Etiquette Hell

Forum Administration => Forum Announcements => Topic started by: Ehelldame on September 25, 2012, 07:28:29 AM

Title: Blog Threads
Post by: Ehelldame on September 25, 2012, 07:28:29 AM
The policy of this forum that "what happens on the forum, stays on the forum" is meant to preserve that sense of community many of you appreciate.    The blog has its own community with regulars who weigh in every day and there is some cross over between the two communities.  The blog has almost no published rules so the dynamics are different than the forum.  There are people commenting in the blog who are banned from this forum and therefore cannot come here to defend their positions.   If blog topics have become a frequent source of commentary of the forum as has been brought to my attention, and particularly the comments people in the blog community have made, then I will have to rescind the forum policy to allow both communities to discuss each other's opinions.     Fair?   

Think long and hard about this.   I have been very tempted on a few occasions to use some posts in the forum as examples in blog posts but have not.  Conversely, some of those banned individuals who hang around the blog would probably LOVE a chance to comment in the blog about what comments made in the forum. 
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Wonderflonium on September 25, 2012, 08:17:19 AM
What about this scenario: Someone notices an interesting story on the blog, posts it to the forum, and we discuss it separately from the blog post? If we are commenting ONLY on the story sent in by an anonymous source (as in one recently locked thread) and not on the comments on the blog, it's no different than commenting about the etiquette of a random news story. Is that not allowed, and if not, may I ask why?
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Yvaine on September 25, 2012, 09:04:32 AM
What about this scenario: Someone notices an interesting story on the blog, posts it to the forum, and we discuss it separately from the blog post? If we are commenting ONLY on the story sent in by an anonymous source (as in one recently locked thread) and not on the comments on the blog, it's no different than commenting about the etiquette of a random news story. Is that not allowed, and if not, may I ask why?

Agreed. This is actually a long-running tradition at ehell--the Etiquette Hell Classics folder was created for this, before the main site posts were in blog format. It's comparable to when we discuss a Dear Prudence column.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: WillyNilly on September 25, 2012, 09:10:42 AM
I think its redundant to have two conversations going on about the same thing.  Comments on the blog are comments on the blog - they are strictly moderated, and they are almost all always directed back to the original story, etc.  Whereas on the forum, its more of a discussion, with the topic often drifting, the OP participating, providing feedback & more info, etc, and comments moderated very differently.

I think its almost always impossible too, to keep from having the blog comments influence the conversation if we move a topic over to the forum.

And with the info that banned-from-the-forum folks are commenting on the blogs, it seems a bit unfair to essentially take their topics as our own.  Banned folks can still read what we are writing on the forums even if they can't participate, so it comes across as very "ha ha we could participate with you all but we'd rather have our own private conversation you can know about but that you can't participate in!  Oh but we might still butt into your conversation too, cause yours is public but ours is exclusive!" 

When we have duplicate threads on the forums one is generally shut down or left to die - like if someone reads an outrageous Dear Abby and posts it in Life in General and then someone else posts it in Entertaining, someone will say "there's already a thread on this" - well the same with blog posts being reposted - there's already a place to comment on this: the blog.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Wonderflonium on September 25, 2012, 09:30:49 AM
I think its almost always impossible too, to keep from having the blog comments influence the conversation if we move a topic over to the forum.

Well, we just recently had a thread about a blog post and not one person mentioned anything about the comments. Even when I read the blog, I tend not to read the comments, and I know some other people are that way as well. I certainly don't feel the blog comments are conducive to conversation; the delay in posting that results from moderation leads to heavy overlap.

Quote
And with the info that banned-from-the-forum folks are commenting on the blogs, it seems a bit unfair to essentially take their topics as our own.  Banned folks can still read what we are writing on the forums even if they can't participate, so it comes across as very "ha ha we could participate with you all but we'd rather have our own private conversation you can know about but that you can't participate in!  Oh but we might still butt into your conversation too, cause yours is public but ours is exclusive!" 

I... I don't even know what to say about this. Something like this would never occur to me in a million years, and I honestly can't believe other people would think it either. I guess I just don't think people are vindictive and exclusionary in general.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Cat-Fu on September 25, 2012, 09:54:40 AM
I think it's quite fair to put the kibosh on discussing the comments on the blog here. I admit, though, I haven't really seen anyone do so (not that I read every thread, lol!)

I do like to read the discussions here about the archives and blog posts—discussion on a forum has much more of a "community" feel than commenting on a blog. (Not to mention, blog comments in general have a tendency to be far too repetitive for my tastes.)

I imagine that those who were banned were banned for good reason, so I'm not really getting the "neener neener" vibe. It's their own fault that they can't join the "exclusive club," that is, post on the forum any more.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: MariaE on September 25, 2012, 09:57:38 AM
I agree with Wonderflonium. I hardly ever comment on the blog because I simply don't think it's a forum that leads well to back-and-forth conversation, and honestly I'm just not interested in just leaving my opinion and then moving on. I love the conversations we have here, and haven't had any good experiences with that on most blogs. The thought that I would be excluding people by bringing it up here rather than on the blog would never in a million years cross my mind. I would post it here because I prefer the discussions on this site - end of story, no other reason.

I didn't see any difference between the locked thread and the hundreds of threads in the Etiquette Classics folder, and those all seem to be alright.

I completely agree that it's fair to put a ban on discussing comments though! It should be blog post and blog post only. The blog post may or may not include the admin's commentary though - that's still part of the blog post, even if it's not part of the submission. After all, when discussing Dear Abby etc. we discuss both the question and the answer.

I imagine that those who were banned were banned for good reason, so I'm not really getting the "neener neener" vibe. It's their own fault that they can't join the "exclusive club," that is, post on the forum any more.

Agreed.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Yvaine on September 25, 2012, 10:05:16 AM
I agree with Wonderflonium. I hardly ever comment on the blog because I simply don't think it's a forum that leads well to back-and-forth conversation, and honestly I'm just not interested in just leaving my opinion and then moving on. I love the conversations we have here, and haven't had any good experiences with that on most blogs. The thought that I would be excluding people by bringing it up here rather than on the blog would never in a million years cross my mind. I would post it here because I prefer the discussions on this site - end of story, no other reason.

I didn't see any difference between the locked thread and the hundreds of threads in the Etiquette Classics folder, and those all seem to be alright.

I completely agree that it's fair to put a ban on discussing comments though! It should be blog post and blog post only. The blog post may or may not include the admin's commentary though - that's still part of the blog post, even if it's not part of the submission. After all, when discussing Dear Abby etc. we discuss both the question and the answer.

True. And sometimes even disagree with it--I can think of threads where we thought Abby was off base or Prudie misunderstood the question.

I see the blog as kind of similar to an advice column--people write in anonymously to Ehelldame, she advises them or comments on the story, and just like a newspaper column, there are comments underneath, but the real "meat" of the post is the letter and the answer. The moderation, while I understand the need for it, leads to a lot of repetition in comments as everybody's posting the same thing without knowing there are 50 identical comments waiting in the queue.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: WillyNilly on September 25, 2012, 12:03:19 PM
I just think the nature of the postings is different though. On the forum the original poster is around; its a dialog. On the blog people might just submitt and that's it. So to then discuss it (vs just commenting on it) I think is changing the nature of the type of submision the OP wanted when originally submitting the story.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: sourwolf on September 25, 2012, 12:05:41 PM
I'm a little confused.  If people have been banned how are they able to comment on the blog posts? Doesn't that kind of negate the point of banning them?
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: stargazer on September 25, 2012, 12:05:57 PM
I just think the nature of the postings is different though. On the forum the original poster is around; its a dialog. On the blog people might just submitt and that's it. So to then discuss it (vs just commenting on it) I think is changing the nature of the type of submision the OP wanted when originally submitting the story.

But we do that all the time in the Classics folder. 

I totally agree with Yvaine and Wonderflonium.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Wonderflonium on September 25, 2012, 01:13:05 PM
I just think the nature of the postings is different though. On the forum the original poster is around; its a dialog. On the blog people might just submitt and that's it. So to then discuss it (vs just commenting on it) I think is changing the nature of the type of submision the OP wanted when originally submitting the story.

We do that with other advice columns all the time. If the forums aren't supposed to reference the blog and vice versa, why are they linked?
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Ehelldame on September 25, 2012, 02:22:31 PM
I'm a little confused.  If people have been banned how are they able to comment on the blog posts? Doesn't that kind of negate the point of banning them?

Because the blog is a different environment that I personally manage all content and comments.  There tends to be a lot less interpersonal drama among the blog commentators and if there is, I nip it in the bud immediately.  They tend to stick to the subject of the discussion and do not typically deviate into other areas.   Each blog post is like a separate thread a day...just one as opposed to hundreds of new topics that appear every day here.

It might be an interesting blog topic to ask them what they think of topics on the blog being discussed in the forum, an area some of them choose not to participate in or cannot due to being banned. 
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Moray on September 25, 2012, 02:29:14 PM
I guess that's why I don't understand the objections to discussing blog posts (not the comments) here. The comments on the blog are individually approved and therefore don't have the same "flow of discussion" as we have here in the forum. That flow of discussion is valuable. It's the reason we're here.

Discussing a blog post here is no different than discussing a Miss Manners, Dear Prudence, or other any other "etiquette maven's" column.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: sourwolf on September 25, 2012, 03:47:55 PM
I'm a little confused.  If people have been banned how are they able to comment on the blog posts? Doesn't that kind of negate the point of banning them?

Because the blog is a different environment that I personally manage all content and comments.  There tends to be a lot less interpersonal drama among the blog commentators and if there is, I nip it in the bud immediately.  They tend to stick to the subject of the discussion and do not typically deviate into other areas.   Each blog post is like a separate thread a day...just one as opposed to hundreds of new topics that appear every day here.

It might be an interesting blog topic to ask them what they think of topics on the blog being discussed in the forum, an area some of them choose not to participate in or cannot due to being banned.

Thanks for the explanation.  I agree that could be an interesting blog post, I wonder if knowing some of the blog posts are discussed on the forum would be an impetus for them to join the forum? I admit that I haven't spent a lot of time reading the blog because I've found the forum to be so interesting but I will definitely have to check it out!
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: still in va on September 25, 2012, 08:39:00 PM
I think its redundant to have two conversations going on about the same thing.  Comments on the blog are comments on the blog - they are strictly moderated, and they are almost all always directed back to the original story, etc.  Whereas on the forum, its more of a discussion, with the topic often drifting, the OP participating, providing feedback & more info, etc, and comments moderated very differently.

I think its almost always impossible too, to keep from having the blog comments influence the conversation if we move a topic over to the forum.

And with the info that banned-from-the-forum folks are commenting on the blogs, it seems a bit unfair to essentially take their topics as our own.  Banned folks can still read what we are writing on the forums even if they can't participate, so it comes across as very "ha ha we could participate with you all but we'd rather have our own private conversation you can know about but that you can't participate in!  Oh but we might still butt into your conversation too, cause yours is public but ours is exclusive!" 

