Etiquette Hell

Forum Administration => Forum Announcements => Topic started by: Fluffy Cat on October 04, 2011, 09:47:34 PM

Title: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Fluffy Cat on October 04, 2011, 09:47:34 PM
This is only the most recent example:

http://www.etiquettehell.com/smf/index.php?topic=102032.0 (http://www.etiquettehell.com/smf/index.php?topic=102032.0)

Has the forum decided as a matter of principle that "retaliatory rudeness" is a more severe offense than original rudeness or seemingly purposeful instigation on the forum?  It seem like some posters, outed trolls included, are allowed to instigate controversy at will and often without comment or moderation, but any blunt and understandable response is considered over the line.  And if only one post was considered by forum moderation to be rude, why lock the thread? I'd appreciate some clarification.

ETA: Fixed link.  It wasn't meant to single out a specific response.  Sorry about that.




Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Melxb on October 04, 2011, 09:51:24 PM
That's a good question.  Is it an accumulation of small, snarky comments or just one controversial comment?  What's the the threshold for this?
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: ArizonaGirl77 on October 04, 2011, 09:52:07 PM
I see this more often than I care to on this, an etiquette board! It seems that the board mod's have their "favorites" and if you are on the list you can say and do whatever you want but if you aren't, you get called out for every little transgression. This is an etiquette board, therefore, all members should have to use proper etiquette and politeness at all times and not just get away with not being polite because they are a mod's favorite!
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Spoder on October 04, 2011, 09:57:44 PM
Honestly, I am confused. I am unsure what you are referring to.

I assumed the thread was locked because a) it had gone on for 10 pages and there probably wasn't much more to add, and b) the final post was a bit confrontational/personal, and the mod involved could see the whole thing deteriorating.

Who are the 'outed trolls' that you are referring to?  ???


*Edited because of bad choice of words.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Yvaine on October 04, 2011, 10:02:35 PM
Honestly, I am confused. I am unsure what you are referring to.

I assumed the thread was locked because a) it had gone on for 10 pages and there probably wasn't much more to add, and b) the final post was a bit confrontational/personal, and the mod involved could see the whole thing deteriorating.

Who are the 'outed trolls' that you are referring to?  ???


*Edited because of bad choice of words.

I'm not sure either. For me that link actually goes to one of my replies (#90)--and one that I thought was fairly innocuous. I'm wondering if it's a weird forum function and it's supposed to be pointing somewhere else.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Curly Wurly Doggie Breath on October 04, 2011, 10:04:15 PM
I am confused about the purposes of this thread. What do you hope to achieve and what outcome are you after. No Not snarky, truly curious.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Fluffy Cat on October 04, 2011, 10:05:21 PM

I'm not sure either. For me that link actually goes to one of my replies (#90)--and one that I thought was fairly innocuous. I'm wondering if it's a weird forum function and it's supposed to be pointing somewhere else.

Sorry, I fixed the link.  It wasn't meant to single out your reply at all. Oops.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Visiting Crazy Town on October 04, 2011, 10:06:41 PM
Fluffy I agree it does seem that some poster get more of a pass at what they say on the board but if another poster responded or even said the exact same thing they would be immediately smacked down for there statement
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: EduardosGirl on October 04, 2011, 10:07:27 PM
I think it boils down to one poster essentially calling a lot of people, other posters included, unethical because they "waste food" by her definition.

And that "unethical" boils down to "bad person", the same way that "rude" does for her.

I disagreed on both points (that wasting food is unethical and that rude = bad person), as did others, yet only those who responded to these claims seem to have been addressed. Not the initial point that we're all unethical.

I don't like to cry, point fingers and say "the mean person did something mean to me!" but lately, I do feel like there is almost a schoolyard feel to the forum, with particular behaviours abounding, but unequal moderation. I hate to say it, but it really does feel like favouritism which, coupled with the random deletions, just has me wary of even posting my opinion on the weather.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: GoldenGemini on October 04, 2011, 10:11:19 PM
I think it boils down to one poster essentially calling a lot of people, other posters included, unethical because they "waste food" by her definition.

And that "unethical" boils down to "bad person", the same way that "rude" does for her.

I disagreed on both points (that wasting food is unethical and that rude = bad person), as did others, yet only those who responded to these claims seem to have been addressed. Not the initial point that we're all unethical.

I don't like to cry, point fingers and say "the mean person did something mean to me!" but lately, I do feel like there is almost a schoolyard feel to the forum, with particular behaviours abounding, but unequal moderation. I hate to say it, but it really does feel like favouritism which, coupled with the random deletions, just has me wary of even posting my opinion on the weather.
I'm glad that's not just me! I kinda thought I had switched to the twilight zone lately. Glad other people have noticed this.

I have rarely posted lately, just in case I get jumped on. I don't like feeling scared to post in what was my favourite place on-line.  :'(  ??? :-\
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Fluffy Cat on October 04, 2011, 10:11:45 PM
I am confused about the purposes of this thread. What do you hope to achieve and what outcome are you after. No Not snarky, truly curious.

I would like to know if responding to provocation is considered a more severe forum offense than provocation or trolling itself all else being equal.  Because that is how it appears lately and it would influence my posting habits to know the answer.

And Hatstrap, I've noticed the same thing.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: LadyPekoe on October 04, 2011, 10:12:05 PM
It has been pointed out--by the mods--that starting a post with "Gee" or "Um" or any of those beginnings that smack of snark are frowned upon, so it's certainly interesting to see a mod do it.

And, as shown, it's difficult to have a thick skin when people lecture or get snarky with you all the time :)  Ask a lawyer or a BP executive. 
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Miss March on October 04, 2011, 10:18:14 PM
Quote
I'm glad that's not just me! I kinda thought I had switched to the twilight zone lately. Glad other people have noticed this.

I have rarely posted lately, just in case I get jumped on. I don't like feeling scared to post in what was my favourite place on-line.  :'(  ??? :-\

POD.

I keep hoping the mods will implement that "ignore" feature that they had planned on giving the site.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Curly Wurly Doggie Breath on October 04, 2011, 10:19:34 PM
I am confused about the purposes of this thread. What do you hope to achieve and what outcome are you after. No Not snarky, truly curious.

I would like to know if responding to provocation is considered a more severe forum offense than provocation or trolling itself all else being equal.  Because that is how it appears lately and it would influence my posting habits to know the answer.

And Hatstrap, I've noticed the same thing.

Thank You for answering, my reading and comprehending skills are shaky at moment.
I am not seeing this, but, [as above] that may be me.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: GoldenGemini on October 04, 2011, 10:20:43 PM
It has been pointed out--by the mods--that starting a post with "Gee" or "Um" or any of those beginnings that smack of snark are frowned upon, so it's certainly interesting to see a mod do it.

And, as shown, it's difficult to have a thick skin when people lecture or get snarky with you all the time :)  Ask a lawyer or a BP executive.

LOL! But yes, I get lectured a lot about my job, and it gets wearisome. It just grinds you down until you have to start saying something, or you will lose your soul. /dramallama
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: JoieGirl7 on October 04, 2011, 10:22:35 PM
I don't think that the mods really care who was ruder or who was rude first.  If they get enough reports that a thread is going downhill, they pop in and lock it.
 
There's a handful of mods and hundreds of threads.  They can't possibly go through and read every page of a thread to determine exactly on whom to drop the ax.
 
I don't think that their not being specific about exactly why they lock a thread is an indication that they are encouraging retaliatory rudeness.


I would like to know if responding to provocation is considered a more severe forum offense than provocation or trolling itself all else being equal.  Because that is how it appears lately and it would influence my posting habits to know the answer.

If someone is indeed trolling, responding to that provocation is walking right into their trap.

It has been pointed out--by the mods--that starting a post with "Gee" or "Um" or any of those beginnings that smack of snark are frowned upon, so it's certainly interesting to see a mod do it.

I think the general attitude of the management is that if we don't like it here we can leave.  I'm not putting a value judgement on that either way.
 
It's simply a fact.

We post at the pleasure of Ehelldame and her mods.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Allyson on October 04, 2011, 10:26:00 PM
I don't know. I haven't noticed certain posters getting 'special' treatment, but I could be really oblivious to something obvious--I have noticed some posters seem better-liked than others, but that's impossible to avoid, as not all personalities click. Sometimes it *does* feel a little bit arbitrary, about which threads are considered beyond the scope of the forum. But by arbitrary, all I really mean is 'I can't always figure out why one thread was locked and another wasn't. I wonder if it's a case of everyone feeling other posters are more favoured (like situations where everyone's convinced their siblings is the favourite kid!) because there are so many people it just seems hard to keep track of who likes who, and who has their comments ignored, and so on.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: EduardosGirl on October 04, 2011, 10:28:37 PM
I don't think that the mods really care who was ruder or who was rude first.  If they get enough reports that a thread is going downhill, they pop in and lock it.
 
There's a handful of mods and hundreds of threads.  They can't possibly go through and read every page of a thread to determine exactly on whom to drop the ax.
 
I don't think that their not being specific about exactly why they lock a thread is an indication that they are encouraging retaliatory rudeness.


I would like to know if responding to provocation is considered a more severe forum offense than provocation or trolling itself all else being equal.  Because that is how it appears lately and it would influence my posting habits to know the answer.

If someone is indeed trolling, responding to that provocation is walking right into their trap.

It has been pointed out--by the mods--that starting a post with "Gee" or "Um" or any of those beginnings that smack of snark are frowned upon, so it's certainly interesting to see a mod do it.

I think the general attitude of the management is that if we don't like it here we can leave.  I'm not putting a value judgement on that either way.
 
It's simply a fact.

We post at the pleasure of Ehelldame and her mods.

But we, or I am talking about a change in the way things are. I agree that if you don't like the place, then sure. Go. But when you *like* the place and like the people there, only to notice it changing in an unpleasant and confusing way, should we all just leave without saying anything?

I disagree with that assessment. I like EHell. I don't want to leave because, for the most part, it's greatly enjoyable. Does that mean I'm honourbound to shut my mouth rather than raise a polite objection to certain practices? Or just to leave? That really seems like cutting off my nose to spite my face.

ETA I totally agree with tnpenguinbaby, especially about opening dialogue with the mods.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: ArizonaGirl77 on October 04, 2011, 10:29:57 PM
I don't think that the mods really care who was ruder or who was rude first.  If they get enough reports that a thread is going downhill, they pop in and lock it.
 
There's a handful of mods and hundreds of threads.  They can't possibly go through and read every page of a thread to determine exactly on whom to drop the ax.
 
I don't think that their not being specific about exactly why they lock a thread is an indication that they are encouraging retaliatory rudeness.


I would like to know if responding to provocation is considered a more severe forum offense than provocation or trolling itself all else being equal.  Because that is how it appears lately and it would influence my posting habits to know the answer.

If someone is indeed trolling, responding to that provocation is walking right into their trap.

It has been pointed out--by the mods--that starting a post with "Gee" or "Um" or any of those beginnings that smack of snark are frowned upon, so it's certainly interesting to see a mod do it.

I think the general attitude of the management is that if we don't like it here we can leave.  I'm not putting a value judgement on that either way.
 
It's simply a fact.

We post at the pleasure of Ehelldame and her mods.

Yes, we can leave, you are right. However, I'd rather try to understand the "rules" and find out what is behind the favoritism that I (and obviously others) seem to feel is happening here,  the reason is because we like it here and don't want to leave except as a last resort. I don't think Fluffycat's question was out of line or warranted a response of "If you don't like it here you can leave", either.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Fluffy Cat on October 04, 2011, 10:30:34 PM
Audrey -

This thread was not locked without comment, so I don't see how that applies.  I have no problem with not caring who was rude first but explicitly calling out one poster as rude, while ignoring other rude posts does imply that there are varying standards.

I know I'm a guest here.  But its difficult to be a good guest when stated rules are applied inconsistently in front of everyone and one does not know for sure how to act or not act. 
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Spoder on October 04, 2011, 10:33:02 PM
Guys, I'm not sure that Audrey was saying that we *should* just put up with it or leave. I think she might have just been predicting the response this thread is likely to get.  ;).
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: tnpenguinbaby on October 04, 2011, 10:33:19 PM
Thank you HatStrap!!  Yes, we can leave.  Many have, some willingly, some not so much.  Like HatStrap I'd rather stay and fix what's broken rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater.

And I also agree with wanting that ignore button!!
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: ArizonaGirl77 on October 04, 2011, 10:34:06 PM
Audrey -

This thread was not locked without comment, so I don't see how that applies.  I have no problem with not caring who was rude first but explicitly calling out one poster as rude, while ignoring other rude posts does imply that there are varying standards.

I know I'm a guest here.  But its difficult to be a good guest when stated rules are applied inconsistently in front of everyone and one does not know for sure how to act or not act.

POD! Laciegirl called everyone "unethical", which is basically insulting everyone that thread but only Lady Pekoe gets smacked for calling Laciegirl on her comment? How is that in anyway ok?
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: GoldenGemini on October 04, 2011, 10:34:43 PM
I don't think that the mods really care who was ruder or who was rude first.  If they get enough reports that a thread is going downhill, they pop in and lock it.
 
There's a handful of mods and hundreds of threads.  They can't possibly go through and read every page of a thread to determine exactly on whom to drop the ax.
 
I don't think that their not being specific about exactly why they lock a thread is an indication that they are encouraging retaliatory rudeness.


I would like to know if responding to provocation is considered a more severe forum offense than provocation or trolling itself all else being equal.  Because that is how it appears lately and it would influence my posting habits to know the answer.

If someone is indeed trolling, responding to that provocation is walking right into their trap.

It has been pointed out--by the mods--that starting a post with "Gee" or "Um" or any of those beginnings that smack of snark are frowned upon, so it's certainly interesting to see a mod do it.

I think the general attitude of the management is that if we don't like it here we can leave.  I'm not putting a value judgement on that either way.
 
It's simply a fact.

