Nobody seems to use the real words for anything here

[VorFemme]

I am one of those people who finds it easier to keep up with names than with letters.

I have to admit that I try to pick names out for my posts where they might "telegraph" some pertinent information about the person being talked about.  A loud mouth with recidivist tendencies would be likely to come out being called Archie Bunker, or possibly Archie Bunker's cousin, Bubba Bunker.  A recent example of a thread where someone used names mined from the popular culture as "shorthand" in introducing us to the situation's background and how it is playing out was using names from a famous comic book (Veronica, Archie, Betty, Moose, and so forth...........).

I can see where the disguises could help keep the issues simpler - but sometimes simplifying the issues means that information that is pertinent is missing.  Getting in touch with a touchy/cranky older lonely person - may be something that you do only if you want to.  But if that person is a close relative, then there is a bit of a bias to keep in touch with family even if they are hard to get along with at times.

A post about wedding etiquette and someone not being invited to the church wedding means one thing if the church is one that is open to all members of the public for religious ceremonies and another entirely if it is (example) a "sealing" for a couple in the Latter Day Saints where one side of the family is of another religion or atheist - ONLY LDS members may attend a sealing, period.  So calling them Oranges and Apples is just going to require additional information to clear up what is going on.

Each poster gets to choose what information to include, disclose, obscure, or highlight - based on their choice for general advice, specific advice, or to conceal their whereabouts if the situation might be in the news or potentially explosive in some way.

An example might be someone asking a question that if it came out to the wrong person could hurt feelings...........or a legal case..............seems we've reminded more than one person to stop posting until AFTER a divorce or other hearing was resolved.

[gollymolly2]

I do see it as occasionally useful because people (myself included) are often distracted by details.

Example: In a thread about people speaking one language in front of people who don't speak that language, it's often a good idea to use codes. Otherwise people may post about how hard one of those languages is too learn, or how annoying it is that people who speak *other language* come to America and don't speak English, or blah blah. When really all you want is advice about the general etiquette of the scenario.

But yes, sometimes it's coy, excessive, and/or completely unnecessary.

On a side note, I read a (rather offensive) case in Criminal Law last year where the judge wrote "She must have known she wasn't going upstairs to play Scrabble." That line became so ironic after Ehell

[BettyDraper]

I do see it as occasionally useful because people (myself included) are often distracted by details.

Example: In a thread about people speaking one language in front of people who don't speak that language, it's often a good idea to use codes. Otherwise people may post about how hard one of those languages is too learn, or how annoying it is that people who speak *other language* come to America and don't speak English, or blah blah. When really all you want is advice about the general etiquette of the scenario.

But yes, sometimes it's coy, excessive, and/or completely unnecessary.

On a side note, I read a (rather offensive) case in Criminal Law last year where the judge wrote "She must have known she wasn't going upstairs to play Scrabble." That line became so ironic after Ehell

It often seems coy and unnecessary and I am reminded of the "Garbage In, Garbage Out" axiom.  If people are going to post with the hope that others will dedicate time and energy to extend a sincere response, they need to be as transparent as possible.  Otherwise the threads seem to end up with a number of false starts and backtracking, with the OP dribbling out information in annoying increments instead of just straightforwardly stating her case to begin with.

Until or unless a particular pronoun is deemed too inflammatory to allow a thread to be productive -- and very few are -- I think accuracy should be the default.  There is nothing wrong with saying "I'm from Detroit and people from New Jersey seem to think that means I know how to steal cars or sing Motown music" rather than "I am from Checkerville and people from Stripeland seem to think..."  etc. etc.

[Becca]

Here's my take on the purple party/country/religion/race etc--I hate it. I hate the coyness of it, the cutesyness of it, in other words it irritates the living ehell out of me.

I tend to get distracted by the code words and then I focus on what they may mean rather than the underlying issues of the post.

My solution is to be as forthright as possible. When talking about political/religious beliefs, just say my friend believes X and I believe Y (assuming it's relevant to the question) and just get to the point. Frankly, I tend to get lost in the color scheme people present because it gets so confusing. Unfortunately, I have to read these posts because I suspect there's something boiling and that it might erupt. But I gotta admit folks, it's tedious.

As for religion, someone mentioned that at times one must mention the specific religion if they're asking for etiquette rules for that particular religion. That's not against the rules.