When we have duplicate threads on the forums one is generally shut down or left to die - like if someone reads an outrageous Dear Abby and posts it in Life in General and then someone else posts it in Entertaining, someone will say "there's already a thread on this" - well the same with blog posts being reposted - there's already a place to comment on this: the blog.

the thing is, Willy Nilly, the blog post that was being discussed until it was shut down yesterday was NOT a simultaneous discussion.  the blog post that started the discussion was from the end of July with no comments there after the first part of August, so not at all going on concurrently.

i hope the Dame and the admin team will make a policy about this, sooner rather than later.  there shall be no postings here of the blog posts over there, full stop.  or blog posts there can be posted here, but all comments will be made to the blog there, and not on this message board.

personally, though i have commented on various posts on the blog, since moderation is required for those responses to be posted, i don't really take that much time to read the comments.  i prefer the real time experience of this place.  not that there's anything wrong with the set-up on the blog; there isn't.  it's just not the way i prefer to communicate on-line.

and honestly, i don't remember the comments to the thread here about the blog post discussing the comments on the blog.  we were happily debating the points made in the blog post.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Ceallach on September 25, 2012, 08:56:34 PM
I'm a little torn on this.   It does seem odd that within one community a sub-community needs to discuss things outside of the main community... if that makes sense.   I know we discuss posts from other sites (Dear Prudie for example) when in theory we could just go post over there instead.  But the point is that we're discussing it in "our" community and from our perspective.  And seeing as the blog *is* from our community and on the exact same topic/perspective it does seem that discussing those topics again separately is unnecessary.  It also seems a little bit cliquey as others have identified.  Another example - would we think it was ok if somebody linked to a thread on Hell's Bells saying "these posters on Hell's Bell's were discussing XYZ, do we agree or disagree?" that would seem wrong as it's basically dissenting threads in the same community. 

But on the other hand - here on the forum my identity is my own, guarded by my username and password.  On the blog, anybody could post under any name.  There is greater continuity in terms of who I am here and the opinions I share.   So I do understand why people want to bring in topics of interest from the blog to talk about in more detail.   I will be interested to see the outcome from the mods on this.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: buvezdevin on September 25, 2012, 09:25:57 PM
I appreciate, and understand the views of PPs, and I am not familiar with whatever thread(s) prompted the origination of this one.

My personal preference would be that if there is a need for either a new rule for the forum, or a change to policy - implement a new rule that blog posts are discussed/commented on solely on the blog, and not within the forum.

While posts from other unrelated blogs, or on line columns are periodically the genesis of threads in this forum, I can appreciate that the e-hell blog and the e-hell forum are administered, moderated and maintained with different rules, practices and standards.  I would prefer the distinctions be kept for posting purposes, and - if needed - the rules for the forum be changed to specify no cross-posting of subjects or comments from the blog.  My preference arises solely from my enjoyment of the forum for posting, and the blog for reading - so I understand as well if others have a different preference, but felt I should express mine to be counted.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Ehelldame on September 26, 2012, 07:02:57 AM
What about this scenario: Someone notices an interesting story on the blog, posts it to the forum, and we discuss it separately from the blog post? If we are commenting ONLY on the story sent in by an anonymous source (as in one recently locked thread) and not on the comments on the blog, it's no different than commenting about the etiquette of a random news story. Is that not allowed, and if not, may I ask why?

Agreed. This is actually a long-running tradition at ehell--the Etiquette Hell Classics folder was created for this, before the main site posts were in blog format. It's comparable to when we discuss a Dear Prudence column.

The Etiquette Hell Classics are actually the archives to the stories submitted when the site published to a static HTML web site twice a year.   There was absolutely no avenue for discussion of those stories until years later when a forum was created (I think it actually started as an email list first).  The change to a blog format (moving with the times, folks) meant a new avenue to discuss those submitted stories directly.  The blog actually brings EHell back to its purest form of focusing entirely on the subject of etiquette at issue whereas the forum is more relationally oriented with a common theme of applying etiquette to daily life.   I have always viewed the forum as a place to learn how to be civil, first online, and then to real life. 

Commenting in the forum about what gets posted to the blog is not comparable to discussing a Dear Prudence column for the very obvious reason that the author of the blog is right here and usually very accessible.   Explanations that forum discussion centers around the content of the blog story and my opinions are rather interesting in that this is the first time I have been made aware of threads in the forum about the blog.  I would not have known of the most recent thread if I had not been alerted not only by a Report to Moderator but private message as well.    In other words, I am not and have not been part of the discussion about my own opinions and comments in the blog that seem to generate discussion in the forum.   And the claim that I shut down dissenting opinions just isn't born out by the facts.  The blog comments are full of people disagreeing with me.   

And none of you appear to have addressed the issue of how you would like your forum topics discussed on the blog.   Turn about is fair play,in my opinion.   
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Ehelldame on September 26, 2012, 07:11:46 AM

On the blog, anybody could post under any name.  There is greater continuity in terms of who I am here and the opinions I share.   

Actually the blog software tracks a person's ID, email address, IP address and how many submitted comments have been approved.   When a comment is waiting in moderation, I see all these things.  Twik and Virg are two recognizable forum members who comment on the blog and if some troll were to create a new "Twik", it would have a different email address and IP address and no approved comment number which raises suspicions.   
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Wonderflonium on September 26, 2012, 07:21:10 AM
And none of you appear to have addressed the issue of how you would like your forum topics discussed on the blog.   Turn about is fair play,in my opinion.

Actually, the 2 things aren't the same at all. People post on this forum to get feedback from a limited community of people. People who submit to the blog expect a wider range of readers. You said yourself that there are people who can't post in the forums but can post on the blog; therefore, the blog is inherently more open than the forum itself. Really, that's the difference between all forums and blogs.

You could certainly post forum posts on the blog, as is your right, but I imagine that if you do, there will be a rather precipitous drop-off in threads (and given that traffic is down already, it seems counterproductive).
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Joeschmo on September 26, 2012, 07:35:41 AM
Forum discussion doesn't center around the blog but there have been a number of new threads that have and I never considered the crossover worth thinking about until this thread. I guess my confusion lies in who's experiences the blog posts are.  I thought the blog posts were submitted by readers so to me I would consider EhellDame to be the editor of the blog.  This thought process is what made me feel it was like Dear Prudie beca
use the person who actually experienced the situation in the blog post may not be readily available.
.
I also was working under the assumption that if someone behaved in a way to get them banned from one branch of the forum it carried over to Hells Bells and the blog.  I never considered that banned posters on the forum were having their comments discussed and in my experience the majority of the discussion revolved around the blog post itself.  I guess another thought is I see EhellDame as the forum owner and not a participant.  To me it would seem discussing EhellDame comments would be the same as discussing any other etiquette experts because I don't perceive her as readily accessible although that's been said to be inaccurate.
.
If a rule is made about that blog posts are off limits then of course we need to follow it or not post.  We don't have to agree with the rules we just have to follow them.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: bonyk on September 26, 2012, 07:53:05 AM
IMO, there's a world of difference between discussing a blog post, and discussing the comments on the blog posts.

I don't see the big deal about discussing a blog post over here.  As other posters have pointed out, this format lends itself to more of a conversational feel. 

I do agree that discussing someone's comments over here, when the person may or may not have the ability to reply, should not be allowed.

I personally would not want my posts from here moved to the blog.  If I wanted to submit a story to the blog, I would. 
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Yvaine on September 26, 2012, 07:59:46 AM
And the claim that I shut down dissenting opinions just isn't born out by the facts.  The blog comments are full of people disagreeing with me.   

Did anyone claim this? I didn't. I merely drew a comparison between the discussion of Prudence/Abby columns and your "column." While it's true that the thread you closed down was a thread that disagreed with you, I'll take your word for it that the disagreement was not the reason!  ;)

And none of you appear to have addressed the issue of how you would like your forum topics discussed on the blog.   Turn about is fair play,in my opinion.

Your tone in these comments is coming across really weirdly on the internet and sounds like a threat to disclose information posted in members-only areas, which I'm sure is not actually your intent! While I know nothing on the internet is ever truly private, it would certainly be impolite to disclose information posted in members-only areas to the general public (it differs from the main site submitters, who are submitting their story deliberately to be posted in public) and to former members who have already been deemed too disruptive to post here, and so I'm sure an etiquette maven like yourself would never actually do that.

There is no need to make these oddly threatening-sounding comments. Simply make a ruling that we can't discuss the blog stories here, and we won't. A clear rule is much better than insinuations, which are difficult to parse through the internet due to lost tone issues.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: O'Dell on September 26, 2012, 08:12:18 AM
What about this scenario: Someone notices an interesting story on the blog, posts it to the forum, and we discuss it separately from the blog post? If we are commenting ONLY on the story sent in by an anonymous source (as in one recently locked thread) and not on the comments on the blog, it's no different than commenting about the etiquette of a random news story. Is that not allowed, and if not, may I ask why?

Agreed. This is actually a long-running tradition at ehell--the Etiquette Hell Classics folder was created for this, before the main site posts were in blog format. It's comparable to when we discuss a Dear Prudence column.

The Etiquette Hell Classics are actually the archives to the stories submitted when the site published to a static HTML web site twice a year.   There was absolutely no avenue for discussion of those stories until years later when a forum was created (I think it actually started as an email list first).  The change to a blog format (moving with the times, folks) meant a new avenue to discuss those submitted stories directly.  The blog actually brings EHell back to its purest form of focusing entirely on the subject of etiquette at issue whereas the forum is more relationally oriented with a common theme of applying etiquette to daily life.   I have always viewed the forum as a place to learn how to be civil, first online, and then to real life. 

Commenting in the forum about what gets posted to the blog is not comparable to discussing a Dear Prudence column for the very obvious reason that the author of the blog is right here and usually very accessible.   Explanations that forum discussion centers around the content of the blog story and my opinions are rather interesting in that this is the first time I have been made aware of threads in the forum about the blog.  I would not have known of the most recent thread if I had not been alerted not only by a Report to Moderator but private message as well.    In other words, I am not and have not been part of the discussion about my own opinions and comments in the blog that seem to generate discussion in the forum.   And the claim that I shut down dissenting opinions just isn't born out by the facts.  The blog comments are full of people disagreeing with me.   

And none of you appear to have addressed the issue of how you would like your forum topics discussed on the blog.   Turn about is fair play,in my opinion.

I've been around awhile now and didn't know that discussing blog posts here was against the rules (or maybe I knew and forgot...I do that  :-[). Threads about the main blog seem rare enough. Why not keep with the status quo of no threads about the blog and no cross-posting of forum posts onto the blog. Like other rules here, the word is likely to get around as more people are aware and remind others and report if/when a thread crops up.

I'm not sure I see a problem with including forum posts on the blog if the poster gives permission. I seem to recall seeing a question or 2 where the person considered submitting to the blog but decided the forum was a better fit. So some forum members are open to having their posts shared on the blog.

This does bring up for me the linking of posts from the forum on the Ehell Facebook page. That's happened on one occasion that I know of. How does that fit in? People can comment on the FB page about a post you link to, or were comments disabled when that happened?
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Wonderflonium on September 26, 2012, 08:43:00 AM
I'm not sure I see a problem with including forum posts on the blog if the poster gives permission.

I don't believe she plans to ask permission; at least, that's what her message implied.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: O'Dell on September 26, 2012, 08:54:01 AM
I'm not sure I see a problem with including forum posts on the blog if the poster gives permission.

I don't believe she plans to ask permission; at least, that's what her message implied.

Oops, I wasn't clear.

From the Dame's OP: The policy of this forum that "what happens on the forum, stays on the forum" is meant to preserve that sense of community many of you appreciate.

Even if this policy remains unchanged, I don't see why you can't ask permission of a forum poster to use their question/story on the blog. Some might be happy to have their question or story open to a wider audience.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: bonyk on September 26, 2012, 09:14:55 AM
This does bring up for me the linking of posts from the forum on the Ehell Facebook page. That's happened on one occasion that I know of. How does that fit in? People can comment on the FB page about a post you link to, or were comments disabled when that happened?

I don't think that is an issue.  One of my posts was linked to on the FB page, but I was PMed by a mod to ask my permission to do so.  I was assured that I could request that it be removed if I had any objections at all.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: audrey1962 on September 26, 2012, 09:15:21 AM
And none of you appear to have addressed the issue of how you would like your forum topics discussed on the blog.   Turn about is fair play,in my opinion.

I don't care either way as long as the rules are clearly stated.

