Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell

[MariaE]

I haven't noticed any favouritism at all going on here at all, but I do agree that deleting posts/threads without explanation is an unfortunate modding procedure.

[P-p-p-penguin]

<snipped quote tree>

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

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

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

[Redsoil]

I have to admit that I was quite surprised at the mod response to Lady Pekoe.  When I read her post, I could actually identify to some extent (and thus sympathise).  We're on a farm, and at times have been lectured by others on certain practices.  It does become irritating, and one actually becomes MORE sensitised (and defensive), not less.  The level of snark displayed from a moderator was (IMHO) less than tactful, if not downright rude.  On an ettiquette forum, I would expect a little more thought put into such responses.

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

[Yvaine]

Given how the threads have been going and how frequently they're being locked or they disappear, never mind the increased level of snarkiness and, even, people getting chastised on the Hugs board, I've pretty much decided against starting threads of my own anymore.  It's just not worth the risk of dealing with the weirdness of late.

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

[POF]

I have to admit that I was quite surprised at the mod response to Lady Pekoe.  When I read her post, I could actually identify to some extent (and thus sympathise).  We're on a farm, and at times have been lectured by others on certain practices.  It does become irritating, and one actually becomes MORE sensitised (and defensive), not less.  The level of snark displayed from a moderator was (IMHO) less than tactful, if not downright rude.  On an ettiquette forum, I would expect a little more thought put into such responses.

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

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

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

I am actually glad that I am not the only person who thought this was off.

[Goodnight Kiwi]

<snipped quote tree>

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

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

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

I agree as well.  There are certain posters who, when I read their posts, they sometimes make my jaw drop with their abruptness and tone.  However, I've never seen them be chastised; in fact, I'm seen posters who disagree and/or dispute their posts be chastised instead.  I appreciate the hard work the mods do, but sometimes it seems like a rugby game where a player gets sent off for "retaliation" (ie pushes back in response to an initial shove; s/he gets sin-binned, leaving the initial offender playing on smugly).

[Bethalize]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have sigs turned off and so find it very hard to connect people's screen names with their posting history. It never occurred to me that there was favouritism. I do suspect the likelihood of being banned increases with the time you spend here, because the more you invest into the community you more you feel a sense of ownership. However this is a privately owned forum and a business, not a church or a town club; you have no ownership.

[DuBois]

I want to thank you, Fluffy Cat for starting this thread. I have noticed many of the things mentioned in this thread, but wondered if I was being oversensitive. Count me in as one who is put off by mod snark, as well. And I agree that some people are given carte blanhe while others are chastised. I can think of one person in particular who is always defended, for what reason I cannot fathom.

[PeasNCues]

I have definitely noticed that posters who call out rude behavior by another poster are far more likely to be mod-smacked than the people actually having committed the rude act. Any discussion of how the OP's behavior could have been lacking results in the same.

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

[DuBois]

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

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

[Yvaine]

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

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

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

[PeasNCues]

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

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

I've seen a lot of people objecting to the actual discussion of why the OP was rude, which is contrary to the purpose of this board. It will go kind of like this:

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

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

[DuBois]

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

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

I've seen a lot of people objecting to the actual discussion of why the OP was rude, which is contrary to the purpose of this board. It will go kind of like this:

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

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

More often than not, though, the people who say OP was rude say so in an undesirable manner at least when people call dog-piling'. I often think that is what is being objected to. I think when an OP has clearly been rude, more people will say so and there isn't a problem. But I think where there is a divison of opinion, the people saying that the OP have been rude can get more agressive, and that therein lies the problem.

[Yvaine]

I agree Peas; if there's a good back-and-forth, it's not dogpiling, especially if the posts are still adding new ideas to the discussion/debate. I tend to think of dogpiling as: a clear majority opinion starts to emerge against the OP's side, and numerous posters chime in with the same opinion and without adding any new analysis, especially if they also use snarky language ("I can't believe you would think it was OK to..." in the process.

[DuBois]

I agree Peas; if there's a good back-and-forth, it's not dogpiling, especially if the posts are still adding new ideas to the discussion/debate. I tend to think of dogpiling as: a clear majority opinion starts to emerge against the OP's side, and numerous posters chime in with the same opinion and without adding any new analysis, especially if they also use snarky language ("I can't believe you would think it was OK to..." in the process.

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