Just wondering - I couldn't find it scrolling back a couple of pages.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Oh, please. If you're going to complain about a thread deletion, be honest about it.
"Just wondering", my foot. Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
No, I meant it seriously - I switched laptops (network card is all screwed up) and all of my old bookmarks are gone. When I'm interested in a thread I normally bookmark threads and just return to the bookmark. I hate using the search function, and I'm pants scanning the forum for a particular thread - I always look over whatever I'm looking for.
I guess I'm not surprised at it being deleted, though.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Who was the original poster?
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
What does it mean to pants scan?
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
Baleeted!
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Sam, I don't remember.
HollowEarth, I probably should have added an "at" in between those two words for clarity. Anyways (h) Adjective. British. Rubbish Example: (h) Your opinion is pants.
Mike, what does it mean to "Baleeted!"?
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
BALEETED! (Flash video that has the very first use of the term, as far as I know.)
(Otherwise, the short answer is "it's Internet slang for 'DELETED,' originating in a Strong Bad E-mail.")
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I suspect the OP didn't like the continued and justified Palin-bashing.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I guess that means that the thread deletion wasn't only expected, you could have set your watch by it.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
I am posting in this high quality thread.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL: I am posting in this high quality thread.
thx
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL: I am posting in this high quality thread.
What does this mean exactly, seems sarcastic.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL: I am posting in this high quality thread.
<doug henning> MAGIC! </doug henning>
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
The question is, would Orincoro hit it?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Who was the original poster?
Kat.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: The question is, would Orincoro hit it?
I would if it had not been deleted.
I'm not one to disappoint a thread just because it's fugly.
I would, however, hit your post. It's purdy.
Edit: to the OP: the thread wasn't really "going anywhere" except perhaps counter clockwise.
[ February 09, 2009, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
kat has a long history of deleting threads when she runs out of other tricks and they've started to really make her look bad.
Kind of funny that with the thread and then now with the deletion she is basically doing what Sarah Palin did. Maybe soon she can start complaining about how it was other people's fault that she couldn't show any substance.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
If you want to discuss the betrayal of trust that thread deletion represents, that's fine; but I don't think that personal insults like the ones Squicky tosses out at kat are good form in this forum.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
What personal insults would those be, Scott?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I too think we should try to forgo personal attacks.
Also I think we should discuss the best way to suggest people talk about the betrayal of trust that thread deletion represents, if nothing else than to help Scott do it in the future. Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I agree that she has a history of deleting threads. However, your motivations for her doing so are not fact, they are your opinion.
That's one example.
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
Aw. Can't I take the credit for the deletion?
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
I have to say -- over the past year or so I've kind of lost my ambivalence toward thread deletion. Maybe it's occurring more often, or maybe I'm just noticing it more because a thread like this comes up whenever it occurs.
--j_k
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
It's totally my opinion and it is negative. It's also a pretty likely descriptor of kat's behavior over the many years.
Is it a personal insult? To me, it's more providing context for people. Yes, it's negative, but it is hard to accurately describe my opinion of kat's behavior without making her look negative. If someone acts poorly, it is not permissible to say this?
---
edit: Not to say that bad behavior by one person makes it okay for another person to behave poorly, but we are talking about a thread where kat was throwing around personal insults at almost everyone who disagreed with her.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: If someone acts poorly, it is not permissible to say this?
According to Kat? No.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The really unfortunate thing is that this thread wasn't just an excuse to insult Sarah Palin or Kat. Many people had written substantive posts about the issues involved. Deleting was definitely disrespectful to the people who had put time, effort and thought into contributing to the thread.
Such a pity that one person can erase the work of so many people. Its very destructive and really unnecessary.
Not long ago when I thought a thread I'd created had gotten badly out of control, I simply respectfully asked people to let it die and they did. If that didn't work, I pretty sure Papa could be persuaded to lock the thread which would stop the argument but not delete the work of everyone who had posted.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I really don't know why people are allowed to delete threads. If you don't want your words to continue to be available, don't post them. If you don't like what other people are posting, it's a problem for the moderator.
Have the moderators commented in the past on why thread deletion is permitted?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
To be fair, we don't know for sure that kat deleted the thread.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
There are some limited cases where deleting a thread is definitely understandable and can even be ultimately productive.
Deleting it because you lost your argument or to try to hide your poor behavior (and does anyone who was following it think that this wasn't the case here) doesn't seem to me to be either of these and seems really childish.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Yes, I did. That is correct.
Everything else posited is wrong.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: To be fair, we don't know for sure that kat deleted the thread.
That's true. I doubt Papa Moose did though and kat has a history of deleting posts and threads in similar circumstances.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
You should still maintain the ability to quickly delete a thread if you find that you regret posting within a reasonable amount of time. How long is "reasonable" I am not sure. Within 10 minutes?
What would be a suitable alternative be to thread deletion? I mean that from a forum administrators perspective. If it were up to me, people just wouldn't delete threads as a general rule.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I did delete the thread. I said that above.
Everything else posited is wrong.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
From past discussions of this, the moderators were pretty clear that they were not going to remove this feature. We can certainly talk about other ways of handling this, but the way Hatrack works is very unlikely to change.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Why did you delete it?
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Confession time.
I'm getting frustrated, a little bit, with Hatrack. I wouldn't call it a sea change but I think we have three or four hatrackers who have just become ridiculously hostile toward other posters. More often than not, the purpose of their posts is to attack or run-down other people. They seem to forgive nothing, and they have mastered the art of being insulting without violating the terms of this board. Often, the behavior they abhor is behavior in which they themselves engage*. They have become the keepers of scores, the holders of grudges.
And I don't know what to say to them.
In a way, I'm one of them. Because I engage in the same behavior, but I direct my (usually unspoken) scorn at them. I find myself ticking mental checklists when I read their posts. Maybe I have gotten into a state of mind where, when I see their names, I look for the hostility. No surprise, then, that I find it. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong.
What I wonder is: What happened to the philosophy of realizing that there is a person on the other end of that post you disliked? We get caught up (and I totally include myself in this) in the disagreement, and forget how to be friends. I don't become enemies with people I meet, out here in the world, over reading a situation a different way, or over political or religious differences. So what gives? Why do we do this to each other when we get on the internet?
I don't delete threads, and I don't like it when threads I've participated in get deleted; however, I am on record as saying that I will not turn against another hatracker for deleting a thread. There ought to be a limit on the psychic cost of participating on an internet forum. And when that limit is breached, erasure seems to me to be reasonable. It seems more reasonable to me for a person to delete a thread he started than to have to suffer in some kind of misery and shame. I'm not saying that's what happened in this case. I don't know! But if that's the equation, I'll take thread deletion.
In the Hatrack I hope for, we don't stalk each other. When the majority of our posts are meant to be hurtful to another person, we take a step back and re-evaluate. Then we stop it. Then we start over. Then we forgive each other.