Wow, Cass, you agree with me?  I mean.....you're a mod, you make the rules, so when I saw those blue stars, I was afraid you were going to lock this thread, or possibly ban me.  I mean, I'd rather just come out and say what I mean, and not have to spend ten minutes coming up with code words, and then force everyone else to figure out what I mean by those code words, and......I guess what I'm saying is, we're all adults here.  I realize that some people here are Christians, and I'm not.  I'm crazy about Ani Difranco, but some other people here might hate her......and so on.  After all, if members of an etiquette board are going to get into a scuffle over different religions or whatever, then what kind of example are we setting for the general public, who might read our posts and decide from there whether or not they want to join?

[hobish]

...also, g*a*y has asterisks in it to prevent weird pop-up ads not because of homophobia.

There is no code or lingo, other than pod; sometimes it is just easier to obscure the item (like religion or politics or ... ) to get to the point if that makes sense.

AHA!  Is this also why people write "rel@tionship" and "d@ting"?  Because otherwise, I can't figure it out!

Posters aren't typing them out that way; the filter does it automatically.

[Nurvingiel]

You know, I am glad that you made this thread Becca. This particular trend drives me nuts. I do understand the origins, but really, it is possible to describe a complete problem without having to use a proper noun.

e.g. My inlaws are extremely religious, which is fine, except sometimes they express intolerant views. My husband is not as devoted as they are, and we both agree that we want to raise our daughter with a more liberal view of the religion.

You don't have to write, "My inlaws are members of the Pamplemousse religion..." It's just silly, and most of the time it's not needed.

Now, replacing the names of real life people with fake ones in a story is helpful. I'd say that this is the only time such euphamisms are necessary. ("Play Scrabble" is funny, but it's not necessary. We're all adults and/or mature people.)

Man, I have been bottling that up for ages! Thank you!

[Diane AKA Traska]

When it comes to names, I personally have a really simple system.

I'll address how Alice and Betty were at the mall, and ran into Cynthia.  The three of them then went over to their married friends' (Dawn and Eddie) house...

Basically, just make the names up in alpha.  It's a really easy code, and it has the benefit of being a little easier to follow (as it's got a built-in reminder for which person was introduced when in the post).

[Audrey Quest]

Here's my take on the purple party/country/religion/race etc--I hate it. I hate the coyness of it, the cutesyness of it, in other words it irritates the living ehell out of me.

I tend to get distracted by the code words and then I focus on what they may mean rather than the underlying issues of the post.

My solution is to be as forthright as possible. When talking about political/religious beliefs, just say my friend believes X and I believe Y (assuming it's relevant to the question) and just get to the point. Frankly, I tend to get lost in the color scheme people present because it gets so confusing. Unfortunately, I have to read these posts because I suspect there's something boiling and that it might erupt. But I gotta admit folks, it's tedious.

As for religion, someone mentioned that at times one must mention the specific religion if they're asking for etiquette rules for that particular religion. That's not against the rules.

Wow, Cass, you agree with me?  I mean.....you're a mod, you make the rules, so when I saw those blue stars, I was afraid you were going to lock this thread, or possibly ban me.  I mean, I'd rather just come out and say what I mean, and not have to spend ten minutes coming up with code words, and then force everyone else to figure out what I mean by those code words, and......I guess what I'm saying is, we're all adults here.  I realize that some people here are Christians, and I'm not.  I'm crazy about Ani Difranco, but some other people here might hate her......and so on.  After all, if members of an etiquette board are going to get into a scuffle over different religions or whatever, then what kind of example are we setting for the general public, who might read our posts and decide from there whether or not they want to join?

Is it not possible for you to determine what the rules of the board are by reading the rules of the board?
 
They are pretty explicit as concerns religion and politics.
 
I think Cass has a good point--but ultimately it is not that one reveals what religion or political affiliation that one is, but that one frames the question in such a way as to make religion or politics only relevant insofar as the question requires it.

Yes, we are all adults here and we don't have to resort to renaming religions for fruit as is so often the case but at the same time, even adults get into conflicts over those subjects and that is why there are rules.
 
Before you start questioning the rules, try using them.

[iridaceae]

Here's my take on the purple party/country/religion/race etc--I hate it. I hate the coyness of it, the cutesyness of it, in other words it irritates the living ehell out of me.

I tend to get distracted by the code words and then I focus on what they may mean rather than the underlying issues of the post.

My solution is to be as forthright as possible. When talking about political/religious beliefs, just say my friend believes X and I believe Y (assuming it's relevant to the question) and just get to the point. Frankly, I tend to get lost in the color scheme people present because it gets so confusing. Unfortunately, I have to read these posts because I suspect there's something boiling and that it might erupt. But I gotta admit folks, it's tedious.

As for religion, someone mentioned that at times one must mention the specific religion if they're asking for etiquette rules for that particular religion. That's not against the rules.

You mean I'm not the only one that sometimes ignores the rest of the thread trying to figure out which country Flagland is and which religion The Fuzzy Car Fender Worshipers is? 

