Jon Pretty

I think this is failing to understand, once again, that people simply don't behave as perfect, omniscient, objective moral arbiters. They simply get tired of things they perceive as negative, regardless of whether they're justified or factual. https://t.co/5NY8UOPCi6 

I think that you have to go to great lengths to make yourself clear to a heterogeneous audience to avoid being misinterpreted by at least some part of that audience. It's difficult, but if you have a point you believe in, it's your duty to be persuasive: you owe it to your cause.

It seems delusional to pretend we're talking only to well-informed logicians, so we should lower all our expectations on how convincing we can be when making any point at all to a large audience. This new online world is, for better or worse, making politicians of all of us.

So if you have an argument to make, you need to decide whether you care about that more than just being right—your "ego", if you like—and if you do, try to empathize with every corner of your audience to persuade them.

Blocking and banning are pretty blunt tools for dealing with issues like this, but I can see the appeal to moderators: if they perceive negativity, they get a switch to turn it off and increase net positivity in the forum. But it also has the potential to exacerbate the problem.

If someone feels they've been maligned, and is willing to make a cause of it, hitting the "ban" button has the potential not only to improve positive vibes in one forum, but to create negative vibes elsewhere. Moderators need to understand that this is a reality of what happens.

So what do I propose? Talk to each other. Talk individually; privately. Take egos and politics out of the equation. Try to empathize, to understand each other. If you don't, then talk some more. If you end up arguing, take some time out, then talk again. Don't close the dialog.