We post at the pleasure of Ehelldame and her mods.

But we, or I am talking about a change in the way things are. I agree that if you don't like the place, then sure. Go. But when you *like* the place and like the people there, only to notice it changing in an unpleasant and confusing way, should we all just leave without saying anything?

I disagree with that assessment. I like EHell. I don't want to leave because, for the most part, it's greatly enjoyable. Does that mean I'm honourbound to shut my mouth rather than raise a polite objection to certain practices? Or just to leave? That really seems like cutting off my nose to spite my face.

ETA I totally agree with tnpenguinbaby, especially about opening dialogue with the mods.

Should I be first to invoke Godwin's law?  ;D  But really it is about an honest and open dialogue. Before any more damage is done to the reputation of the board.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: JoieGirl7 on October 04, 2011, 10:40:59 PM
Guys, I'm not sure that Audrey was saying that we *should* just put up with it or leave. I think she might have just been predicting the response this thread is likely to get.  ;).

Thank-you.  You are correct.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Scuba_Dog on October 04, 2011, 10:45:45 PM
That thread was deteriorating long before LadyPekoe posted and was rebuked.

I completely agree with FluffyCat.  It is crystal clear some posters can be rude, annoying, instigate squabbles and *nothing* happens.  It's equally crystal clear nothing happens because they continue to post without any breaks that would indicate their absence.  Disagree with one of these posters?  You will be gagged, banned either temporarily or permanently and the entire thread will disappear.

It is beyond frustrating to have posts disappear, entire threads disappear and posts be selectively edited without that editing being clearly identified.  Multiple threads have been started asking for explanations for these kinds of actions and universally the answer has been "you don't know everything that's going on and don't question our authority" and the thread is either locked or gone. 

Threads like this one are started because posters are sick and tired of the unequal treatment and are trying to initiate a meaningful dialogue between the posters and the mods so the forum can recover.  The forums have deteriorated into subjects which no longer have any substatantive content.  Most threads now are variations of "this clearly rude thing happened and I responded thusly.  Was I rude too?" 

I understand, as do all of us, that the mods are in charge.  If things don't change for the positive, I'm concerned there may not be much left for them to moderate.

+1, especially to the bolded.  It's a very unfortunate side-effect. 

I'm also sometimes shocked by the snarkiness of some of the thread closing comments made by MOD's.  Frequently, they come across more snide than any posts in the entire thread.  It seems counter-productive.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Fluffy Cat on October 04, 2011, 10:49:39 PM
Guys, I'm not sure that Audrey was saying that we *should* just put up with it or leave. I think she might have just been predicting the response this thread is likely to get.  ;).

Thank-you.  You are correct.

That's a fair enough prediction then.  But honestly, for a board that prides itself on self-improvement, it would be disappointing to get that official response to a concern for the community without evidence of some forum self-reflection first.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Mikayla on October 04, 2011, 10:49:49 PM
That thread was deteriorating long before LadyPekoe posted and was rebuked.


But this is subjective.  I've seen references, both in this thread and the one that got locked, to posters calling others unethical.  But the only thing I recall was someone calling *actions* unethical, not people.  To me, there's a big difference.  Are you sure you're not trying to see things?

I realize this is a minority view, and I'm hardly brown-nosing, but I don't see this favoritism everyone else does.  For the most part, the worst offenders I'm aware of who consistently pushed the envelope are gone. 

There's still some people who do it, but there's nothing stopping you from calling them on it, as long as it doesn't ratchet up the dialog.  I've done it and I'm still alive!

Obviously, I could be missing something, but if someone held a gun to my head and asked who the mod favorites are at e-hell, I wouldn't even have a clue what to say. 
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Iris on October 04, 2011, 10:57:44 PM
Perhaps I don't spend enough time on eHell or perhaps it's my general cluelessness but I haven't noticed any particular favouritism. I actually felt as though the 'dogpiling' trend has decreased a little lately. I was nervous to post for a while there but IME it had settled down a bit, so perhaps it just depends on the particular threads you are following at any time.

I will say that I have been surprised by how vehemently and bluntly some people will express themselves here. On occassion I have seen people saying things to others that I would consider frankly insulting IRL. However I don't think it is reasonable to expect the mods to read every single post on every single thread so I've always just assumed that perhaps the insultee didn't care enough to report it.

One final point - I know that I am probably more likely to interperet an ambiguous post as benign if it is posted by someone that I have seen many posts from and that in my experience is usually a polite and respectful poster. So perhaps the mods are the same - if they've seen someone post for 5 years and they have no history of rudeness they may be more likely to dismiss a post as an aberration, whereas if it is your second post ever...

Not saying that's the case. Just an idea.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Fluffy Cat on October 04, 2011, 10:59:45 PM
That thread was deteriorating long before LadyPekoe posted and was rebuked.


But this is subjective.  I've seen references, both in this thread and the one that got locked, to posters calling others unethical.  But the only thing I recall was someone calling *actions* unethical, not people.  To me, there's a big difference.  Are you sure you're not trying to see things?

I realize this is a minority view, and I'm hardly brown-nosing, but I don't see this favoritism everyone else does.  For the most part, the worst offenders I'm aware of who consistently pushed the envelope are gone. 

There's still some people who do it, but there's nothing stopping you from calling them on it, as long as it doesn't ratchet up the dialog.  I've done it and I'm still alive!

Obviously, I could be missing something, but if someone held a gun to my head and asked who the mod favorites are at e-hell, I wouldn't even have a clue what to say.

I think the charge of favoritism is being taken too literally.  Favoritism could be accidental, or purposeful but based on other considrations than simple personal feelings.

For instance, there is a very popular forum I read (rather infrequently now) that has allowed the trolls to take over, despite blatant rules against trolling, because their controversial posts tend to gain the site more traffic.  Its bad for the community of course, but good for business.  I am not saying that is the problem here, it is simply an example of favoritism, or unfair moderation, that does not rely on personal feelings or friendships.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Mikayla on October 04, 2011, 11:13:22 PM
Audrey -

This thread was not locked without comment, so I don't see how that applies.  I have no problem with not caring who was rude first but explicitly calling out one poster as rude, while ignoring other rude posts does imply that there are varying standards.

I know I'm a guest here.  But its difficult to be a good guest when stated rules are applied inconsistently in front of everyone and one does not know for sure how to act or not act.

POD! Laciegirl called everyone "unethical", which is basically insulting everyone that thread but only Lady Pekoe gets smacked for calling Laciegirl on her comment? How is that in anyway ok?

AZ Girl, have you read the thread?  This is the first comment made (and the rest were in the same vein):  "There's something incredibly unethical about buying food with the specific intention to throw it away".   

I was in that thread, and I wasn't insulted.  It may have been a strong statement, but it's quite a leap to state she insulted "everyone in that thread". 
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Fluffy Cat on October 04, 2011, 11:26:15 PM
Audrey -

This thread was not locked without comment, so I don't see how that applies.  I have no problem with not caring who was rude first but explicitly calling out one poster as rude, while ignoring other rude posts does imply that there are varying standards.

I know I'm a guest here.  But its difficult to be a good guest when stated rules are applied inconsistently in front of everyone and one does not know for sure how to act or not act.

POD! Laciegirl called everyone "unethical", which is basically insulting everyone that thread but only Lady Pekoe gets smacked for calling Laciegirl on her comment? How is that in anyway ok?

AZ Girl, have you read the thread?  This is the first comment made (and the rest were in the same vein):  "There's something incredibly unethical about buying food with the specific intention to throw it away".   

I was in that thread, and I wasn't insulted.  It may have been a strong statement, but it's quite a leap to state she insulted "everyone in that thread".

How about this from the same poster, right before the moderated response from LadyPekoe:

I found this thread fascinating as well.  Thank you for starting it, jpcher.  Now I'm starting to think about the ethics of consuming food for reasons other than nutrition or moderate pleasure, and I'm pretty sure I'm believing that it's unethical.  Gee.  What a conclusion.  Nothing like thinking my way through this and coming to the conclusion that gluttony -- one of the traditional "seven deadly sins" -- is wrong.   


Mind you, I only used this thread as a recent example of a larger trend I've noticed.  It wasn't intended to single out a specific poster as the cause of my concerns.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Solanna Dryden on October 04, 2011, 11:31:00 PM
I don't really see it as blatant favouritism. But what I see is forums posters who've been around a long time being a lot more brusque or blunt than they need to be. I understand that they are entitled to their opinion, and I'm not arguing that they shouldn't express it. But I think that, especially on an etiquette forum, there can be less harsh ways of stating an opinion. Sometimes I get a very "I'm right, the rest of you are so wrong I can't believe you can't see how wrong you are" vibe from these posters.

I will agree that there needs to be more transparency in moderation. The thing that I really don't like is the deletion of posts or threads. That just does not sit right with me. What would stop a moderator (and I am NOT saying that this happens; this is just a hypothetical) what would stop them from deleting threads/posts that they didn't like? Or from certain posters whom they didn't like? The way it is now, with the 'we don't have to give a reason' policy, that could happen. (Again: I am NOT saying that any of the moderators would do this. I am just saying that it COULD happen, is all)

I know that if I don't like it I can leave. I have left other forums when I thought the moderation was ridiculously unfair. One thing I do like about this forum is that the moderators don't operate under the policy 'member first, moderator second.' Or if they do, it's not as obvious as I've seen it in other places.

But I do think there needs to be a re-thinking of some things.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Spoder on October 04, 2011, 11:35:04 PM

How about this from the same poster, right before the moderated response from LadyPekoe:

I found this thread fascinating as well.  Thank you for starting it, jpcher.  Now I'm starting to think about the ethics of consuming food for reasons other than nutrition or moderate pleasure, and I'm pretty sure I'm believing that it's unethical.  Gee.  What a conclusion.  Nothing like thinking my way through this and coming to the conclusion that gluttony -- one of the traditional "seven deadly sins" -- is wrong.   


Mind you, I only used this thread as a recent example of a larger trend I've noticed.  It wasn't intended to single out a specific poster as the cause of my concerns.
[/quote]

As far as that particular thread, though, here's the thing - I really didn't read LaciGirl's final post as being sarcastic, or nasty, or...anything bad.  ??? I thought she honestly meant that this thread has made her re-examine her own beliefs.

I really think that posters taking things too personally, is part of the problem. I thought that throughout that thread, LaciGirl was talking in quite an abstract, impersonal fashion. She was referring to a type of behaviour, not to any particular person/people.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Yvaine on October 04, 2011, 11:40:11 PM
As far as that particular thread, though, here's the thing - I really didn't read LaciGirl's final post as being sarcastic, or nasty, or...anything bad.  ??? I thought she honestly meant that this thread has made her re-examine her own beliefs.

I really think that posters taking things too personally, is part of the problem. I thought that throughout that thread, LaciGirl was talking in quite an abstract, impersonal fashion. She was referring to a type of behaviour, not to any particular person/people.

I think you're right, and I think a lot of us were thinking through our own beliefs and thought processes on that thread--i.e., do we think it's wrong to waste the food, and if so, is it because there are starving people elsewhere or for another reason, and is it more or less unethical than eating for fun when you don't really need food at the moment, and what underlying reason each of us has for thinking as we do. Heck, I'm still chewing on some of the comments from the thread. (I just hope it's not wrong to digest thoughts for fun.)  ;)
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Fluffy Cat on October 04, 2011, 11:45:22 PM
Not that i can control it ( ;D) but I'd really rather this thread not be about picking apart Laci's posts.  This is a larger concern and it was not my intention to single her out as the cause. 

Suffice it to say that with the verbiage (gee, gluttony, etc.) and the fact that she rethought her position to be more stringent after being exposed to ideas counter to her own, that I considered it pretty insulting and likely intended in a less than benevolent way.  (obviously I do not demand the last word here, so of course feel free to respond to my argument if you wish).

Otherwise, this is not about Laci.  The thread I linked to is meant to be an example, not the cause. Another symptom are the increasing number of post/thread deletions/editing that PP's have mentioned.  They seem to be hurting the community, not helping it.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Spoder on October 04, 2011, 11:47:28 PM
Not that i can control it ( ;D) but I'd really rather this thread not be about picking apart Laci's posts.  This is a larger concern and it was not my intention to single her out as the cause. 

Suffice it to say that with the verbiage (gee, gluttony, etc.) and the fact that she rethought her position to be more stringent after being exposed to ideas counter to her own, that I considered it pretty insulting and likely intended in a less than benevolent way.  (obviously I do not demand the last word here, so of course feel free to respond to my argument if you wish).

Otherwise, this is not about Laci.  The thread I linked to is meant to be an example, not the cause. Another symptom are the increasing number of post/thread deletions/editing that PP's have mentioned.  They seem to be hurting the community, not helping it.

Sure, fair enough.  :)

I very much agree with the last paragraph.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: JoieGirl7 on October 04, 2011, 11:49:42 PM
I don't see how thread or post deletions or edits harm the community.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Mikayla on October 04, 2011, 11:50:36 PM
What Spoder and Yvaine said. 

Also, Fluffy Cat, your post came in while I was typing and I've pretty much shot my wad on the topic :)

ETA: Removed babbly verbiage. 
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: EduardosGirl on October 04, 2011, 11:55:06 PM
I don't see how thread or post deletions or edits harm the community.

As a member of the community who has had her posts deleted for no discernible reason and with no contact from a mod, before or after, it makes me feel less welcome and wary of posting again.

Obviously mods are here to moderate, but I don't know what was so objectionable about my posts, when others are left to stand and, seemingly, protected by the mods.

As a PP mentioned (sorry, on my phone), transparency is what is needed. For the community.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Fluffy Cat on October 04, 2011, 11:55:19 PM
I don't see how thread or post deletions or edits harm the community.

Sweeping things under the rug is rarely beneficial, especially if done with a heavy hand. 
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: ArizonaGirl77 on October 04, 2011, 11:57:57 PM
I don't see how thread or post deletions or edits harm the community.