Hatrack's too cool a place to be filled with fights. Life's too short for it. I don't want to keep feeling this way (frustrated) when I come here.
Can we all call a truce, or something?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Edit: TL has a point.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL: three or four hatrackers who have just become ridiculously hostile toward other posters.
You noticed, you really do care, I feel special!
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
It's not you, dummy.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think thread deletion would bother most people a great deal less if there was some warning that would give the participants a chance to save their work. Granted that might defeat the purpose of a deletion. I imagine there are only two real reasons to delete a thread, 1. To end a line of discussion you don't like and 2. To erase the trail that led to it. The first seems silly since someone can just start up another thread and start right back off where the other thread left off. In that same vein, it seems just as silly to delete a thread to hide the evidence, as it can be approximately reproduced, with different phrasing, all over again. I suppose there are other reasons to delete a thread, but none jump to the forefront of my mind.
Thread deletion makes me sad for two reasons as well. 1. Sad because of the loss of effort people put into threads. True, sometimes it's just people carping at each other and that won't really be lamented, but for people who actually put effort into contentious threads, it can feel like a slap in the face. 2. I like to think we're a place where talking an issue out can get us through most disagreements, and deleting a thread is too much like taking your ball and going home.
But it rarely makes me mad. People have their reasons, and I'm sure like all reasons to justify things, they run the gamut from perfectly valid to vapidly silly. Maybe we could develop some sort of code of conduct that calls for thread deletion warning? In much the same way that PJ locks and gives a head's up before he deletes a thread, maybe, if people can delete their own threads, they should be able to lock them for a day and then delete them the next day. Just an idea.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Is it a personal insult? To me, it's more providing context for people.
In the past, you've adhered to the idea that people should do their own research.
Has your opinion about this sort of thing changed?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I imagine there are only two real reasons to delete a thread
Your lack of empathy is your problem. Wanting something that is causing you pain to go away is a perfectly valid reason, IMO.
And I have explained as much before. Do we have to have this round of navel-gazing-without-purpose again?
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
Yes.
(Just a guess.)
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I did delete the thread. I said that above.
Everything else posited is wrong.
Not everything posited has been wrong even if everything posited about your motivations for deleting the thread has been wrong.
It is absolutely true that several people (for example Humean and Chris Bridges) had posted long, reasoned additions to that thread which I found worth reading. You erased them. That was disrespectful to all the people who posted and read in that thread whether you intended it to be or not. Throwing other peoples work away is disrespectful.
It also shows little respect to the members of this forum to pop into this thread and "say yes I deleted" but refuse to explain why.
I don't expect you to show respect for me, you've already made it clear on numerous occasions that you don't. There were however many other people participating in the thread and you showed disrespect to all of them when you deleted the thread.
You owe the forum an explanation and an apology.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: You owe the forum an explanation and an apology.
I disagree. And who died and appointed you mod?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Is it a personal insult? To me, it's more providing context for people.
In the past, you've adhered to the idea that people should do their own research.
Has your opinion about this sort of thing changed?
I'm not sure what you are talking about. You obviously think this is some telling blow, but I'm not following your point nor have I adhered to this idea that you seem to be assigning to me.
Despite my puzzlement, one thing I can note is that as the things we're talking about have been deleted, it's not actually like people can do their own research.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Rabbit, instead of speaking for the forum, why not be forthright? Say "I believe you owe me an apology for deleting my words without warning."
Kat might still refuse to offer one, but I think keeping it on an individual level -- rather than trying to obtain an apology on someone else's behalf -- is likely to be more effective and less insulting.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: You owe the forum an explanation and an apology.
I disagree. And who died and appointed you mod?
I didn't realize you had to be forum mod to express an opinion.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: You owe the forum an explanation and an apology.
I disagree. And who died and appointed you mod?
I didn't realize you had to be forum mod to express an opinion.
When you express your opinions at FACT, then it gives the impression that you're not aware that they are opinions.
Gee, it's lucky you didn't start a thread about your posting style about a month ago where this exact point was raised by a small handful of people.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I imagine there are only two real reasons to delete a thread
Your lack of empathy is your problem. Wanting something that is causing you pain to go away is a perfectly valid reason, IMO.
I'm okay with that, and I'd say that falls under the umbrella of my first example. Like I said a couple posts up, I think some people have perfectly valid reasons for deleting a post, and I don't begrudge them that. I'm not sure what your problem is with that.
I think however that a warning, in such a situation, would be courteous.
[ February 09, 2009, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Everything else posited is wrong.
Yes, of course. Anything anyone says is always wrong, always, even if it's right, it's wrong. Wrong. What I'm writing right now? Wrong. The fact that I said it was wrong is also wrong.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I imagine there are only two real reasons to delete a thread
Your lack of empathy is your problem. Wanting something that is causing you pain to go away is a perfectly valid reason, IMO.
Running away and hiding in your room when your parents make you angry may be "valid," but it's also immature. As is deleting a thread because the direction the discussion went makes you upset. This doubly so if you were, as much as anyone, contributing to the generally toxic tone of the thread.
It could also be argued that deleting other people's posts without their permission or any warning causes them "pain." Several posters here have already stated that they were dismayed at katharina's actions for that reason. Where's your empathy for them?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Rabbit, instead of speaking for the forum, why not be forthright? Say "I believe you owe me an apology for deleting my words without warning."
Let's check with the board on this one...
quote: Originally Posted by Hatrack: Tom Davidson is a stupid face.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I have deleted threads that made it to the bottom of the page without getting any substantial response. Why? Disgust. But I've never started a thread that flared into a big controversy, so I don't know what I would do in that situation.
I agree with TL. There has been some nastiness lately that is unbecoming of Hatrack. Time to get out of your trenches and shake hands, perhaps.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL: I'm getting frustrated, a little bit, with Hatrack. I wouldn't call it a sea change but I think we have three or four hatrackers who have just become ridiculously hostile toward other posters. More often than not, the purpose of their posts is to attack or run-down other people. They seem to forgive nothing, and they have mastered the art of being insulting without violating the terms of this board. Often, the behavior they abhor is behavior in which they themselves engage*. They have become the keepers of scores, the holders of grudges.
I agree though I would add that there is some context behind the most recent hostilities. Some posters have rubbed each other the wrong way* for too long and now can't give each other breathing room when it comes to minor errors/oversights. It's kind of suffocating when you have to worry about people trying to read 2 or 3 levels deep into your posts for implications that weren't put there intentionally.
* That's what she said.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
There is also the practice of not backing down an inch even when it's not an important point. Not apologizing for rude behavior but defending it to the hilt instead. Saving up insults and minor errors just to hurl them back at a strategic moment and undercut the discussion. There's not much honor or respect in it at all.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I didn't realize you had to be forum mod to express an opinion.
When you express your opinions at FACT, then it gives the impression that you're not aware that they are opinions.
Gee, it's lucky you didn't start a thread about your posting style about a month ago where this exact point was raised by a small handful of people.