I belong to another community that has a blog and a forum. The rule is that if something is brought up on the forum it will not be discussed on the blog, but topics on the blog can be discussed on the forum. The blog owner wants first crack at answering the question, but once she has answered it we are free to discuss it in either venue.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Jones on September 26, 2012, 09:36:29 AM
Personally? I don't have a problem with my topics, humble as they are, being shared on the blog...after all, once I post it, even in this community, there are tons of people out there with access to it who can then discuss it with their friends/spouses/relatives. I have actually submitted stories to the blog; those that have been posted had, not so much a "discussion" as "a bunch of points of view that I could use or dismiss but not really reply to the poster because not everyone comes back after the first day."

Perhaps though, if this is something that is going to happen, a default message needs put onto the "Post" page that says "Thread topics may be utilized as blog subjects" or "Once posted your story may be used by Ehell" or something along those lines. Likewise, if some blog post is to be discussed on this side of the website, a note could be attached to said blog post stating the URL of the discussion thread.

Also, I did not realize that blog posts were not to be posted/discussed over here; this is the first I can recall hearing about that. If I've contributed to a problem, I am sorry; again, I wasn't aware if it wasn't allowed.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: stargazer on September 26, 2012, 09:58:56 AM
If there was to be a rule change that posts over here could be used in blog posts, I hope that there would be a message and that it would only apply to posts going forward.  I can't think of any posts of mine that I would actually mind, but it's been a long time. ;)  I'm sure some people would be horrified to think their private (within a moderated members only group) would go public when that was not the intention when they posted them (I'm thinking mostly of a lot of the "I Need a Hug" folder here but there have been posts like that in other spots).  If there was a rule change, then everyone could know that your post in the future may not stay in the forum.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Yvaine on September 26, 2012, 10:37:02 AM
If there was to be a rule change that posts over here could be used in blog posts, I hope that there would be a message and that it would only apply to posts going forward.  I can't think of any posts of mine that I would actually mind, but it's been a long time. ;)  I'm sure some people would be horrified to think their private (within a moderated members only group) would go public when that was not the intention when they posted them (I'm thinking mostly of a lot of the "I Need a Hug" folder here but there have been posts like that in other spots).  If there was a rule change, then everyone could know that your post in the future may not stay in the forum.

Yeah, I'd certainly be heavily against any public posting of posts from the members-only areas; while it may be legal, IMO it would be rude and a breach of trust.

As for posts in the public areas of the forum, I think that could work as long as the rules were absolutely clear. I think we've sometimes actually replied to a forum story by saying that it's one that ought to be on the main site. In practice, I don't actually see the blog vs. forum as a dichotomy between pure etiquette questions and real-life applications; the blog stories contain a lot of extenuating life circumstances too. I see the big difference as, how epic is the story? The blog stories tend to be longer, tend to contain sensational elements (i.e. it's not just about someone cutting in line at the grocery store), and tend to be stories that are over and in the past (hence having a tidy ending) rather than ongoing.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: camlan on September 26, 2012, 10:48:17 AM
I'm a bit confused about the whole situation. I hadn't realized we weren't supposed to discuss anything about the blog here. There aren't that many posts here about the blog, and I don't recall seeing many of the comments discussed here. How serious is this problem?

Truthfully, I don't visit the blog very often. And I find the comments there difficult to read, because of the order they are in, so I read those even less. I had no idea there was a lot of cross-over.

I would not be happy if anything I posted here were to be posted on the blog. If that is going to happen, I don't think it should be retro-active.

Please, just make a clear, straight-forward rule. Post it. And then let everyone decide if they want to stay or not.

I have to admit that the OP and follow-up make me feel like a little child being chastised, and I don't think I've done anything wrong.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: MariaE on September 26, 2012, 11:01:20 AM
And none of you appear to have addressed the issue of how you would like your forum topics discussed on the blog.   Turn about is fair play,in my opinion.

Assuming we're only talking about "public" posts and not those in the folders that are members only, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. Public's public.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Ms_Cellany on September 26, 2012, 11:13:08 AM
And none of you appear to have addressed the issue of how you would like your forum topics discussed on the blog.   Turn about is fair play,in my opinion.

Assuming we're only talking about "public" posts and not those in the folders that are members only, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. Public's public.

I agree. I would be very disappointed to see anyone's post from a members-only area referred to on the main blog.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Ceallach on September 26, 2012, 07:17:13 PM

On the blog, anybody could post under any name.  There is greater continuity in terms of who I am here and the opinions I share.   

Actually the blog software tracks a person's ID, email address, IP address and how many submitted comments have been approved.   When a comment is waiting in moderation, I see all these things.  Twik and Virg are two recognizable forum members who comment on the blog and if some troll were to create a new "Twik", it would have a different email address and IP address and no approved comment number which raises suspicions.

I know that technically it's possible, but wasn't sure if it's something you pay attention to.    It is nice to know that it would get flagged as suspicious if somebody external was trying to take a poster's identity so to speak.   


And none of you appear to have addressed the issue of how you would like your forum topics discussed on the blog.   Turn about is fair play,in my opinion.

As I said, I'm torn on this one, and really think it just comes down to a consistent policy decision being made as to how you want the site to run.    This week was the first time I saw a blog post discussed on the forums, and I admit to finding it slightly... strange.   I wasn't surprised when it was locked.   It felt similar to when somebody posts a thread complaining about a conversation on another thread or trying to restart a closed topic, kind of as though we were talking about and sniping about each other (although I know that wasn't the posters intention).    In terms of the other way around, I think it's fine, and well within your rights, but I would suggest not identifying the poster who made the original post.   So putting in on the blog and referring to it generically as an example from the forum.   I've seen this done on other blogs - comments from forums used as content for future posts.  However, there are others who I know would not be comfortable with it, and I think that it will inevitably impact upon people's interactions in the community here.   So it's a matter of whether that's a price you're willing to pay for the benefit of having that extra source of content for the blog.   There are pros and cons either way and personally I'm not greatly concerned for myself.  But I am concerned about it creating drama on the forum if people get upset at how their posts are handled.  That type of drama does impact upon all of us.  So the sooner we have clarity I think the better for everybody.  There will be grumbles either way and then it will settle down!
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: #borecore on September 26, 2012, 07:31:22 PM
I would not post nearly as much, if at all, if I thought my posts here were going to be fodder for dissection on the blog. I clearly do not get a vote, but if this were a democracy, I'd vote a solid "no."

I'm here to converse and learn, not to be the subject of someone's blog; if I wanted that, I'd start my own blog. As it is, I'm fine reading the eHell blog on occasion.

I don't really have a problem with there being a rule of "no discussing the blog on the forum" or "no discussing blog comments on the forum," but I don't see any need for the former.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: still in va on September 26, 2012, 08:49:57 PM
And none of you appear to have addressed the issue of how you would like your forum topics discussed on the blog.   Turn about is fair play,in my opinion.

i guess i don't really get the question.  the E-Hell blog is heavily moderated by you, Miss Jeannie, because anyone on the internet can post a comment there.  you allow what is allowed into the comments.  which is how it should be in that context.  someone has to weed out the trollish comments on a blog open to the entire internet.

this place, here?  has a screening process that can take two weeks to even be accepted.  is this a closed place?  no it's not.  but it is a safer place than a blog on the internet.  we can post in real-time and have a dialog without waiting for comments to be approved. 

so i see your question as apples and oranges.  two different places, two different "styles".

Miss Jeanne, i still don't understand what made you so angry about the "Biting the Hand that Feeds You" post.  that was posted on the blog on July 30, and there was no activity there in comments after August 2.  posting that blog post here in late September took nothing away from the blog.  it might actually have interested some posters to actually check out the blog.  and asking why we weren't commenting on that topic in the blog was strange.  if anyone HAD commented, no one would have seen them anyway, since the post was so old.  but that topic here generated a pretty respectful debate, and you didn't even have to read and approve a single word.  i'm still not sure where the angst regarding the comments to the blog post came in, complete with the threat to post our stuff here to the blog, came about.  no one in that thread commented on the comments to the blog post.  we treated it as a whole new topic.

i would appreciate a concrete policy of "thou shalt not ever make a thread about a blog post on the E-Hell blog here, ever".  though i suppose that's really not necessary, is it?  you've gotten your point across very well.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: squeakers on September 26, 2012, 10:57:36 PM


Miss Jeanne, i still don't understand what made you so angry about the "Biting the Hand that Feeds You" post. 

Probably she did not like her comments scrutinized and picked apart in a new thread when one could have posted on the blog itself and said the same thing. 

The big difference between disagreeing with Dear Abby and the like and the Dame is.. the Dame is here, this is her house and you can actually talk to her.  The odds of someone disagreeing with Abby and getting their post printed are slim because very few of those mavens have commenting open.  Whereas here I have seen people disagree with the Dame and as long as they kept it respectful.. it was like any other thread. 

To me that thread was like being at a party in the Dame's house, coming around the corner and overhearing several guests gossiping/talking/commenting about her.  When they could have just came around the same corner and said the same things to her "face".
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: stargazer on September 26, 2012, 11:12:09 PM


Miss Jeanne, i still don't understand what made you so angry about the "Biting the Hand that Feeds You" post. 


The big difference between disagreeing with Dear Abby and the like and the Dame is.. the Dame is here, this is her house and you can actually talk to her.  The odds of someone disagreeing with Abby and getting their post printed are slim because very few of those mavens have commenting open. 

Actually Abby quite often posts responses to previous letters from readers that disagree with her original response and Prudence has an area for comments and plenty of people disagree with her there.   Not sure about some others but those two off the top of my head definitely have people disagreeing with them and have it posted.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: MariaE on September 26, 2012, 11:30:05 PM
Miss Jeanne, it sounds like you care more about the blog than the forum - or that the blog is more important to you anyway?

If the problem is taking conversation away from the blog, then how about making an 'age' rule - blog posts may be posted here, but only once they're x months old (3, 6, 9, 12, whatever). By that time the post will be 'dead' on the blog anyway.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Iris on September 27, 2012, 12:14:03 AM


Miss Jeanne, i still don't understand what made you so angry about the "Biting the Hand that Feeds You" post. 

Probably she did not like her comments scrutinized and picked apart in a new thread when one could have posted on the blog itself and said the same thing. 

The big difference between disagreeing with Dear Abby and the like and the Dame is.. the Dame is here, this is her house and you can actually talk to her.  The odds of someone disagreeing with Abby and getting their post printed are slim because very few of those mavens have commenting open.  Whereas here I have seen people disagree with the Dame and as long as they kept it respectful.. it was like any other thread. 

To me that thread was like being at a party in the Dame's house, coming around the corner and overhearing several guests gossiping/talking/commenting about her.  When they could have just came around the same corner and said the same things to her "face".

This. The "Biting the Hand that Feeds You" thread bothered me when I saw it but I couldn't quite work out why and I couldn't decide if it was report-worthy or not, so I chose to just not comment or view any further replies. Squeaker has really clarified for me why I thought it was a bit off.

Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Ceallach on September 27, 2012, 12:15:03 AM


Miss Jeanne, i still don't understand what made you so angry about the "Biting the Hand that Feeds You" post. 
Probably she did not like her comments scrutinized and picked apart in a new thread when one could have posted on the blog itself and said the same thing. 

The big difference between disagreeing with Dear Abby and the like and the Dame is.. the Dame is here, this is her house and you can actually talk to her.  The odds of someone disagreeing with Abby and getting their post printed are slim because very few of those mavens have commenting open.  Whereas here I have seen people disagree with the Dame and as long as they kept it respectful.. it was like any other thread. 

To me that thread was like being at a party in the Dame's house, coming around the corner and overhearing several guests gossiping/talking/commenting about her.  When they could have just came around the same corner and said the same things to her "face".

Actually Abby quite often posts responses to previous letters from readers that disagree with her original response and Prudence has an area for comments and plenty of people disagree with her there.   Not sure about some others but those two off the top of my head definitely have people disagreeing with them and have it posted.