Sweeping things under the rug is rarely beneficial, especially if done with a heavy hand.

Pod
AND


I don't see how thread or post deletions or edits harm the community.

As a member of the community who has had her posts deleted for no discernible reason and with no contact from a mod, before or after, it makes me feel less welcome and wary of posting again.

Obviously mods are here to moderate, but I don't know what was so objectionable about my posts, when others are left to stand and, seemingly, protected by the mods.

As a PP mentioned (sorry, on my phone), transparency is what is needed. For the community.

And it, again, speaks of that favoritism a few of us have spoken of!
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: aventurine on October 05, 2011, 12:03:13 AM
I don't see how thread or post deletions or edits harm the community.

Sweeping things under the rug is rarely beneficial, especially if done with a heavy hand.


Very much agree. 


For instance, there is a very popular forum I read (rather infrequently now) that has allowed the trolls to take over, despite blatant rules against trolling, because their controversial posts tend to gain the site more traffic.

This has been my feeling for a little while, and I really, really hope I'm wrong.


As far as saying "that's just the way it is here, and if you don't like it...."  Don't we all pretty much agree that the special snowflakes of the world get their power from others using that same excuse?  It doesn't feel right to use that excuse for our etiquette board. 
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: FauxFoodist on October 05, 2011, 12:34:59 AM
I think it boils down to one poster essentially calling a lot of people, other posters included, unethical because they "waste food" by her definition.

And that "unethical" boils down to "bad person", the same way that "rude" does for her.

I disagreed on both points (that wasting food is unethical and that rude = bad person), as did others, yet only those who responded to these claims seem to have been addressed. Not the initial point that we're all unethical.

I don't like to cry, point fingers and say "the mean person did something mean to me!" but lately, I do feel like there is almost a schoolyard feel to the forum, with particular behaviours abounding, but unequal moderation. I hate to say it, but it really does feel like favouritism which, coupled with the random deletions, just has me wary of even posting my opinion on the weather.
I'm glad that's not just me! I kinda thought I had switched to the twilight zone lately. Glad other people have noticed this.

I have rarely posted lately, just in case I get jumped on. I don't like feeling scared to post in what was my favourite place on-line.  :'(  ??? :-\

I, too, have felt this way for the past couple of months and even mentioned it in a post when another poster felt she was being overly and erroneously analyzed for her inquiry.  I still read for entertainment and, occasionally will post a response, but fairly rarely these days (posting, I mean).  Given how the threads have been going and how frequently they're being locked or they disappear, never mind the increased level of snarkiness and, even, people getting chastised on the Hugs board, I've pretty much decided against starting threads of my own anymore.  It's just not worth the risk of dealing with the weirdness of late.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: iradney on October 05, 2011, 01:23:15 AM
I am a moderator on another reasonably popular forum. I understand that it's hard work when you have a handful of mods vs thousands of users, especially when the mods are volunteers with outside the web lives and jobs.

That being said, however, we mod in a slightly different way to EHell, which I find to be a bit more transparent.

1) We do delete posts, but we let the poster know that we have, and why

2) when we lock threads, we give a reason why

3) we apply the rules equally to all members, regardless of how long they have been on the site, to best of our abilities

4) unless a thread has gone completely over the edge, we will drop warnings to try and get it back on track without locking it.

5) the Site Owner added a few more mods when he noticed the workload increasing

I have found that alot of misunderstandings on Ehell could be avoided if posts were properly read. Many times I have read a response to an OP, and found myself thinking "But the OP already addressed that/answered that/etc".

I do think that arbitrarily locking threads without comment is a bit rude, especially if posts are deleted. The people reading that thread now have no clue as to why it was locked, and can therefore not learn what was done incorrectly and avoid that kind of behaviour in future.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: MariaE on October 05, 2011, 01:43:27 AM
I haven't noticed any favouritism at all going on here at all, but I do agree that deleting posts/threads without explanation is an unfortunate modding procedure.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: P-p-p-penguin on October 05, 2011, 05:05:25 AM
<snipped quote tree>

I have rarely posted lately, just in case I get jumped on. I don't like feeling scared to post in what was my favourite place on-line.  :'(  ??? :-\

I, too, have felt this way for the past couple of months and even mentioned it in a post when another poster felt she was being overly and erroneously analyzed for her inquiry.  I still read for entertainment and, occasionally will post a response, but fairly rarely these days (posting, I mean).  Given how the threads have been going and how frequently they're being locked or they disappear, never mind the increased level of snarkiness and, even, people getting chastised on the Hugs board, I've pretty much decided against starting threads of my own anymore.  It's just not worth the risk of dealing with the weirdness of late.

I agree with everything in the above posts.  For a board dedicated to good etiquette and being polite some posters can be pretty rude in how they reply to people - this seems really against the spirit of the board.  It's unnecessary and really off-putting.  Like GoldenGemini said, it often makes me wary of posting for fear of getting 'told off' or jumped on by other members for really innocuous things.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Redsoil on October 05, 2011, 06:07:49 AM
I have to admit that I was quite surprised at the mod response to Lady Pekoe.  When I read her post, I could actually identify to some extent (and thus sympathise).  We're on a farm, and at times have been lectured by others on certain practices.  It does become irritating, and one actually becomes MORE sensitised (and defensive), not less.  The level of snark displayed from a moderator was (IMHO) less than tactful, if not downright rude.  On an ettiquette forum, I would expect a little more thought put into such responses.

Admittedly, modding is difficult, and balancing personalities even ore so.  Which is why we should do our best to model polite behaviour - to avoid making difficult situations worse!
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Yvaine on October 05, 2011, 06:19:51 AM
Given how the threads have been going and how frequently they're being locked or they disappear, never mind the increased level of snarkiness and, even, people getting chastised on the Hugs board, I've pretty much decided against starting threads of my own anymore.  It's just not worth the risk of dealing with the weirdness of late.

I'll agree with the chastisements on the Hugs board. It's one thing if the person asks for advice, but the Hugs board is not really the place to tell an OP that they're doing their whole life wrong. I wish more people would ignore Hugs posts that annoy them.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: POF on October 05, 2011, 06:30:07 AM
I have to admit that I was quite surprised at the mod response to Lady Pekoe.  When I read her post, I could actually identify to some extent (and thus sympathise).  We're on a farm, and at times have been lectured by others on certain practices.  It does become irritating, and one actually becomes MORE sensitised (and defensive), not less.  The level of snark displayed from a moderator was (IMHO) less than tactful, if not downright rude.  On an ettiquette forum, I would expect a little more thought put into such responses.

Admittedly, modding is difficult, and balancing personalities even ore so.  Which is why we should do our best to model polite behaviour - to avoid making difficult situations worse!

I was surprised as well, and yet I have had a very nasty PM made to me by mod when I asked for clarification in a thread where I felt some posters were being rude. And I do not find differing opinions rude ... I find name calling rude.

For me at times, it feels like certain posters can endlessly "taunt" and make swipes at another poster, but when the person finally reacts, they get smacked down.

I am actually glad that I am not the only person who thought this was off.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Goodnight Kiwi on October 05, 2011, 06:30:07 AM
<snipped quote tree>

I have rarely posted lately, just in case I get jumped on. I don't like feeling scared to post in what was my favourite place on-line.  :'(  ??? :-\

I, too, have felt this way for the past couple of months and even mentioned it in a post when another poster felt she was being overly and erroneously analyzed for her inquiry.  I still read for entertainment and, occasionally will post a response, but fairly rarely these days (posting, I mean).  Given how the threads have been going and how frequently they're being locked or they disappear, never mind the increased level of snarkiness and, even, people getting chastised on the Hugs board, I've pretty much decided against starting threads of my own anymore.  It's just not worth the risk of dealing with the weirdness of late.

I agree with everything in the above posts.  For a board dedicated to good etiquette and being polite some posters can be pretty rude in how they reply to people - this seems really against the spirit of the board.  It's unnecessary and really off-putting.  Like GoldenGemini said, it often makes me wary of posting for fear of getting 'told off' or jumped on by other members for really innocuous things.

I agree as well.  There are certain posters who, when I read their posts, they sometimes make my jaw drop with their abruptness and tone.  However, I've never seen them be chastised; in fact, I'm seen posters who disagree and/or dispute their posts be chastised instead.  I appreciate the hard work the mods do, but sometimes it seems like a rugby game where a player gets sent off for "retaliation" (ie pushes back in response to an initial shove; s/he gets sin-binned, leaving the initial offender playing on smugly).
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Bethalize on October 05, 2011, 06:36:13 AM
I am a moderator on another reasonably popular forum. I understand that it's hard work when you have a handful of mods vs thousands of users, especially when the mods are volunteers with outside the web lives and jobs.

That being said, however, we mod in a slightly different way to EHell, which I find to be a bit more transparent.

1) We do delete posts, but we let the poster know that we have, and why

2) when we lock threads, we give a reason why

3) we apply the rules equally to all members, regardless of how long they have been on the site, to best of our abilities

4) unless a thread has gone completely over the edge, we will drop warnings to try and get it back on track without locking it.

5) the Site Owner added a few more mods when he noticed the workload increasing


I too have been a moderator and have used rules similar to this. I prefer a policy of transparency, with explanations every time. It prevents a gap appearing between the reasons why things are done and the reasons why people think things are done.

I have sigs turned off and so find it very hard to connect people's screen names with their posting history. It never occurred to me that there was favouritism. I do suspect the likelihood of being banned increases with the time you spend here, because the more you invest into the community you more you feel a sense of ownership. However this is a privately owned forum and a business, not a church or a town club; you have no ownership.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: DuBois on October 05, 2011, 06:38:04 AM

I want to thank you, Fluffy Cat for starting this thread. I have noticed many of the things mentioned in this thread, but wondered if I was being oversensitive. Count me in as one who is put off by mod snark, as well. And I agree that some people are given carte blanhe while others are chastised. I can think of one person in particular who is always defended, for what reason I cannot fathom.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: PeasNCues on October 05, 2011, 06:53:39 AM
I have definitely noticed that posters who call out rude behavior by another poster are far more likely to be mod-smacked than the people actually having committed the rude act. Any discussion of how the OP's behavior could have been lacking results in the same.

I hope LaciGirl was addressed as well because the active ignoring of her inappropriate post essentially calling any who disagreed with her gluttonous sinners in favor of mod-smacking a much less offensive post by someone tired of the holier-than-though, ignorant attitude often displayed towards her personally and professionally by the same poster smacks like mod approval and favoratism.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: DuBois on October 05, 2011, 06:57:34 AM
I have definitely noticed that posters who call out rude behavior by another poster are far more likely to be mod-smacked than the people actually having committed the rude act. Any discussion of how the OP's behavior could have been lacking results in the same.
I hope LaciGirl was addressed as well because the active ignoring of her inappropriate post essentially calling any who disagreed with her gluttonous sinners in favor of mod-smacking a much less offensive post by someone tired of the holier-than-though, ignorant attitude often displayed towards her personally and professionally by the same poster smacks like mod approval and favoratism.

I haven't seen the bolded, at all. I actually think that OPs can get piled on too much some of the time-I have also seen some justified calling out of people piling on an OP.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Yvaine on October 05, 2011, 07:02:22 AM
I have definitely noticed that posters who call out rude behavior by another poster are far more likely to be mod-smacked than the people actually having committed the rude act. Any discussion of how the OP's behavior could have been lacking results in the same.
I hope LaciGirl was addressed as well because the active ignoring of her inappropriate post essentially calling any who disagreed with her gluttonous sinners in favor of mod-smacking a much less offensive post by someone tired of the holier-than-though, ignorant attitude often displayed towards her personally and professionally by the same poster smacks like mod approval and favoratism.

I haven't seen the bolded, at all. I actually think that OPs can get piled on too much some of the time-I have also seen some justified calling out of people piling on an OP.

One of the recent posts where an OP got piled on, she had gone away from the computer for a while. Someone asked a question, she wasn't there to respond, so a bunch of other people piped up to repeat the same question for a couple of pages. She answered it when she got back online...and not in the way the pilers expected. I can understand asking once or twice about whether the OP's own behavior might have influenced the etiquette issue, but if they don't answer right away, it might not mean they're dodging the question. They may just not be popping onto eHell all day like some of us are (guilty as charged).  ;D
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: PeasNCues on October 05, 2011, 07:04:34 AM
I have definitely noticed that posters who call out rude behavior by another poster are far more likely to be mod-smacked than the people actually having committed the rude act. Any discussion of how the OP's behavior could have been lacking results in the same.
I hope LaciGirl was addressed as well because the active ignoring of her inappropriate post essentially calling any who disagreed with her gluttonous sinners in favor of mod-smacking a much less offensive post by someone tired of the holier-than-though, ignorant attitude often displayed towards her personally and professionally by the same poster smacks like mod approval and favoratism.

I haven't seen the bolded, at all. I actually think that OPs can get piled on too much some of the time-I have also seen some justified calling out of people piling on an OP.
I've seen a lot of people objecting to the actual discussion of why the OP was rude, which is contrary to the purpose of this board. It will go kind of like this:

Poster 1: OP, I'm sorry this happened!
Poster 2: Actually, OP, I think you were kind of rude.
Poster 3: What? How was she rude??
Poster 2: This is why I think she was rude, blah blah blah
Poster 3: I disagree because of this, blah blah blah
Poster 4: I agree she was rude because of blah.
Poster 1: Guys, really this is dogpiling. Leave the OP alone
Posters 1&4:  ???

It's not dogpiling to discuss and I've seen more and more posters having to defend themselves against being called "dogpilers" because evidently the only people allowed to reiterate or discuss ideas are those saything things the OP would want to hear. Then the "dogpilers" get mod-smacked.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: DuBois on October 05, 2011, 07:08:27 AM
I have definitely noticed that posters who call out rude behavior by another poster are far more likely to be mod-smacked than the people actually having committed the rude act. Any discussion of how the OP's behavior could have been lacking results in the same.
I hope LaciGirl was addressed as well because the active ignoring of her inappropriate post essentially calling any who disagreed with her gluttonous sinners in favor of mod-smacking a much less offensive post by someone tired of the holier-than-though, ignorant attitude often displayed towards her personally and professionally by the same poster smacks like mod approval and favoratism.