That's not exactly fair. People talk all the time about things that aren't fact without putting an "in my opinion" or "I think" in front of them. For instance, see the first sentence of this paragraph. Or any discussion about god or politics, or economics, or anything else. Expecting a disclaimer whenever someone posts something that isn't an objective fact is silly. Especially when it's on a topic where there are clearly disputes over what is true and what isn't - or do you think that it's unclear that what is right & moral is an open question?
And that last bit was a little petty and stated in a mean-spirited way. IMO, of course.
Edit: I think it's also reasonable to point out that in your first sentence you're expressing your opinion as a fact, when, in fact, it is not. And I explicitly disagree with that expressed opinion.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
It seems to me that you are saying that there are no legitimate problems, that the issues people with some others are all minor.
I think that many people do not see it that way. I know I don't.
So it kind of sounds like "Your concerns are stupid. Let's just ignore them."
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Well, some concerns are only going to generate more friction if addressed. They're not stupid, but they're not constructive either.
The stakes have gotten inflated enough here that giving an inch is akin to ceding your control of the hill and losing all face. I think concessions are the currency of civilized discussion.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
The key is addressing those concerns in a productive manner.
EDIT: In general that would mean ignoring them. People can tell when other people are being snots so there's rarely a need to call someone out over it.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai:
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I didn't realize you had to be forum mod to express an opinion.
When you express your opinions at FACT, then it gives the impression that you're not aware that they are opinions.
Gee, it's lucky you didn't start a thread about your posting style about a month ago where this exact point was raised by a small handful of people.
That's not exactly fair. People talk all the time about things that aren't fact without putting an "in my opinion" or "I think" in front of them. For instance, see the first sentence of this paragraph. Or any discussion about god or politics, or economics, or anything else. Expecting a disclaimer whenever someone posts something that isn't an objective fact is silly. Especially when it's on a topic where there are clearly disputes over what is true and what isn't - or do you think that it's unclear that what is right & moral is an open question?
And that last bit was a little petty and stated in a mean-spirited way. IMO, of course.
Edit: I think it's also reasonable to point out that in your first sentence you're expressing your opinion as a fact, when, in fact, it is not. And I explicitly disagree with that expressed opinion.
I am, you may have noticed, the third person to comment on Rabbit's phrasing in that particular post. So it's not the happily general 'people' you claim -- it's a specific person. Since she just started a thread genuinely asking for feedback on her posting style (a thread in which this specific observation was raised, acknowledged, and discussed), I think I'm entitled to be a little annoyed with her that it appears to have done no good.
You are free to disagree with my methods, and, since I care less than nothing about your opinion on my posting style, I'm free to disregard your nitpicky, inane complaints.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Is it possible to care less than nothing? How would that manifest itself?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
As a cheetah, I think.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
I was going to post the same thing as Jhai but didn't. Rabbit's post did not come off as a factual claim to me.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Maybe that's where all the dark matter comes from.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Nor me.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Well, some concerns are only going to generate more friction if addressed.
I think that very much depends on the manner in which they are address. Your contributions make up what I see as an important part of this, but it seems like they are directed towards trying to convince people that they shouldn't address any concerns and to dismiss them all as not legitimate.
quote:I think concessions are the currency of civilized discussion.
I agree, but the key is that that only works with people who are working in good faith.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Nor me.
edit: It's been common practice at Hatrack to not have to preface everything that is clearly an opinion with "I think...", "In my opinion..." or some similar.
There are times where it can help to soften what you are saying by including it, but I'm very glad that most people here understand that it is not needed.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Rabbit, instead of speaking for the forum, why not be forthright? Say "I believe you owe me an apology for deleting my words without warning."
I don't think I'm the one she needs to apologize to. I don't think I contributed much of substance to the thread. I thought others did. I did not mean to be condescending or to overstep my authority. I'm sorry that it came across that way.
The thread in question contained over 6 pages and hundreds of posts. I think its disrespectful when anyone deletes that much of other peoples efforts. While I can imagine circumstances that might warrant such an action, I think that in those circumstances, an explanation and an apology are the minimum required by common courtesy.
If you disagree, that is your prerogative. I have no ability or right to enforce my views of what constitutes courtesy. I don't, however, think its out of line for me to express those views.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
As soon as one person starts talking about what another person owes, the question of "to whom" doesn't matter. I can't make kat do anything, but I am very much in the business of telling people what I think they should do, and I think she owes an apology to the forum. I'm with Rabbit, and I wish future thread deleting people would post some sort of explanation, like a brief.
And just so my opinion on the other matter doesn't get forgotten, I also thought Palin got a raw deal by a snobby media.
[ February 09, 2009, 05:01 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
I think that there should be a change in the rules for thread deletion reflecting the fact that contributors have a claim on the thread's ownership as well.
Academically, I am curious about why Kat deleted it.
For the record, I think many of the criticisms of Palin were substantive, that she was a poor candidate and it is a very good thing that she is not next in line for the presidency.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I'm sorry for coming off that way. It's not the concern itself but the intent for which it was addressed. If it will help resolve the discussion, fine, but if it is just being used as a bludgeon, is it really going to contribute anything? So many good discussions have been falling apart because of this lack of restraint.
If we can't have enough good faith to concede when needed and have that concession accepted graciously, we aren't being too productive. That good faith should be restored.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Rabbit, instead of speaking for the forum, why not be forthright? Say "I believe you owe me an apology for deleting my words without warning."
Tom, When you ask "why not be forthright?", you presume that I meant something other than what I said. You were wrong and in my opinion, using a word like "forthright" rather than "honest" doesn't make it polite to accuse people of dishonesty.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
For future use, can some posters in this thread list some polite ways of accusing them of dishonesty just in case I need to do that?
It seems that it might be a useful thing to know in these parts.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by TL: It's not you, dummy.
HE CALLED ME DUMMY THATS A PERSONAL ATTACK BAN HIM! Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
(Pssst! Mucus, I think Rabbit's point was that it's impolite to accuse people of dishonesty, period, whether you wrap it in "nicer" words such as forthright or not.)
And I agree with her. That said, politeness isn't the be-all & end-all, and politeness also isn't the same thing as civility. You can be impolite while still being civil. At least in the ways I consider civility & politeness.
Posted by EmpSquared (Member # 10890) on :
quote:
quote:I think concessions are the currency of civilized discussion.
I agree, but the key is that that only works with people who are working in good faith. [/QB]
A place like Hatrack should be able to do this, and we have in the past.
I'm also gonna venture out and say that it's this specific issue that causes the most grief here, and is why Hatrack has lost its illustrious sheen.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Jhai: Perhaps. But that would seem to be unfortunate since there really should be a polite way of expressing the sentiment, "Are you sure you really meant Y, perhaps you meant X" for whatever reason whether its the heat of the moment, or an over-generalization, an opinion dressed as a fact, etc.