That's true, but the analogy still works.   Because the posters here could likewise post it *on* the blog, e.g. submit their dissenting views directly - as many do - the same as one would to those other writers.    Instead it's being discussed separately but still within the dame's "house" as Squeakers puts it.   
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Iris on September 27, 2012, 12:16:29 AM
In terms of the OP -

1. I would be unhappy if forum posts were used on the blog without the courtesy of asking for permission first. I know it is EHellDame's right to do so but as a gracious hostess I would hope that the OP's feelings be taken into account. If permission is sought (and a refusal accepted) then I think it is quite a reasonable thing.

2. I am happy to abide by a rule that says no commenting on the blog posts in the forum if such a rule is created. Or a time sensitive rule or whatever. I agree that it is often tedious and redundant to comment on the blog and I rarely do so except on Fridays. Not that the posts aren't interesting, just that it's disheartening to post and then see that your post is sitting smack in the middle of 50 identical posts  :).

3. Due to what I have just said I can see why some posters might want to - hopefully - find a polite way to incorporate blog posts into the forum. Perhaps notifying a moderator first or having a "Blog Discussion" folder? However I know nothing about the management of blogs and can accept that perhaps due to traffic numbers or revenue or whatever it might be better for EHellDame if our comments go on the blog and accept that it might not be possible.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Visiting Crazy Town on September 27, 2012, 06:41:15 AM
There have been several threads about blog post  I was looking and  there is  another one that was  going before the one recently locked and is still open now. So people do discuss blog post in the forum.

http://www.etiquettehell.com/smf/index.php?topic=120280.0
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Wonderflonium on September 27, 2012, 07:29:07 AM
Miss Jeanne, i still don't understand what made you so angry about the "Biting the Hand that Feeds You" post. 

Probably she did not like her comments scrutinized and picked apart in a new thread when one could have posted on the blog itself and said the same thing.

That only works if she was going to post the comment. If not, she's effectively saying that she won't tolerate dissention. If she did post it, well, why would it matter if it were discussed in the forums?

As others have pointed out, there had been no action on that blog post in well over a month. Even if a new comment did get posted, how many people would read it and respond? If the OP wanted to discuss the topic at hand, the forum was the only option.

Is there actually a rule that says we can't discuss blog posts in the forum? If so, I haven't seen it.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: sourwolf on September 27, 2012, 07:38:11 AM
Miss Jeanne, i still don't understand what made you so angry about the "Biting the Hand that Feeds You" post. 

Probably she did not like her comments scrutinized and picked apart in a new thread when one could have posted on the blog itself and said the same thing.

That only works if she was going to post the comment. If not, she's effectively saying that she won't tolerate dissention. If she did post it, well, why would it matter if it were discussed in the forums?

As others have pointed out, there had been no action on that blog post in well over a month. Even if a new comment did get posted, how many people would read it and respond? If the OP wanted to discuss the topic at hand, the forum was the only option.

Is there actually a rule that says we can't discuss blog posts in the forum? If so, I haven't seen it.

I have a question.  Does commenting on a blog post bump it to the front page of the blog like commenting on a post here bumps a thread? Because if it doesn't I can understand wanting to discuss blog posts here, especially the older ones.  Otherwise it seems like there is no point in Commenting on older blog posts, it would almost be like the "if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound" but it would be "if someone comments on a blog post but no one reads it is it really contributing to a discussion?

I agree with the previous posters that any discussion here should not include a discussion of the posted comments. 

Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: O'Dell on September 27, 2012, 08:42:10 AM
There have been several threads about blog post  I was looking and  there is  another one that was  going before the one recently locked and is still open now. So people do discuss blog post in the forum.

http://www.etiquettehell.com/smf/index.php?topic=120280.0

It's easy enough for these threads to fly under the radar of the Dame and the mods. They can't read every thread. Unless someone reports it, they might never see it.

I like the rules as they stand. I can also get behind a sort of compromise where posts from the forum are printed on the blog with permission from the forum member and where blog articles can be discussed on the forum after a specified amount of time, say a year or 2. But I don't think it's all that necessary to discuss the blog posts here...if you are interested in those issues, discuss it on the blog. It's not as if the forum doesn't have enough fodder to get ourselves worked up over without the blog threads. (I say that as someone who has been known to get pretty worked up here!) ;)

I don't like the consequences that Miss Jean has stated if the firewall between the blog and forum is broken down completely. If she would rather keep a strict separation between the 2, that's her business...literally her business. It's her decision to make.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: audrey1962 on September 27, 2012, 08:45:33 AM
There have been several threads about blog post  I was looking and  there is  another one that was  going before the one recently locked and is still open now. So people do discuss blog post in the forum.

http://www.etiquettehell.com/smf/index.php?topic=120280.0

I like the rules as they stand.

What are the rules? I was unaware there was a rule that we could not discuss blog posts until I saw this thread.

And to answer an earlier question, commenting on a blog post does not bump that entry to the top. The blog posts are in the order in which they were posted.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: sourwolf on September 27, 2012, 08:47:24 AM
There have been several threads about blog post  I was looking and  there is  another one that was  going before the one recently locked and is still open now. So people do discuss blog post in the forum.

http://www.etiquettehell.com/smf/index.php?topic=120280.0

It's easy enough for these threads to fly under the radar of the Dame and the mods. They can't read every thread. Unless someone reports it, they might never see it.

I like the rules as they stand. I can also get behind a sort of compromise where posts from the forum are printed on the blog with permission from the forum member and where blog articles can be discussed on the forum after a specified amount of time, say a year or 2. But I don't think it's all that necessary to discuss the blog posts here...if you are interested in those issues, discuss it on the blog. It's not as if the forum doesn't have enough fodder to get ourselves worked up over without the blog threads. (I say that as someone who has been known to get pretty worked up here!) ;)

I don't like the consequences that Miss Jean has stated if the firewall between the blog and forum is broken down completely. If she would rather keep a strict separation between the 2, that's her business...literally her business. It's her decision to make.

What are the rules as they stand? That seems to be the question.  I looked at the rules very carefully before I began posting and there wasn't anything about not being able to comment on blog posts on the forum.  If Ehelldame wants to make that it a rule that's perfectly fair but it needs to be stated somewhere so that everyone knows its a rule.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: MariaE on September 27, 2012, 08:59:53 AM
I have a question.  Does commenting on a blog post bump it to the front page of the blog like commenting on a post here bumps a thread? Because if it doesn't I can understand wanting to discuss blog posts here, especially the older ones.  Otherwise it seems like there is no point in Commenting on older blog posts, it would almost be like the "if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound" but it would be "if someone comments on a blog post but no one reads it is it really contributing to a discussion?

No, it does not. Once a blog post is gone from the front page of the blog it is gone forever unless the Dame herself chooses to make it a sticky post. At least, that's the way all other blogs I have experience with.

That's why I'm puzzled by the negative reaction to the thread - it's not like it has stolen the attention from the blog post - blogs are fickle things, and 2 months is an eternity.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Yvaine on September 27, 2012, 09:01:55 AM

I have a question.  Does commenting on a blog post bump it to the front page of the blog like commenting on a post here bumps a thread? Because if it doesn't I can understand wanting to discuss blog posts here, especially the older ones.  Otherwise it seems like there is no point in Commenting on older blog posts, it would almost be like the "if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound" but it would be "if someone comments on a blog post but no one reads it is it really contributing to a discussion?


I don't believe it does bump it, sourwolf. I also haven't figured out a way to get notifications on the blog posts so we can get emails if a thread gets new replies, though it may exist and I just haven't found it.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: O'Dell on September 27, 2012, 09:07:19 AM
There have been several threads about blog post  I was looking and  there is  another one that was  going before the one recently locked and is still open now. So people do discuss blog post in the forum.

http://www.etiquettehell.com/smf/index.php?topic=120280.0

I like the rules as they stand.

What are the rules? I was unaware there was a rule that we could not discuss blog posts until I saw this thread.

And to answer an earlier question, commenting on a blog post does not bump that entry to the top. The blog posts are in the order in which they were posted.

The "what happens on the forum, stays on the forum" rule the Dame uses and the corollary "what happens on the blog, stays on the blog" which IMO is only fair.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Yvaine on September 27, 2012, 09:09:32 AM
There have been several threads about blog post  I was looking and  there is  another one that was  going before the one recently locked and is still open now. So people do discuss blog post in the forum.

http://www.etiquettehell.com/smf/index.php?topic=120280.0

I like the rules as they stand.

What are the rules? I was unaware there was a rule that we could not discuss blog posts until I saw this thread.

And to answer an earlier question, commenting on a blog post does not bump that entry to the top. The blog posts are in the order in which they were posted.

The "what happens on the forum, stays on the forum" rule the Dame uses and the corollary "what happens on the blog, stays on the blog" which IMO is only fair.

The question is, was "what happens on the blog stays on the blog" a rule before two days ago? If it's a rule now, I'll duly adhere to it.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: sourwolf on September 27, 2012, 09:11:17 AM
There have been several threads about blog post  I was looking and  there is  another one that was  going before the one recently locked and is still open now. So people do discuss blog post in the forum.

http://www.etiquettehell.com/smf/index.php?topic=120280.0

I like the rules as they stand.

What are the rules? I was unaware there was a rule that we could not discuss blog posts until I saw this thread.

And to answer an earlier question, commenting on a blog post does not bump that entry to the top. The blog posts are in the order in which they were posted.

The "what happens on the forum, stays on the forum" rule the Dame uses and the corollary "what happens on the blog, stays on the blog" which IMO is only fair.

Could you post the link where it says "what happens on the blog stays on the blog?" I just looked at the rules again and didn't see anything that said that.  I believe many posters had no idea there was a separation between the two until Ehelldame brought it up.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Zilla on September 27, 2012, 09:11:43 AM
I have a question.  Does commenting on a blog post bump it to the front page of the blog like commenting on a post here bumps a thread? Because if it doesn't I can understand wanting to discuss blog posts here, especially the older ones.  Otherwise it seems like there is no point in Commenting on older blog posts, it would almost be like the "if a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound" but it would be "if someone comments on a blog post but no one reads it is it really contributing to a discussion?

No, it does not. Once a blog post is gone from the front page of the blog it is gone forever unless the Dame herself chooses to make it a sticky post. At least, that's the way all other blogs I have experience with.

That's why I'm puzzled by the negative reaction to the thread - it's not like it has stolen the attention from the blog post - blogs are fickle things, and 2 months is an eternity.


I too hadn't realized they were two different areas.  I also didn't realize there was a rule about not bringing it up on here.  I too would like to know if it is or is not okay.  I think it's fine either way, to bring it in here or have it be a rule not to discuss it here.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: audrey1962 on September 27, 2012, 09:13:27 AM
There have been several threads about blog post  I was looking and  there is  another one that was  going before the one recently locked and is still open now. So people do discuss blog post in the forum.

http://www.etiquettehell.com/smf/index.php?topic=120280.0

I like the rules as they stand.

What are the rules? I was unaware there was a rule that we could not discuss blog posts until I saw this thread.

And to answer an earlier question, commenting on a blog post does not bump that entry to the top. The blog posts are in the order in which they were posted.

The "what happens on the forum, stays on the forum" rule the Dame uses and the corollary "what happens on the blog, stays on the blog" which IMO is only fair.

I was unaware that was a rule until I read this thread.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: O'Dell on September 27, 2012, 09:18:55 AM
There have been several threads about blog post  I was looking and  there is  another one that was  going before the one recently locked and is still open now. So people do discuss blog post in the forum.

http://www.etiquettehell.com/smf/index.php?topic=120280.0

I like the rules as they stand.

What are the rules? I was unaware there was a rule that we could not discuss blog posts until I saw this thread.

And to answer an earlier question, commenting on a blog post does not bump that entry to the top. The blog posts are in the order in which they were posted.

