Offering unwanted advice or perspectives

[Granny Takes a Trip]

People have different perspectives and advice.  If someone cannot handle that to the point where they expect the forum to change for them, they shouldn't post.

True, but people also shouldn't be rude about how they post. I don't think it's 'especting the forum to change' to ask people to think before they post, or if it is, that can only be a change for the better.

No one in the thread that you are referencing was rude to the OP.
 
Again, you are being offensive by assuming that those responses you felt were rude were posted by people who did not think before they posted.
 
In fact, they did think.  They read the posting, thought about it and offered their opinion.
 
It wasn't an opinion you agreed with.  You are free to post your disagreement, but your insistence that they were rude for suggesting that the issue was rather small, that the OP was OTT for getting upset about it or looking for offense where there was a high likelihood that none was intended is wrong.
 
And if you think someone is being rude to someone else on the forum, there is a link to "Report to Moderator" on the lower right of every post in the forum.  This will bring up a small box wherein you can detail what you are reporting and why.
 
If a moderator finds that a poster has broken the rules of the forum, there will be moderation.
 
But, for you to post an entirely new thread to protest the suggestions and opinions of well intentioned members of this forum where you infer that they are unthinking and rude, is in and of itself rather rude.
 
You may not be calling anyone out personally, but you certainly have no qualms about characterizing whole swaths of this community in a particular way.

Um, you have just made a massive assumption. You have no idea what thread I was referencing, and in fact it was not one that I myself posted in.  I find your post to me very rude.

ETA. I have no problem with disagreement, but to speculate and gossip when I was deliberately vague is deliberately rude, I think. To those who feel these types of threads are inappropriate: I feel that this folder is here not just for 'housekeeping', but to discuss forum issues. Many threads have been started about issues like these-if there was a problem with it, I think there would be a forum rule against it.  I feel that the discussion has been pretty polite, and productive. Everyone has things that they like and dislike about the forum, and I have noticed many threads like these. If anyone really dislikes these types of threads, I apologise. Nonetheless, I feel they are a right that we have. Just as things that I, and others, do not like, are a right of other posters.

[ladiedeathe]

There is a massive difference between being an etiquette maven and an etiquette martinet. If we descend to the level of controlling exactly how people word their replys, with any variation, weak word choice, or alternate phrase usage seen as rude or pa, we are no longer a useful board. If we find the whole world a rudeness in progress, and post each tiny offense/deviation, and only encourage each other in finding offense when none was intended, we are no longer a useful board.

Sometimes the offense is non-existant. Some times it is eggregious. All of us working together can find the working etiquette for the modern world. I don't think we should silence people who, politely, state a belief that no offense occurred.

[Scuba_Dog]

I want to make clear from the outset that I am not calling any one person out. However, I h4ave seen a trend here recently for someone asking advice about a specific issue, and being told that this issue is not worth bothering about. This strikes me as rather rude.

To clarify, I am not talking about the type of question which goes along the lines of 'I was walking along without shoes pushing my shopping cart, reading a book which I had bought for my best friend but was reading myself first, when I bumped into someone wearing shoes who had parked their shopping cart and had wrapped their book. We started yelling at each other. Who was rude?'

I mean the type of question where someone feels genuinely hurt and slighted, and wants to find a solution. Several people offer a solution, say four people. The fifth person breaks in with 'but that wasn't rude. You should just get over it.'  That strikes me as inappropriate, all the more so because of the maxim 'The OP has no control over the thread'. That last rule is in place to prevent people merely seeking for validation, so it is necessary. But I do feel that it can go to far the other way, and that people take that to mean that anyone can just crash a thread with opinions that might not be either helpful or relevant. Thoughts?

If you think a post falls outside of the posted forum rules, then use the report to moderator function, follow the reporting procedures and submit.
Link to forum rules
http://www.etiquettehell.com/smf/index.php?topic=2.0
Link to reporting procedures
http://www.etiquettehell.com/smf/index.php?topic=68532.0
If a rule has been broken then the MOD’s will certainly take care of it.  If no moderation happens after you report, then you can probably rest assured that the MOD’s didn’t see a violation.

It seems like there are a lot of these types of threads lately, and they all end in with the same conclusion/resolution.  

Report to a MOD if you think there’s an issue.

I’ve found these two forum rules to be very useful.

