Hospitality

[I. Marc Carlson]

<Gunhilda<Leslie Miller <miller at pp.okstate.edu>>>
>Well, that's unfortunate.  Certainly, I'd prefer that nobody hurt, 
>bash, stomp, or flame anybody else on this list.  And that was my 
>point from the beginning: _nobody_ hurt, bash, stomp, or flame 
>_anybody_ else on this list.  Two wrongs don't make a right.

Perhaps not.  My point, however, is that *ignoring* the a wrong (particularly
one that is part of a long running behavior pattern) can, in the long run,
be a bigger wrong than indicating your displeasure at that wrong.

>You can throw in all the qualifiers in the world, and you still won't 
>change my mind about that.  I don't even think you'll be able to 
>convince me that it's a necessary evil, but you can try.

Why should I "convince" you of anything?

>OK, I'll grant you that.  I agree that we should not ignore boorish 
>behavior, personal attacks, etc.  What I do object to is attacking 
>personal attacks with personal attacks.  Some people on this list 
>have very eloquently and politely asked Michael to tone down his 
>language etc.  I even posted in response to one of his messages.  
>That's fine.  

This was a good thing, I agree.

>I asked Wolf Star to move their party back to their camp at Interkingdom 
>(and they very kindly complied).  But I did it nicely and politely, and 
>if they had refused, well, that's when I would have gone back to my tent 
>and stuck some earplugs in.

Weren't you the Autocrat of that event?

>I wouldn't have gotten belligerant with them or called them names or 
>made threats against them etc.

Did they know that?  I mean with you being the Autocrat, and all.

>...That would only have caused an escalation of unpleasantness.  
>I'm sorry, but if people don't understand what the dream is all 
>about, they're not going to understand.  I just don't feel that _I_ 
>have the right to "enforce" those principles....

I don't feel that I have the right NOT to do my part to enforce the
general principles of courtesy and politeness.

>, and, in fact, I feel that "enforcement" is antithetical to what the 
>dream is all about. How can you "force" somebody to be chivalric and 
>polite and still be chivalric and polite yourself?

Who said "force"? (Granted I used the term enforce, but the two terms
while related are not necessarily synonymous).  For that matter, who said 
I was Chivalric? I'm just some guy who'd prefer to be treated with as much
respect as I show the people I'm communicating with, and is willing to
stand up for himself when he isn't being treated that way.

>You can ask them politely to cooperate, and you can lead by example, 
>but I don't see many other options... 

So, I shouldn't stand up for myself.  I'm afraid I can't live by your
rules.  So now what?

>Yes, but I can tell we're probably not going to agree on how to go 
>about fixing them. :-)  I disagree that an attitude of "well, we 
>don't want to interfere with their fun" is what is causing the 
>increase of unpleasantness.  I was wondering what you considered the 
>precise nature of that connection to be.  I'm having a hard time 
>seeing how measures to decrease the number of thefts are interfering 
>with somebody's fun, perhaps.  Telling people not to leave their 
>armor by the list field overnight?   What exactly are you suggesting 
>we are/are not/need to do, here?  And perhaps this should be made a 
>subject of its own, because it is something which affects us all.

Clearly I am unable to express the connection in a way you will understand.

>However, it's one thing to 
>"expect" simple courtesy, and another when you try to coerce it 
>with hurtful language.

Please define hurtful language.

>This is the main reason I felt I had to respond to your post.
>I don't recall ever having said that, or even insinuating it.  I think 
>you're just trying to push my buttons, because I think you know me 
>better than that...

No, I'm not trying to push *anything* of yours.

>...But just in case, let me reiterate:  I want _everyone_ to be welcome, 
>_including_ Michael.  If he refuses to play by our rules, I don't want 
>to see him thrown out, and I don't want to see him verbally bludgeoned...

Which means that people who behave badly are being told that they can do
whatever they want to because No one will stop them.  The people who
*should* be stopping them are ignoring them.  There comes a time, for some
of us, at least, when you "turn the other cheek" you run out of "other
cheeks".

>...Those things violate _my_ views of hospitality.

Then I won't do them in your house.

>  That leaves the option of ignoring him, trying to 
>set a better example, trying to like him for who and what he is, 
>and _politely_ reminding him when he's being offensive.  (Most of the 
>time I opt for ignoring him or trying to like him for who and what he 
>is.)

And when the people who you are trying to ignore in hopes that they will
catch a clue make it apparent that they couldn't care less what you think?

>Obviously, we're not all going to get along, and I call myself an 
>idiot because I heartily wish we all would.

No, not an idiot, perhaps just unrealistic.

>Unfortunately none of us are saints, and we find it difficult to forgive 
>and forget.  

It's easier to forgive and forget when the objectionable behavior isn't
being continually repeated.

>It's not an ideal world, and we disagree on how to go about trying to 
>make it more ideal than it is.  Oh well.  
>Is the horse dead yet?

What, after two exchanges?  If it is, then it wasn't worth discussing in the
first place.

Diarmuit