The "what happens on the forum, stays on the forum" rule the Dame uses and the corollary "what happens on the blog, stays on the blog" which IMO is only fair.

Could you post the link where it says "what happens on the blog stays on the blog?" I just looked at the rules again and didn't see anything that said that.  I believe many posters had no idea there was a separation between the two until Ehelldame brought it up.

No I'm gathering that rule from the Dame has been posting in this thread. If the rule is new or just an old unspoken rule, "what happens on the blog, stays on the blog" is fine by me. And to me, the "what happens on the forum, stays on the forum" suggests it.

What I'm getting is that stated rule or not, Miss Jean has been working under that philosophy. I'm okay with that. I'm okay with a compromise as stated earlier. I'm not so okay with dropping the "what happens on the forum, stays on the forum" principle. But I'll probably roll with it if it happens.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: sourwolf on September 27, 2012, 09:25:39 AM
There have been several threads about blog post  I was looking and  there is  another one that was  going before the one recently locked and is still open now. So people do discuss blog post in the forum.

http://www.etiquettehell.com/smf/index.php?topic=120280.0

I like the rules as they stand.

What are the rules? I was unaware there was a rule that we could not discuss blog posts until I saw this thread.

And to answer an earlier question, commenting on a blog post does not bump that entry to the top. The blog posts are in the order in which they were posted.

The "what happens on the forum, stays on the forum" rule the Dame uses and the corollary "what happens on the blog, stays on the blog" which IMO is only fair.

Could you post the link where it says "what happens on the blog stays on the blog?" I just looked at the rules again and didn't see anything that said that.  I believe many posters had no idea there was a separation between the two until Ehelldame brought it up.

No I'm gathering that rule from the Dame has been posting in this thread. If the rule is new or just an old unspoken rule, "what happens on the blog, stays on the blog" is fine by me. And to me, the "what happens on the forum, stays on the forum" suggests it.

What I'm getting is that stated rule or not, Miss Jean has been working under that philosophy. I'm okay with that. I'm okay with a compromise as stated earlier. I'm not so okay with dropping the "what happens on the forum, stays on the forum" principle. But I'll probably roll with it if it happens.

Thanks for explaining - I thought I was having a reading comprehension fail (and it was driving me crazy that I couldn't find it!)
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Visiting Crazy Town on September 27, 2012, 09:26:07 AM
There have been several threads about blog post  I was looking and  there is  another one that was  going before the one recently locked and is still open now. So people do discuss blog post in the forum.

http://www.etiquettehell.com/smf/index.php?topic=120280.0

It's easy enough for these threads to fly under the radar of the Dame and the mods. They can't read every thread. Unless someone reports it, they might never see it.

I like the rules as they stand. I can also get behind a sort of compromise where posts from the forum are printed on the blog with permission from the forum member and where blog articles can be discussed on the forum after a specified amount of time, say a year or 2. But I don't think it's all that necessary to discuss the blog posts here...if you are interested in those issues, discuss it on the blog. It's not as if the forum doesn't have enough fodder to get ourselves worked up over without the blog threads. (I say that as someone who has been known to get pretty worked up here!) ;)

I don't like the consequences that Miss Jean has stated if the firewall between the blog and forum is broken down completely. If she would rather keep a strict separation between the 2, that's her business...literally her business. It's her decision to make.

 I just used this as an example we have discussed blog threads several times in the past and it has never  ever been and issue so they fact that there is suddenly a problem with it is surprising to people.   I also think that there is a HUGE difference between people posting something to the blog and people posting on the forum.  The Blog  is usually a story that people just want to tell but in the forum people  have questions attached to the stories and enjoy the interaction.    The interaction is the reason I think that people start blog threads here they want to see others opinions and have that back and forth interaction.  I also know that some people that wouldn't bother to post to the blog will comment on a thread posted here.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Yvaine on September 27, 2012, 09:27:36 AM
No I'm gathering that rule from the Dame has been posting in this thread. If the rule is new or just an old unspoken rule, "what happens on the blog, stays on the blog" is fine by me. And to me, the "what happens on the forum, stays on the forum" suggests it.

To me it doesn't suggest it at all, for two reasons:

(a) People who submit to the blog, as I said upthread, are intentionally submitting to the public, just like people who submit to Dear Abby or Dear Prudence are doing so with the understanding that their letter is going to end up in the newspaper. People who submit to the forum are submitting to the community we have here. To me, it's different.

(b) There's also more anonymity to protect the letter writers on the blog. Admin doesn't post any identifying information about the submitters. Whereas on the forum, you can dig up more about people.

So the way I see it, blog submitters are consenting to more disclosure while actually being more protected. On the forum, we're more bared to each other and so there's the hope that we will all respect each other's privacy.

(Edited to add: And Ill reiterate that I'm not referring to Ehelldame's legal rights or to anything to do with the law, but to the social "glue" between us as a community.)
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: WillyNilly on September 27, 2012, 01:46:54 PM
There have been several threads about blog post  I was looking and  there is  another one that was  going before the one recently locked and is still open now. So people do discuss blog post in the forum.

http://www.etiquettehell.com/smf/index.php?topic=120280.0

I think though this is a great example of using the blog as a springboard to personal discussion, whereas the recent locked thread (http://www.etiquettehell.com/smf/index.php?topic=120954.0) was a thread on the blog itself.

In VltGrantham's post she references the blog, but then goes on to tell her personal story.
In cocacola35's post the whole post was copy pasted and the content of the Admin's comments (aka Ehelldame) were scrutinized.

Many people have said comments weren't discussed in the recent thread, but oh they were - the Admin's comments.  People weren't just discussing the overall topic and their personal experiences with the topic like in the Service with a Sneer thread, people were discussing the Admin's reaction to the story.  Its a small difference, but a marked one.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Yvaine on September 27, 2012, 01:49:47 PM
Many people have said comments weren't discussed in the recent thread, but oh they were - the Admin's comments.  People weren't just discussing the overall topic and their personal experiences with the topic like in the Service with a Sneer thread, people were discussing the Admin's reaction to the story.  Its a small difference, but a marked one.

Well, but I see the Admin's comments as being more in the vein of Abby's "official" response to a letter--it's part of the column. Now, if Admin also commented in the comment thread (as she has done sometimes), that would be different.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Wonderflonium on September 27, 2012, 01:55:32 PM
Many people have said comments weren't discussed in the recent thread, but oh they were - the Admin's comments.  People weren't just discussing the overall topic and their personal experiences with the topic like in the Service with a Sneer thread, people were discussing the Admin's reaction to the story.  Its a small difference, but a marked one.

I consider the Admin's comments part of the blog.

Several posts in this thread (by various posters) have a "don't question the Dame" air to them. Is that the official policy?
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: buvezdevin on September 27, 2012, 02:32:01 PM
Many people have said comments weren't discussed in the recent thread, but oh they were - the Admin's comments.  People weren't just discussing the overall topic and their personal experiences with the topic like in the Service with a Sneer thread, people were discussing the Admin's reaction to the story.  Its a small difference, but a marked one.

I consider the Admin's comments part of the blog.

Several posts in this thread (by various posters) have a "don't question the Dame" air to them. Is that the official policy?

I have understood, generally, that it is fine to question the Dame, directly, whether through a PM, or in the Forum Admin folders.  The difference which other posts have helped me recognize (in this and prior threads) is that it isn't any more polite to "question the Dame" in a thread which is not one likely to be read by the Dame than it would be to criticize someone in their home, but when they are not part of the group conversation.  There may be no offense intended, but it can easily read otherwise when the Dame or host being questioned, or criticized comes across the comment(s) indirectly.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Yvaine on September 27, 2012, 02:45:48 PM
Many people have said comments weren't discussed in the recent thread, but oh they were - the Admin's comments.  People weren't just discussing the overall topic and their personal experiences with the topic like in the Service with a Sneer thread, people were discussing the Admin's reaction to the story.  Its a small difference, but a marked one.

I consider the Admin's comments part of the blog.

Several posts in this thread (by various posters) have a "don't question the Dame" air to them. Is that the official policy?

I have understood, generally, that it is fine to question the Dame, directly, whether through a PM, or in the Forum Admin folders.  The difference which other posts have helped me recognize (in this and prior threads) is that it isn't any more polite to "question the Dame" in a thread which is not one likely to be read by the Dame than it would be to criticize someone in their home, but when they are not part of the group conversation.  There may be no offense intended, but it can easily read otherwise when the Dame or host being questioned, or criticized comes across the comment(s) indirectly.

I can see that point of view, but I guess I always thought the Dame read the forums enough that it was more like involving her in the debate. I think she's said before that she reads the forums but just doesn't comment much because having the admin post in forum threads can affect the atmosphere. I never would have guessed she just doesn't read the forums.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: magicdomino on September 27, 2012, 02:54:01 PM
My opinion (which probably worth what you paid for it  ;) ):

1.  Forum posts can be used on the blog only with the OP's permission.  The OP may have a good reason for not submitting it to the blog, or simply didn't think it was worthy. 

2.  Blog posts used in the forum are a little trickier, because it may not be possible to ask the submitter's permission, and the submitter may not be a member of the forum.  I suppose a compromise would be to use only the topic, but none of the specifics.  For instance, in the "Service with a Sneer" thread, the question of dealing with snobby salespeople can be addressed without refering to the blog example.  The threads usually wander off in that direction anyway.  I'd leave out completely the comments on the blog, if it is possible.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Yvaine on September 27, 2012, 02:57:10 PM
2.  Blog posts used in the forum are a little trickier, because it may not be possible to ask the submitter's permission, and the submitter may not be a member of the forum.  I suppose a compromise would be to use only the topic, but none of the specifics.  For instance, in the "Service with a Sneer" thread, the question of dealing with snobby salespeople can be addressed with refering to the blog example.  The threads usually wander off in that direction anyway.  I'd leave out completely the comments on the blog, if it is possible.

That's a very good point. I definitely think it should be fair game to discuss the general topic of a blog post even if we don't discuss the specific story. As in, "Today's blog story reminded me of this time my MIL did this rude thing..."
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: gorplady on September 27, 2012, 03:03:41 PM
I agree with the other posters who say "make a rule or don't, but whatever you decide, make it clear." Folks will either abide by the rule or they won't. Those that won't, won't be around long.

Funnily enough, it was almost a year ago when the last forum controversy reared its head. Now here we are again. People must be getting grumpy because snow is coming. (You folks in Australia and New Zealand, enjoy your summer!) I suggest a gallon of Coke.


Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Aeris on September 27, 2012, 03:07:29 PM
Many people have said comments weren't discussed in the recent thread, but oh they were - the Admin's comments.  People weren't just discussing the overall topic and their personal experiences with the topic like in the Service with a Sneer thread, people were discussing the Admin's reaction to the story.  Its a small difference, but a marked one.

I consider the Admin's comments part of the blog.

Several posts in this thread (by various posters) have a "don't question the Dame" air to them. Is that the official policy?

I have understood, generally, that it is fine to question the Dame, directly, whether through a PM, or in the Forum Admin folders.  The difference which other posts have helped me recognize (in this and prior threads) is that it isn't any more polite to "question the Dame" in a thread which is not one likely to be read by the Dame than it would be to criticize someone in their home, but when they are not part of the group conversation.  There may be no offense intended, but it can easily read otherwise when the Dame or host being questioned, or criticized comes across the comment(s) indirectly.

If the problem is that the Dame is unlikely to notice a forum thread on a blog post, and therefore be unlikely to participate and/or defend her comments or POV, then perhaps the solution is to post these types of threads in a particular folder so that they are sort of flagged for the Dame to participate in if she chooses?

The Dame is a part of this community, as a general matter.