I haven't seen the bolded, at all. I actually think that OPs can get piled on too much some of the time-I have also seen some justified calling out of people piling on an OP.
I've seen a lot of people objecting to the actual discussion of why the OP was rude, which is contrary to the purpose of this board. It will go kind of like this:

Poster 1: OP, I'm sorry this happened!
Poster 2: Actually, OP, I think you were kind of rude.
Poster 3: What? How was she rude??
Poster 2: This is why I think she was rude, blah blah blah
Poster 3: I disagree because of this, blah blah blah
Poster 4: I agree she was rude because of blah.
Poster 1: Guys, really this is dogpiling. Leave the OP alone
Posters 1&4:  ???

It's not dogpiling to discuss and I've seen more and more posters having to defend themselves against being called "dogpilers" because evidently the only people allowed to reiterate or discuss ideas are those saything things the OP would want to hear. Then the "dogpilers" get mod-smacked.

More often than not, though, the people who say OP was rude say so in an undesirable manner at least when people call dog-piling'. I often think that is what is being objected to. I think when an OP has clearly been rude, more people will say so and there isn't a problem. But I think where there is a divison of opinion, the people saying that the OP have been rude can get more agressive, and that therein lies the problem.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Yvaine on October 05, 2011, 07:09:01 AM
I agree Peas; if there's a good back-and-forth, it's not dogpiling, especially if the posts are still adding new ideas to the discussion/debate. I tend to think of dogpiling as: a clear majority opinion starts to emerge against the OP's side, and numerous posters chime in with the same opinion and without adding any new analysis, especially if they also use snarky language ("I can't believe you would think it was OK to..." in the process.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: DuBois on October 05, 2011, 07:10:54 AM
I agree Peas; if there's a good back-and-forth, it's not dogpiling, especially if the posts are still adding new ideas to the discussion/debate. I tend to think of dogpiling as: a clear majority opinion starts to emerge against the OP's side, and numerous posters chime in with the same opinion and without adding any new analysis, especially if they also use snarky language ("I can't believe you would think it was OK to..." in the process.

POD, that's what I was trying to say, only you said it better.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Giggity on October 05, 2011, 07:13:38 AM
POD! Laciegirl called everyone "unethical", which is basically insulting everyone that thread but only Lady Pekoe gets smacked for calling Laciegirl on her comment? How is that in anyway ok?

AZG, that is a darn good question. Absent a snarly tone, when I read LadyPekoe's response, I got more "sigh, here we go again" than "ZOMG you ethical types can just take a hike because I hate you all."
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Yvaine on October 05, 2011, 07:14:54 AM
I agree Peas; if there's a good back-and-forth, it's not dogpiling, especially if the posts are still adding new ideas to the discussion/debate. I tend to think of dogpiling as: a clear majority opinion starts to emerge against the OP's side, and numerous posters chime in with the same opinion and without adding any new analysis, especially if they also use snarky language ("I can't believe you would think it was OK to..." in the process.

POD, that's what I was trying to say, only you said it better.

And I think you can have a few "Yeah, sorry, I agree with PP that you were rude  :-\ " types of posts. It's just when it goes on for pages and people get melodramatic about how awful the OP's transgression was, even if it was something really minor.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Yvaine on October 05, 2011, 07:18:12 AM
POD! Laciegirl called everyone "unethical", which is basically insulting everyone that thread but only Lady Pekoe gets smacked for calling Laciegirl on her comment? How is that in anyway ok?

AZG, that is a darn good question. Absent a snarly tone, when I read LadyPekoe's response, I got more "sigh, here we go again" than "ZOMG you ethical types can just take a hike because I hate you all."

IMO what was really out of line in that thread was that it started getting into religion, which I think began with the 7 deadlies post.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: PeasNCues on October 05, 2011, 07:21:11 AM
I think people are looking to protect the OP's feelings, but frank discussion about the OP's behavior is not rude or dogpiling.

In the threads I'm thinking of, there was bluntness and debate, but no rudeness or harshness. Just discussion.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: DuBois on October 05, 2011, 07:26:42 AM
I think people are looking to protect the OP's feelings, but frank discussion about the OP's behavior is not rude or dogpiling.

In the threads I'm thinking of, there was bluntness and debate, but no rudeness or harshness. Just discussion.

I think, though, that when the people who disagree with the OP are in a minority, then they too should look to themselves for why they feel so strongly. I have seen it said a lot that OP's shouldn't expect validation, but then neither should other posters. Just as the OP should not be coddled, they also shouldn't be expected to treat all views as equal, or necessarily agree with detractors. Sorry, I have deviated a bit from your point. I agree that there is a big difference between vigorous debate and rudeness.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: PeasNCues on October 05, 2011, 08:01:20 AM
I think people are looking to protect the OP's feelings, but frank discussion about the OP's behavior is not rude or dogpiling.

In the threads I'm thinking of, there was bluntness and debate, but no rudeness or harshness. Just discussion.

I think, though, that when the people who disagree with the OP are in a minority, then they too should look to themselves for why they feel so strongly. I have seen it said a lot that OP's shouldn't expect validation, but then neither should other posters. Just as the OP should not be coddled, they also shouldn't be expected to treat all views as equal, or necessarily agree with detractors. Sorry, I have deviated a bit from your point. I agree that there is a big difference between vigorous debate and rudeness.

Posters are allowed to talk and debate and say their opinion even if they are in the minority. Their opinion and point of view is valuable in preventing this from becoming Brainwashed Etiquette Hell.

I've never seen a clear minority.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Perfect Circle on October 05, 2011, 08:08:13 AM
I really don't like the post/thread deletions when there seems to be no clear reason.

It's also my understanding that on this forum dogpiling means continuing with an argument after it has been addressed by the moderation team, not several people arguing for the same side.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: POF on October 05, 2011, 08:11:29 AM
I have felt dogpiled on.... when after reading , clarifying and thinking about the comments and the discussions - I said ... you know you guys are absolutely right. I was wrong, I didn't see how bad my action was - I apologized and made it right.

And the harsh comments continue and continue. ( and when I say harsh .... I mean people basically calling me names such as you are patronizing , condescedning, rude. Instead of saying your conversation was ..... )

And I say one more time .... ummmm .... I know I was wrong let it lie. I've apologized.

AND SOME OF THE SAME POSTERS..... continue with YOU ARE A Specisl Snowflake... on and on.

I'm like OK OK OK .....

Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: DuBois on October 05, 2011, 08:19:15 AM
I have felt dogpiled on.... when after reading , clarifying and thinking about the comments and the discussions - I said ... you know you guys are absolutely right. I was wrong, I didn't see how bad my action was - I apologized and made it right.

And the harsh comments continue and continue. ( and when I say harsh .... I mean people basically calling me names such as you are patronizing , condescedning, rude. Instead of saying your conversation was ..... )

And I say one more time .... ummmm .... I know I was wrong let it lie. I've apologized.

AND SOME OF THE SAME POSTERS..... continue with YOU ARE A Specisl Snowflake... on and on.

I'm like OK OK OK .....

Yeah, that's exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about, and I think it happens quite a bit. And it gets sorted out, or not, depending on who is who (IMO)
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: PeasNCues on October 05, 2011, 08:20:04 AM
I am not saying that dogpiling doesn't happen. I'm saying that a lot of times it is mislabeled and that seems to be happening more often.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: DuBois on October 05, 2011, 08:21:27 AM
I am not saying that dogpiling doesn't happen. I'm saying that a lot of times it is mislabeled and that seems to be happening more often.

That could just be an overreaction to it going unaddressed too often in the past, though.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Spoder on October 05, 2011, 08:26:16 AM
I have definitely noticed that posters who call out rude behavior by another poster are far more likely to be mod-smacked than the people actually having committed the rude act. Any discussion of how the OP's behavior could have been lacking results in the same.

I hope LaciGirl was addressed as well because the active ignoring of her inappropriate post essentially calling any who disagreed with her gluttonous sinners in favor of mod-smacking a much less offensive post by someone tired of the holier-than-though, ignorant attitude often displayed towards her personally and professionally by the same poster smacks like mod approval and favoratism.

Okay, here's the thing: if these two posters have a history, they need to sort it out via PM or something. I like both of them, and I have no interest in taking 'sides', so I will be completely honest.

In this particular thread, I didn't see LaciGirl call anybody a 'gluttonous sinner'. I saw her critique the ethics of a particular behaviour (buying food with the intent of throwing it out). Which the OP actually *invited* criticism of.

Calling a behaviour unethical =/= calling a person who sometimes behaves that way unethical. Heck, I do stuff that even *I* think is unethical. I live in a 2.5 bedroom house by myself, while homeless families sleep in their cars in the same city. That's not a sustainable or ethically defensible situation, but I have my reasons. And I could totally discuss them with someone without it deteriorating into rudeness, because it's about one aspect of my behaviour, not about me as a person.

Lady Pekoe said: 'As somebody who works in the meat industry, I am really used to the LaciGirl's of the world feeling like they have every right to "explain" to me the all about the "ethics" of my industry'. The thread wasn't about the meat industry in particular, and nor were LG's comments. This post took an abstract discussion into personal territory. And the phrase 'the LaciGirls of this world' is dismissive and rude. It lumps LG into some big category of obnoxious people.

Nearly every time a thread goes downhill, it's because someone starts either making it personal, or taking things personally. That's my honest opinion, although not one that I expect will make me popular in this thread.

Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: PeasNCues on October 05, 2011, 08:31:02 AM
Actually, LaciGirl said,

"I found this thread fascinating as well.  Thank you for starting it, jpcher.  Now I'm starting to think about the ethics of consuming food for reasons other than nutrition or moderate pleasure, and I'm pretty sure I'm believing that it's unethical. Gee.  What a conclusion.  Nothing like thinking my way through this and coming to the conclusion that gluttony -- one of the traditional "seven deadly sins" -- is wrong.   ."

The bolded is way beyond snarky and pretty much saying that anyone who would do this or agree with this is gluttonous and a "sinner"
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Scuba_Dog on October 05, 2011, 08:31:31 AM
I have felt dogpiled on.... when after reading , clarifying and thinking about the comments and the discussions - I said ... you know you guys are absolutely right. I was wrong, I didn't see how bad my action was - I apologized and made it right.

And the harsh comments continue and continue. ( and when I say harsh .... I mean people basically calling me names such as you are patronizing , condescedning, rude. Instead of saying your conversation was ..... )

And I say one more time .... ummmm .... I know I was wrong let it lie. I've apologized.

AND SOME OF THE SAME POSTERS..... continue with YOU ARE A Specisl Snowflake... on and on.

I'm like OK OK OK .....

Yeah, that's exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about, and I think it happens quite a bit. And it gets sorted out, or not, depending on who is who (IMO)

I don't see the bolded happening very often at all.  I'd say that type of dogpiling is a rarity here.

What I do see is people misunderstanding what dogpiling is and then accusing posters of doing it, when they aren't.

I also notice a trend where OP's tend to get angry and offended when they are not given the answers or validation they are looking for.  Then, they either say that people are not allowed to give that kind of advice here, or they flounce off in a huff because they think people are being "mean" when in reality, they are just offering their opinion, which was solicited by the OP when they posted their question/dilemma.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: PeasNCues on October 05, 2011, 08:32:11 AM
I am not saying that dogpiling doesn't happen. I'm saying that a lot of times it is mislabeled and that seems to be happening more often.

That could just be an overreaction to it going unaddressed too often in the past, though.

Can you clarify? I'm not sure what you mean?
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: DuBois on October 05, 2011, 08:35:41 AM
I have definitely noticed that posters who call out rude behavior by another poster are far more likely to be mod-smacked than the people actually having committed the rude act. Any discussion of how the OP's behavior could have been lacking results in the same.

I hope LaciGirl was addressed as well because the active ignoring of her inappropriate post essentially calling any who disagreed with her gluttonous sinners in favor of mod-smacking a much less offensive post by someone tired of the holier-than-though, ignorant attitude often displayed towards her personally and professionally by the same poster smacks like mod approval and favoratism.

Okay, here's the thing: if these two posters have a history, they need to sort it out via PM or something. I like both of them, and I have no interest in taking 'sides', so I will be completely honest.

In this particular thread, I didn't see LaciGirl call anybody a 'gluttonous sinner'. I saw her critique the ethics of a particular behaviour (buying food with the intent of throwing it out). Which the OP actually *invited* criticism of.

Calling a behaviour unethical =/= calling a person who sometimes behaves that way unethical. Heck, I do stuff that even *I* think is unethical. I live in a 2.5 bedroom house by myself, while homeless families sleep in their cars in the same city. That's not a sustainable or ethically defensible situation, but I have my reasons. And I could totally discuss them with someone without it deteriorating into rudeness, because it's about one aspect of my behaviour, not about me as a person.

Lady Pekoe said: 'As somebody who works in the meat industry, I am really used to the LaciGirl's of the world feeling like they have every right to "explain" to me the all about the "ethics" of my industry'. The thread wasn't about the meat industry in particular, and nor were LG's comments. This post took an abstract discussion into personal territory. And the phrase 'the LaciGirls of this world' is dismissive and rude. It lumps LG into some big category of obnoxious people.

Nearly every time a thread goes downhill, it's because someone starts either making it personal, or taking things personally. That's my honest opinion, although not one that I expect will make me popular in this thread.

I actually agree with this quite a lot. Where I think it gets problematic is when people start to get more personal, and imply things about character as well as behaviour, which I have seen happen. To me, that crosses a line.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Scuba_Dog on October 05, 2011, 08:43:09 AM
I have definitely noticed that posters who call out rude behavior by another poster are far more likely to be mod-smacked than the people actually having committed the rude act. Any discussion of how the OP's behavior could have been lacking results in the same.

