mrak occupation peacefully on Nov16, on what reasons should the Admin not use the police again for the Nov18 eviction? —EW
- On the alternative decision: What should she have done? —EW
- Concern: Your concern is student safety. My concern is student safety caused by the protesters' desire to escalate situations until they get media attention. What is your the solution? —EW
- On immediate support after the fact: Could you pinpoint the particular statement of support you want to discuss? (For example, which statement in Nov18 are you talking about?) In the petition letter by Brown, Brown mentioned that "When students covered their eyes with their clothing, police forced open their mouths and pepper-sprayed down their throats." This statement was false. Should Professor Brown resign for making such statement? Please compare these and explain your logic. —EW (continue below)
- Reply by TG: Really? Really?! You clearly don't understand the argument. "We deeply regret that many of the protestors today chose not to work with our campus staff and police to remove the encampment as requested." I.e. it was the students' fault they got pepper sprayed. The difference between Brown getting facts wrong and Chancellor Katehi failing to protect students and then blaming it on the students is that Brown got facts wrong and Katehi got nonviolent protesters attacked with a chemical agent. Do you truly not grasp the distinction?—tg
- On the comparison of potential damage due to wrong facts: Do you remember the chronology of the events? Did Katehi write the response before or after the police chief made the statement that the situation was 'very volatile'? Katehi had already said that the first time she saw the video was the night of Nov19. When the letter was posted, Katehi had not viewed the video. The facts that Katehi used to draw her conclusion came from somewhere. Katehi got the facts from somewhere. Brown also got his facts from somewhere. You got the facts from somewhere. I got the facts from somewhere. Brown didn't get his facts straight and failed to protect the reputation and financial contingency of the university and blamed it on the administration, and by promoting additional encampment, jeopardized the physical safety of the campus. How did you weigh these two to say that Brown's mistake was just wrong facts, but Katehi's mistake was not just wrong facts? —EW
- On who is at fault: Since your argument depends on the claim that the protesters were not at fault, what is your justification that the police should not have used pepper spray? —EW
- You imply that the statement should be written in another way. Could you demonstrate what should be written instead? —EW
- Concern: Your concern is that keeping the instigator would cause further harm. My concern is that the wrong person is labeled as the instigator. How should we resolve this? —EW
- I understand that many people belief that it was sufficient. But neither the number of people who believed so nor the belief in and of itself is a justification that their decision was correct. Does the word justification have a different meaning for you? If so, please explain. —EW
- I still don't think you grasp the opposing viewpoint (which, again, I don't agree with 100% but which does make sense). The logical chain here is quite simple: 1) She can't be trusted to protect students, so 2) she shouldn't be in a position where she has that responsibility. Ms. Katehi ordered police to remove the protesters. In doing so, those police violated the protesters' civil rights and seriously damaged the university's reputation globally. This is not some little "whoops." She gave an order that ultimately resulted in physical violence against people in her charge. Then she defended it. The justification for her removal is simple: she can't be trusted in the position.
- On Trust: Trust requires two parties. If Mary does not trust John, it might be that John is untrustworthy, or that Mary simply doesn't know John very well. If the problem is Mary, then Mary shouldn't be in a position to decide who should be trusted. Why does your accountability chain stop at Katehi? Before Katehi ordered the police to remove the protesters, the protesters failed to disband. Could you show me the justification that the protesters had their civil rights to stay on the quad encamped overnight through the weekend? —EW
- Concern: Your concern is that an untrustworthy person remains in position of leadership. My concern is that the petitioners did not have good judgement on who is trustworthy. What course of action would resolve these? —EW
- The choice of the subsequent person is irrelevant to whether she should be fired. Moreover, you and CP and I don't have the slightest bit of say in it unless we get on the hiring committee. Trying to create a rubric and identify the right person on the wiki is a load of intellectual masturbation and a waste of everyone's time. Besides which, identifying the successor isn't a prerequisite to firing someone. That's why you have the hiring process. Virtually everything you've responded with is ex post facto and irrelevant to the logical basis for her removal. —tg
- On the relevance of a successor: You think that it is a waste of time to try to create a rubric and to identify the right person on the wiki. My conclusion is that these tasks should have been done, or being done by the protesters if they were diligent. If they just try to remove the chancellor without sufficient consideration of the consequences, and they are not putting themselves accountable for the disruption and potential damage, then they are being irresponsible and unaccountable. Given that they did not have those justifications ready when they started the petition, creating the rubrics now is an attempt to pay the diligence that they missed. —EW
- Identifying the successor is not usually a prerequisite for firing someone, but knowing so makes the firing more justifiable. Do you oppose this conclusion? —EW
- Identifying the successor is not usually a prerequisite for firing someone, but a justifiable reason is a prerequisite to firing someone. A rubric is a type of justification for that purpose. You say that creating such rubric is a waste of everyone's time. If Katehi was fired, someone has to pay that cost. Could you explain who should pay for it? Could you declare if you had any intention in helping the hiring committee to choose the right person? —EW