If we must use the 'the Dame's house' analogy (which leaves a lot to be desired), then I think a more accurate version of it would something like this:

A local prominent artist arranges a salon gathering members of the art community worldwide to come together and analyze and critique public artwork, and share personal artwork with one another. This ongoing event is held on an enormous country estate paid for by the vendors displaying their products to the art community members during the event. The artist also runs a gallery displaying her own artwork and artwork people have specifically submitted to the gallery, which she displays with her own artistic critique.

At some point during the salon, one of the art community members brings up for review a piece of art recently on display at the artist's gallery. A few members debates the artistic merits of the piece, and whether they agree with the gallery-owning artist's critique and analysis.

I have trouble understanding why such a conversation would be patently offensive. It is not the same as 'gossiping about the host'. A discussion of the host's personal life would be, but analyzing the artwork on display in her gallery? That seems entirely in keeping and appropriate to the purpose and structure of the salon.

However, were the salon organizer to institute a rule that these kinds of conversations weren't allowed, or were only allowed if people gave her a headsup so that she could participate, or they could only be discussed after the gallery piece was out of initial viewing, that's fine. Making such a rule is completely within her rights. But that doesn't change the fact that there's nothing inherently distasteful about these kinds of discussions before a rule is made clear.

To continue the analogy, it would seem extremely inappropriate, however, for the salon organizer to take artwork of the salon members and display it in her gallery without permission from the salon members. The turnabout is not fair play, as they are fundamentally different activities. When one submits a story to a blog, or art to a gallery, there is an understanding of how 'public' it is. It would be natural to understand the likelihood of it being discussed in multiple venues. When someone posts to a small community forum, it is NOT generally assumed that they are comfortable with that story (which might include extremely personal information) being posted in a much more public venue with higher traffic loads.

Again, it's completely within the Dame's rights to make the policy going forward that anything posted to the forum is completely fair game to be dissected on the blog. I would not appreciate that policy, but it is within her rights.

I would echo a prior poster though - whatever the policy is, it just needs to be clear and explicit going forward.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Solanna Dryden on September 27, 2012, 03:19:06 PM
Many people have said comments weren't discussed in the recent thread, but oh they were - the Admin's comments.  People weren't just discussing the overall topic and their personal experiences with the topic like in the Service with a Sneer thread, people were discussing the Admin's reaction to the story.  Its a small difference, but a marked one.

I consider the Admin's comments part of the blog.

Several posts in this thread (by various posters) have a "don't question the Dame" air to them. Is that the official policy?

I've been noticing that too and it's been kind of bothering me.

Add me in to the number who think it would be absolutely inappropriate and a breach of trust to bring forum topics to the blog.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: WillyNilly on September 27, 2012, 03:42:03 PM
Many people have said comments weren't discussed in the recent thread, but oh they were - the Admin's comments.  People weren't just discussing the overall topic and their personal experiences with the topic like in the Service with a Sneer thread, people were discussing the Admin's reaction to the story.  Its a small difference, but a marked one.

I consider the Admin's comments part of the blog.

Several posts in this thread (by various posters) have a "don't question the Dame" air to them. Is that the official policy?

I've been noticing that too and it's been kind of bothering me.

Add me in to the number who think it would be absolutely inappropriate and a breach of trust to bring forum topics to the blog.

I don't know if "don't question the Dame" is an official policy, but as she has the ability to wield an iron fist and ban anyone for any reason at anytime with no warning or probation or explanation, I have always operated under that as a personal rule. 

I think the it would be a breach of trust to bring forum topics to the blog, but under that same vein, I think its a breach of trust to do the opposite - for the same reasons basically.  I mean the locked thread that sparked this - the OP of that thread posted the Dame's words and started a disagreement thread about them and didn't even tell the Dame, thus creating a situation where a conversation was happening about the Dame's words & opinions that the Dame didn't even have the opportunity to defend or participate in, because she didn't know it was happening until [apparently] 3 pages in.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Yvaine on September 27, 2012, 05:07:37 PM
I don't know if "don't question the Dame" is an official policy, but as she has the ability to wield an iron fist and ban anyone for any reason at anytime with no warning or probation or explanation, I have always operated under that as a personal rule. 

The way you phrase it, that almost sounds more like fearing retribution from her more than it sounds like a personal scruple!

the OP of that thread posted the Dame's words and started a disagreement thread about them and didn't even tell the Dame, thus creating a situation where a conversation was happening about the Dame's words & opinions that the Dame didn't even have the opportunity to defend or participate in, because she didn't know it was happening until [apparently] 3 pages in.

Well, again, I tend to think that site owners spend a lot of time keeping up with their sites. I wouldn't necessarily assume she would see a thread right away, but at the same time, I would always assume she was likely to see the thread in short order, because it's her site and she almost certainly spends a ton of time reading it. Aeris's art gallery analogy is a good one. The gallerygoers aren't necessarily talking specifically to the artist when they critically discuss the art, but nor are they sneaking into a dark corner to whisper about it. They're having an intellectual debate that the artist would be welcome to join if she happened to cross their path.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Knitterly on September 27, 2012, 05:33:39 PM
Many people have said comments weren't discussed in the recent thread, but oh they were - the Admin's comments.  People weren't just discussing the overall topic and their personal experiences with the topic like in the Service with a Sneer thread, people were discussing the Admin's reaction to the story.  Its a small difference, but a marked one.

I consider the Admin's comments part of the blog.

Several posts in this thread (by various posters) have a "don't question the Dame" air to them. Is that the official policy?

I've been noticing that too and it's been kind of bothering me.

Add me in to the number who think it would be absolutely inappropriate and a breach of trust to bring forum topics to the blog.

I tend to stay out of these sorts of threads, but I'd like to put my opinion in.

The original thread bothered me, not because it was calling out the Dame, but because it was disrespectful.

Let's put it this way.  Suppose there was a thread by Poster Bob where Poster Bob expresses an opinion that Poster Jane disagrees with.  Poster Jane starts a new thread quoting the old thread and quoting Poster Bob's opinion that she didn't like, calling out Poster Bob by name.  That would be pretty disrespectful to Poster Bob.  Someone might even accuse Poster Jane of trying to stir up trouble.  Poster Jane's opinion is certainly as valid as Poster Bob's, but the way she went about expressing it was done disrespectfully.

I don't think there is any rule, spoken or unspoken, about not dissenting with the Dame.  There is a rule, though, about being respectful of fellow posters.  EHellDame (and the whole mod/admin team) fall under that category.  In fact, they may even be due a little extra respect owing to the fact that they keep this place up and running and relatively drama free.

It's not about fear of the admins or not being allowed to ever question the admins.  Folks question the admin team all the time.  It's about being respectful.

That's just my two cents worth. 

(edited to clarify: I'd also be a little worried if one of my posts showed up in the forum.  I do count on a certain level of anonymity here, as I think most posters do.  However, given the wording of the forum rules and TOA, I don't think that's really something that needs to be feared too much.)
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Iris on September 27, 2012, 05:36:31 PM
^^There are a LOT of posts on Ehell every day. I don't think you can expect EHellDame or anyone to keep up with all of them. Also FWIW I've never thought the rule was "Don't question the Dame" I've always thought the rule was "Don't be rude to the Dame and don't make the Dame split hairs over nitty gritty details because she will lose patience with that very quickly".

From this thread I think it's obvious that EHellDame is more following Squeaker's 'lounge room at a party' analogy than the 'huge estate with an art salon' analogy. Personally I agree with Squeakers but that's just me. Anyway, my point here is that it's pretty obvious that whether (general) you agree or not EHellDame didn't like that thread and the PPs trying to argue that no, it's really okay, would be better off spending their time actually answering the questions in the OP. Also if you (general) feel that the EHellDame is being too authoritarian or punitive then that is a matter best dealt with privately I would have thought.

Anyway, apologies to EHellDame if I've misrepresented her here, but personally I don't want the structure of the forum messed with (much) and would be really annoyed if that happened because some people couldn't let things go. The correct response to "I don't like what you've done on my forum" should not be an argument, or if it is a quiet and private one because after all it IS EHellDame's forum and if she wants to make us all type our posts in pig latin that is within her rights. Our only vote really is to stay or to go.

And now Knitterly has said it all much better, but I'm not doing all this typing for nothing :)
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Wonderflonium on September 27, 2012, 05:54:27 PM
The original thread bothered me, not because it was calling out the Dame, but because it was disrespectful.

Let's put it this way.  Suppose there was a thread by Poster Bob where Poster Bob expresses an opinion that Poster Jane disagrees with.  Poster Jane starts a new thread quoting the old thread and quoting Poster Bob's opinion that she didn't like, calling out Poster Bob by name.  That would be pretty disrespectful to Poster Bob.  Someone might even accuse Poster Jane of trying to stir up trouble.  Poster Jane's opinion is certainly as valid as Poster Bob's, but the way she went about expressing it was done disrespectfully.

It's not the same situation at all. In your scenario, it's possible to continue the conversation with Bob in that thread, and others are free to chime in. Frankly, the blog is not conducive to discussion. The comments are moderated so not all are posted, and those that are posted appear much, much later.

Either way, it seems more than a little unfair to lock a thread for breaking a rule that isn't written and to issue vague threats to people who support breaking the (non) rule.

In the Dame's OP, she says this:

Quote
There are people commenting in the blog who are banned from this forum and therefore cannot come here to defend their positions.   If blog topics have become a frequent source of commentary of the forum as has been brought to my attention, and particularly the comments people in the blog community have made, then I will have to rescind the forum policy to allow both communities to discuss each other's opinions.

Her main concern seems to be that people who can't comment on the blog can't defend themselves. The thing is, no one was talking about the comments on the blog EXCEPT those of the Dame. 1) Those comments are part of the public blog and therefore open for discussion and 2)she is quite well able to defend herself, so the argument doesn't hold.

In the end, the Dame doesn't owe us the real reason, but if she wants to keep traffic on her site, she'd do well to make a rule and publicize it.  If the rule is that forum posts are OK for the blog, that's fine, but I predict posts on this site will decline even further if that becomes the case.

Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Moray on September 27, 2012, 05:56:06 PM
So, Jeanne, are you making a rule against this?
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Aeris on September 27, 2012, 06:47:04 PM
Anyway, apologies to EHellDame if I've misrepresented her here, but personally I don't want the structure of the forum messed with (much) and would be really annoyed if that happened because some people couldn't let things go. The correct response to "I don't like what you've done on my forum" should not be an argument, or if it is a quiet and private one because after all it IS EHellDame's forum and if she wants to make us all type our posts in pig latin that is within her rights. Our only vote really is to stay or to go.

A number of us must have completely misunderstood Ehelldame's posts in this thread then. I did not see a post that explicitly said "Here is the new rule, you have been warned". She seemed to be soliciting feedback from the EHell community members on the potential rules.

If the Dame does not want feedback, and merely wants to change the current rules about whether posts on the blog are allowed, or whether we are on notice that our posts may be fodder for the blog, I think everyone is in agreement that she's within her rights to do that. I would expect if that were the case, though, that she would explicit state what the changes to the rules are.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Iris on September 27, 2012, 06:54:33 PM
Anyway, apologies to EHellDame if I've misrepresented her here, but personally I don't want the structure of the forum messed with (much) and would be really annoyed if that happened because some people couldn't let things go. The correct response to "I don't like what you've done on my forum" should not be an argument, or if it is a quiet and private one because after all it IS EHellDame's forum and if she wants to make us all type our posts in pig latin that is within her rights. Our only vote really is to stay or to go.

A number of us must have completely misunderstood Ehelldame's posts in this thread then. I did not see a post that explicitly said "Here is the new rule, you have been warned". She seemed to be soliciting feedback from the EHell community members on the potential rules.

If the Dame does not want feedback, and merely wants to change the current rules about whether posts on the blog are allowed, or whether we are on notice that our posts may be fodder for the blog, I think everyone is in agreement that she's within her rights to do that. I would expect if that were the case, though, that she would explicit state what the changes to the rules are.

