posted
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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...
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 158 | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
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)
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.
posted
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. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1751 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samp, I wasn't suggesting that our wonderful mod do anything about these threads. Just that I disagree that they do anything useful.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!"
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
For all of you who dislike thread deletion-- if the conversation was valuable to you, why not start it again?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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!"
Posts: 628 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?"
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, it could be that the interesting part for some of us was the clash of ideas rather than the clash of personalities.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
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.