I hope LaciGirl was addressed as well because the active ignoring of her inappropriate post essentially calling any who disagreed with her gluttonous sinners in favor of mod-smacking a much less offensive post by someone tired of the holier-than-though, ignorant attitude often displayed towards her personally and professionally by the same poster smacks like mod approval and favoratism.

Okay, here's the thing: if these two posters have a history, they need to sort it out via PM or something. I like both of them, and I have no interest in taking 'sides', so I will be completely honest.

In this particular thread, I didn't see LaciGirl call anybody a 'gluttonous sinner'. I saw her critique the ethics of a particular behaviour (buying food with the intent of throwing it out). Which the OP actually *invited* criticism of.

Calling a behaviour unethical =/= calling a person who sometimes behaves that way unethical. Heck, I do stuff that even *I* think is unethical. I live in a 2.5 bedroom house by myself, while homeless families sleep in their cars in the same city. That's not a sustainable or ethically defensible situation, but I have my reasons. And I could totally discuss them with someone without it deteriorating into rudeness, because it's about one aspect of my behaviour, not about me as a person.

Lady Pekoe said: 'As somebody who works in the meat industry, I am really used to the LaciGirl's of the world feeling like they have every right to "explain" to me the all about the "ethics" of my industry'. The thread wasn't about the meat industry in particular, and nor were LG's comments. This post took an abstract discussion into personal territory. And the phrase 'the LaciGirls of this world' is dismissive and rude. It lumps LG into some big category of obnoxious people.

Nearly every time a thread goes downhill, it's because someone starts either making it personal, or taking things personally. That's my honest opinion, although not one that I expect will make me popular in this thread.

I actually agree with this quite a lot. Where I think it gets problematic is when people start to get more personal, and imply things about character as well as behaviour, which I have seen happen. To me, that crosses a line.

When the action or history of the OP indicates that there most likely is an issue with character as well as behaviour, I'm not sure what else people should do?  Should they just give false opinions?  Who does that help?  I think if a person posts about a dilemma, especially one that repeats itself, they need to be prepared to hear opinions and answers they may not like.

Also, etiquette is very much about character and personal behaviour, so I don't think we could stop discussing those things and be very effective.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Spoder on October 05, 2011, 08:45:12 AM
Actually, LaciGirl said,

"I found this thread fascinating as well.  Thank you for starting it, jpcher.  Now I'm starting to think about the ethics of consuming food for reasons other than nutrition or moderate pleasure, and I'm pretty sure I'm believing that it's unethical. Gee.  What a conclusion.  Nothing like thinking my way through this and coming to the conclusion that gluttony -- one of the traditional "seven deadly sins" -- is wrong.   ."

The bolded is way beyond snarky and pretty much saying that anyone who would do this or agree with this is gluttonous and a "sinner"

I read that and assumed that she was having an internal eye-roll moment. At herself. I did not read an iota of snark in it towards anybody else, and I still don't. I'm not particularly trying to defend her, it's the honest truth.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: P-p-p-penguin on October 05, 2011, 08:47:25 AM
I have definitely noticed that posters who call out rude behavior by another poster are far more likely to be mod-smacked than the people actually having committed the rude act. Any discussion of how the OP's behavior could have been lacking results in the same.

I hope LaciGirl was addressed as well because the active ignoring of her inappropriate post essentially calling any who disagreed with her gluttonous sinners in favor of mod-smacking a much less offensive post by someone tired of the holier-than-though, ignorant attitude often displayed towards her personally and professionally by the same poster smacks like mod approval and favoratism.

Okay, here's the thing: if these two posters have a history, they need to sort it out via PM or something. I like both of them, and I have no interest in taking 'sides', so I will be completely honest.

In this particular thread, I didn't see LaciGirl call anybody a 'gluttonous sinner'. I saw her critique the ethics of a particular behaviour (buying food with the intent of throwing it out). Which the OP actually *invited* criticism of.

Calling a behaviour unethical =/= calling a person who sometimes behaves that way unethical. Heck, I do stuff that even *I* think is unethical. I live in a 2.5 bedroom house by myself, while homeless families sleep in their cars in the same city. That's not a sustainable or ethically defensible situation, but I have my reasons. And I could totally discuss them with someone without it deteriorating into rudeness, because it's about one aspect of my behaviour, not about me as a person.

Lady Pekoe said: 'As somebody who works in the meat industry, I am really used to the LaciGirl's of the world feeling like they have every right to "explain" to me the all about the "ethics" of my industry'. The thread wasn't about the meat industry in particular, and nor were LG's comments. This post took an abstract discussion into personal territory. And the phrase 'the LaciGirls of this world' is dismissive and rude. It lumps LG into some big category of obnoxious people.

Nearly every time a thread goes downhill, it's because someone starts either making it personal, or taking things personally. That's my honest opinion, although not one that I expect will make me popular in this thread.

I actually agree with this quite a lot. Where I think it gets problematic is when people start to get more personal, and imply things about character as well as behaviour, which I have seen happen. To me, that crosses a line.

I also agree.  Lots of the arguments and snarkiness seem to begin because someone has interpreted someone's post in the worst possible light rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: LadyL on October 05, 2011, 08:48:58 AM

I actually agree with this quite a lot. Where I think it gets problematic is when people start to get more personal, and imply things about character as well as behaviour, which I have seen happen. To me, that crosses a line.

When the action or history of the OP indicates that there most likely is an issue with character as well as behaviour, I'm not sure what else people should do?  Should they just give false opinions?  Who does that help?  I think if a person posts about a dilemma, especially one that repeats itself, they need to be prepared to hear opinions and answers they may not like.

Also, etiquette is very much about character and personal behaviour, so I don't think we could stop discussing those things and be very effective.

The bolded are separable and I thought that was one of the main points about etiquette - it doesn't matter if you have terrible character internally and walk around thinking nothing but rude thoughts if you *behave* in a polite way.

I am (like the rest of the species) a flawed person and my thought processes are not always admirable. However, I strive to be polite in my actions. When responses to posts focus on disagreements about thought processes rather than actions, it's hard not to feel like that both misses the point and gets too personal.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Scuba_Dog on October 05, 2011, 08:52:23 AM

I actually agree with this quite a lot. Where I think it gets problematic is when people start to get more personal, and imply things about character as well as behaviour, which I have seen happen. To me, that crosses a line.

When the action or history of the OP indicates that there most likely is an issue with character as well as behaviour, I'm not sure what else people should do?  Should they just give false opinions?  Who does that help?  I think if a person posts about a dilemma, especially one that repeats itself, they need to be prepared to hear opinions and answers they may not like.

Also, etiquette is very much about character and personal behaviour, so I don't think we could stop discussing those things and be very effective.

The bolded are separable and I thought that was one of the main points about etiquette - it doesn't matter if you have terrible character internally and walk around thinking nothing but rude thoughts if you *behave* in a polite way.

I am (like the rest of the species) a flawed person and my thought processes are not always admirable. However, I strive to be polite in my actions. When responses to posts focus on disagreements about thought processes rather than actions, it's hard not to feel like that both misses the point and gets too personal.

I'm not talking about thoughts or thought processes.  I'm talking about actual behavior and when an OP needs to perhaps look back at themselves and their own behaviors in order to find the solution for their issue.  When a problem repeats itself, that is often where the solution to it can be found.

If you are implying that we shouldn't suggest that as an option for an OP, then I disagree.  I think it's a valid suggestion.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: DuBois on October 05, 2011, 08:53:40 AM
I have definitely noticed that posters who call out rude behavior by another poster are far more likely to be mod-smacked than the people actually having committed the rude act. Any discussion of how the OP's behavior could have been lacking results in the same.

I hope LaciGirl was addressed as well because the active ignoring of her inappropriate post essentially calling any who disagreed with her gluttonous sinners in favor of mod-smacking a much less offensive post by someone tired of the holier-than-though, ignorant attitude often displayed towards her personally and professionally by the same poster smacks like mod approval and favoratism.

Okay, here's the thing: if these two posters have a history, they need to sort it out via PM or something. I like both of them, and I have no interest in taking 'sides', so I will be completely honest.

In this particular thread, I didn't see LaciGirl call anybody a 'gluttonous sinner'. I saw her critique the ethics of a particular behaviour (buying food with the intent of throwing it out). Which the OP actually *invited* criticism of.

Calling a behaviour unethical =/= calling a person who sometimes behaves that way unethical. Heck, I do stuff that even *I* think is unethical. I live in a 2.5 bedroom house by myself, while homeless families sleep in their cars in the same city. That's not a sustainable or ethically defensible situation, but I have my reasons. And I could totally discuss them with someone without it deteriorating into rudeness, because it's about one aspect of my behaviour, not about me as a person.

Lady Pekoe said: 'As somebody who works in the meat industry, I am really used to the LaciGirl's of the world feeling like they have every right to "explain" to me the all about the "ethics" of my industry'. The thread wasn't about the meat industry in particular, and nor were LG's comments. This post took an abstract discussion into personal territory. And the phrase 'the LaciGirls of this world' is dismissive and rude. It lumps LG into some big category of obnoxious people.

Nearly every time a thread goes downhill, it's because someone starts either making it personal, or taking things personally. That's my honest opinion, although not one that I expect will make me popular in this thread.

I actually agree with this quite a lot. Where I think it gets problematic is when people start to get more personal, and imply things about character as well as behaviour, which I have seen happen. To me, that crosses a line.

When the action or history of the OP indicates that there most likely is an issue with character as well as behaviour, I'm not sure what else people should do?  Should they just give false opinions?  Who does that help?  I think if a person posts about a dilemma, especially one that repeats itself, they need to be prepared to hear opinions and answers they may not like.

Also, etiquette is very much about character and personal behaviour, so I don't think we could stop discussing those things and be very effective.

I see your point. I'm not really talking about recurring problems, though. Yvaine worded it better than I did a few pages ago, when she spoke of people saying things like 'how can you do x, y, or z?' I think it is a fine line, but I always wince when I see it crossed. Of course, different people are offended by different things.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: PeasNCues on October 05, 2011, 08:54:18 AM
Actually, LaciGirl said,

"I found this thread fascinating as well.  Thank you for starting it, jpcher.  Now I'm starting to think about the ethics of consuming food for reasons other than nutrition or moderate pleasure, and I'm pretty sure I'm believing that it's unethical. Gee.  What a conclusion.  Nothing like thinking my way through this and coming to the conclusion that gluttony -- one of the traditional "seven deadly sins" -- is wrong.   ."

The bolded is way beyond snarky and pretty much saying that anyone who would do this or agree with this is gluttonous and a "sinner"

I read that and assumed that she was having an internal eye-roll moment. At herself. I did not read an iota of snark in it towards anybody else, and I still don't. I'm not particularly trying to defend her, it's the honest truth.

An internal eye-roll moment that became an external eye-roll moment when she posted it and said that clearly this was an example of the sin of gluttony and was wrong.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Lynn2000 on October 05, 2011, 08:56:25 AM
I like to read the threads in the "Forum Announcements" folder because I like knowing what goes on behind the scenes of things. (Anything, really, not just the forum.) I do see a lot of threads in which people talk about favoritism, about certain people being able to get away with being rude while others are chastised by the mods for what they see as minor comments.

To be honest, I don't really track posters well enough to pick out patterns involving specific people (i.e., whoever would be classified as "favorites"). I tend to just read the comments without looking to see who wrote them, unless I really agree or disagree with them. :)

I have noticed a few inconsistencies lately; for example, there was a recent thread that I felt was getting into personal insults, where I was kind of like  :o when I read some of the responses. I was discussing it in PM with some people and I know at least one person reported the thread to the mods. Yet, the thread never got locked, nor did a mod post to chastise anyone. (Obviously, if any posters were PM'd by mods to chastise them, I wouldn't know about that.) In contrast, I've seen a few locked threads recently where I could not divine why it had gotten locked, as none of the responses I read were rude, and the threads were short and had not really "run their course" yet.

But, are these inconsistencies the result of--as PPs said--a handful of mods and hundreds of threads, coupled with the subjective nature of "rude" comments? Or are they due to favoritism and mods locking threads that they personally dislike, especially those critical of some aspect of the forum? I honestly can't say; I'm not good at detecting that kind of thing. But, I find it worrisome that so many people--at least, people who post publicly--think that it's the latter. It does tend to make me a bit paranoid about posting sometimes.

I am going to post this, then go back and read the rest of the thread; because I have a feeling this thread is headed for lockdown...
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: LadyL on October 05, 2011, 08:57:56 AM

I actually agree with this quite a lot. Where I think it gets problematic is when people start to get more personal, and imply things about character as well as behaviour, which I have seen happen. To me, that crosses a line.

When the action or history of the OP indicates that there most likely is an issue with character as well as behaviour, I'm not sure what else people should do?  Should they just give false opinions?  Who does that help?  I think if a person posts about a dilemma, especially one that repeats itself, they need to be prepared to hear opinions and answers they may not like.

Also, etiquette is very much about character and personal behaviour, so I don't think we could stop discussing those things and be very effective.

The bolded are separable and I thought that was one of the main points about etiquette - it doesn't matter if you have terrible character internally and walk around thinking nothing but rude thoughts if you *behave* in a polite way.

I am (like the rest of the species) a flawed person and my thought processes are not always admirable. However, I strive to be polite in my actions. When responses to posts focus on disagreements about thought processes rather than actions, it's hard not to feel like that both misses the point and gets too personal.

I'm not talking about thoughts or thought processes.  I'm talking about actual behavior and when an OP needs to perhaps look back at themselves and their own behaviors in order to find the solution for their issue.  When a problem repeats itself, that is often where the solution to it can be found.

If you are implying that we shouldn't suggest that as an option for an OP, then I disagree.  I think it's a valid suggestion.

