Spot's bullying

[spot]

It was an ongoing open-ended discussion, chonsi. We were all learning from it. She'd have easily seen "that particular thread is for serious discussion" if she'd read even slightly in it. You don't feel that my treating her as a person and addressing her rather than as a troll and ignoring her was the more welcoming approach on my part?

[spot]

SnoozeControl wrote: Some of the forums have titles that include "for serious discussion only"... I think a polite reminder of this would work in most cases.That appears only once anywhere, on "Friends, Relationships, & Advice" - it's not even on "Bereaved Parents". Besides, I don't think Dinah would have blinked twice before ignoring any injunction. Do you?

[chonsigirl]

Yes, she should have known it was serious. But she posted anyway. Some will do so my dear Spot. Then if it was open-ended, she should be allowed to post. You can choose through your responses whether to address the points she brings up or not.

We all do not think alike, or react alike to different responses. Those of us who have been here long know each other well enough to decide whether to repond to a post or not. Hey, you even responded to Snooze's hyena remark, which I do admit sends me into gales of laughter. And we have learned which threads not to post our off topic humor posts.

Personally, I have learned not to post in certain threads. Do I find them intimidating? Yes, I do. I leave those discussions alone now, I do not even read them. Then I do not worry about them, and they do not worry me back. The proverbial dog and the bone, and more gnawing then digestion going on. I would rather have the harmony regained remain, then venture out into a thread of possible contention.

[anastrophe]

a reminder, once again: please do not use the 'quote' tags in the first post of a new thread. there is a bug/shortcoming in the posting software, which causes it to go goofy if confronted with a quote where it thinks no quote should be. i've modified the first post to eliminate the quote tags.

[spot]

anastrophe wrote: a reminder, once again: please do not use the 'quote' tags in the first post of a new thread. there is a bug/shortcoming in the posting software, which causes it to go goofy if confronted with a quote where it thinks no quote should be. i've modified the first post to eliminate the quote tags.Oh bugger. It's always me, too. I did know. I've written it on a sticky and put it on my monitor now. I'll try a Hail Mary Full of Grace and see if that does anything.

[spot]

Pinky wrote: To start another thread devoted to it seems attention seeking to say the least.I'm trying to form a collective opinion on how to deal with new posters who arrive with an agenda and no intention of taking part in what we already have. We've had about ten of them so far this year, and they're poisonous. This thread's the first discussion we've attempted on that topic.

[anastrophe]

and BR, please, i have asked you before not to employ your creative workarounds for the censoring software. i realize it's impossible for us to add every iteration of every substitution possible in getting around the less-than-intelligent censoring software. however, is the colorful intent lost by simply saying 'bullbleep' or 'horsehockey'? at minimum, may i simply ask that you not use giganto-hear-me-now fontification when doing so?



less in your face, more 'you get the idea', please.



i don't want to have to call you on your gosh-darned shenanigans again, see?

[anastrophe]

and lastly, why do we have these tempests in a teapot always on either a sunday, or a holiday monday? i need my beauty sleep, and these interruptions only increase the furrow in my brow.

[spot]

anastrophe wrote: i need my beauty sleepWe've seen the photos, we sympathise mightily.

On the matter of swearing, and the filter's ignorance of (say) German, have you any advice on whether to stray that way? I've been tempted but, so far, refrained.

[anastrophe]

Pinky wrote: HUH? What the?





I'm sorry admin, but I don't fully GET THIS?!


Get what?

[anastrophe]

by the way, pinky, your signature image is broken. is creates an annoying red-'x' "no image here" filler for some of us.



not that i'm trying to derail this topic. no, never. i certainly hope that nobody else will INFER that i am doing so, as i myself am definitely not IMPLYING it.

[spot]

Good God, check that the padlock's properly shut on the cage, someone's sprayed the pheromone can again. I don't know why you guys do this to him. Another round of this and we'll have him neutered, it's the only long-term solution.