I agree, and I already gave my feedback in an earlier post. My second post was in response to posters who had gone (it seemed to me) off on a tangent, discussing what forum policy in the PAST had been and a few who were making (again, it seemed to me) snarky comments about a "Don't question the Dame" rule. Obviously I didn't explain that well.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Wonderflonium on September 27, 2012, 07:03:31 PM
a few who were making (again, it seemed to me) snarky comments about a "Don't question the Dame" rule.

Was that referring to me? Because it was really uncalled for.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: still in va on September 27, 2012, 07:10:12 PM
a few who were making (again, it seemed to me) snarky comments about a "Don't question the Dame" rule.

Was that referring to me? Because it was really uncalled for.

i think it was actually, honestly, some people who think that the Dame should not be questioned, so i don't think this applies to you.

i know there are people who feel that way, and operate on that assumption.  but when that is followed to the nth degree and there is a problem, we get posts from the Dame wondering why no one asked her the question.  the Dame wants to be asked.  and she gets irritated when she isn't.  of course, she doesn't necessarily answer when one does ask, but i suppose she's busy.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Ceallach on September 27, 2012, 07:26:24 PM
I think the Dame should definitely be able to be questioned (and personally I haven't picked up the vibe that she shouldn't from any of the posts myself), but I think she should be shown extra respect because this *is* her website and forum.   As others have noted, the post in question was specifically disagreeing with the Admin response to the blog post.  I agree with the analogy that it's like starting a post about a different poster saying "I disagreed with what <x poster> said on that thread over there, what do you all think?".  When instead you should disagree with them where they have said it e.g. at the time and place, or to them directly.  Complaining that the locking of the original post is "unfair" just seems ludicrous to me - the mods have the say as to what is productive discussion on the forums, if somebody posts something that they feel is inappropriate or unproductive they have to make a call at the time regardless of whether it's an overt rule break or not. 

In this case the dame could have just made a ruling and told us how it was going to be, instead she has raised the topic and asked for our feedback.    Some people here seem to be reacting as though she has just laid down the law, which isn't the case.  There is no new "rule", there's a discussion as to what the rule should be so that there is clarity for everybody.   And hopefully will give us a nice clear outcome.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Solanna Dryden on September 27, 2012, 07:35:24 PM


In the Dame's OP, she says this:

Quote
There are people commenting in the blog who are banned from this forum and therefore cannot come here to defend their positions.   If blog topics have become a frequent source of commentary of the forum as has been brought to my attention, and particularly the comments people in the blog community have made, then I will have to rescind the forum policy to allow both communities to discuss each other's opinions.

Her main concern seems to be that people who can't comment on the blog can't defend themselves. The thing is, no one was talking about the comments on the blog EXCEPT those of the Dame. 1) Those comments are part of the public blog and therefore open for discussion and 2)she is quite well able to defend herself, so the argument doesn't hold.



That's the other thing that kind of bothers me about this. To my knowledge, the people in that thread *weren't* commenting on blog-commenters' comments, only EhellDame's. So I'm not sure why that's being presented as an argument, unless it's proactive, ie, she wants to set a precedent in case some future thread *does* devolve into dissecting commenters' comments. I do agree that that would be inappropriate.

In response to the argument that it's like going into EhellDame's house and discussing her behind her back, I both agree and disagree. I can understand how it might seem a little rude to discuss her opinions without her knowing it, but the way I see it is twofold:

1) EhellDame is acting as a "Dear Abby" type figure. We have no problem discussing Dear Abby columns. Furthermore, we aren't attacking EhellDame as a person. In fact, I did not see a single rude post in that thread. Having a dissenting opinion to someone is not rude, of course, as it has been stated many times on here, as long as you back up your own opinion in a mature, intelligent, respectful way.

2) EhellDame is not an "unknown" to the forum. What I mean by that is that she knows it's here. Unlike the OPs or some/all commenters, she knows that there is a community that will discuss things. Therefore, she is aware that something could be discussed here. She can see who is talking about what, and what they're saying about her.

Now, I know that EhellDame can't and won't read every single thread. That's impossible. Which is why I think someone's idea upthread for a separate folder, with some ground rules, for blog posts is an excellent one.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: still in va on September 27, 2012, 07:49:07 PM
I think the Dame should definitely be able to be questioned (and personally I haven't picked up the vibe that she shouldn't from any of the posts myself), but I think she should be shown extra respect because this *is* her website and forum.  As others have noted, the post in question was specifically disagreeing with the Admin response to the blog post. I agree with the analogy that it's like starting a post about a different poster saying "I disagreed with what <x poster> said on that thread over there, what do you all think?".  When instead you should disagree with them where they have said it e.g. at the time and place, or to them directly.  Complaining that the locking of the original post is "unfair" just seems ludicrous to me - the mods have the say as to what is productive discussion on the forums, if somebody posts something that they feel is inappropriate or unproductive they have to make a call at the time regardless of whether it's an overt rule break or not. 

In this case the dame could have just made a ruling and told us how it was going to be, instead she has raised the topic and asked for our feedback.    Some people here seem to be reacting as though she has just laid down the law, which isn't the case.  There is no new "rule", there's a discussion as to what the rule should be so that there is clarity for everybody.   And hopefully will give us a nice clear outcome.

as to the bolded, the Dame herself spoke to not appreciating comments being discussed here.  however, if one was to go to the blog and page back to July 30 to the post in question, the only reason that anyone was commenting on the Dame's comments is because only HER comments show up on the blog post.  all other comments go under, well, "Comments".  the post in question quoted the entire blog post, which contained the Dame's comments. 

i have great respect for the Dame, and what she has built here.  please show me where i've said something differently.  my point, throughout this discussion is as follows:  one blog post was made into a topic here.  it was respectfully debated and discussed.  then it was closed with a somewhat cryptic message from the Dame who closed it.  however, as was pointed out by a PP, another topic using a post from the blog is still open, and accepting comments here. 

i only ask for a policy.  no blog posts?  only the original post without Admin comments?  all blog posts allowed?  just pick one.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: WillyNilly on September 27, 2012, 08:06:52 PM
I don't know if "don't question the Dame" is an official policy, but as she has the ability to wield an iron fist and ban anyone for any reason at anytime with no warning or probation or explanation, I have always operated under that as a personal rule. 

The way you phrase it, that almost sounds more like fearing retribution from her more than it sounds like a personal scruple!


Thats because I'm communicating poorly  :P

I think Knitterly and Iris explained  it better in posts 73 & 74, and that whole 'her house' analogy.  Its like ok we all occasionally have a disagreement or a gripe with a friend, but we don't bring it up at their dinner party.  Well we can disagree with the Dame but we tread a little more gently, cause, you know, she's the Dame.  We don't want to asked to leave before dessert.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: KenveeB on September 27, 2012, 08:19:48 PM
I discussed things on the forum thread instead of the blog because I actually had no idea until that thread that there was a blog. Honestly, I barely keep up with E-Hell. Sometimes I read a ton of posts, sometimes I'll just read the posts I'm subscribed to. There are whole boards on the forum that I never look at at all because I don't care that much about the subject matter. The cross-posting made the subject come to my attention, so I read it. I have a lot of sites I follow, and any time I'm told "you have to go over here to read/talk about this", I just shrug and don't read/talk about that. There's plenty for me to read, I don't need to dig for extra subjects. :)

I'm with PPs that I don't care what the rule is, as long as the rule is posted somewhere and is applied consistently.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: still in va on September 27, 2012, 08:31:46 PM
I don't know if "don't question the Dame" is an official policy, but as she has the ability to wield an iron fist and ban anyone for any reason at anytime with no warning or probation or explanation, I have always operated under that as a personal rule. 

The way you phrase it, that almost sounds more like fearing retribution from her more than it sounds like a personal scruple!


Thats because I'm communicating poorly  :P

I think Knitterly and Iris explained  it better in posts 73 & 74, and that whole 'her house' analogy.  Its like ok we all occasionally have a disagreement or a gripe with a friend, but we don't bring it up at their dinner party.  Well we can disagree with the Dame but we tread a little more gently, cause, you know, she's the Dame.  We don't want to asked to leave before dessert.

but see, i disagree with the bolded, because there have been several times here where we treaded carefully, and no one told the Dame (who, i definitely agree, CANNOT be expected to read every single thing posted here).  then the Dame came in, locked threads, and was not best pleased that no one had contacted her.  she's available.  she wants to hear from us.  and i would trust that hearing from us includes disagreements with what's going on here.

from what i've seen, the Dame doesn't expect anyone to tread carefully.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: LifeOnPluto on September 27, 2012, 10:22:50 PM
Personally, I wouldn't mind if my thread topics on the forum were used as blog topics, but I can understand that other posters may feel differently. (Note: I'm referring to the public forums here, not the "members-only forums" - I think it would be a breach of trust if very personal posts from "I Need A Hug!" were suddenly used as blog fodder!)

That brings me to a question though - is it ok if a member was to post a story to the blog, and then start up a thread on the forum with the exact same issue? The rules "What happens on the blog stays on the blog" and "What happens on the forum stays on the forum" indicates the blog and forum should be kept completely separate, and thus the member would NOT be allowed to submit to both. But on the other hand, if the member was doing this voluntarily, I can't really see the harm.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: squeakers on September 30, 2012, 03:29:37 AM
I don't know if "don't question the Dame" is an official policy, but as she has the ability to wield an iron fist and ban anyone for any reason at anytime with no warning or probation or explanation, I have always operated under that as a personal rule. 

The way you phrase it, that almost sounds more like fearing retribution from her more than it sounds like a personal scruple!


Thats because I'm communicating poorly  :P

I think Knitterly and Iris explained  it better in posts 73 & 74, and that whole 'her house' analogy.  Its like ok we all occasionally have a disagreement or a gripe with a friend, but we don't bring it up at their dinner party.  Well we can disagree with the Dame but we tread a little more gently, cause, you know, she's the Dame.  We don't want to asked to leave before dessert.

but see, i disagree with the bolded, because there have been several times here where we treaded carefully, and no one told the Dame (who, i definitely agree, CANNOT be expected to read every single thing posted here).  then the Dame came in, locked threads, and was not best pleased that no one had contacted her.  she's available.  she wants to hear from us.  and i would trust that hearing from us includes disagreements with what's going on here.

from what i've seen, the Dame doesn't expect anyone to tread carefully.

" and i would trust that hearing from us includes disagreements with what's going on here."

An owner seldom wants to hear disagreements with how things are run:" if you don't like what is "A" on my site.. get the heck out" with "A" being a policy, a leaning, a tendency or whatever, is what I have gleaned from a few years on the 'net.

Simply because of the old saying: "Too many chiefs and not enough Indians."

As far as I am concerned any "public" post I have posted is fair game for the blog. 

"Grant of Rights:

By submitting content to Etiquette Hell LLC , you automatically grant, or warrant that the owner of such content has expressly granted, Jeanne Hamilton the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive and fully sublicensable right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt,publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed.

Essentially, this is legalese allowing Etiquette Hell LLC's owner, Jeanne , to correct typos/spelling, protect copyright of the web site under one legal entity, to release edited (no names) stories to print news media and to cover her backside in case you used your story to libel someone else or stole someone’s copyrighted material as your own.   There are no plans for any future books based on Etiquettehell.com.

Members who post to the Ehell forum retain their copyright but grant a non-exclusive license implied by context to others to forward any message posted within EtiquetteHell.com's forum. They also grant the forum owner permission to maintain an archive or approve the archiving of forum messages. "

While any post can be reprinted.. I am guessing Ms Jeanne would never post anything from the "I need a Hug" folder unless it was so "genericed" as to be unidentifiable.. simply because burning the people one hopes to have as participants and supporters would be clueless and dumb.

