Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell

[Lynn2000]

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

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

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

I think this would be a great idea. They could make it the sort of thread where other people weren't allowed to post--because I could see heated discussion taking place when the mods only intended to post a non-negotiable "this is X"--but I think it would help a lot.

[Spoder]

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

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

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

No, of course she's not.

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

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

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

[PeasNCues]

IMO, LadyPoke was blunt and calling out, not polite but I don't see how her statement was rude. She was saying the LD had a habit of making such comments as her previoius.

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

She did not call them unethical. She said it was gluttony and a sin. The word sin is not tied to ethics except religiously and to religiously condemn someone on an etiquette forum is rude.

[Spoder]

Peas, I don't think we're going to agree with each other's reasoning on this topic, so I'm happy to drop it.    And just for the record, I didn't like the way Lady Pekoe was 'smacked down', either.

Anyone else is (of course  ) welcome to pick apart what I've said, but I'm going to leave it at that. I know that Fluffy Cat wants this thread to be about general developments in the forum, not just that particular thread, and I feel as if I'm being unfair to her by sidetracking things.

[PeasNCues]

I think telling someone, "your post was rude and totally uncalled for" and that she should have "thicker skin" about a poster tired of a specific poster continuously judging a poster and her industry is a smack down.

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

ETA: Totally misread Spoder's post, she did agree about the smackdown! Apologies!

[Spoder]

See, I think telling someone, "your post was rude and totally uncalled for" and that she should have "thicker skin" about a poster tired of a specific poster continuously judging a poster and her industry is a smack down.
You're right, though, I don't think we're going to agree.

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



(The 'continuously judging' thing is the bit I haven't noticed. And, as I said before, the thing I think they need to take to PM).

[Yvaine]

See, I think telling someone, "your post was rude and totally uncalled for" and that she should have "thicker skin" about a poster tired of a specific poster continuously judging a poster and her industry is a smack down.

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

I think what made me headscratch over LP's post was that I hadn't noticed much talk of the meat industry on that thread at all, so it felt out of left field. Is it a post I missed in the shuffle, or is it a dispute from another thread?

[Solanna Dryden]

Maybe we can move the discussion of ethics vs morals vs etiquette into it's own post? I think the thread's gotta a bit off track here...

[PeasNCues]

There's a bunch of history there - both in PM and otherwise, if I recall correctly 

I'm not saying that LP was correct to post that, just I understand that she was at the end of her rope. 

[Yvaine]

There's a bunch of history there - both in PM and otherwise, if I recall correctly 

Ah, OK, that makes more sense. Thanks. 

[Spoder]

Maybe we can move the discussion of ethics vs morals vs etiquette into it's own post? I think the thread's gotta a bit off track here...

Agreed. Conveniently, rashea's started a spin-off thread: http://www.etiquettehell.com/smf/index.php?topic=102612.0

[LadyPekoe]

It's rude to bring your personal moral judgement of anyone's beliefs and actions to light - whether you are calling out an individual poster or a group of people who think differently than you.

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

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

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

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

"I think everybody who wears pink shirts is low class" said to somebody who is wearing a pink shirt.  "Ohhh....but I didn't mean YOU, I just meant it GENERALLY". 

[Dragonflymom]

I'm not sure about retaliatory rudeness, but I have seen a lot more nastiness and snarkiness in the forum in general in the past few months, some of it coming from long time members whose posts I used to enjoy reading, which has been puzzling and off putting.  I'd imagine the mods are probably frustrated at the increased nastiness, I'm sure I would be in their shoes, and some of their posts are probably reflecting that frustrating which I think is somewhat understandable.  Some of the really nasty dogpiling in particular has been quite shocking.

Regarding the controversial post in the referenced thread in particular, I read LG's post the same way as Spoder did.  Mainly because my husband will use phrasing like that when he's evaluating his own actions and poking fun at himself.  But I see how it could be read other ways too.  I guess that is an example of why sarcasm and tone don't really come across well on the internet, with no tone of voice or body language to go on, it's too unclear who the sarcasm is directed at and what the person posting is trying to convey.

[Giggity]

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

Gaaaah. I loved that thread and it's ALL YOUR FAULT. Potty mouth! 

[MariaE]

Spoder, you've just saved me a great amount of typing. I agree completely.