- You said that we don't have the slightest bit of say unless we get on the hiring committee. According to the purpose of the petition, would you confirm your belief that we have a say on the firing committee (which may include Katehi herself, and those above her) but not the hiring committee? —EW
- Concern: Your concern is a redundant process. My concern is an incorrect decision that would waste time and money. Do you have a solution that addresses our concerns? —EW
- Concern: Your concern is that my argument against the petitioner is 'after the fact'. My concern is that the petitioners might repeat of the same errors in the future. To address your concern, I declare that I am not asking for punishment, I am not suing anyone or asking anyone to pay for damages. I am explaining why they did not make the right decision so that they don't repeat their mistakes. Does this address your concern? —EW
2012-03-11 16:39:53 You evidently feel that protesters camping overnight is justification for the pepper spray. I completely, 100% disagree. I don't care about it enough to try to change your mind, and even if I did, I'm guessing it would be a waste of time. You've demonstrated an absolute inability to comprehend my points and those of everyone else who's tried to engage with you. Some of the craziness keeps sucking me back in, but I'm going to do my best to disengage. —TomGarberson
- I did not claim that it was justified to use pepper spray on overnight camping. Here is the proof (Nov27) that I did not. According to the events, the Admin first hoped for voluntary removal of tents by sending that letter on Nov18. When the deadline had passed, the police showed up. The police made some arrests and intended to leave. Then the students encircled the police and demanded the release of the arrested. I don't need to tell the rest of it, but I think this is enough evidence to show you that I never said that camping overnight is justification for pepper spray. I do not understand why pepper spray was used because when the Davis Police showed up, they intended to just move the arm-linked students, then Pike waved them away (Dec6). Please note that it is necessary for me to correct a conclusion about my position to prevent further misunderstanding. Thank you for the discussion so far. —EW
- I think the craziness comes from the fact that my view does not fall into a typical category and the usual tactics that people use in arguments do not work on me. Part of the reason is that I do have some principles and diligence to back up my conclusion. I can attest that this is rare in online discussions. If someone is unbeatable it makes people want to be beat them. To beat my argument you would need to construct an argument from principles. I used the principles of Cooperation, Diligence, and Ethical Culture as my basis to argue against the resignation. The most prominent principle I can think of that might counter my argument is the principle of Justice. But to argue against my position you will need to show that Justice is better than Cooperation and to show how the protesters are aiming for Justice instead of Punishment. In this direction, I already have a head start in thinking of how to disprove that because I think in the realm of principles at least as early as 2009. But I have no intention to stay ahead because that my best course of action it to tell you the weakest points of my argument, so that if my argument is wrong, you could correct it. This type of discussion is not about who wins or loses. This is for the truth. If we know the truth, everyone wins. This is an important concept to understand because sustained world peace depends on the correct education of principles. This ultimate goal is part of the argument that a counter argument would also need to address eventually. Here, the word sustainable is important because the popular concept of Heroism requires the existence of a Villain. When a Villain does not exist, people who subscribe to that concept of Heroism would imagine Villains and in turn causes unwarranted disruption in the name of Peace or Justice. The ability to be content, and the wisdom to recognize the absence of any Villain is a prerequisite for sustained peace. People's concept of Heroism may need to change to prepare for sustainable peace. A better role model of a Hero might be that of a Mediator. Mediators are not merely activist or advocates who only promote their viewpoints, but also addresses the concerns of the other parties for a mutually beneficial solution. They are the type of Assets required to remove the obstacles of partisanship and re-engage the population in events important to a true, globally inclusive democracy. At this point, all of the protesters are on course to become Mediators if they could overcome their emotions and fully embrace the level of cooperation that is now open. Such a switch requires Integrity. Integrity is not innate, it is acquired when a person makes the decision to overcome their imaginary shame and desire for victory or fame, and commit to the search of true principles and to express them in speech and action. If they could do so, they will become the greatest assets of humanity, and UC Davis might be credited as the origin of this goodwill that will ripple all over the world. So please feel free to rejoin the discussion. You may do it for the honor of truth and peace, or the honor to keep a crazy person occupied. —EW
2012-03-11 18:47:44 "Part of the reason is that I do have some principles and diligence to back up my conclusion." So that's your excuse? And the rest of the world is unprincipled and unwilling to seriously discuss things? No. You are discussing irrelevant minutæ ad nauseum. Most people would rather do other things with their time rather than play that game. It doesn't mean you've won the argument or even that you're more serious about it. It means you're waging a war of attrition. Though you have written many words, you've said remarkably little. Through your exhaustive dissection of strawman arguments, you've demonstrated that you don't understand what other people are arguing. And though you have written quite a bit about your reasoning, a careful reading of your arguments uncovers many assumptions that nearly everyone else in the world would take issue with.