[chonsigirl]

It gives me plenty of arcade time.................................

[anastrophe]

i myself happen to be a huge, huge fan of the word 'f u c k'. see, how i creatively bypassed the very censoring software that i'm partially charged with managing, in order to get the intended word out there without the software eliding it?



in any event, i happen to use swear words in prodigious measure in my normal, day to day life. i think in swear words. the thread of chatter going in my head hardly goes a few sentences without f u c k drifting through. 'what a stupid f u c k'. 'how f u c king out of touch is this guy'. 'what the f u c k is he talking about'. luckily, my day job consists of putting my robe on, sitting down here in front of the computer for five hours, taking a brief break to shower and shave, then returning, dressed, to sit here in front of the computer for another nine or twelve hours. so there's not a lot of other people subjected to my stream of epithets, mental or otherwise.



the problem is, forumgarden is supposed to be a friendly place. and because intonation is absent in the written word, my loving use of the term f u c k in normal conversation would be lost. as well, because we are largely advertiser supported, and the advertiser frowns upon 'adult content' which may or may not include explicit words, we further frown, thus deepening the aforementioned furrows.



clear as wines of shyraz?

[anastrophe]

Pinky wrote: So why direct it at us, when we're tryng to sort out NOT abusing members?


because i'm trying to derail the topic. i thought that was clear.



this is a tempest in a teapot. yes, spot's PM was rude. however, his asking the member not to further digress within that topic was not particularly out of bounds.

[anastrophe]

Pinky wrote: As far as i am concerned, I've not sworn at anyone, or called anyone names.



So..hypothetical question..it's alright for people to attack other people on here...do the same rules apply as swearing?


sorry, i don't follow. it's not acceptable to attack other people on forumgarden. where did you get that idea?

[anastrophe]

anastrophe wrote: because i'm trying to derail the topic. i thought that was clear.



this is a tempest in a teapot. yes, spot's PM was rude. however, his asking the member not to further digress within that topic was not particularly out of bounds.


talk about being unclear.



what i meant was that spot's PM was rude. however, when he asked - within the topic itself - that the member not further digress, that was not particularly out of bounds. digression happens. by the same measure, people attempting to steer back on topic happens also.

[anastrophe]

Pinky wrote: It seems that lots of people get away with it without anyone Standing up to them!

I don't see that as acceptable, by anY measure, and I'm glad you don't either.


'standing up' to someone who is attacking others isn't generally the best way to deal with it.



as we (the management) have said time and again (and many can be forgiven for not being aware, since it's not carved somewhere here for everyone to see), we prefer to 'rule' forumgarden with benign neglect. we expect our members to comport themselves in a reasonably dignified fashion, and to sort out their differences themselves. we (again, the management - tombstone and anastrophe) rarely participate here, as more often than not we have Other Things To Do. So we rely upon members using the "report this post" button when things get out of hand, bearing in mind again that the management doesn't want to get involved in every little squabble that erupts.



last time i looked, more than 2,000 new posts appear on forumgarden every day. it's more than management could possibly vet, not that we'd even want to.



it's best if members think of themselves as the management. in fact, for the most part, you are. you create forumgarden anew each day.

[spot]

anastrophe wrote: yes, spot's PM was rude.Hah! PINKY... I told you "I expect my 'being put down' will arrive in a while". I win!

That was the politest PM I've written in months, too.

All right! Clear off! Go on! Move along. There's nothing to see! Keep moving.

[spot]

Pinky wrote: Any hoo...why does that red X worry you so much? Frightnened of it? Huh? For God's sake woman, get into bed - have you not seen the time?

[spot]

And where's Angie when you need her?

[devist8me]

I, for one, hate when threads get derailed. It's irritating to enter a thread on a certain topic, only to find the last 3 pages are nothing but talking about the weather or inside jokes. And yes, I've done it before, only because a thread is SO derailed, there's not chance it will get back on track.