In other words, as the point about concessions hinted at, there has *got* to be some way of pointing out the potential for a de-escalation while still providing the poster with a way to not lose face.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:People can tell when other people are being snots so there's rarely a need to call someone out over it.
This is the single most important thing to keep in mind when faced with an annoyingly condescending, sarcastic, snide jerk of a poster. If you're the only one who sees it then you're probably wrong, and if you're not then there's no need to point it out. The type of people who this applies to generally don't accept criticism well, which removes the only other productive* justification for providing it.
*Edit: To replace "valid" with "productive". Getting some personal satisfaction for telling them off may be a valid reason. Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Jhai: Perhaps. But that would seem to be unfortunate since there really should be a polite way of expressing the sentiment, "Are you sure you really meant Y, perhaps you meant X" for whatever reason whether its the heat of the moment, or an over-generalization, an opinion dressed as a fact, etc.
In other words, as the point about concessions hinted at, there has *got* to be some way of pointing out the potential for a de-escalation while still providing the poster with a way to not lose face.
Oh, I think there's a large difference between saying "you aren't being honest here." and "are you sure you meant <blank>?", don't you? The first requires that you think the poster is intentionally lying or intentionally saying something other than they mean. The second requires you to simply think that perhaps the poster miswrote, didn't understand the topic, etc. The second is the charitable interpretation - one that I see, for instance, CT showing a lot.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Not a bad rule: WWCTD.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
The problem with following WWCTD is that she's so very prim and respectable. Before you knew it, half the forum would have been overcome by vapors if we were successful in emulating her.
Plus, when we weren't rendered unconscious by vapors, we'd be far too busy posting hilarious things and then editing them out before Noe^^1 everyone had a chance to read them.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, she would send me cookies... so the moral of the story is: send me cookies.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
CT works in a hospital, IIRC. I'm pretty sure she's powered through vapors that would reduce a lumberjack to tears.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: Several posters here have already stated that they were dismayed at katharina's actions for that reason. Where's your empathy for them?
It disappeared about the time most of those same people played "bait katharina" -- for about 2-3 of the final pages of the thread in question.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: I'm pretty sure she's powered through vapors that would reduce a lumberjack to tears.
Yeah, but lumberjacks are notorious crybabies. Everybody knows that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Academically, I am curious about why Kat deleted it.
Academically? I still have the thread in cache. I just took a look. Providing the educated answer at this point in time would just be considered rabble-rousing, though, so —
Ps: Regardless as to whether hatrack is having an presumed crisis over discord, this incident yet again proves that the ability for an op to delete a thread is pretty much an incredibly stupid idea
pps: said more directly: hey everybody, the forum letting users delete threads is so amazingly stupid. can you petition to change it? does the forum get to put it to a vote or sommat?
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: Several posters here have already stated that they were dismayed at katharina's actions for that reason. Where's your empathy for them?
It disappeared about the time most of those same people played "bait katharina" -- for about 2-3 of the final pages of the thread in question.
Again, katharina did plenty of "baiting" in the thread herself. I'm not defending that sort of behavior, but if you're going to look down your nose at people because of it, you should at least be consistent about it.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: Several posters here have already stated that they were dismayed at katharina's actions for that reason. Where's your empathy for them?
It disappeared about the time most of those same people played "bait katharina" -- for about 2-3 of the final pages of the thread in question.
That's rather uncharitable of you rivka. Unless the thread deteriorated badly after I last saw it (which is possible since it was definitely on a down hill slide at that point) there were a number of civil, reasoned, well written posts on those last couple of pages that didn't deserve to be deleted. I specifically remember posts by Humean, Chris Bridges and Kwea none whom were involved in baiting katharina.
The problem with deleting a thread is that it throws out everything, not just the posts that hurt or angered you. Unless every bit of the thread was rubish, you end out throwing out the baby with the bath water. I thought some of the posts in that thread were good enough to be considered "baby".
Despite Tom's rather uncharitable assertions, I'm actually glad to have my participation in the earlier half of that thread deleted. I'm ashamed of the way I behaved earlier in that thread. But I wasn't the only one who posted there. Some people actually were civil and engaged in a civilized discussion. Deleting the thread was disrespectful to them.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Yikes...
When'd everyone get so angry? I mean, I've noticed the drop in tone around here, but I mostly figured that was the neo-cons and libertarians venting about Obama getting elected. I hadn't realized quite so much general animosity had been building up. What's the deal folks?
I know we can't all get along all the time. I know we're gonna have fights and disagreements. Considering what we discuss around here we're gonna have pretty intense ones and fairly often. But where's all this just sort of general frustration and animosity coming from? Seems like almost everyone posting in this thread has been immediately attacked by someone else. Viciously. Even those posting to say "Hey, chill!" Have been gutted. What gives guys?
(Yes, I know I'm probably going to get garroted too since I have now posted in here. I warn you, I practice peaceful non-violence, so watch out!)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: Again, katharina did plenty of "baiting" in the thread herself.
I didn't say otherwise.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Well said, Alcon. There's been a lot more hostility around here lately than there used to be. It isn't uncommon to see members calling each other names, or insulting another Hatracker's post rather than engaging and actually refuting the points that they disagree about. Add to that a number of simmering animosities that have frequently been boiling over lately, and the result is a forum that doesn't look or act much like Hatrack has traditionally looked or acted. It's unfortunate. We can do a lot better than we have been, lately.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:When'd everyone get so angry?
When stupid and aggravating stuff starts becoming par for the course by frequent posters, aggravated responses result.
This is little different than how people acted when resh was a frequent poster, or when X, Y, Z before him. it is going to happen unless the forum is one that installs a heavy-handed hold-hands-and-never-say-meanie-things rule.
Invited responses are invited, etc
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Just a general NO BULLYING rule would be better.
Posted by The Genuine (Member # 11446) on :
As the Ambassador of Right On and Headmaster of Sakeriver, I invite you all to leave this acrimonious place and have some Sake. It's all fluffy kittens and rainbows over there.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Just a general NO BULLYING rule would be better.
I don't think we need that. I think we need this thread actually...
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'd agree if I thought this thread was actually some sort of catharsis.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I imagine there are only two real reasons to delete a thread
Your lack of empathy is your problem. Wanting something that is causing you pain to go away is a perfectly valid reason, IMO.
And I have explained as much before. Do we have to have this round of navel-gazing-without-purpose again?
quote:
quote:quote: Originally posted by Tarrsk: Several posters here have already stated that they were dismayed at katharina's actions for that reason. Where's your empathy for them?
It disappeared about the time most of those same people played "bait katharina" -- for about 2-3 of the final pages of the thread in question.
quote:quote:
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk: Again, katharina did plenty of "baiting" in the thread herself.
I didn't say otherwise.
I'm really not following you here. If it doesn't have anything to do with who was baiting, why do you find that kat is deserving of more empathy than the people whose work she chose to trash?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
psst. lyrhawn.
Turn on your irony filter.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Rabbit, it's like dating. If A really wants to date B, but B really doesn't want to date A, there's no date.