Unfortunately, that's a huge risk you run into by euphemisms. 

Fake names, for me, are so much easier to follow than initials or FMIL, DD1, DD2, etc.  I tend to get lost when trying to decipher posts like (and I am making this up):  C, J and I went to the fair with DD1 and were having a fun time until Q, R, & SIL showed up and since C & Q had a bad divorce they started fighting and DD1 started crying and R - who's SIL's SIL- punched C and..........  I get dizzy.

[chigger]

Wow, AudreyQuest, your post came off pretty snarky.

Count me in as one who despises the code names, too.  I just ignore those posts.

[RainhaDoTexugo]

I think Cass has a good point--but ultimately it is not that one reveals what religion or political affiliation that one is, but that one frames the question in such a way as to make religion or politics only relevant insofar as the question requires it.

Hopefully Cass or another mod will clarify, but as I understand it, that only applies to religions.  We're not supposed to reveal our political leanings at all, and posters have gotten in trouble for it before.  In the case of a political problem, you're really best off just saying that you and the other person have opposing political beliefs, instead of saying "I'm a XXX and she's a YYY." 


My only real issue with the euphemisms is that I'm a curious person, and I always want to know what the big secret it   I really do think it's up to the poster, though.  I don't mind people knowing I'm from Chicago, but that doesn't mean that every other poster has to be okay with us knowing where she's from, or what her religion is, or where she works.  Some people prefer to keep their identities very well concealed, especially given that many areas of the board are visible to non-members (and there's really no way of knowing that any given member isn't here to make trouble, either).  It may only be a small detail, but it's possible to add all those small details together, and get a good amount of information (and, in fact, I've seen it happen here).

[T'Mar of Vulcan]

Is it not possible for you to determine what the rules of the board are by reading the rules of the board?

You'd think, but for a new poster, it can be confusing as there are a lot of unwritten rules and customs. (Like using "pod", which always raises my blood pressure when I see it.)

I can see how a newcomer would read all the rules but then still be confused, or post something that isn't actually against the rules but then have people complain about it. It's happened.

You mean I'm not the only one that sometimes ignores the rest of the thread trying to figure out which country Flagland is and which religion The Fuzzy Car Fender Worshipers is?

Nope. I do it too. It's gotten to the stage now where, when people state they are Purple or Orange or whatever, I just exit the whole thread. I can't get a proper mental image or any idea of what the real issue is. The issue itself is obscured and it can actually get exhausting to read posts because I end up getting confused as to who is Purple, who was Orange, etc. There's nothing wrong with using everyone's actual colour or religion.

[marcel]

I am one of those people who finds it easier to keep up with names than with letters.

I have to admit that I try to pick names out for my posts where they might "telegraph" some pertinent information about the person being talked about.  A loud mouth with recidivist tendencies would be likely to come out being called Archie Bunker, or possibly Archie Bunker's cousin, Bubba Bunker.  A recent example of a thread where someone used names mined from the popular culture as "shorthand" in introducing us to the situation's background and how it is playing out was using names from a famous comic book (Veronica, Archie, Betty, Moose, and so forth...........).

That is actually a bad habit. You may think it telegraphs pertinent information, but what it actually does is creating a prejudice with the readers, before they have read the story, by coloring the person with character flaws that you see in them, and giving the readers a view of how that person comes across to you.

If you really want an unbiassed opinion on an issue, from people that have nothing to do with the issue, it is better to use random names. There might still be the posibility, that one person knows someone with the same name, that colors his/her view, but at least not everybodyis view will be colored by the name you use




My personal pet peeve is people using descriptions for stores, instead of their name. I know a little bit about American chains, so if you use their name I might know what store it is, but if you use descriptions, baseed on their looks or their commercials, then all you accomplis is to exclude non-Americans from the thread

[T'Mar of Vulcan]

My personal pet peeve is people using descriptions for stores, instead of their name. I know a little bit about American chains, so if you use their name I might know what store it is, but if you use descriptions, baseed on their looks or their commercials, then all you accomplis is to exclude non-Americans from the thread

Exactly. The rules do not say anything about not using the names of shops in posts. And if people are worried the 'big' stores will sue... well, it's not libel if it's true.

[Becca]

@Audrey--I read the rules before I started posting, but it's kind of one thing to see a list of rules, and and another thing to see how people apply these rules around the forum.  So, I'm perfectly willing to follow the rules, but I was just wondering how far people generally take these rules, because at the one extreme, we'd have all-out forum wars on a pretty much daily basis, but at the other extreme, nobody would understand anything that anyone else is saying.