And Spots remarks are not THAT bad. I've had experiences in this forum with a certain member much worse than this and no one piping up in this thread came to my defense. And I could care less about it either. For starters, you gotta have a backbone (to some extent) to play around in forums and if your too tender-hearted to handle a negative comment, then your probably not right for forums.

And this person probably won't be back anyway....why the fuss? (meaning, she had a agenda and no one was interested)

I'd also like to add I'm totally crushing on Anastrophe's avatar AGAIN.

[BabyRider]

anastrophe wrote: and BR, please, i have asked you before not to employ your creative workarounds for the censoring software. i realize it's impossible for us to add every iteration of every substitution possible in getting around the less-than-intelligent censoring software. however, is the colorful intent lost by simply saying 'bullbleep' or 'horsehockey'? at minimum, may i simply ask that you not use giganto-hear-me-nowfontification when doing so?



less in your face, more 'you get the idea', please.



i don't want to have to call you on your gosh-darned shenanigans again, see?Actually Paul, I do believe that bullshit gets by the censoring software. Maybe it's the "bull" in front of it...I dunno. But yes, I will refrain from the mondo fonts. A slip of the keys, if you will. A minute regression to my former hostile self. I'm on bended knee begging forgiveness. And I'll choose "bullbleep" from now on, that's more creative anyway. :yh_rotfl

[Peg]

I don't get it. I've seen people be way ruder than spot ever was to newbies and not a word was said. He allegedly chases away one newbie, yet nothing is said when someone else chases away a dozen. Guess it depends on who you are. :-5

[spot]

SnoozeControl wrote: It was cracking me up too. Guess that makes me a troll, huh?:rolleyes: ;)There's two reasons why you can do it and not be. One is your "Total Posts: 8,346" - your posts are interpreted in the light of what you've said before. The other is that the specific expression, having become perhaps the most famous example of trollishness, has become a comment on trollery and very difficult to actually troll with. Mentioning it in a thread has become a meaningful comment on trolldom rather than a trollish act.

As for bullshit, it's so weak that surely it qualifies with bloody bastard bugger and pissing as edgey words (all of which occur in the King James version of the Bible except, fortunately for us all, bugger) rather than calling a **** a **** or even an outright ******* dingo **** would. Oh - dingo's allowed? goodness me, how rude. I take collosal exception to varied font-size shouting, but I like BabyRider's bullshit, it suits her. It looks good in her messages. She doesn't use it often. She should be given a half-dozen bullshits in a clip and told to fire them sparingly. Nobody wants to see her emasculated.

[spot]

Peg wrote: I don't get it. I've seen people be way ruder than spot ever was to newbies and not a word was said. He allegedly chases away one newbie, yet nothing is said when someone else chases away a dozen. Guess it depends on who you are. :-5If it were one I don't think it would be a problem, Peg. This thread's not really about Dinah, it's about people who come onto forums with the sole intention of hammering in with their own reality rather than taking a community interest. Some of them get banned because they're promoting commercial ventures, which is fine. So far we don't have a culture that's prepared to ban what I suggest are spamming equivalents. They don't want money, they want either converts or kudos from within their cult or trollish satisfaction. Pressing the red triangle eliminates spammers, they're easy, they get banned. I don't think banning's desirable in any other case of newbie strangeness.

What I'd like, perhaps, is a general consensus that being rude to some newbies is just as valid a response as being welcoming and polite is to others. You know I can be welcoming and polite. I mostly am. I feel frustratingly leashed when I see someone turning up who won't listen and insists on pouring dogma over our heads. TruthBringer is a prime example of such a poster, I've tried to engage his attention but all he wants is another high-ranked site on the search engines to promote his folly. Were this my site I'd delete his thread after telling him why, and let him grind his teeth at his wasted hours.

There were two other posters this year to whom I was occasionally though not continuously derisive, Sixyearsleft and Downag. As far as Six is concerned, I even alerted the Yorkshire Police to his posts and I feel quite justified in doing so - nobody can post personal threats of violence and warnings that he has both a desire and intention to burn Christian priests and churches without some sort of real-world check.