In any case, I also didn't say what you seem to think I said. I prefer not to comment on degree of baiting, but I certainly have an opinion, which shapes my empathy.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: psst. lyrhawn.
Turn on your irony filter.
Dammit, that thing is continually on the fritz.
I missed the ellipsis.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon: Well said, Alcon. There's been a lot more hostility around here lately than there used to be. It isn't uncommon to see members calling each other names, or insulting another Hatracker's post rather than engaging and actually refuting the points that they disagree about. Add to that a number of simmering animosities that have frequently been boiling over lately, and the result is a forum that doesn't look or act much like Hatrack has traditionally looked or acted. It's unfortunate. We can do a lot better than we have been, lately.
Yeah. I notice myself spending less and less time here lately because half the threads seem to degenerate into "you're a poo-poo face, and a stupid one at that" really quickly, and I can get that at home.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
What I find most frustrating is that it has gotten to the point where certain people are responded to as if they are going to say something they haven't. I mean obviously you can almost word for word guess what a certain poster is going to say about a topic. But I mean if I see a thread about Israel, I can reasonably expect that I'll find Lisa or Rivka in it at some point if not already. But I can also expect somebody to make some sort of statement like, "Oh boy there goes Lisa the hater of all Palestinians." It's a terrible thing to do. There is certainly nothing wrong with with establishing preexisting biases, but why declare war preemptively?
The next time Katharina starts a thread if you are genuinely worried she will delete it, don't post in it. Of if you cannot resist the urge to post, don't attempt to bait her into an argument. But most of all if she posts a new thread, don't try to preempt her by saying, "I'd say something substantive in this thread but I expect Katharina only to find that it rocks her worldview, get angry, and delete the thread."
Every time I post in a thread even one dealing with a topic I've beaten to death, I try to come out of it with something useful. I can't post every time somebody is mean and ask them to stop, I'd only be annoying people if I did that, sorta like a song that's the same note over and over. I've found that sarcasm and overall jerkiness can often be avoided if one actually waits a few moments before saying anything. It's usually my snap posts that I most regret writing.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'd agree if I thought this thread was actually some sort of catharsis.
seriouspost: these threads are what we call the Grievance Airings and they are tricky to deal with (locking them is usually always a mistake, etc) but they are in their own way integral to resolution.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
This one doesn't seem to be working, then.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'd agree if I thought this thread was actually some sort of catharsis.
The thread doesn't need to be a catharsis, it needs to be a start, and it doesn't need to be a rule. The people here can work it out if given a chance...
Posted by The Genuine (Member # 11446) on :
It's not bologna. I really am the Ambassador of Right On. The title just got misplaced during a change in the software used to host the forum.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: but they are in their own way integral to resolution.
It's a nice theory, but I have yet to see any evidence of them actually functioning that way.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Rabbit, it's like dating. If A really wants to date B, but B really doesn't want to date A, there's no date.
So if I make a fool out of myself in a thread am I justified in asking the topic starter to delete it? I guess I don't understand the analogy.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: but they are in their own way integral to resolution.
It's a nice theory, but I have yet to see any evidence of them actually functioning that way.
Once upon a time, when I was an ignorant first-year mod, I quite expected that the way to deal with these grievance airing periods was to shut them down, to say 'this is not productive! I am locking this thread!' and in doing so watched as my fellow mods (and myself occasionally) did this and shattered the drama into a million pieces that embedded themselves into perpetuated bitterness. The associated parties simply put their drama on passive mode and go right back to amping it up all over again the second a future-hat is dropped.
Today as a happy-go-lucky Nth year mod I know you let the issue confine itself to one thread, keep the dialogue alive, monitor carefully to know when any parties involved have required direct action ('stop' or 'take a week off') and this serves several important functions.
1. if someone exports the drama to another thread, you can tell them 'for the love of pete, there's already a thread for this'
2. eventually the drama itself jumps the shark and becomes tired and lame and nobody wants to keep hashing it up and they look lame if they do.
etc.
There are more optimal conclusions that frequently result from this process but in all honesty I have 0.002% faith that any of them will happen here due to the way stuff happens to work here. (edit: aside from circumstantially related parties having a place where they can try to up the love or say 'why can't we get along, this place used to be so friendly' which does actually help things)
[ February 10, 2009, 12:00 AM: Message edited by: Samprimary ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Genuine: As the Ambassador of Right On and Headmaster of Sakeriver, I invite you all to leave this acrimonious place and have some Sake. It's all fluffy kittens and rainbows over there.
Sure it is....
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
If there is a topic that I really care about, and I worry about it being deleted by the OP, I just save it. Then, if someone deletes it, I can repost it.
I know not everyone agrees with me on this, but....to use the same logic that people who like to delete threads do....the forum allows me to do so, so it must be OK.
I do think that there is a time where deleting a thread may be the lesser of two evils. I mean, I think I have only done the "repost" thing once in 3 years, and plenty of threads I cared about have been deleted in that time.
However, this IS a public forum, and when people post things they really care about the have as much right to save and repost it as those OP have to delete it in the first place.
This IS just my general 2 cents worht regarding thread deletion in genreral. I hope I wasn't one fo teh people who came off as pig piling on anyone, but if I did I am sorry. I just get frusterated when peole claim false motivations for me regarding my opinions.
It IS possible, even likely, that someone who disagrees with you here at Hatrack is just as smart as you are, and possible as informed. Differing opinions aren't always because the other person is an idiot, or a loser, or a (insert any other insult here that works for you).
I was insulted by the implication that the ONLY reason I disliked Palin was that I was sexist, and Hatrack isn't the only place that accusation has been made. Not just to me, but to any number of people I know who disliked her. I studied the issues, and her record, and I don't feel that I was making my decision based on a SNL skit or because of her glasses or dresses.
And it is sexism to assume that I did just because I am a man.
The best was when my dad was talking about a point, disagreeing with Palin, and someone accused him of sexism. Turned out he was quoting my mom. Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
I was thinking about this thread for the past eight hours while at work because there was something I wanted to say, but I didn't quite have the words at first.
I feel like certain posters have reputations, and often those reputations go far enough back that even though at some point they seem to have stopped behaving like their old reputations, people still react as though they haven't changed at all. This has been frustrating to me in watching this particular drama because I see people reacting as though certain folks (who I read as being reasonably polite and forbearing) are treated as trolls and other people who are acting like trolls are being treated as though there's nothing wrong with their behavior. When a person with a troll-reputation points out the bad behavior of a person with a fluffy-reputation, everyone jumps on the "troll" to defend the "fluffy." And I think that there's something wrong with that. Just because someone has been your friend a long time doesn't mean that you're obligated to defend and excuse their bad behavior.
I went through a trollish phase a long time ago. I had a lot of anger and it came out in many of my posts. Fortunately, people corrected me rather than defending me. And yes, it made me angry. And I went away for awhile. But when I came back, I was prepared to behave.
