Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell

[Mikayla]

Audrey -

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

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

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

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

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

[Fluffy Cat]

Audrey -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

[Solanna Dryden]

I don't really see it as blatant favouritism. But what I see is forums posters who've been around a long time being a lot more brusque or blunt than they need to be. I understand that they are entitled to their opinion, and I'm not arguing that they shouldn't express it. But I think that, especially on an etiquette forum, there can be less harsh ways of stating an opinion. Sometimes I get a very "I'm right, the rest of you are so wrong I can't believe you can't see how wrong you are" vibe from these posters.

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

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

But I do think there needs to be a re-thinking of some things.

[Spoder]

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

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


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

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

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

[Yvaine]

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

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

I think you're right, and I think a lot of us were thinking through our own beliefs and thought processes on that thread--i.e., do we think it's wrong to waste the food, and if so, is it because there are starving people elsewhere or for another reason, and is it more or less unethical than eating for fun when you don't really need food at the moment, and what underlying reason each of us has for thinking as we do. Heck, I'm still chewing on some of the comments from the thread. (I just hope it's not wrong to digest thoughts for fun.) 

[Fluffy Cat]

Not that i can control it ( ) but I'd really rather this thread not be about picking apart Laci's posts.  This is a larger concern and it was not my intention to single her out as the cause. 

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

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

[Spoder]

Not that i can control it ( ) but I'd really rather this thread not be about picking apart Laci's posts.  This is a larger concern and it was not my intention to single her out as the cause. 

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

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

Sure, fair enough. 

I very much agree with the last paragraph.

[Audrey Quest]

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

[Mikayla]

What Spoder and Yvaine said. 

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

ETA: Removed babbly verbiage. 

[EduardosGirl]

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

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

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

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

[Fluffy Cat]

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

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

[ArizonaGirl77]

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

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

Pod AND

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

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

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

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

And it, again, speaks of that favoritism a few of us have spoken of!

[aventurine]

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

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

Very much agree. 

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

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


As far as saying "that's just the way it is here, and if you don't like it...."  Don't we all pretty much agree that the special snowflakes of the world get their power from others using that same excuse?  It doesn't feel right to use that excuse for our etiquette board. 

[SoCalVal]

I think it boils down to one poster essentially calling a lot of people, other posters included, unethical because they "waste food" by her definition.

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

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

I don't like to cry, point fingers and say "the mean person did something mean to me!" but lately, I do feel like there is almost a schoolyard feel to the forum, with particular behaviours abounding, but unequal moderation. I hate to say it, but it really does feel like favouritism which, coupled with the random deletions, just has me wary of even posting my opinion on the weather.

I'm glad that's not just me! I kinda thought I had switched to the twilight zone lately. Glad other people have noticed this.

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

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

[iradney]

I am a moderator on another reasonably popular forum. I understand that it's hard work when you have a handful of mods vs thousands of users, especially when the mods are volunteers with outside the web lives and jobs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I do think that arbitrarily locking threads without comment is a bit rude, especially if posts are deleted. The people reading that thread now have no clue as to why it was locked, and can therefore not learn what was done incorrectly and avoid that kind of behaviour in future.