So, thank you Peg, that's widened the issues slightly. Is being rude to some newbies just as valid a response as being welcoming and polite is to others? I'd like to know.

[Peg]

I think most of us have been rude to a newbie at one time or another who has just rubbed us the wrong way. You are not consistantly rude to newbies so I don't see why you should take all this heat. I know I could have either reported the thread or chose to ignore the poster when someone joined and their first thread was asking for money. Instead, I turned it into a joke. It's not something I'm proud of, but I did it. Personally, I hate when I go into a thread to read it expecting it to be about one thing and find out it has drifted off to something completely different. I've seen way worse said than what you said and nothing was said about it. I just don't get it. Rant over.:-3

[devist8me]

Peg wrote: I think most of us have been rude to a newbie at one time or another who has just rubbed us the wrong way. You are not consistantly rude to newbies so I don't see why you should take all this heat. I know I could have either reported the thread or chose to ignore the poster when someone joined and their first thread was asking for money. Instead, I turned it into a joke. It's not something I'm proud of, but I did it. Personally, I hate when I go into a thread to read it expecting it to be about one thing and find out it has drifted off to something completely different. I've seen way worse said than what you said and nothing was said about it. I just don't get it. Rant over.:-3


I'm right there with ya! Word for word!

[gmc]

In any group of say a dozen people talking you will get two or three that become deeply involved in a discussion, one or two others that will chip in but mainly listen and the rest will start talking to each other about totally unrelated subjects or on a sideline that comes up from the main conversation, and if they know each other well enough "in" jokes and insults will creep in to the conversation and they become totally diverted from the other group but listening enought that they can cpme back in to the conversation. All are entertained and having a good time . Occasionally someone will wander in to the group so self centred that they are completely oblivious to the fact that they are interupting someone conversation and are only concerned what they have to say themselves.

It's normal human interaction and that is all I think is happening in threads that are being taken off topic.

Is this a bad thing? The two or three that want to have a serious arguement can continue doing so and the rest do theirnown thing. It's like being at a noisy party except you see it developing in slow motion with the offtoipic posts being equivalent to the noisy bugger behind you droning out the one you want to hear. The time differences don't help. I don't know the time difference between east and west coast in the states but between the US and UK it's quite substantial. Sometimes I'll come back to a thread and there are 7 or 8 pages-othertimes only a couple of posts because the topic is only of passing interest.

Personally I loke the meanderings-sometimes you can end up talking to two or three people at once which you can't do in normal conversation.

If somebody wants to be offensive who cares? It's like being cut up in traffic. It's not what is done or said to you that matters but how you decide to react to it. Someone can only be offensive to you if you decide to take offence. Mind you cultural differences to cause problems and offence given when none was intended.

for instance "you silly bugger" is almost a term of affection in Lancashire and not in the least offensive. But I bet if I said that to a cowboy from the mid west I would either get a smack in the mouth or more affection than I wanted.

As to trolls. This activity is a form of intellectual masterbation and as such is not quite the real thing and actually rather sad. norman no mates usually go away anyway when they get no response. With some newbies you need to wark out whether they are really trolls or just completely lacking in the social graces. I've got used to forums now but it is very strange to begin with

[minks]

I think if our newbie (this one and others) had valid reasons and some backbone, they would have been back to defend themself. To me it looks a little "off" when they come in and spout off their agenda, stir up a little excitement and vanish forever. It reeks of pure "trollisim".

[Jives]

Welcome to my world, Spot.

I have to agree with you, staying on topic is considered "good netiquette." It's not a rule, but it's good form.

They have a place where people can go and change topics every single post....

They call them "chat rooms."

[spot]

Jives wrote: Welcome to my world, Spot.I beg your pardon?

Jives, were I in your world I would be so far from the Internet by now that nobody would ever hear from me again. You astound me every time you post.