I feel like when someone who has been reasonably polite in the past begins to behave like a troll, the people who have had long-term friendships with them need to step forward and tell them that they're being inappropriate rather than defend their bad behavior.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Genuine: As the Ambassador of Right On and Headmaster of Sakeriver, I invite you all to leave this acrimonious place and have some Sake. It's all fluffy kittens and rainbows over there.
I believe you're thinking of GalacticCactus.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Samp, I wasn't suggesting that our wonderful mod do anything about these threads. Just that I disagree that they do anything useful.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
At least we can have threads like this with a reasonable level of intelligence. Hatrack's still a pretty smart, civilized place that can do the self-introspection thing periodically without exploding.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Humean316:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'd agree if I thought this thread was actually some sort of catharsis.
The thread doesn't need to be a catharsis, it needs to be a start, and it doesn't need to be a rule. The people here can work it out if given a chance...
I tend to learn a little towards rivka's point on this one. Saying that a thread like this could be a start is like making a New Year's Resolution that you have every intention of keeping but rarely follow through on for more than a few weeks.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Samp, I wasn't suggesting that our wonderful mod do anything about these threads. Just that I disagree that they do anything useful.
I'm not suggesting a mod do anything either!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
No, but you were presenting your experience as a mod elsewhere as being relevant. And it seemed that you thought I was suggesting mod action.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
The best part about thread deletion is that it serves multiple purposes for the deleter. It allows them to get the final word in the argument. It erases evidence, so that later they can make whatever claims they like regarding the content of old arguments.
Perhaps best of all, it frequently results in this exact kind of fabulous attention! A new thread where they don't actually have to engage in the losing conversations of the previous thread, but get to carry the same anger, scorn, and derision into a whole new discussion.
It's like a bonus level for snarking.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Your scenario doesn't apply here, and so cannot be a universal rule.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Why not? He's not saying that these are the only purposes served. Surely adding even more purposes only expands upon his point...?
--------
As a side note, Katie: since people have outright asked you why you deleted the thread, and you have so far chosen not to answer, it seems to me that it's bad form to criticize people for having the chutzpah to attempt to guess why you deleted the thread. This strikes me as one of those situations where, if you're really bothered by the speculation, you could prevent it altogether by simply answering the question(s) asked.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What I think about deleting threads is that it is akin to ... okay, there isn't anything akin to it.
But I honestly do not agree that it's wrong. I don't even agree that it is disrespectful. I am not choosing to be disrespectful and not caring - I genuinely don't think that it is. I don't think threads are meant to be forever. I don't think words written on someone else's thread on someone else's forum on someone else's site on someone else's server carry an assumption of permanence. It isn't that I suspect they really do and am ignoring it - I genuinely don't think that they do.
I think if there is something that I write that I want to save, I save it to my blog. In fact, probably 1/5 of the entries on my blog are posts I wrote elsewhere and was quite pleased with, so I copied to a place that I do consider mine, as opposed to ephemeral public space.
I realize that other people have different opinions about this and that's fine, but I haven't been convinced. As much as I liked Ender's Game, I don't actually think that posting on forums is like releasing a treatise by which RL reputations can be made. It's a party conversation, a sand castle made with too-dry sand. Writing on a forum is like writing on water.
There, I found an analogy.
----
Anyway, I wasn't commenting on the speculation for motives - clearly no one but me (and the readers of my blog) have a clue about my motives - but that's never stopped speculating before. I am commenting that what did NOT happen was that the thread was deleted and the deleter posted all the snarky stuff in a new thread.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
so why did you delete the thread?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But I honestly do not agree that it's wrong. I don't even agree that it is disrespectful.
A word of warning: if you allow yourself to be genuinely persuaded by this logic, you are just like me in exactly the way you have previously complained you dislike most about me.
I'm not saying this is wrong, mind you; clearly, I find this argument useful or I wouldn't've employed it in the past, myself, to justify other behavior. But it occurs to me you would think it's wrong, and have previously argued with me at some length about why it's wrong.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I'd agree if I thought this thread was actually some sort of catharsis.
I am SO GLAD you said this.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Now I have this mental image of Orincoro sitting in an armchair with a Hatrack Bingo card, staring down at the "Catharsis" square and muttering, "Come on! Come on!"
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
For all of you who dislike thread deletion-- if the conversation was valuable to you, why not start it again?
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Now I have this mental image of Orincoro sitting in an armchair with a Hatrack Bingo card, staring down at the "Catharsis" square and muttering, "Come on! Come on!"
And *I* have the Hatrack Scrabble rack and am muttering "catharsis doesn't play, but its anagram ARCHAISTS does!"
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: For all of you who dislike thread deletion-- if the conversation was valuable to you, why not start it again?
Do you go around rereading The English Patient*** every day just because it was a decent book worth a read?
***Substitute any good but not incredibly amazing book here if The English Patient doesn't fit the bill.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Um....I don't even particularly dislike thread deletion, Scott, but I'm baffled by that question. It's like asking "if you liked that novel you were writing, why not start it over again after someone tosses it in the fireplace?" Or "if you liked that play, why not stop halfway through and move to a different stage, missing a few actors, and try to pick up where you left off?"
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: Anyway, I wasn't commenting on the speculation for motives - clearly no one but me (and the readers of my blog) have a clue about my motives
And it continually fails to occur to you that this is a bad thing. We should have a clue about your motives. In fact, if you are being forthright, we should be relatively clear on exactly what your motives are. However, you're not being forthright, and so we obviously know nothing about your motives. Good job.
You continually treat this place as if it and the people in it don't exist in a way that matters, and yet scores of people regularly interact with you here. To you, apparently, they do not exist. And to them, you believe that you are an enigma, and somehow imperceptible and invincible. You are wrong. I could give a crap if you agree with me, because this latest post of yours is an admission of dishonesty, and solipsism.
What am I supposed to take from your post? That I can't know anything about you from the countless posts you've made here, where you've shared all your ignorance and knowledge? Was that all fake? And then how do I take your latest post, if you believe that communication is impossible in this medium? Why do post here at all? Honestly? You don't seem to get anything out of it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Once upon a time, Hatrack was a place I wanted people to care about my motives. That has not been true in quite some time.
Sadly.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Um....I don't even particularly dislike thread deletion, Scott, but I'm baffled by that question. It's like asking "if you liked that novel you were writing, why not start it over again after someone tosses it in the fireplace?"
I'm baffled by your bafflement. OF COURSE you restart the novel!
Well, I would anyway. Because there's not much of another alternative, if I love the story.
Is this concept foreign to anyone other than Tom?
EDIT: This is not to say that there won't be some angst directed toward the person who chucked my masterpiece in the fire. But the amount of vitriol directed against thread-deleters is disproportionate to the amount of effort people seem to be willing to put into revivifying the topics that they clamor about loving so much.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I'm baffled by your bafflement. OF COURSE you restart the novel!