This discussion, if it is to take place, needs to take place on a higher level. You're operating on a level barely above machine code (at least you're not using first order logic) while everyone else is writing pseudocode. It also needs to focus on the issues at hand. The unrequested (and frankly, unwelcome) digressions into your ideas about ethics and discourse is noise that most people are unwilling to deal with.
And just to say it in advance: I'm not going to get sucked in to this. Normally, I'm quite willing to respond to people who respond to my arguments. Your style of argumentation makes this infeasible. I do not have the time nor the patience when there are so many other things I have to do. —WilliamLewis
- Most of the content (if not all of them) you see here in the comment section are my reply in respond to false accusation. If someone makes a false accusation then I have to response. If it does not end, it is because people keep on attacking. In your comment you accused me saying the rest of the world is unprincipled and unwilling to seriously discuss things. However you ignored my statement that followed immediately that reads, "I can attest that this is rare in online discussions." Together, the meaning is this: In the context of online discussion, it is rare for people to connect their argument all the way to a set of unifying principles. This statement does not mean that I think the world is unprincipled. A principled person could get caught off-guard in an online argument. You say that my ideas of ethics is noise. My explanation is that the proper understanding of ethics is necessary to stop false accusations. When I posted about ethics, I thought that people would know to follow them because they were basic. I did not imagine that people would ignore or oppose them. In the old days when there were few university graduates, university graduates have the reputation of being ethical, principled, well-mannered, who can think critically and explain. The reason was that in the old days, 'university graduates' were not studying technologies, but mainly ethics and philosophy. They were the people villagers seek to resolve disputes because the village can count on them being fair and is acting on the best interest of the village. Nowadays that reputation is pretty much totally disappeared. 'University graduate' is almost a synonym to 'job seeker'. The title had lost its own meaning. A traditional university graduate would never be impatient in explaining, because they understand that, if anything, the world lacks people who has the patience to listen. People get caught up in the day-to-day things, worrying about their worldly possessions and lose track of the big picture and the bigger meaning of life. Ethics is in the center that defines what a university graduate is, and also what the mission of a university is. The petition created by Brown, and the pressure for Katehi's resignation showed a lack of due diligence and ethics. In particular, that petition should not have been created by anyone who graduated from a university (same goes for many blogs written in similar fashion), because no university graduate should carelessly make false accusations or allow any false accusation to remain. When I think of UC Davis, I think of the water tower. I never notice any landmark that inspired me to be ethical (the egg heads did not help). Perhaps the Admin thought that no one needed to be reminded that ethics is one of main outcomes that graduates should attain. Perhaps the lack of that reminder is a problem. —EW
- Hahaha. -MeggoWaffle
- My boss said that when they were hiring, the problem wasn't that applicants were under-qualified, but that people with the right attitude were hard to find. If I think about it, I don't know if it is the university or the society as a whole dropped the ball. Many people have concern that they can't afford university education. But university education can be practically free anytime if everyone who supports it takes the time to answer questions that learners have. Because of this, it is quite easy to screen out who is a true supporter of free education, versus those who merely want to be given a free education. Those who actually supports free, open education would teach and explain anything they know, even if they themselves didn't get that knowledge for free. They have no intention to keep knowledge for their own because they are trying to teach. Their patience is infinite because they don't have deadlines to meet or any reputation to uphold, as they knew that it isn't about them as teachers, but about the learner needing that knowledge. They do not laugh at those who knew less. This one I don't know how to explain because it is so absurd. I mean, when did anyone see a teacher laugh at the students for not nothing something? In a discussion, a participant would take both the role as the teacher and student at the same time, as a result, there is no circumstance where a participants would laugh at the other. I do not know how to interpret Meggo's response because that has become archaic. My mind no longer has a model of a person who would laugh at this situation. Could you explain why you laughed? —EW