Irritating People: Someone, sometime in this forum will annoy the bejeebers out of you. Adults will try to resolve it first in Private Messaging or email, children have spats on the forum that can get one or both parties gagged or banned.  Mods are not here to play Mother to people who will not exercise self control in mentally ignoring irritating people. And we really don’t want to know who you have placed on “Ignore”.

Scritzy's Coke Rule applies:
Scritzy’s Coke Rule:


1. If a post annoys me, count to ten before replying.
2. If a post angers me, count to a hundred.
3. If a post infuriates me, shut down the computer and drink Coke.
And btw, Scritzy’s Coke Rule was originally meant to be applied quietly to oneself, without announcing your reaction that you'll soon be imbibing.

[Granny Takes a Trip]

There is a massive difference between being an etiquette maven and an etiquette martinet. If we descend to the level of controlling exactly how people word their replys, with any variation, weak word choice, or alternate phrase usage seen as rude or pa, we are no longer a useful board. If we find the whole world a rudeness in progress, and post each tiny offense/deviation, and only encourage each other in finding offense when none was intended, we are no longer a useful board.

Sometimes the offense is non-existant. Some times it is eggregious. All of us working together can find the working etiquette for the modern world. I don't think we should silence people who, politely, state a belief that no offense occurred.

Yes, that's all true. I don't think that I indicated that there should be 'no variation', though, I'm not sure where you got that from my post. All I meant by this thread was to point up a trend which I saw (not, as I said earlier, in response to any one contentious thread, or one where I was the OP). I suppose I wonder what an OP can do, though. Because I have seen people complain when an OP only acknowledges supportive posts. To me, this is unfair. If an OP (or anyone) only wishes to respond to certain posts, surely that is their right (this is not at all adressed at you, ladiedeathe, just a general observation)

[KenveeB]

If someone posts a thread of "Bob did something very rude to me, how can I handle it?", then it's not only relevant but necessary to consider the actual rudeness of the initial person in order to answer the question.  If in fact Bob did something that isn't rude at all, then my advice to the OP is going to be a lot different than if Bob did something that was clearly rude.  "Bob wasn't actually rude, so you should let it go" is just as valid a response to a post as "here's how to respond to Bob's rudeness."  It's an implicit part of the question.

[Granny Takes a Trip]

*snip*. If an OP has asked for valid advice, and several people have been supportive , and offered consrtuctive advice, I think that the naysayer would be better to keep their opinions to themself. But I do agree with you that the issue has many variables.

I think part of the disagreement here is whether the 'naysayers' are being difficult/argumentative/etc or whether they are answering the question/giving advice.

Personally, I think they're usually (usually, although lots of variables and, as established 'get iover it' is probably not the polite way to say it) giving advice.

And I think the question as posed in the OP here may be part of the problem...'Who was rude' is often not the question one intends to ask--it assumes that 1) someone was rude and 2) implies [I know it doesn't say it, but I read it that way[ only one person was rude.
If that is the question asked, "neither of you was rude, both of you are reacting to something minor.  Perhaps in a very over-the-top way; Personally I think ignoring Bob's mistake and going about your business would be the best way to handle it' would/could be a very appropriate answer. 

Personally, I think that "get over it/you may be overreacting/etc" (phrased appropriately) can indeed be good, relevant, helpful advice

Reading this post, I think that you have misunderstood my post  I was not talking about 'who was rude' type questions. I apologise if I was unclear. I meant the sort of question where the OP is in fact sure that the offending party was rude, and is asking for advice for how to deal with it. Don't get me wrong, I still think it's ok to say 'actually, I think perhaps if you saw it from another perspective, Uncle Bob wasn't rude. Have I considered XYZ? But of course, I wasn't there, so YMMV.' That sort of wording would be fine.  What I am talking about is when four or five people have given helpful suggestions on how to deal with Uncle Bob, and the fifth person says 'Well, this really wouldn't be my hill to die on. I think you should just let it go'. No real explanation, (or sometimes at best, a very brief one related to that person's experieince). To me,while that is not report worthy, it is not really helpful or polite either. Does that make sense?

[Granny Takes a Trip]

If someone posts a thread of "Bob did something very rude to me, how can I handle it?", then it's not only relevant but necessary to consider the actual rudeness of the initial person in order to answer the question.  If in fact Bob did something that isn't rude at all, then my advice to the OP is going to be a lot different than if Bob did something that was clearly rude.  "Bob wasn't actually rude, so you should let it go" is just as valid a response to a post as "here's how to respond to Bob's rudeness."  It's an implicit part of the question.