It's in the fireplace. On fire.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
I would restart the novel, but away from the person that threw it in the fire. Makes more sense this way? There's no way not to invite discussion from a user on this site on a thread you started, so it's natural not to want to go through the same thing again. At least not this soon after things blew up.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
There's a difference between "like" and "love". I don't think anyone here on Hatrack loves the idea of debating Palin's qualities; many of us found it an interesting discussion.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Not to mention that when the only actually dissenting voice is the person who just deleted the thread, "reviving" the thread just to talk about how much you all agree with each other seems singularly pointless.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
It's not a good thread unless it's an argument.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
Yes, it is.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
No, it's...
Wait.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Not to mention that when the only actually dissenting voice is the person who just deleted the thread, "reviving" the thread just to talk about how much you all agree with each other seems singularly pointless.
I don't think that you realize how well you make the point that the thread endured not because it was a thoughtful discussion, but because it was full of personality clashes.
But you are convincing, Tom.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I don't think that you realize how well you make the point that the thread endured not because it was a thoughtful discussion, but because it was full of personality clashes.
Oddly, that's not what I said at all; I suspect you're grabbing at something to justify your own preconceptions.
What I SAID was that Katie was the only person on the thread who had put forward the opinion that Palin was qualified for the job, and was one of three people who felt Palin had been treated unfairly by the media. Would it have made sense, then, for those people who disagreed with Katie on this topic to create another version of the thread in hopes of attracting someone who might disagree? Might you be instead saying that, having apparently found a near-universal consensus on an issue, we no longer needed any kind of public record of that consensus?
It's certainly possible to have a political thread in which everyone agrees. But why? Would it be for the edification of hypothetical lurkers?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Let me note again:
quote:I don't think that you realize...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Scott, it could be that the interesting part for some of us was the clash of ideas rather than the clash of personalities.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Ah. So you're saying that my point -- which is that people having a discussion about the merits of a particular viewpoint are hard-pressed to fairly continue that discussion when all representatives of that viewpoint absent themselves from the conversation -- somehow indicates that the thread was all about "personality clashes?"
I'm not sure how you're getting from point A to point B. It's not like I've said "there's no point in having this conversation if people can't kick Katie around." Rather, I said "there's no point in having this conversation if no one is representing a dissenting viewpoint." I don't see much overlap.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
If you believe it, go ahead and make an argument, thereto, kate. I can be convinced.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If I was the only dissenting voice, it wasn't a clash of ideas. No board is so monolithic as that.
It means the thread was not appealing to anyone with a stake in the clash of ideas.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If I was the only dissenting voice, it wasn't a clash of ideas.
Why not? I think you are, on many topics, perfectly capable of defending a valid idea. And, heck, the more valid the idea, the easier it is to defend.
quote:It means the thread was not appealing to anyone with a stake in the clash of ideas.
How do you know this?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It means that there is not a monolithic opinion on the topic on this forum, but the thread was so ugly and trashy that no one else was interested in discussing it with those participants.
ETA: Except Humean, who is delightful.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It means that there is not a monolithic opinion on the topic on this forum, but the thread was so ugly and trashy that no one else was interested in discussing it with those participants.
And, again, how do you know this?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
Or it could just mean that most people on the board happen to hold an opinion with which you disagree. Not saying that's necessarily the case, but the available data support that conclusion as much as your own.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Sure. I suppose another option is that I am a lone voice in a wilderness. If I wanted to feed my ego, that's the one I'd believe.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:If I was the only dissenting voice, it wasn't a clash of ideas. No board is so monolithic as that.
It means the thread was not appealing to anyone with a stake in the clash of ideas.
Since the thread is gone, you can make that claim but it is inconsistent with my memory.
Humean, for example, had written some very detailed arguments explaining why he believed that certain peoples objections to Sarah Palin were sexist. Irami had also participated and argued that Palin had been mistreated by the media. I also remember several others who were more or less arguing the same side kat was arguing.
I'm afraid that I can't prove that since the thread is gone and I don't have it cached but I believe at least some others involved with the thread will remember it the same way.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Didn't we have a don't-talk-to-each-other truce, Rabbit? What happened to that? Did you decide you didn't want to abide by it?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I wouldn't consider it "feeding my ego" to be the only one on one side of a position. It would cause me to deeply think about my reasoning for my position, as a good Bayesian always ought. Of course, that sort of statistical reasoning must also take into account my beliefs about the intelligence and reasoning ability of those on the other side of the position. For example, I've thought quite a bit about the Prop 8 map, given how many people disagreed with my initial stance (which was not at all firm when I first posted). This is one of the reasons I'm very grateful Hatrack is here to bounce ideas off of.
Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Genuine: As the Ambassador of Right On and Headmaster of Sakeriver, I invite you all to leave this acrimonious place and have some Sake. It's all fluffy kittens and rainbows over there.
I haven't been reading this thread, but I just wanted to point out, for accuracy's sake, that Jesse's diplomatic credentials were revoked quite some time ago, and he cannot speak for Sakeriver in any official capacity. Which is not to say that any of you are unwelcome there, I just want it to be clear that Jesse is misrepresenting himself.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I thought the thread was interesting before it became about personalities. And there were still some interesting bits after that.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: realize that other people have different opinions about this and that's fine, but I haven't been convinced. As much as I liked Ender's Game, I don't actually think that posting on forums is like releasing a treatise by which RL reputations can be made. It's a party conversation, a sand castle made with too-dry sand. Writing on a forum is like writing on water.
There, I found an analogy.
"Writing on water" doesn't last long enough to complete a single letter. Its an exercise in navel gazing since there is no chance that anyone will be able to read what is written. I don't suspect many here expect that their post posts will be permanent but there is a big difference between "permanent" and "instantly erased".
I suspect most of us post here believing that what we post will be read by others, hoping that we will get feedback on our ideas, expecting often to provoke an interesting debate and believing that what we have written will last as long as other people continue to have interest in discussing the topic.
The sand castle analogy is much better. When you build a sand castle on the beach you know that eventually the tide will come in an wipe it out. But you build it anyway because its fun creating something and maybe someone will see it and appreciate it or even lend a hand in building it. If your little brother comes along and kicks the whole thing down while you are still building, you are going to angry and justifiably so.
Would you accept it if your brother then argued "Gee what did I do wrong, the waves were going to destroy it in a couple hours any way and besides that, I thought it was ugly."?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So, no truce? You're taking that back?
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
What would it change for you if she didn't want the truce, really? Are you currently refraining from certain actions that you won't feel bound to refrain from if the truce is called off?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Down, Scrappy-doo.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I had made an offer of peace, Rabbit said she didn't want to forgive and be civil so she preferred to just not speak to each other. I accepted. That seems a better course that the current one, which is to hold grudges and NOT be civil.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Down, Scrappy-doo.