2012-03-11 19:03:53 Please stop arguing with people for the sake of arguing. This is a collaborative project to document Davis, not a discussion site. Please try to collaborate with your fellow editors. By necessity, this involves communication, but it does not require debate about non-content related topics. There is some social discussion here that promotes community bonding and even friendship, but you are not engaging in that either. Instead you are trying to manufacture and win arguments — something nobody else is doing, nor is it an activity that people are interesting in engaging you in. In short: please stop picking fights. —JabberWokky
- As I explained to WL above, this type of response is not arguing for the sake of arguing. We are not arguing whether the university is spherical or cubic. I am defending against false accusations made by other editors including you. If people stop accusing then I won't need to reply. Please note that at least two times I was accused of something that I was only able to unequivocally clear myself because the medium was Wiki. If this was another medium where that was no time stamp or record on what was written, I would have been persecuted by false accusations. This is very dangerous because it happens due to a lack of goodwill to discuss. If this was the real world in the old days, the community would have already burned a few innocent people at the stake. —EW (continue below)
- Your asking me to collaborate is misleading because I have been collaborating, in addition to being attacked. The discussion about the petition was originally in the comments section of the Nov18 article. On the Talk page I was discussing what could be edited and what could not, because I was told to stop editing. Then you deleted the talk page (Feb16, Feb17). As a result the discussion continued on my user page. As far as I understand there should be no problem for me to discuss on my own user page, because editors posted on my user page voluntarily. A discussion page was also created for the Nov18 article, but the other editors continued to reply on my user page instead of the designated area for such discussion. False accusations and reactions over the Nov18 were tearing the community apart. I was at least stopped two times trying to post something that explains which part of the accusations toward the Admin was unfounded. It has been a few time you stressed the importance of communication but so far between you and me, you have been the only one dropping communications (Mar6). In your comment you said I was trying to manufacture and win arguments and picking fights, but I was the one defending from accusations. If they make an argument, then I will reply. That is a mutual interaction. If you want to pursue this accusation please pinpoint an instance. Again, this isn't about trying to win argument. This is a direct result of you making a false accusation of my intention. I am not defending an argument just for the sake of it. I am defending myself from you because you are attacking me. —EW (continue below)
- Overall, what is your concern? People are coming to my user page to attack my argument, and I reply on my user page. For the Pepper Spray related stuff I post at the discussion page while other editors fail to. What is the actual problem you are trying to address? How am I the one picking fights when others (including you) came to my page to talk to me? If you have something you want to resolve, would you articulate your concern? Otherwise I don't see a reason for you to post what you did, because there was no evidence that I was posting anywhere anything inappropriate. If I didn't reply, someone could misunderstand that I was posting everywhere "picking fights", but I did not. You didn't include the context, it was an open accusation. Could you explain how I should reply to your post if my reply is inappropriate? If you try to tell someone what they write is inappropriate, you should know what is appropriate to write. Otherwise, they wrote it not because they wanted to, but because they had to. —EW
- I have stated my concerns. You seem entirely unable to grasp the issues at hand. -jw
- In your most recent post you did not state a concern. In the following I will explain line by line its absence. But as a preface I will first explain the importance of focusing on 'concern' instead of more 'outcome' because it is necessary in explaining why your reply did not state a concern. In plain text, the reason is that focusing on outcome often gets people stuck in deadlocks because when outcomes conflict one another there will be no obvious solution. However, when people articulate their underlying concerns, then a solution could emerge in one of two main ways: 1) The concerns do not conflict, so both parties can draft another solution; 2) One or both parties realize that they have no underlying concern to stop the other party from doing they want and simply stops obstructing the other party. I think (1) is simple to understand, but (2) might need an illustration. Mary wants to buy Ice-cream and told John that she is going to get it from Sam's. John has a personal grudge against Sam and tells Mary not to go, without telling her about his feeling toward Sam. Mary asks John for his concern. At this point, John cannot answer because John's reason is completely personal. Being a person with integrity, John admits that he has a personal grudge against Sam, and that it was none of his business to stop Mary from going to Sam's. The following is a line-by-line explanation on why a concern was not stated in your comment Mar11: —EW (Continue below)
