Forum Retaliatory Rudeness and the 7 Levels of Ehell

[cass2591]

To all of you who are outraged at my reply to Lady Pekoe: Someone reported it. I didn't have the time to analyze all the posts prior to it because I hadn't been following the thread and her post needed to be addressed.

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

[TychaBrahe]

I have felt dogpiled on.... when after reading , clarifying and thinking about the comments and the discussions - I said ... you know you guys are absolutely right. I was wrong, I didn't see how bad my action was - I apologized and made it right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's an old grade school trick to call someone brobdinagian and snicker because they don't know you've just called them fat.  But being erudite should not excuse one from being insulting, or the consequences thereof.

[Bibliophile]

To all of you who are outraged at my reply to Lady Pekoe: Someone reported it. I didn't have the time to analyze all the posts prior to it because I hadn't been following the thread and her post needed to be addressed.

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

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

[aventurine]

"Admin/mods, the posters here are trying to tell you something about yourselves.  Are you paying attention?"

   #feelingsilly

[Lynn2000]

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

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

I guess my point is just--I was hoping the mods did look over at least a few preceding posts, and cass2591 indicates they don't. Which is good to know, but makes it more difficult for me to decide when to report, and what to report. Also, I'm curious if this might vary by mod--with some reading just the reported post, and others reading the ones right before it--and even within the same mod depending on how busy they are. Perhaps that leads to the inconsistencies that people have noticed, which could be interpreted by some as favoritism?

[rashea]

I have felt dogpiled on.... when after reading , clarifying and thinking about the comments and the discussions - I said ... you know you guys are absolutely right. I was wrong, I didn't see how bad my action was - I apologized and made it right.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tycha, I do the right click thing too. I also do it if I'm reporting something, as many times the mods have already commented on it.

[Rivaini]

To all of you who are outraged at my reply to Lady Pekoe: Someone reported it. I didn't have the time to analyze all the posts prior to it because I hadn't been following the thread and her post needed to be addressed.

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

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

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

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

[Audrey Quest]

If someone says something that is OTT offensive you are supposed to report it, not respond to it with expletives no matter how thinly veiled.

Reacting to a troll feeds the troll.  If you respond inappropriately to provocation you are falling into the trap.
 
Reporting a thread or post does not guarantee moderation but it puts it on the mods' radar.
 
There is a lot of self-moderation that a person can do and I think that's really what the mods expect of us--that even if we are insulted or outraged that we can still manage to be civil--the underlying theme being that this is "just" an internet forum and presumably we all have much more important things to be outraged about IRL.
 
No one reported any of Laci's posts?  Why come here and complain about her not being moderated when you never reported her posts to a mod?

[Miss Vertigo]

I've moderated a large forum, and it's a thankless task, so I say this with a degree of understanding of where Cass is coming from.

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

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

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

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

I do like the idea of an explanation of why a thread is being locked or why something has been modded. The forum software I used to mod on had a short one-line field to fill in on the moderation screen where a reason could be given, much like there is here when we report a post, so I don't know if that's a possibility. I think that would go a long way to appeasing what seems to be a significant number of people in this situation.

[cass2591]

I will post in this thread one last time, reason being something happened IRL today and I'm a bit upset by that.

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

And with that, I bid you all a good day.

[KimberlyRose]

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

I just want to say that I really want to see a thread with that subject line, just because I'd want to know the incident that prompted it. 

[PeasNCues]

No one reported any of Laci's posts?  Why come here and complain about her not being moderated when you never reported her posts to a mod?

I know several people who reported it. Perhaps it was just that cass didn't see it until she'd already locked the thread.

[KimberlyRose]

To all of you who are outraged at my reply to Lady Pekoe: Someone reported it. I didn't have the time to analyze all the posts prior to it because I hadn't been following the thread and her post needed to be addressed.

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

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

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

*The thread that stands out to me:  some while back, there was a thread that contained either the word "ranty" or "venty."  We're going to go with "ranty," to not get overly wordy.  Ranting/venting posts aren't allowed, so the mods locked the thread.  Logical, right?  Except the poster wanted to know how to handle a friend who tended to rant a lot.  She wasn't able to get advice on this, because the thread was locked, and as I recall, never unlocked, so I consider it safe to assume the mods only read the subject line and not the thread itself.  That's an extreme example, but certainly not the only instance where I don't think a thread was actually reviewed, either before or after being locked.

[Lynn2000]

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

(snipped quote tree) I think this would be a good idea and was about to mention it myself.

[TheBardess]

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

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

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

Anyway, I don't think I've necessarily noticed favoritism on the part of the mods, although that might just be because I don't pay close enough attention to people's posting histories and who posts what. I do agree, though, that it would be nice to be given a reason when a thread is locked. I can't recall any specific examples off the top of my head, but I remember several occasions where threads I was reading/participating in were locked and I couldn't figure out why- no one was getting nasty or snarky and the topic didn't seem to be anything verboten. A quick, one-line explanation would really helpful in those cases.