That's a good point, a very good one. That's what makes it so hard! Again, it's really all about tone.

[Wavicle]

I don't think it is rude to express an opinion that others may not agree with. I have personally been frustrated being told to let something go, but me being frustrated does not make the statement rude. This is a forum and there will be different opinions, and being polite doesn't mean pretending to agree. I figure if I am frustrated that someone doesn't understand why it is my hill to die on it is up to me to either explain my position or to just take it as a different opinion.

[Granny Takes a Trip]

I don't think it is rude to express an opinion that others may not agree with. I have personally been frustrated being told to let something go, but me being frustrated does not make the statement rude. This is a forum and there will be different opinions, and being polite doesn't mean pretending to agree. I figure if I am frustrated that someone doesn't understand why it is my hill to die on it is up to me to either explain my position or to just take it as a different opinion.

Good point. However, I still think that if the dissenting poster has seen that they are in a minority, they need to build their argument a little more, and explain. Again, the threads I am thinking of (which I did not actually post in) had a very brusque 'post and run' feel.

[ydpubs]

*snip*. If an OP has asked for valid advice, and several people have been supportive , and offered consrtuctive advice, I think that the naysayer would be better to keep their opinions to themself. But I do agree with you that the issue has many variables.

I think part of the disagreement here is whether the 'naysayers' are being difficult/argumentative/etc or whether they are answering the question/giving advice.

Personally, I think they're usually (usually, although lots of variables and, as established 'get iover it' is probably not the polite way to say it) giving advice.

And I think the question as posed in the OP here may be part of the problem...'Who was rude' is often not the question one intends to ask--it assumes that 1) someone was rude and 2) implies [I know it doesn't say it, but I read it that way[ only one person was rude.
If that is the question asked, "neither of you was rude, both of you are reacting to something minor.  Perhaps in a very over-the-top way; Personally I think ignoring Bob's mistake and going about your business would be the best way to handle it' would/could be a very appropriate answer. 

Personally, I think that "get over it/you may be overreacting/etc" (phrased appropriately) can indeed be good, relevant, helpful advice

Reading this post, I think that you have misunderstood my post  I was not talking about 'who was rude' type questions. I apologise if I was unclear. I meant the sort of question where the OP is in fact sure that the offending party was rude, and is asking for advice for how to deal with it. Don't get me wrong, I still think it's ok to say 'actually, I think perhaps if you saw it from another perspective, Uncle Bob wasn't rude. Have I considered XYZ? But of course, I wasn't there, so YMMV.' That sort of wording would be fine.  What I am talking about is when four or five people have given helpful suggestions on how to deal with Uncle Bob, and the fifth person says 'Well, this really wouldn't be my hill to die on. I think you should just let it go'. No real explanation, (or sometimes at best, a very brief one related to that person's experieince). To me,while that is not report worthy, it is not really helpful or polite either. Does that make sense?

Generally, when I see a string of brief posts such as the ones you listed, they follow other longer, in depth responses and the shorter ones are in agreement with that one. Not saying this is always the case, but that is what I've seen most of the time, not: Let it go, with no further explanation from the responder. I do this all the time if another poster put my thoughts on screen, I see no need to retype it all when someone else just put exactly what I thought in the post above me. BUT when I do make a such brief post I will say: I agree with PP's, it might be time to let this go.

[MRSW]

I think the bigger issue is when the OP reads the dissenting opinion, actually agrees with it and posts something like "You know, you're right. I did overreact, and I plan to drop the issue."  Then, you'll either see all of the supporters jumping on the OP for "letting it go," or the dissenter reiterating the point that has already been made and accepted.    That's what tends to drive me nuts.

[Granny Takes a Trip]

I think the bigger issue is when the OP reads the dissenting opinion, actually agrees with it and posts something like "You know, you're right. I did overreact, and I plan to drop the issue."  Then, you'll either see all of the supporters jumping on the OP for "letting it go," or the dissenter reiterating the point that has already been made and accepted.    That's what tends to drive me nuts.

I have not seen any of the former situation, but boy oh boy have I seen the latter! Irritating in the extreme.