Why does character have to come into it then? To me, character implies morals and values. If it's just about behavior patterns that's fine by me.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Scuba_Dog on October 05, 2011, 09:04:36 AM

I actually agree with this quite a lot. Where I think it gets problematic is when people start to get more personal, and imply things about character as well as behaviour, which I have seen happen. To me, that crosses a line.

When the action or history of the OP indicates that there most likely is an issue with character as well as behaviour, I'm not sure what else people should do?  Should they just give false opinions?  Who does that help?  I think if a person posts about a dilemma, especially one that repeats itself, they need to be prepared to hear opinions and answers they may not like.

Also, etiquette is very much about character and personal behaviour, so I don't think we could stop discussing those things and be very effective.

The bolded are separable and I thought that was one of the main points about etiquette - it doesn't matter if you have terrible character internally and walk around thinking nothing but rude thoughts if you *behave* in a polite way.

I am (like the rest of the species) a flawed person and my thought processes are not always admirable. However, I strive to be polite in my actions. When responses to posts focus on disagreements about thought processes rather than actions, it's hard not to feel like that both misses the point and gets too personal.

I'm not talking about thoughts or thought processes.  I'm talking about actual behavior and when an OP needs to perhaps look back at themselves and their own behaviors in order to find the solution for their issue.  When a problem repeats itself, that is often where the solution to it can be found.

If you are implying that we shouldn't suggest that as an option for an OP, then I disagree.  I think it's a valid suggestion.

Why does character have to come into it then? To me, character implies morals and values. If it's just about behavior patterns that's fine by me.

For me, etiquette and a person's character are very connected.  People can hold very different value sets and have opposing morals but can still both be of good or poor character in all or just some situations. 

I have rarely seen a person's character called into question here though.  Mostly, it's a thought that perhaps the OP needs to look at their own behaviour in order to find the solution to their issue.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Spoder on October 05, 2011, 09:05:40 AM
Actually, LaciGirl said,

"I found this thread fascinating as well.  Thank you for starting it, jpcher.  Now I'm starting to think about the ethics of consuming food for reasons other than nutrition or moderate pleasure, and I'm pretty sure I'm believing that it's unethical. Gee.  What a conclusion.  Nothing like thinking my way through this and coming to the conclusion that gluttony -- one of the traditional "seven deadly sins" -- is wrong.   ."

The bolded is way beyond snarky and pretty much saying that anyone who would do this or agree with this is gluttonous and a "sinner"

I read that and assumed that she was having an internal eye-roll moment. At herself. I did not read an iota of snark in it towards anybody else, and I still don't. I'm not particularly trying to defend her, it's the honest truth.

An internal eye-roll moment that became an external eye-roll moment when she posted it and said that clearly this was an example of the sin of gluttony and was wrong.

So? (Meant non-snarkily  ;)). I'm just not seeing the problem. She, personally, has come to the conclusion that overconsumption of food, in general = gluttony = wrong. She's not calling any individual poster on this board a big sinful glutton!

Sure, maybe that's taking the discussion a little too far into abstract quasi-religious/philosophical territory for some people's liking. I can understand that. But why don't they just politely say so?
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Yvaine on October 05, 2011, 09:09:12 AM
Calling a behaviour unethical =/= calling a person who sometimes behaves that way unethical. Heck, I do stuff that even *I* think is unethical. I live in a 2.5 bedroom house by myself, while homeless families sleep in their cars in the same city. That's not a sustainable or ethically defensible situation, but I have my reasons. And I could totally discuss them with someone without it deteriorating into rudeness, because it's about one aspect of my behaviour, not about me as a person.

I agree with this too. I don't always live up to my own standards, in a variety of areas. And I don't think I'm the only one. And I don't think it makes us terrible people, just imperfect.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: PeasNCues on October 05, 2011, 09:10:12 AM
It's rude to bring your personal moral judgement of anyone's beliefs and actions to light - whether you are calling out an individual poster or a group of people who think differently than you.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Shiraz_Much? on October 05, 2011, 09:11:22 AM
Spoder-

I think that it really depends on a reader's interpretation.  I read that line as an external eye-roll and it came across very judgmental in tone to me.  "Gee.  What a conclusion."  That "sounds" very sarcastic to me.

ETA:  What Peas said.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Yvaine on October 05, 2011, 09:15:14 AM
Spoder-

I think that it really depends on a reader's interpretation.  I read that line as an external eye-roll and it came across very judgmental in tone to me.  "Gee.  What a conclusion."  That "sounds" very sarcastic to me.

ETA:  What Peas said.

I actually read it more as snark on herself: "I keep thinking about this and I've concluded I've been doing something unethical! Drat it!" But I'm not in her head so I don't know what she was actually thinking.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: PeasNCues on October 05, 2011, 09:16:46 AM
But, Yvaine, she never did what she was saying was gluttony and sinful. She was thoroughly on the side of "unethical and wrong" while people were discussing it.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Spoder on October 05, 2011, 09:18:17 AM
It's rude to bring your personal moral judgement of anyone's beliefs and actions to light - whether you are calling out an individual poster or a group of people who think differently than you.

It's not at all. How (and why) would we have internet discussion boards in the first place, if it is rude to mention your own personal moral judgement of anyone's belief or actions?! All opinions about human behaviour are, essentially, judgement.

How you express those opinions is what makes them rude or not rude.

Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Yvaine on October 05, 2011, 09:18:43 AM
But, Yvaine, she never did what she was saying was gluttony and sinful. She was thoroughly on the side of "unethical and wrong" while people were discussing it.

Ah, OK. I see where you're coming from then.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: PeasNCues on October 05, 2011, 09:19:17 AM
It's rude to bring your personal moral judgement of anyone's beliefs and actions to light - whether you are calling out an individual poster or a group of people who think differently than you.

It's not at all. How (and why) would we have internet discussion boards in the first place, if it is rude to mention your own personal moral judgement of anyone's belief or actions?! All opinions about human behaviour are, essentially, judgement.

How you express those opinions is what makes them rude or not rude.

Judging something as rude is hugely different than judging it immoral and sinful.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: rashea on October 05, 2011, 09:32:06 AM
I think some of it is that people are more likely to report a post by someone who isn't as popular. And Mods do seem to respond faster if they've gotten multiple reports of an issue (I'm thinking of one in particular that set a record). So, a new, or unpopular poster (either because they tend to be in the minority opinion or because they tend to express themselves in a way that rubs others the wrong way) may be reported many many times, where a popular and well known poster would only get one report for the same type of comment. The mods then react to that by going to where the reports are.

The mods have commented on why they delete posts instead of editing them. They can still see the deleted posts, but if they edit them, then they can't see the original post. This allows them to see a pattern.

I do agree that I wish the mods would post a note when they've taken action. It would help up the transparency and reveal more about what's going on.

I'll also say that if you've had something deleted or edited or something, I don't see the harm in asking. I had a topic moved and asked why. I got a response, and decided I was fine with the decision. If mods are refusing to answer why an action was taken when asked, that seems like a bigger problem. I've not experienced it, but if others have, I would want to know about it.

I'm sure I, and everyone else on here, has occasionally worded something badly and been offensive. I would hope that if people have problems with me, they would let me know directly, especially if it's a general style of posting. I know I'm on here in part to avoid offending people. I think in general, dealing with things in PM is ideal.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: LadyL on October 05, 2011, 09:35:06 AM
Actually, LaciGirl said,

"I found this thread fascinating as well.  Thank you for starting it, jpcher.  Now I'm starting to think about the ethics of consuming food for reasons other than nutrition or moderate pleasure, and I'm pretty sure I'm believing that it's unethical. Gee.  What a conclusion.  Nothing like thinking my way through this and coming to the conclusion that gluttony -- one of the traditional "seven deadly sins" -- is wrong.   ."

The bolded is way beyond snarky and pretty much saying that anyone who would do this or agree with this is gluttonous and a "sinner"

I read that and assumed that she was having an internal eye-roll moment. At herself. I did not read an iota of snark in it towards anybody else, and I still don't. I'm not particularly trying to defend her, it's the honest truth.

An internal eye-roll moment that became an external eye-roll moment when she posted it and said that clearly this was an example of the sin of gluttony and was wrong.

So? (Meant non-snarkily  ;)). I'm just not seeing the problem. She, personally, has come to the conclusion that overconsumption of food, in general = gluttony = wrong. She's not calling any individual poster on this board a big sinful glutton!

Sure, maybe that's taking the discussion a little too far into abstract quasi-religious/philosophical territory for some people's liking. I can understand that. But why don't they just politely say so?

I think any tone that implies "Duh, how obvious" can easily be (mis?)interpreted as "Duh, it's so obvious, you'd have to be dumb not to agree." Eyeroll comments are, IMO, received best when the poster makes it clear they're rolling their eyes at themselves.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Spoder on October 05, 2011, 09:35:33 AM
It's rude to bring your personal moral judgement of anyone's beliefs and actions to light - whether you are calling out an individual poster or a group of people who think differently than you.

It's not at all. How (and why) would we have internet discussion boards in the first place, if it is rude to mention your own personal moral judgement of anyone's belief or actions?! All opinions about human behaviour are, essentially, judgement.

How you express those opinions is what makes them rude or not rude.

Judging something as rude is hugely different than judging it immoral and sinful.

Peas, the OP actually asked for opinions on whether she was being wasteful, not just on the etiquette of the bagger. I'm sorry, but she opened that door - and she seemed perfectly fine with LG's responses.



Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: PeasNCues on October 05, 2011, 09:36:44 AM
The OP is not the only person posting in the thread and whose opinion matters.

Wasteful =/= sinful and gluttonous
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Goodnight Kiwi on October 05, 2011, 09:39:22 AM
The mods have commented on why they delete posts instead of editing them. They can still see the deleted posts, but if they edit them, then they can't see the original post. This allows them to see a pattern.


Would it perhaps be helpful then for the mods to have a "Deleted threads" thread in the Forum Announcements folder, and update it each time with a small announcement stating the name of the thread and, briefly, the reason for it being locked?

Eg:  "Knitting in shopping cart after leaving shoes on in house thread deleted due to Goodnight Kiwi's excessive cussing"

Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: LadyL on October 05, 2011, 09:40:02 AM
The OP is not the only person posting in the thread and whose opinion matters.

Wasteful =/= sinful and gluttonous

I have to agree. I think it's really important to separate morality from etiquette. There are polite things that are hurtful or in some cultures/religions immoral but they are still polite. Likewise there are things that may be moral by a certain set of standards (religions that encourage aggressive evangelizing, for example) but are rude per the rules of etiquette.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Yvaine on October 05, 2011, 09:42:14 AM
It's rude to bring your personal moral judgement of anyone's beliefs and actions to light - whether you are calling out an individual poster or a group of people who think differently than you.

It's not at all. How (and why) would we have internet discussion boards in the first place, if it is rude to mention your own personal moral judgement of anyone's belief or actions?! All opinions about human behaviour are, essentially, judgement.

How you express those opinions is what makes them rude or not rude.

Judging something as rude is hugely different than judging it immoral and sinful.

I think part of the problem is that the issue of waste is an etiquette issue for some and an ethical issue for others. And I don't think it's inherently bad to get into ethics on this board; we do it all the time. But I do agree that we cross a line when we get into questions of "sin," which vary among belief systems and are beyond the scope of this forum.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Mikayla on October 05, 2011, 09:42:30 AM
It's rude to bring your personal moral judgement of anyone's beliefs and actions to light - whether you are calling out an individual poster or a group of people who think differently than you.

It's not at all. How (and why) would we have internet discussion boards in the first place, if it is rude to mention your own personal moral judgement of anyone's belief or actions?! All opinions about human behaviour are, essentially, judgement.

How you express those opinions is what makes them rude or not rude.

I continue to agree!  This is reminding me of a thread where someone talked about letting their very underage kid on facebook, and the comments were very much critical of ethics.  But I don't recall anyone having a problem with it, and some of the comments were rather pointed.

It's all judgment.  If I had taken Laci's comment at the end as a personal attack on someone, rather than a statement about belief systems, I would have found it rude. 

Also, I totally agree with the comments on dogpiling, but I honestly think this is sometimes caused by my biggest board pet peeve - people not reading the thread.  I view these discussions as conversations, not a bulletin board, and when someone chimes in late with a comment no longer valid, I just shake mah head. 
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: KimberlyRose on October 05, 2011, 09:44:50 AM
I think it boils down to one poster essentially calling a lot of people, other posters included, unethical because they "waste food" by her definition.

And what bothered me was that *that* was apparently acceptable.  That's part of what I think is bothering a lot of people.  It's like there are some people who are allowed to be judgmental and rude, and not only is that okay, if you call them out on it, you get smacked down by the mods.  There is no "this is okay, this isn't," because it depends on whether you're one of the favored posters or not.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: PeasNCues on October 05, 2011, 09:46:04 AM
It's rude to bring your personal moral judgement of anyone's beliefs and actions to light - whether you are calling out an individual poster or a group of people who think differently than you.

It's not at all. How (and why) would we have internet discussion boards in the first place, if it is rude to mention your own personal moral judgement of anyone's belief or actions?! All opinions about human behaviour are, essentially, judgement.

How you express those opinions is what makes them rude or not rude.

Judging something as rude is hugely different than judging it immoral and sinful.

I think part of the problem is that the issue of waste is an etiquette issue for some and an ethical issue for others. And I don't think it's inherently bad to get into ethics on this board; we do it all the time. But I do agree that we cross a line when we get into questions of "sin," which vary among belief systems and are beyond the scope of this forum.

I can understand ethics, certainly! I was, in fact, part of the discussion on the ethics of waste (not a discussion about people who do waste, but why it is considered unethical in the first place - if that makes any sense).

As you say though, bringing in sin and all that kind of crosses a line. A big, double thick, DO NOT CROSS line.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Lynn2000 on October 05, 2011, 09:47:38 AM
The mods have commented on why they delete posts instead of editing them. They can still see the deleted posts, but if they edit them, then they can't see the original post. This allows them to see a pattern.