- L1: This is a declaration of your desired outcome. There could be many possible concerns behind a desired outcome. But I don't need to guess what your concern is because you are right here so I could just ask you. L2: This is a declaration of your perspective or conclusion. To state it as a concern, you could have said something like, "I don't want this to turn into a discussion site". If you declare this as your concern, then I will either address it or perhaps rebut it because it potentially has a mis-attribution of the context. L3: Declaration of desired outcome. If you state this as a concern, then you are declaring that you want to cooperate. This I had already addressed in my reply that I was collaborating. If you pursue this concern you will have to clarify what the problem is, because if Mary and John are not collaborating, it is not known who needs to change. L4: Declaration of desired outcome. This I have also addressed by explaining the concept that if you find something inappropriate, you need to have an idea what is appropriate, propose it, and ask the other party whether they have a problem with it. Otherwise, you do not yet know what you find to be inappropriate is necessary for the situation. L5: That is a fact, but this fact apparent contradicts your L2 that. You will need to distinguish your opposition against "discussion site" and your support for "discussion" for L2 to make sense. L6: Declaration of your conclusion. You should also explain this one because this constitutes an accusation. I have addressed this. L7: Declaration of desired outcome. For this one you should distinguish the meaning between a "fight" and a "disagreement", or to confirm whether they are the same. —EW (continue below)
- I didn't say you had no concerns. I was asking you to state it because if you look at a desired outcome, there could be many possible concerns. I am asking you to pick the most important one you have and we proceed from there. I have already explained that your desired outcome is inappropriate because it does not address my concern that comments you and others make toward me distort the intention and meaning of my responses. You wanted me to stop, but I can't stop because I am the one being attacked, and looking for the solution. To do so I need to ask questions, such as now—asking you what your concern is. The type of response that you just gave is inappropriate because there is no constructive reason for you to state that I don't get your concern instead of simply stating your concern. If you cannot simply state your concern, could you explain your reasons, just as I explained why I can't just stop? —EW
2012-03-19 23:14:00 In response to your points, I refer you to the following principles:
- Cats always win on the internet. I once saw a cute kitty. It was in a box, all curled up in a little ball. It made squeaky noises when I pet it, and my heart melted like butter cut by a hot knife inside a volcano. Snuggly little things! Awwwwww! Cats disagree with you. And this is in the Internet. You lose.
- Brilliance. Whether it's super shiny, bright things or super smart things, we've got them. And they think you're wrong. All of them. The bright ones and the smart ones. All brilliant things think you're wrong.
- Correctness. Not-wrongness says you're wrong. By definition, that means you're wrong. Because not-wrongness isn't wrong. Duh.
- Apple Pie. It's American as hell, and if you disagree with it, you're a terrorist. It disagrees with you. So you better shape up or ship out, commie!
I have relied on the principles of Cats, Brilliance, Correctness, and Apple Pie to counter your argument based on cooperation, diligence, and ethical culture. You have been out-principled, and I put more words in bold than you. You are, therefore, wrong. I expect a prompt apology for your false accusations.
Thank you and good day. —PrincipleJones
- You have not come up any logically-sound argument. The following numbered list describes the problems. If you are expecting an apology you need to explain what my false accusation was because we had never talked. Please also note that the discussion was about the signing of the petition. I used the principles on cooperation, diligence, and ethical culture against the signing of the petition. Please clarify whether you intend to use your principles to argue for the signing of the petition.
- As explained above, at least three of your principles are self-contradictory. Individually or as a group, they do not have the integrity (internal consistency) to address the facts of the discussion. Please update or clarify your principles. Since I related my principles to world peace, could you also declare the stance your principles have toward that? —EW
- (GIF) —PrincipleJones
Comments:
You must be logged in to comment on this page. Please log in.