[DangerMouth]

Good point. However, I still think that if the dissenting poster has seen that they are in a minority, they need to build their argument a little more, and explain. Again, the threads I am thinking of (which I did not actually post in) had a very brusque 'post and run' feel.

Maybe it does feel that way to you. Maybe it is that way. But as scuba dog posted, eHell isn't going to make rules about every irritating, unhelpful posting situation, because we already have two very good rules in place:

Irritating People: Someone, sometime in this forum will annoy the bejeebers out of you. Adults will try to resolve it first in Private Messaging or email, children have spats on the forum that can get one or both parties gagged or banned.  Mods are not here to play Mother to people who will not exercise self control in mentally ignoring irritating people. And we really don’t want to know who you have placed on “Ignore”.

Scritzy's Coke Rule applies:
Scritzy’s Coke Rule:

1. If a post annoys me, count to ten before replying.
2. If a post angers me, count to a hundred.
3. If a post infuriates me, shut down the computer and drink Coke.
And btw, Scritzy’s Coke Rule was originally meant to be applied quietly to oneself, without announcing your reaction that you'll soon be imbibing.

It would be 'nice' if everyone were perfectly polite, all the time, and made only perfectly clear, cogent and helpful posts, but I actually find those irritating, annoying and sometimes downright unpleasant posts to be equally helpful. If I can't meet an anonomous post on an internet forum with eqanimity, how do you think I'll do out in the real world, with possibly more at stake than making my point? This forum has turned out to be not only a repository of advice on ettiquette, but also a 'training ground' of sorts for the types of people and situations I may meet IRL.

JMO, YMMV

[artk2002]

Are people actually using the phrase, "Get over it!"?

I have not actually seen 'get over it', but I have seen some very blunt phrasing, and the ever-present 'this wouldn;t be my hill to die on' which I think is a bit PA.

I disagree, quite strongly, that that expression is PA.  There's a lot of misunderstanding about what passive-aggressive really is on this board.  PA is saying one thing (a passive statement) when you want to force some response from someone else (an aggressive action.)  Someone's MIL saying "Gee, it's really hot in here" when she means to say "could you please get me a drink of water" is PA.

That said, I don't find anything wrong with the "that wouldn't be my hill to die on" to be out of line at all.  It's expressing the feeling of that particular poster that the issue under discussion wouldn't be as significant is it is to another.  It isn't telling the other person that they're wrong for feeling that way, but that the poster doesn't.  It's no more out of line than someone saying "I love carrots" in response to another poster saying "carrots are the most evil food in the universe."

If someone just wants validation for their feelings, then this isn't the forum for them.  People come here for advice and they get it -- not always the advice they want, though.  They get other perspectives, which may help them look at their situation in a different light.  I, for one, appreciate hearing "that's not my hill to die on," because it helps me look at my situation with fresh eyes.  If all I wanted to hear was "you're right; that stinks, go out and give 'em hell," I'd talk to my mirror.

[ydpubs]

Are people actually using the phrase, "Get over it!"?

I have not actually seen 'get over it', but I have seen some very blunt phrasing, and the ever-present 'this wouldn;t be my hill to die on' which I think is a bit PA.

I disagree, quite strongly, that that expression is PA.  There's a lot of misunderstanding about what passive-aggressive really is on this board.  PA is saying one thing (a passive statement) when you want to force some response from someone else (an aggressive action.)  Someone's MIL saying "Gee, it's really hot in here" when she means to say "could you please get me a drink of water" is PA.

That said, I don't find anything wrong with the "that wouldn't be my hill to die on" to be out of line at all.  It's expressing the feeling of that particular poster that the issue under discussion wouldn't be as significant is it is to another.  It isn't telling the other person that they're wrong for feeling that way, but that the poster doesn't.  It's no more out of line than someone saying "I love carrots" in response to another poster saying "carrots are the most evil food in the universe."

If someone just wants validation for their feelings, then this isn't the forum for them.  People come here for advice and they get it -- not always the advice they want, though.  They get other perspectives, which may help them look at their situation in a different light.  I, for one, appreciate hearing "that's not my hill to die on," because it helps me look at my situation with fresh eyes.  If all I wanted to hear was "you're right; that stinks, go out and give 'em hell," I'd talk to my mirror.

Well said artk2002. I agree with you 100%