And she aint dumb.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Yvaine on September 30, 2012, 08:07:33 AM

As far as I am concerned any "public" post I have posted is fair game for the blog. 

"Grant of Rights:

By submitting content to Etiquette Hell LLC , you automatically grant, or warrant that the owner of such content has expressly granted, Jeanne Hamilton the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive and fully sublicensable right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt,publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed.

Essentially, this is legalese allowing Etiquette Hell LLC's owner, Jeanne , to correct typos/spelling, protect copyright of the web site under one legal entity, to release edited (no names) stories to print news media and to cover her backside in case you used your story to libel someone else or stole someone’s copyrighted material as your own.   There are no plans for any future books based on Etiquettehell.com.

Members who post to the Ehell forum retain their copyright but grant a non-exclusive license implied by context to others to forward any message posted within EtiquetteHell.com's forum. They also grant the forum owner permission to maintain an archive or approve the archiving of forum messages. "

As mentioned upthread, none of us are talking about the legalities--in fact, not discussing law is one of the most set in stone rules we've always had here. It's possible to both realize that Admin has the legal right to use our posts and to also believe that it wouldn't be ethically right or etiquette-ly right without permission and a really clear rule change.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Cat-Fu on October 01, 2012, 04:53:16 PM
So are topics on the blog posts ok or no? Or is it just going to be the blog comments that are a taboo subject?  I know one of the blog posts from today is on a topic already covered here, hopefully the new-rule-if-there-will-be-a-rule doesn't apply retroactively! :)
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Sock Puppet on October 01, 2012, 07:11:32 PM
It took me a couple of days to figure out how to put this into words that made sense outside my head but here it goes. To me, it comes down to the type and timing of discussions you want with a blog v forum. To continue on with the the "my house, my rules" analogy that people have been using:

The blog is like an open house party that anyone can attend, but all conversation topics must be approved by the host, and then each response must by veted and approved by the host as well. Once the party is finished, all the responses are boxed up and put in the attic, so unless you go looking for a topic, there's no more interaction once the party is over.

The forum, on the other hand, is an invitation only party where you can comment as much as you like, and provided you aren't wearing the lampshade on your head, you're welcome to stay and have fun. There's no delay in conversation and if something doesn't interest you, there are more conversations to check out.

The problem I see, is that if a latecomer to the open house really wants a conversation, there's nowhere for them to go except the invitation only party and hope that there are others who want to talk about the same thing.

Or failing that, they could have an after party at the local coffee shop with a small group to continue the topic without seeking the hosts approval. But we all know how the forum feels about those sneeky little coffee drinkers... >:D
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Zilla on October 02, 2012, 02:40:43 PM
So are topics on the blog posts ok or no? Or is it just going to be the blog comments that are a taboo subject?  I know one of the blog posts from today is on a topic already covered here, hopefully the new-rule-if-there-will-be-a-rule doesn't apply retroactively! :)


I had to look at the blog to figure out which one till I realized you were talking about the airline goody bag one.  The picture is from something called failbook.org or something like that.  Admin could have gotten it from the website not realizing it was discussed here already.


I have noticed some changes on the site design etc but no change to the rules.  Unless I missed it?
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Wonderflonium on October 03, 2012, 07:53:52 PM
As far as I can tell (and forgive me if I misunderstood), no clear-cut decision or clarification has been made. It would be really helpful if one of the mods or the Dame herself could clarify. Is the rule no threads about blog posts at all or no discussion of blog comments?
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: squeakers on October 04, 2012, 12:31:12 AM
No clarification has been published yet but:

"The policy of this forum that "what happens on the forum, stays on the forum" is meant to preserve that sense of community many of you appreciate.    The blog has its own community with regulars who weigh in every day and there is some cross over between the two communities. (snipped)   If blog topics have become a frequent source of commentary of the forum as has been brought to my attention, and particularly the comments people in the blog community have made, then I will have to rescind the forum policy to allow both communities to discuss each other's opinions.     Fair?   "

Seems to me Ms Jeanne is asking us if we _also_ want the Blog commenters to have access to discussing what we here in this forum talk about.  Sort of a "turnabout is fair play" move. Obviously for them to have something to comment on Ms Jeanne would have to post our posts/threads.

If everyone/a large majority says "sure, go ahead and post our forum threads* on the blog, it's no different than what is accessible from just clicking w/o registering anyway" I would think anonymity would be maintained from the non-accessible unless registered parts of EHell.   

*Probably only threads that garner more than a page (whatever you have it set to show) of responses types of threads would ever make it to the blog.  So carts returned/knitting in public/kids on airplanes.. but probably not "snakes in a restaurant" type of posts. Hot Topics, in other words, might bring some traffic to her blog and promote discussions.

To make the forum more inviting maybe each Hot Topic would be linked back to the forum? garnering more attention and maybe even more members?

Then again.. maybe she, EHell Dame, didn't like her comments being discussed? I don't know.  Just that re-reading her first post had me rethinking what I posted before and ^^^ the above* is what she might have been aiming for.

Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: sourwolf on October 04, 2012, 06:00:05 AM
Squeakers if no clarification has been published I'm confused as to why you are speaking for Ehelldame?  As an author she knows the importance of clear statements and I think we owe it to her to not decide what we think she means but allow her the courtsey of not putting words into her mouth no matter how well intentioned they may be.  I'm sure she will let us know what decisions have been made after she has made them.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: JenJay on October 04, 2012, 07:02:19 AM
I enjoy the blog but don't read it regularly and have never (that I recall) commented on a topic. Prior to this thread, I would have assumed a forum thread on a blog topic would be okay but a forum thread on specific blog comments would not be okay. To me, it would be like starting a new post to discuss a comment you didn't like in another thread. I can't see that going over well with anyone.

That said, I can appreciate that when we're talking about the Admin's comment, which has been published as part of the blog, the water is murky. Is it considered part of the topic or part of the comments? I can see where those who enjoy discussing the blog would need that clarified.

As for the forum, obviously I do post here a lot. I would not want my comments shared as blog topics ("Forum Poster Jen recently said X with regard to topic Y, and her comment kicked of a lively debate because..." etc.)

As for forum topics, if the topic was made general enough that the original poster could not be identified, I wouldn't have an issue with it being turned into a blog post. I would hope the OP would be contacted first, either to ask permission or to give a heads-up. Again, I would be fine with this IF the post could be scrubbed well enough so as not to be identifiable by the OP's friends and family.

*Edited to clarify - I'm talking about general life/work/social topics that end up being great discussions, not very personal inter-relationship issues posters seek advice on, like with their DH's, in-laws, kids' teachers, etc. I don't think those can be generalized enough to be completely anonymous so I personally wouldn't want mine shared, just in case it get read by someone I know.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Zilla on October 04, 2012, 08:15:35 AM
That makes a lot of sense JenJay.  I must admit I look at the blog more now to see what's happening over there.  Before this thread, I almost didn't know it existed.  Now I read it and participate and noticed there are alot of posters out there on the blog.  Yesterday's was particularly vigorous.  Not to pile on, but can we get a clarification?  I really like JenJay's suggestion.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: squeakers on October 04, 2012, 10:36:44 AM
Squeakers if no clarification has been published I'm confused as to why you are speaking for Ehelldame?  As an author she knows the importance of clear statements and I think we owe it to her to not decide what we think she means but allow her the courtsey of not putting words into her mouth no matter how well intentioned they may be.  I'm sure she will let us know what decisions have been made after she has made them.

I'm not speaking for her.  I'm trying to make sense of what she is asking of us.  Because she has asked us for our opinions. I gave my opinion way back and now after re-reading her initial post I wondered if I had read it wrong.

But thanks for attempting to school me on how to post.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: sourwolf on October 04, 2012, 10:43:20 AM
Squeakers if no clarification has been published I'm confused as to why you are speaking for Ehelldame?  As an author she knows the importance of clear statements and I think we owe it to her to not decide what we think she means but allow her the courtsey of not putting words into her mouth no matter how well intentioned they may be.  I'm sure she will let us know what decisions have been made after she has made them.

I'm not speaking for her.  I'm trying to make sense of what she is asking of us.  Because she has asked us for our opinions. I gave my opinion way back and now after re-reading her initial post I wondered if I had read it wrong.

But thanks for attempting to school me on how to post.
No need for the snark. I just think it's a bad idea to try and speak for someone who is clearly able to speak for themselves.  Obviously you feel differently.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: War_Doc on October 04, 2012, 11:48:07 AM
Squeakers if no clarification has been published I'm confused as to why you are speaking for Ehelldame?  As an author she knows the importance of clear statements and I think we owe it to her to not decide what we think she means but allow her the courtsey of not putting words into her mouth no matter how well intentioned they may be.  I'm sure she will let us know what decisions have been made after she has made them.

I'm not speaking for her.  I'm trying to make sense of what she is asking of us.  Because she has asked us for our opinions. I gave my opinion way back and now after re-reading her initial post I wondered if I had read it wrong.

But thanks for attempting to school me on how to post.

Squeakers, your post would have been fine except that last paragraph.  If you have nothing nice to add, then don't post it.  Snark is neither requested nor is it required to get your point across.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: squeakers on October 04, 2012, 01:22:11 PM
Squeakers if no clarification has been published I'm confused as to why you are speaking for Ehelldame?  As an author she knows the importance of clear statements and I think we owe it to her to not decide what we think she means but allow her the courtsey of not putting words into her mouth no matter how well intentioned they may be.  I'm sure she will let us know what decisions have been made after she has made them.

I'm not speaking for her.  I'm trying to make sense of what she is asking of us.  Because she has asked us for our opinions. I gave my opinion way back and now after re-reading her initial post I wondered if I had read it wrong.

But thanks for attempting to school me on how to post.

Squeakers, your post would have been fine except that last paragraph.  If you have nothing nice to add, then don't post it.  Snark is neither requested nor is it required to get your point across.

Sorry, sir.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Wonderflonium on October 04, 2012, 08:29:56 PM
I still maintain that the nature of the blog differs so much from the nature of the forum that the comparison isn't valid. People submit to the blog expecting the story to be posted to the public. People post on the forum expecting it to be read only by a (relatively) closed group of people.

Either way, I'd like clear rules from a moderator instead of vague threats.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Wonderflonium on October 08, 2012, 12:07:04 PM
Still waiting....
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: MariaE on October 08, 2012, 02:53:16 PM
The EDame doesn't always check threads, so you're probably better off sending her a PM.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Cat-Fu on October 08, 2012, 02:58:23 PM
I realize that EHellDame is probably very busy, but wouldn't it make the most sense of her time to have the rule (if there is a rule?) out in the open and public? It seems like it would waste a lot more time if the rule had to be PM'd to one person at a time. :P I just double-checked the official forum rules and it doesn't seem that anything has changed.

I admit, I'm dying to know because some of the blog topics lately have been about subjects that I'd love to talk about here, but I don't want to get banned or something for bringing it up!  ;D
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: stargazer on October 08, 2012, 03:08:27 PM
The EDame doesn't always check threads, so you're probably better off sending her a PM.

I would believe that to be normally true, but would that still be true for a thread that she started and asked a question of us?  We responded so I think we were hoping for the final answer to be posted here.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Beyond The Veil on October 09, 2012, 11:21:13 AM
Perhaps some patience is in order.

Please stop to think that she and the other moderators might be having discussions on this subject in their private staff board while the Dame might also have to address private messages by submitters -- all while maintaining the site and having a personal life. I think all this would have me taking awhile too.
Title: Re: Blog Threads
Post by: Wordgeek on October 09, 2012, 11:57:48 AM
I'm closing the thread because, as others have pointed out, this is not the most efficient way of getting in touch with the moderating team or the site owner.  If you want a specific person's response, use the PM feature.

Edited to add I've gotten several messages from people regarding this thread. When there's a response, the thread will be reopened.  Frostblooded is correct that patience is in order, and would be appreciated.