Would it perhaps be helpful then for the mods to have a "Deleted threads" thread in the Forum Announcements folder, and update it each time with a small announcement stating the name of the thread and, briefly, the reason for it being locked?

Eg:  "Knitting in shopping cart after leaving shoes on in house thread deleted due to Goodnight Kiwi's excessive cussing"

I think this would be a great idea. They could make it the sort of thread where other people weren't allowed to post--because I could see heated discussion taking place when the mods only intended to post a non-negotiable "this is X"--but I think it would help a lot.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Spoder on October 05, 2011, 09:50:12 AM

I think any tone that implies "Duh, how obvious" can easily be (mis?)interpreted as "Duh, it's so obvious, you'd have to be dumb not to agree." Eyeroll comments are, IMO, received best when the poster makes it clear they're rolling their eyes at themselves.
[/quote]

Oh, absolutely. I agree with you. But if you (general) do think that a poster is being eye-rolly at everyone else, isn't it better to say, 'Excuse me, but are you saying that we are all X, Y and Z, because I find that offensive', rather than posting a rude comment in reply?

The OP is not the only person posting in the thread and whose opinion matters.
Wasteful =/= sinful and gluttonous

No, of course she's not.

There were two separate things: buying food with the intent of throwing it out (wasteful), and overeating (gluttony). LG started by saying that she thought the first was unethical. By the end of the thread, she'd decided that the second was also wasteful, and therefore unethical. She didn't *call* any other posters *anything*.

Honestly, even if she said that eating more than three slices of bread per day is a wasteful, gluttonous, sinful habit, I'd just think she was nuts and disagree with her. Politely. Clearly, the word 'sin' crossed a line for some people - so, tell LG that!

I disagree that Lady Pekoe's response was polite. That's the crux of the matter.

Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: PeasNCues on October 05, 2011, 09:55:28 AM
IMO, LadyPoke was blunt and calling out, not polite but I don't see how her statement was rude. She was saying the LD had a habit of making such comments as her previoius.

Quote
There were two separate things: buying food with the intent of throwing it out (wasteful), and overeating (gluttony). LG started by saying that she thought the first was unethical. By the end of the thread, she'd decided that the second was also wasteful, and therefore unethical. She didn't *call* any other posters *anything*.

She did not call them unethical. She said it was gluttony and a sin. The word sin is not tied to ethics except religiously and to religiously condemn someone on an etiquette forum is rude.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Spoder on October 05, 2011, 09:58:32 AM
Peas, I don't think we're going to agree with each other's reasoning on this topic, so I'm happy to drop it.   :) And just for the record, I didn't like the way Lady Pekoe was 'smacked down', either.

Anyone else is (of course  :)) welcome to pick apart what I've said, but I'm going to leave it at that. I know that Fluffy Cat wants this thread to be about general developments in the forum, not just that particular thread, and I feel as if I'm being unfair to her by sidetracking things.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: PeasNCues on October 05, 2011, 10:02:04 AM
I think telling someone, "your post was rude and totally uncalled for" and that she should have "thicker skin" about a poster tired of a specific poster continuously judging a poster and her industry is a smack down.

You're right, though, I don't think we're going to agree.

ETA: Totally misread Spoder's post, she did agree about the smackdown! Apologies!
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Spoder on October 05, 2011, 10:05:10 AM
See, I think telling someone, "your post was rude and totally uncalled for" and that she should have "thicker skin" about a poster tired of a specific poster continuously judging a poster and her industry is a smack down.
You're right, though, I don't think we're going to agree.

No, no...I was saying that it *was* a smack-down. I was agreeing with you.  ;). 



(The 'continuously judging' thing is the bit I haven't noticed. And, as I said before, the thing I think they need to take to PM).
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Yvaine on October 05, 2011, 10:05:35 AM
See, I think telling someone, "your post was rude and totally uncalled for" and that she should have "thicker skin" about a poster tired of a specific poster continuously judging a poster and her industry is a smack down.

You're right, though, I don't think we're going to agree.

I think what made me headscratch over LP's post was that I hadn't noticed much talk of the meat industry on that thread at all, so it felt out of left field. Is it a post I missed in the shuffle, or is it a dispute from another thread?
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Solanna Dryden on October 05, 2011, 10:07:23 AM
Maybe we can move the discussion of ethics vs morals vs etiquette into it's own post? I think the thread's gotta a bit off track here...
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: PeasNCues on October 05, 2011, 10:08:18 AM
There's a bunch of history there - both in PM and otherwise, if I recall correctly  :)

I'm not saying that LP was correct to post that, just I understand that she was at the end of her rope.  ;D
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Yvaine on October 05, 2011, 10:10:43 AM
There's a bunch of history there - both in PM and otherwise, if I recall correctly  :)

Ah, OK, that makes more sense. Thanks.  :)
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Spoder on October 05, 2011, 10:10:59 AM
Maybe we can move the discussion of ethics vs morals vs etiquette into it's own post? I think the thread's gotta a bit off track here...


Agreed. Conveniently, rashea's started a spin-off thread: http://www.etiquettehell.com/smf/index.php?topic=102612.0
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: LadyPekoe on October 05, 2011, 10:16:56 AM
It's rude to bring your personal moral judgement of anyone's beliefs and actions to light - whether you are calling out an individual poster or a group of people who think differently than you.

It's not at all. How (and why) would we have internet discussion boards in the first place, if it is rude to mention your own personal moral judgement of anyone's belief or actions?! All opinions about human behaviour are, essentially, judgement.

How you express those opinions is what makes them rude or not rude.

Judging something as rude is hugely different than judging it immoral and sinful.

...and feeling you have every right to "call" them on it because it's so immoral.  THAT is what I was reacting to.  And if you've never been in a situation where people react to what you do as immoral all the time, it's easy to say that you can say something is unethical but "I don't mean it personally".   

"I think everybody who wears pink shirts is low class" said to somebody who is wearing a pink shirt.  "Ohhh....but I didn't mean YOU, I just meant it GENERALLY". 
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Dragonflymom on October 05, 2011, 11:07:28 AM
I'm not sure about retaliatory rudeness, but I have seen a lot more nastiness and snarkiness in the forum in general in the past few months, some of it coming from long time members whose posts I used to enjoy reading, which has been puzzling and off putting.  I'd imagine the mods are probably frustrated at the increased nastiness, I'm sure I would be in their shoes, and some of their posts are probably reflecting that frustrating which I think is somewhat understandable.  Some of the really nasty dogpiling in particular has been quite shocking.

Regarding the controversial post in the referenced thread in particular, I read LG's post the same way as Spoder did.  Mainly because my husband will use phrasing like that when he's evaluating his own actions and poking fun at himself.  But I see how it could be read other ways too.  I guess that is an example of why sarcasm and tone don't really come across well on the internet, with no tone of voice or body language to go on, it's too unclear who the sarcasm is directed at and what the person posting is trying to convey.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Giggity on October 05, 2011, 11:20:32 AM
Eg:  "Knitting in shopping cart after leaving shoes on in house thread deleted due to Goodnight Kiwi's excessive cussing"

Gaaaah. I loved that thread and it's ALL YOUR FAULT. Potty mouth!  >:D
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: MariaE on October 05, 2011, 11:57:49 AM
Spoder, you've just saved me a great amount of typing. I agree completely.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: cass2591 on October 05, 2011, 12:14:22 PM
To all of you who are outraged at my reply to Lady Pekoe: Someone reported it. I didn't have the time to analyze all the posts prior to it because I hadn't been following the thread and her post needed to be addressed.

And nobody reported, until I posted to Lady Pekoe, any posts from LaciGirl. The moral of the story is if you see something you don't like, report it rather than wait. We don't see everything, and no, if I'm in a hurry I'm not about to sit down and read 10 pages of a thread looking for who's at fault. I'm more interested in putting out the fire.

Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: TychaBrahe on October 05, 2011, 12:40:26 PM
I have felt dogpiled on.... when after reading , clarifying and thinking about the comments and the discussions - I said ... you know you guys are absolutely right. I was wrong, I didn't see how bad my action was - I apologized and made it right.

And the harsh comments continue and continue. ( and when I say harsh .... I mean people basically calling me names such as you are patronizing , condescedning, rude. Instead of saying your conversation was ..... )

And I say one more time .... ummmm .... I know I was wrong let it lie. I've apologized.

AND SOME OF THE SAME POSTERS..... continue with YOU ARE A Specisl Snowflake... on and on.

I'm like OK OK OK .....

One thing to keep in mind is that not everyone has seen everything when they post.  Most people respond to point in the thread as they read them.  They don't read the entire thread and then comment.

Personally, when I find a post I want to comment on, I right-click on the quote feature and open it in a new tab.   Then, when I get to the end of the thread, I can make a decision as to whether or not to post my comment.  Sometimes someone else has said basically what I wanted to say.  Sometimes new information has been added.  Sometimes I've changed my mind.  There was a recent thread where a mod said, "This needs to get back on track," or "The snark needs to be dialed down," and not three posts later was a comment exactly like what the mod didn't want to see.  However, it was obvious to me that the poster was not flaunting the mod's request, but was inspired by something several pages back.

I have definitely noticed that posters who call out rude behavior by another poster are far more likely to be mod-smacked than the people actually having committed the rude act. Any discussion of how the OP's behavior could have been lacking results in the same.
I hope LaciGirl was addressed as well because the active ignoring of her inappropriate post essentially calling any who disagreed with her gluttonous sinners in favor of mod-smacking a much less offensive post by someone tired of the holier-than-though, ignorant attitude often displayed towards her personally and professionally by the same poster smacks like mod approval and favoratism.

I haven't seen the bolded, at all. I actually think that OPs can get piled on too much some of the time-I have also seen some justified calling out of people piling on an OP.

I have.  There was a thread not so long ago where someone called another poster's sexual habits immoral.  And the criticized poster was quite offended and blew up about it.  She was suspended for two weeks.  Now, granted her method of expressing her outrage was over the top, and I don't disagree with her punishment, although I probably would have given her only one wee.  But the person who had basically called her a slut was not punished at all. 

It's hard to see things like that and not think that there's favoritism. 

Now, Cass has just said that the mods go where people are reporting problems.  I think part of the problem was that the particular words the first poster used were not part of normal vocabulary, so most people didn't understand how incredibly offensive what he had said was.  And since the respondent worked with thinly veiled talk-arounds of plain old Anglo-Saxon expletives, it was easier to see that she was using "bad words." 

It's an old grade school trick to call someone brobdinagian and snicker because they don't know you've just called them fat.  But being erudite should not excuse one from being insulting, or the consequences thereof.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Bibliophile on October 05, 2011, 12:50:06 PM
To all of you who are outraged at my reply to Lady Pekoe: Someone reported it. I didn't have the time to analyze all the posts prior to it because I hadn't been following the thread and her post needed to be addressed.

And nobody reported, until I posted to Lady Pekoe, any posts from LaciGirl. The moral of the story is if you see something you don't like, report it rather than wait. We don't see everything, and no, if I'm in a hurry I'm not about to sit down and read 10 pages of a thread looking for who's at fault. I'm more interested in putting out the fire.

It may be just me, but if you don't read the background posts, it seems like an overreaction to lock an entire thread over 1 post.  I would like to think that if a thread is going to be locked altogether, a mod would read some of the other posts - even if it's just a page - before making that decision.  In addition, if a thread is going to be locked, lock it.  But, I think that commentary after a thread lock should be made only after review of the thread.  It seems unprofessional and, frankly, rude to call out one specific poster without all the facts.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: aventurine on October 05, 2011, 12:54:01 PM
"Admin/mods, the posters here are trying to tell you something about yourselves.  Are you paying attention?"

 ;D  #feelingsilly
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Lynn2000 on October 05, 2011, 01:02:18 PM
I do understand that the mods can't be everywhere and see everything; and if a post gets reported to them, of course that's the post they're going to look at--first. I wouldn't expect the mods to read through the entire preceding ten pages and do an in-depth analysis of all the participants who are at fault and to what degree. However, looking at a single post in a vacuum, outside the context of the thread that precipitated it, doesn't seem like the most accurate method, either. And when the mod has the power to publicly chastise, gag, ban, lock a thread, etc., it seems important that they exercise these powers carefully, or people will start to feel like there is "something else going on."

Perhaps, as cass2591 said, people need to be more proactive about reporting things. But, sometimes it's difficult because it's not one particular post that is horrible, but rather the "trend" of the thread. The last time I reported something, the post I chose to hit "report to moderator" on was not, on the surface, so terrible, but I felt it was the pinnacle of an offensive turn the thread was taking. I tried to convey this in the accompanying note to the mods, but perhaps I didn't do a good job of that. I was really hoping the mod would read back over the preceding few posts--not pages, just a few posts--and see the same trend I had seen, and at least say something about it publicly. But to my knowledge nothing was said, and I must admit that the thread seemed to "right itself" after a bit, which is great.

I guess my point is just--I was hoping the mods did look over at least a few preceding posts, and cass2591 indicates they don't. Which is good to know, but makes it more difficult for me to decide when to report, and what to report. Also, I'm curious if this might vary by mod--with some reading just the reported post, and others reading the ones right before it--and even within the same mod depending on how busy they are. Perhaps that leads to the inconsistencies that people have noticed, which could be interpreted by some as favoritism?
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: rashea on October 05, 2011, 01:02:28 PM
I have felt dogpiled on.... when after reading , clarifying and thinking about the comments and the discussions - I said ... you know you guys are absolutely right. I was wrong, I didn't see how bad my action was - I apologized and made it right.

And the harsh comments continue and continue. ( and when I say harsh .... I mean people basically calling me names such as you are patronizing , condescedning, rude. Instead of saying your conversation was ..... )

And I say one more time .... ummmm .... I know I was wrong let it lie. I've apologized.

