About: TerraDrive Universe:Do not disrupt the TerraDrive Universe to illustrate a point

Description
Metadata
Settings
- owl:sameAs
- Inference Rule:

About: TerraDrive Universe:Do not disrupt the TerraDrive Universe to illustrate a point Sponge Permalink

An Entity of Type : owl:Thing, within Data Space : 134.155.108.49:8890 associated with source dataset(s)

Discussion, rather than unilateral action, is the preferred means of changing policies, and the preferred mechanism for demonstrating the problem with policies or the way they are implemented. This means that an individual who opposes the state of a current rule or policy should not attempt to create proof that the rule does not work in the TerraDrive Universe itself.

Attributes	Values
rdfs:label	TerraDrive Universe:Do not disrupt the TerraDrive Universe to illustrate a point
rdfs:comment	Discussion, rather than unilateral action, is the preferred means of changing policies, and the preferred mechanism for demonstrating the problem with policies or the way they are implemented. This means that an individual who opposes the state of a current rule or policy should not attempt to create proof that the rule does not work in the TerraDrive Universe itself.
dbkwik:terradrive/...iPageUsesTemplate	dbkwik:resource/C95fkuc5u55woWKOxUPVVw== dbkwik:resource/QSAnoVOWm2s86hqGfFkB2Q== dbkwik:resource/ai8b0214QXXK0PHcgtm2kQ== dbkwik:resource/LZ-_1iClDpGAe1wFATPGeQ== dbkwik:resource/zDfKN0JOsb5D0dwKWEyR1Q==
abstract	Discussion, rather than unilateral action, is the preferred means of changing policies, and the preferred mechanism for demonstrating the problem with policies or the way they are implemented. This means that an individual who opposes the state of a current rule or policy should not attempt to create proof that the rule does not work in the TerraDrive Universe itself. In the past, many contributors have found their stress levels rising, particularly when an issue important to them has been handled unfairly in their view. The contributor may point out inconsistencies, perhaps citing other cases that have been handled differently. And the contributor may postulate: "What if everyone did that?" In this situation, it is tempting to illustrate a point using either parody or some form of breaching experiment. For example, the contributor may apply the decision to other issues in a way that mirrors the policy they oppose. These activities are generally disruptive: i.e., they require the vast majority of objective editors to clean up or revert the "proof." In general, such edits are strongly opposed by those who believe them to be ineffective tools of persuasion. Many readers consider such techniques spiteful, as passers-by are caught in the crossfire of edits that are not made in good faith, and which are designed to provoke outrage and opposition. As a general rule, points are best expressed directly in discussion, without irony or subterfuge. Direct statements are the best way to garner respect, agreement and consensus.

OpenLink Virtuoso version 07.20.3217, on Linux (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu), Standard Edition
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2012 OpenLink Software