Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Athena · Apr 22, 2007, 02:12 pm

When there is contention between a moderator and myself, I become more sensitive to their messages as they "personally" regard to me. This has resulted in me noticing some titles under our names are more respectful than others.

Granted what I think could be distorted by the bad feeling I am left with when moderators are clear in telling me I have displeased them, but I wonder, is there a hint of disrespect in the words under some names and admiration in other titles?

Who wouldn't rather have a title that is admiring and what are we willing to do to please those in power, so we too can have a good title? How healthy is this? Are they men of God, or just human beings? This is as an awareness question including all of life.

Milton Bradley · Apr 22, 2007, 02:55 pm

You can edit that name yourself in your user pfofile.

What you have is a default title that suggests that you post often.

phoenix_fire · Apr 23, 2007, 04:31 pm

Yup. I usually change mine to match my avatar.

Athena · Apr 23, 2007, 05:57 pm

Thanks fellows, but thinking about my question, I am really torn. I think personal relationships are empowering and are therefore a good thing. However, when things are handled on a personal level with individual decisions, a form of tyranny is possible.

On the other hand, nothing is more tyrannical than the one size fits bureaucracy we now have, where decisions are not personal and it is not in the power of the individual to make decisions. This completely crushes individual liberty and power, because no decisions are left to the individual.

Furthermore, if a person can be rewarded by leaders, this is a motivation to be pleasing to the leaders. When a reward is not possible, we loose a vital element of social control. The promotion by merit is so impersonal, unqualified people can be promoted, while the best person for the job, may be closed out by the unfit who passed a merit test, but really do not have personal qualities for the job. The motivation to be a social person is lacking when the system is too impersonal.

Darn, it is hard to achieve perfection. No matter how we do things there are problems. But it was the German (military) model of impersonal promotion based on merit, that lead Eisenhower to praise Germany's contribution to democracy. This system is so different from the king and his men granting or taking away personal privileges by whim. Before promotion by merit became dominate, getting jobs and being promoted was done the way Bush is doing things, through personal relationships and likes and dislikes, or exchange of favors. We turned to the merit system, because it is suppose to prevent corruption, and the power plays that seem associated with Bush.

Anyway, after thinking things through, I think I better stop complaining, because I would rather be banned if a moderator gets irritated with me, than crush individual liberty and power. To what degree should rules and policies rule us, and to what degree should we have individual freedom to act on our own? I just wish the moderators could have argued with me as well as I argue with myself, but I think they kept reading on a personal level, instead of a broader social level, and a matter of the principles we lived by. After arguing with myself, I loose. :)

Apr 22, 2007, 02:12 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
Athena Volcanic Erupter Location: Oregon Posts: 5,172	Respect and personal judgement When there is contention between a moderator and myself, I become more sensitive to their messages as they "personally" regard to me. This has resulted in me noticing some titles under our names are more respectful than others. Granted what I think could be distorted by the bad feeling I am left with when moderators are clear in telling me I have displeased them, but I wonder, is there a hint of disrespect in the words under some names and admiration in other titles? Who wouldn't rather have a title that is admiring and what are we willing to do to please those in power, so we too can have a good title? How healthy is this? Are they men of God, or just human beings? This is as an awareness question including all of life.

Apr 23, 2007, 04:31 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
phoenix_fire Paladin Location: Narnia Posts: 4,277	Yup. I usually change mine to match my avatar. Place me like a seal over your heart, like a seal on your arm; for love is as strong as death, its jealousy unyielding as the grave. It burns like blazing fire, like a mighty flame. -- Song 8:6

Apr 22, 2007, 02:55 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
Milton Bradley BANNED Location: Ohio Province, Rep. of Comerica Posts: 7,320	You can edit that name yourself in your user pfofile. What you have is a default title that suggests that you post often.

Apr 23, 2007, 05:57 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
Athena Volcanic Erupter Location: Oregon Posts: 5,172	Thanks fellows, but thinking about my question, I am really torn. I think personal relationships are empowering and are therefore a good thing. However, when things are handled on a personal level with individual decisions, a form of tyranny is possible. On the other hand, nothing is more tyrannical than the one size fits bureaucracy we now have, where decisions are not personal and it is not in the power of the individual to make decisions. This completely crushes individual liberty and power, because no decisions are left to the individual. Furthermore, if a person can be rewarded by leaders, this is a motivation to be pleasing to the leaders. When a reward is not possible, we loose a vital element of social control. The promotion by merit is so impersonal, unqualified people can be promoted, while the best person for the job, may be closed out by the unfit who passed a merit test, but really do not have personal qualities for the job. The motivation to be a social person is lacking when the system is too impersonal. Darn, it is hard to achieve perfection. No matter how we do things there are problems. But it was the German (military) model of impersonal promotion based on merit, that lead Eisenhower to praise Germany's contribution to democracy. This system is so different from the king and his men granting or taking away personal privileges by whim. Before promotion by merit became dominate, getting jobs and being promoted was done the way Bush is doing things, through personal relationships and likes and dislikes, or exchange of favors. We turned to the merit system, because it is suppose to prevent corruption, and the power plays that seem associated with Bush. Anyway, after thinking things through, I think I better stop complaining, because I would rather be banned if a moderator gets irritated with me, than crush individual liberty and power. To what degree should rules and policies rule us, and to what degree should we have individual freedom to act on our own? I just wish the moderators could have argued with me as well as I argue with myself, but I think they kept reading on a personal level, instead of a broader social level, and a matter of the principles we lived by. After arguing with myself, I loose. :)