AND SOME OF THE SAME POSTERS..... continue with YOU ARE A Specisl Snowflake... on and on.

I'm like OK OK OK .....

One thing to keep in mind is that not everyone has seen everything when they post.  Most people respond to point in the thread as they read them.  They don't read the entire thread and then comment.

Personally, when I find a post I want to comment on, I right-click on the quote feature and open it in a new tab.   Then, when I get to the end of the thread, I can make a decision as to whether or not to post my comment.  Sometimes someone else has said basically what I wanted to say.  Sometimes new information has been added.  Sometimes I've changed my mind.  There was a recent thread where a mod said, "This needs to get back on track," or "The snark needs to be dialed down," and not three posts later was a comment exactly like what the mod didn't want to see.  However, it was obvious to me that the poster was not flaunting the mod's request, but was inspired by something several pages back.


I tend to think that's part of where dogpiling and things come from though. At very least, I think it would be worth skimming the whole thread before commenting. Or looking to see if the OP has responded, and maybe glancing to see if a mod has commented on something already.

Tycha, I do the right click thing too. I also do it if I'm reporting something, as many times the mods have already commented on it.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Rivaini on October 05, 2011, 01:10:16 PM
To all of you who are outraged at my reply to Lady Pekoe: Someone reported it. I didn't have the time to analyze all the posts prior to it because I hadn't been following the thread and her post needed to be addressed.

And nobody reported, until I posted to Lady Pekoe, any posts from LaciGirl. The moral of the story is if you see something you don't like, report it rather than wait. We don't see everything, and no, if I'm in a hurry I'm not about to sit down and read 10 pages of a thread looking for who's at fault. I'm more interested in putting out the fire.

It may be just me, but if you don't read the background posts, it seems like an overreaction to lock an entire thread over 1 post.  I would like to think that if a thread is going to be locked altogether, a mod would read some of the other posts - even if it's just a page - before making that decision.  In addition, if a thread is going to be locked, lock it.  But, I think that commentary after a thread lock should be made only after review of the thread.  It seems unprofessional and, frankly, rude to call out one specific poster without all the facts.


I had intended on just lurking in this thread, but I just have to agree with this entire post, especially the bolded.

I understand that the mods have real jobs and lives of their own, but if there isn't time to give full attention to a situation then maybe we should have more mods to lighten the load.



Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: JoieGirl7 on October 05, 2011, 01:21:20 PM
If someone says something that is OTT offensive you are supposed to report it, not respond to it with expletives no matter how thinly veiled.

Reacting to a troll feeds the troll.  If you respond inappropriately to provocation you are falling into the trap.
 
Reporting a thread or post does not guarantee moderation but it puts it on the mods' radar.
 
There is a lot of self-moderation that a person can do and I think that's really what the mods expect of us--that even if we are insulted or outraged that we can still manage to be civil--the underlying theme being that this is "just" an internet forum and presumably we all have much more important things to be outraged about IRL.
 
No one reported any of Laci's posts?  Why come here and complain about her not being moderated when you never reported her posts to a mod?
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Miss Vertigo on October 05, 2011, 01:22:34 PM
I've moderated a large forum, and it's a thankless task, so I say this with a degree of understanding of where Cass is coming from.

For the very reason that you *can't* be in all places at once, context is king.

If only the reported posts are used as a basis for a modsmack without even a quick glance-over to review the conversation as a whole, and without any context being taken into account, how can a mod be sure that the right person is getting that modsmack?

Inconsistency and percieved unfairness is where peoples' grievances are coming from, in that certain posters with a consistently abrasive manner who post offensive things are often left to continue posting unmodded - and I've reported several myself,  so it's not that nobody's reported those posts - while someone else with an otherwise good record gets a gag or a ban for what often seems like a comparatively very minor offence.

And while people, mods included, have busy lives and posts can often get rushed off in a hurry without perhaps much attention to tone, since this is an etiquette forum, I would very much like to think that the mods are not holding posters to a standard of behaviour - and disciplining based on that very standard - that they're not always adhering to themselves.

I do like the idea of an explanation of why a thread is being locked or why something has been modded. The forum software I used to mod on had a short one-line field to fill in on the moderation screen where a reason could be given, much like there is here when we report a post, so I don't know if that's a possibility. I think that would go a long way to appeasing what seems to be a significant number of people in this situation.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: cass2591 on October 05, 2011, 01:39:39 PM
I will post in this thread one last time, reason being something happened IRL today and I'm a bit upset by that.

I normally do not just read one post that was reported and decide to smack down. I gave the thread a cursory glance, yes, cursory, and missed the nuances because I was in a hurry and yes, I wanted to put out the fire. I locked it minutes later after someone reported a prior post, and then I realized there was more than previously met my eye, but didn't have time to go back and study everything. The most expeditious thing to do was lock it.

And with that, I bid you all a good day.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: KimberlyRose on October 05, 2011, 01:53:08 PM
Eg:  "Knitting in shopping cart after leaving shoes on in house thread deleted due to Goodnight Kiwi's excessive cussing"

I just want to say that I really want to see a thread with that subject line, just because I'd want to know the incident that prompted it.  ;)
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: PeasNCues on October 05, 2011, 01:56:02 PM
No one reported any of Laci's posts?  Why come here and complain about her not being moderated when you never reported her posts to a mod?

I know several people who reported it. Perhaps it was just that cass didn't see it until she'd already locked the thread.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: KimberlyRose on October 05, 2011, 02:30:04 PM
To all of you who are outraged at my reply to Lady Pekoe: Someone reported it. I didn't have the time to analyze all the posts prior to it because I hadn't been following the thread and her post needed to be addressed.

And nobody reported, until I posted to Lady Pekoe, any posts from LaciGirl. The moral of the story is if you see something you don't like, report it rather than wait. We don't see everything, and no, if I'm in a hurry I'm not about to sit down and read 10 pages of a thread looking for who's at fault. I'm more interested in putting out the fire.

It may be just me, but if you don't read the background posts, it seems like an overreaction to lock an entire thread over 1 post.  I would like to think that if a thread is going to be locked altogether, a mod would read some of the other posts - even if it's just a page - before making that decision.  In addition, if a thread is going to be locked, lock it.  But, I think that commentary after a thread lock should be made only after review of the thread.  It seems unprofessional and, frankly, rude to call out one specific poster without all the facts.

I personally wouldn't have a problem with locking a thread and posting something like "thread locked for moderator review," which I think may have happened a time or two in the past.  Once the thread is reviewed, then it can either stay locked or be opened up again.  I have seen threads locked where I'm 100% positive no moderator review happened, either before or after locking it.*  I think that if the standard were to have an explanation why a thread was locked, we might not have so many of locked threads.

*The thread that stands out to me:  some while back, there was a thread that contained either the word "ranty" or "venty."  We're going to go with "ranty," to not get overly wordy.  Ranting/venting posts aren't allowed, so the mods locked the thread.  Logical, right?  Except the poster wanted to know how to handle a friend who tended to rant a lot.  She wasn't able to get advice on this, because the thread was locked, and as I recall, never unlocked, so I consider it safe to assume the mods only read the subject line and not the thread itself.  That's an extreme example, but certainly not the only instance where I don't think a thread was actually reviewed, either before or after being locked.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Lynn2000 on October 05, 2011, 02:45:57 PM
I personally wouldn't have a problem with locking a thread and posting something like "thread locked for moderator review," which I think may have happened a time or two in the past.  Once the thread is reviewed, then it can either stay locked or be opened up again.  I have seen threads locked where I'm 100% positive no moderator review happened, either before or after locking it.*  I think that if the standard were to have an explanation why a thread was locked, we might not have so many of locked threads.

(snipped quote tree) I think this would be a good idea and was about to mention it myself.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: TheBardess on October 05, 2011, 02:55:03 PM
I have.  There was a thread not so long ago where someone called another poster's sexual habits immoral. And the criticized poster was quite offended and blew up about it.  She was suspended for two weeks.  Now, granted her method of expressing her outrage was over the top, and I don't disagree with her punishment, although I probably would have given her only one wee.  But the person who had basically called her a slut was not punished at all. 

It's hard to see things like that and not think that there's favoritism. 


Whoa, really? When was this? I've seen some snark on this board, but nothing like that!  :o

Anyway, I don't think I've necessarily noticed favoritism on the part of the mods, although that might just be because I don't pay close enough attention to people's posting histories and who posts what. I do agree, though, that it would be nice to be given a reason when a thread is locked. I can't recall any specific examples off the top of my head, but I remember several occasions where threads I was reading/participating in were locked and I couldn't figure out why- no one was getting nasty or snarky and the topic didn't seem to be anything verboten. A quick, one-line explanation would really helpful in those cases.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: TheBardess on October 05, 2011, 02:55:59 PM
I will post in this thread one last time, reason being something happened IRL today and I'm a bit upset by that.

 :-\ Hope everything is okay with you, cass.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: kingsrings on October 05, 2011, 03:24:01 PM
I haven't noticed any favoritism, but I have noticed unequal moderation. Certain things resulting in gagging or ban, while others things that seem just as bad only get a warning. I know this is all subjective though.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: kingsrings on October 05, 2011, 03:26:14 PM
Perhaps I don't spend enough time on eHell or perhaps it's my general cluelessness but I haven't noticed any particular favouritism. I actually felt as though the 'dogpiling' trend has decreased a little lately. I was nervous to post for a while there but IME it had settled down a bit, so perhaps it just depends on the particular threads you are following at any time.

I will say that I have been surprised by how vehemently and bluntly some people will express themselves here. On occassion I have seen people saying things to others that I would consider frankly insulting IRL. However I don't think it is reasonable to expect the mods to read every single post on every single thread so I've always just assumed that perhaps the insultee didn't care enough to report it.

One final point - I know that I am probably more likely to interperet an ambiguous post as benign if it is posted by someone that I have seen many posts from and that in my experience is usually a polite and respectful poster. So perhaps the mods are the same - if they've seen someone post for 5 years and they have no history of rudeness they may be more likely to dismiss a post as an aberration, whereas if it is your second post ever...

Not saying that's the case. Just an idea.

ITA. Some posters just seem to always find just about everything negative or insulting in some way, and they don't hold back on expressing that, esp. in a blunt way. That is why I wish there was an ignore button!
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: kingsrings on October 05, 2011, 03:36:47 PM
Given how the threads have been going and how frequently they're being locked or they disappear, never mind the increased level of snarkiness and, even, people getting chastised on the Hugs board, I've pretty much decided against starting threads of my own anymore.  It's just not worth the risk of dealing with the weirdness of late.

I'll agree with the chastisements on the Hugs board. It's one thing if the person asks for advice, but the Hugs board is not really the place to tell an OP that they're doing their whole life wrong. I wish more people would ignore Hugs posts that annoy them.

ITA. It's called "Hugs" for a reason, and that is not to chastise others. It would be called something else if that was what it was for! I've seen too many instances, and even encountered some myself, of people going there to get a hug and instead being chastised and worse. It's not the place for that. If you feel like doing that instead of giving them a hug, then decline to participate.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: kingsrings on October 05, 2011, 03:39:07 PM
I have definitely noticed that posters who call out rude behavior by another poster are far more likely to be mod-smacked than the people actually having committed the rude act. Any discussion of how the OP's behavior could have been lacking results in the same.
I hope LaciGirl was addressed as well because the active ignoring of her inappropriate post essentially calling any who disagreed with her gluttonous sinners in favor of mod-smacking a much less offensive post by someone tired of the holier-than-though, ignorant attitude often displayed towards her personally and professionally by the same poster smacks like mod approval and favoratism.

I haven't seen the bolded, at all. I actually think that OPs can get piled on too much some of the time-I have also seen some justified calling out of people piling on an OP.

One of the recent posts where an OP got piled on, she had gone away from the computer for a while. Someone asked a question, she wasn't there to respond, so a bunch of other people piped up to repeat the same question for a couple of pages. She answered it when she got back online...and not in the way the pilers expected. I can understand asking once or twice about whether the OP's own behavior might have influenced the etiquette issue, but if they don't answer right away, it might not mean they're dodging the question. They may just not be popping onto eHell all day like some of us are (guilty as charged).  ;D

Or maybe they're inacting Scritzy's Coke Rule, and shouldn't be dogpiled upon or criticized for not answering something someone's asked. They're just following the rules of the board, which is that if something offends or upsets you so much, enact the Coke Rule.
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Outdoor Girl on October 05, 2011, 03:47:19 PM
I like 'Thread locked for moderator review', too.  If the thread can be salvaged, great, but if not, a further note to say locked for whatever reason is good, too.

I think some of the unevenness in moderating could be because there are several moderators and they're all people, too.  They have stuff going on IRL that could affect how they react to a particular comment.  I know I have days where a particular comment may hit me harder than other days.

And a thought for people as they report threads:  maybe try to report the post that caused a reactionary post and include the explanation:  This post (by poster A) was over the top and unfortunately caused a reactionary post by poster B.  And if you report the reactionary post, indicate the initiating post in your explanation.  What do you guys think?
Title: Re: Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell
Post by: Ticia on October 05, 2011, 04:00:41 PM
Okay, here's the thing. When we lock threads, we get criticized. If we don't lock threads, we get criticized. If we delete things... criticized. Don't delete things? Criticized. All the criticism is one reason we don't usually explain why we moderate things the way that we do. We can't please everyone all the time.

The mods are a very diverse group of individuals, also. A post that might not bother one mod might bug the living snarg out of another mod. We tend to go with the moderation of whoever feels the strongest, tempered with the opinions of the other mods thrown in.

I'd also like to emphasize that we mods are all volunteers. None of us get paid for what we do, and we do it in the time that we have. If you do have a problem with the way we moderate, a PM (Not a demanding PM, let me state, please) explaining your point of view, will be read and shared with the moderators and we'll see if we need to change the way we do things.

A thread "Calling out the moderators" for their actions is just never going to go over well, though.