Blog Threads

[Yvaine]

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.)

[WillyNilly]

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.

[Yvaine]

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.

[Wonderflonium]

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?

[buvezdevin]

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.

[Yvaine]

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.

[magicdomino]

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.

[Yvaine]

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..."

[gorplady]

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.

[Aeris]

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.

[Solanna Dryden]

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.

[WillyNilly]

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.

[Yvaine]

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.

[Knitterly]

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.)

[Iris]

^^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