You too, Jabberjaws.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Katie's left hand is currently resting on the headset of a red phone that, when lifted from its cradle, will nigh-instantly dispatch legions of ninjas to Rabbit's last known location. It's one of the perks of working for the federal government.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I had made an offer of peace, Rabbit said she didn't want to forgive and be civil so she preferred to just not speak to each other. I accepted. That seems a better course that the current one, which is to hold grudges and NOT be civil.
You know, the funny thing is, that thread wasn't deleted, so everyone can go and see exactly what the "offer of peace" was.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Katie's left hand is currently resting on the headset of a red phone that, when lifted from its cradle, will nigh-instantly dispatch legions of ninjas to Rabbit's last known location. It's one of the perks of working for the federal government.
This too. This, plus getting Inauguration Day off are the real perks.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In all seriousness, might I suggest that if both parties believe they value civility, both should endeavor to be civil? And when they cannot bring themselves to post something civil, they decide for their own purposes that the "truce" prevents them from posting?
Worrying about whether Party A is directly or obliquing speaking to Party B in order to determine whether Party B should feel bound by her own decision to be civil seems like it adds just one more potentially confusing situation.
The alternative would seem to be arbitration. If that is indeed the preferred alternative, I strongly recommend Dobbie or Jebus as arbiters.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Screw that.
Two men enter, one man leave.
THUNDERDOME!
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Didn't we have a don't-talk-to-each-other truce, Rabbit? What happened to that? Did you decide you didn't want to abide by it?
I don't think you ever understood the terms of the truce. I never agreed that I would not respond if I felt you were treating me rudely and disrespectfully. When you deleted the Sarah Palin thread, you failed to treat me and the many others who posted there with respect.
You can't expect me to agree to a unilateral cease fire.
And BTW, Since the issue of you deleting threads has come up several times at hatrack and many hatrackers had expressed their strong objections to having you delete their posts, it is impossible for me to believe that you had any doubt when you deleted the thread that people would be offended. You chose not to respect the feelings of many forums members on this issue. Whether or not you feel that opinion is deserving of respect if really irrelevant. You chose to be disrespectful.
Posted by Jeorge (Member # 11524) on :
I very rarely post in serious threads on here. There are basically 3 reasons for this.
1. I come here as a way of finding a bit of relaxation and fun. I don't find arguments to be relaxing.
2. If someone is going to get snarky with me, I want them to look me in the eye while they're doing it.
3. In my brief time here I have lost posts in deleted threads. I wouldn't care too much, if I thought everyone who participated in the discussion had a chance to read what I'd written. But this is not like a bunch of people sitting around a table talking; when one person speaks others may not "hear" it for up to 24 hours - or more. So when I post something, and five minutes later the entire thread is gone, then I have wasted effort. So I don't waste my time posting in threads that I think might end up in the bit-bucket.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think I'm being dogpiled, and I think its the same usual suspects that are up for the dogpiling.
Maybe Squicky, Rabbit, and Jhai could alternate Trashing Kat shifts, so they call get their digs in but don't end up being a collection of howling bullies every time.
Barring that, I'd be perfectly happy if they never spoke to me again. I have been successful in ignoring Squick's squawks, but it takes time to recalibrate the machine and life would be so much better if no one else had to witness the ugly attempts as well.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Jeorge, you have my solemn promise that your post above will not be deleted by any actions I take. (...wanders off, wondering whether to bump the pledge thread.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Two men enter, one man leave.
But in this case, who would the two men be?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Ah, Rabbit, so you are in the Squicky camp of "If I am rude to you, it is your fault." How charming that you both love to blame the victim.
Okay, I'm done. I think the people I mentioned above act like complete trash, and that they are self-righteous about it is something out of a Victor Hugo novel.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I'm still wondering why you deleted the thread. You posted why you didn't think it was disrespectful to do so (though, obviously, other people think it is. And you know they think that. So you were doing something you know other people find disrespectful. Which is pretty much the definition of being disrespectful). But you didn't post why you deleted the thread. Given THIS thread, if the intent was to make the other thread go away for whatever reason, I'd say you failed, and maybe you should take that into consideration next time you think about deleting a thread.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I had made an offer of peace, Rabbit said she didn't want to forgive and be civil so she preferred to just not speak to each other. I accepted. That seems a better course that the current one, which is to hold grudges and NOT be civil.
You know, the funny thing is, that thread wasn't deleted, so everyone can go and see exactly what the "offer of peace" was.
Actually, that thread wasn't deleted. If you really want to look at it, here is the link. Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
I was reading the thread and was very interested in it. I had participated in its earlier iteration, when we were discussing whether or not Bristol Palin's pregnancy reflected on Sarah Palin as a mother, and if that should be a consideration in thinking about her as a candidate.
I was *very* interested in Humean's points about the rhetoric of anti-feminism--especially the word "ambitious." No matter how Mr. Squicky was using it (and I think he was using it in a neutral to positive way), in general it's a word that's positive when applied to men and less so when applied to women. Interesting.
I am annoyed that the thread is gone.
But that's all. Just annoyed, not angry, and certainly not expecting an apology.
Still, I think the annoyance of relative strangers (by that I mean members with whom you rarely interact) is something an OP should take into account when considering whether or not to delete a thread. Doesn't mean I think you should decide not to do it--just remember that others are affected too.
It's quite possible that katharina took all of that into account, of course. But since we're navel-gazing, I thought I'd take my turn.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Two men enter, one man leave.
But in this case, who would the two men be?
:revs chainsaw:
Don't worry about it. It'll be over in a second.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Actually, that thread wasn't deleted. If you really want to look at it, here is the link.
Dude, Rabbit, that's what I said. Gosh! *exasperated sigh* Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Since I didn't get to say it in the other thread, and I don't believe you've mentioned it before -- Congratulations on your engagement, MrSquicky.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Ah, Rabbit, so you are in the Squicky camp of "If I am rude to you, it is your fault." How charming that you both love to blame the victim.
Okay, I'm done. I think the people I mentioned above act like complete trash, and that they are self-righteous about it is something out of a Victor Hugo novel.
No kat, I'm not of that camp. I take full responsibility for my own behavior.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Okay, I'm done. I think the people I mentioned above act like complete trash, and that they are self-righteous about it is something out of a Victor Hugo novel.
At this point I'm pretty much certain based on my own interactions with you that you can end up claiming that someone acts like 'complete trash' (or in my case, 'barbaric') simply for acting to civilly point out blatant hypocrisies in your outrage against incivility.
Leading to further incivility.
By you.
So you better put me and a few others in the People I Dismiss As Howling Beasts That I Mention I Ignore Frequently category because your recent activity is lending people to need to treat you like an incredibly immature arguer.
Ta.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: ...A new thread where they don't actually have to engage in the losing conversations of the previous thread, but get to carry the same anger, scorn, and derision into a whole new discussion.
It's like a bonus level for snarking.
Fox News is still waiting to hear from Minnesota, but both CNN and NBC are calling this one for MightyCow.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Minnesota needs at least 3 more months and a court case to make up its mind, sorry.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)