posted
Honestly, amusing as I find you, I think you have the same problem as Katherina: you think it's okay to be rude to people who you consider rude and/or pointless. There are some people for whom this is not an issue. Everyone pretty much knows to wade around malanthrop's posts unless they'll willing to deal with nonsense. But there's been a widening number of posters you've been willing to do this with who also interact with the forum in a reasonably healthy manner much of the time, and the collateral damage is that you contribute to the poisoning of potentially salvageable threads.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Honestly, amusing as I find you, I think you have the same problem as Katherina: you think it's okay to be rude to people who you consider rude and/or pointless. There are some people for whom this is not an issue. Everyone pretty much knows to wade around malanthrop's posts unless they'll willing to deal with nonsense. But there's been a widening number of posters you've been willing to do this with who also interact with the forum in a reasonably healthy manner much of the time, and the collateral damage is that you contribute to the poisoning of potentially salvageable threads.
Indeed. I found this thread amusing because Parkour and Samp have in common the fact that they are not often kind in conversation...
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Can you can explain, in the interest of general edification, how Samp's post is worse than Kat's post that immediately follows it?
They both seem to be within the TOS by my reading, and they both are intentionally insulting.
katharina simply indicated she probably wouldn't enjoy SA, and Samp decided to insult her personally by calling her prudish. Unless I'm missing something in her response she replied with in essence don't insult me, it's tasteless.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm assuming Samp was talking about the "get back in the Mud Pit" part, but given the circumstances this is not a place where I think kath was being unreasonable (although the comment does cede a bit of the high ground).
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Can you can explain, in the interest of general edification, how Samp's post is worse than Kat's post that immediately follows it?
They both seem to be within the TOS by my reading, and they both are intentionally insulting.
katharina simply indicated she probably wouldn't enjoy SA, and Samp decided to insult her personally by calling her prudish. Unless I'm missing something in her response she replied with in essence don't insult me, it's tasteless.
He insulted her, and she insulted him back. You are missing something.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Can you can explain, in the interest of general edification, how Samp's post is worse than Kat's post that immediately follows it?
They both seem to be within the TOS by my reading, and they both are intentionally insulting.
katharina simply indicated she probably wouldn't enjoy SA, and Samp decided to insult her personally by calling her prudish. Unless I'm missing something in her response she replied with in essence don't insult me, it's tasteless.
He insulted her, and she insulted him back. You are missing something.
How is talking about the mud pit an insult back?
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Honestly, amusing as I find you, I think you have the same problem as Katherina: you think it's okay to be rude to people who you consider rude and/or pointless.
Close, not quite! The problem I have is that I don't easily play the dysfunctional 'reset button' game that hatrack's been at for a while, where each new thread is supposed to be sudden instant neutral ground for people who are frequently derogatory and disrespectful of other people in prior threads.
I forget that what you're supposed to do is in each new thread, pick at the edges of openly hostile or derogatory intent towards people you dislike. Then, if they respond to you with the full context of their history towards you, this is now wrong.
So, at the beginning of katharina's multi-thread kick of making sure we understand she thinks she's too good for SA and members of that forum seem to explain why the forum is in the shape it is in, I should have worded it specifically to the audience, and the dance could continue!
Or wait, I'm not much of a fan of that, especially considering I'm not real inspired to 'salvage' this headsmackingly dumb thread that accuses me of being an alt puppeteer.
There's also the minor part where I was making that post with all the seriousness of when I called the entire forum a bunch of rubes, so this is all just a great example of 'remember your audience.' So, whoops!
posted
What I don't understand is why people, including yourself, find it worth their time to participate in antagonistic feuds on Hatrack.
The only things of any value to me on this site are interesting discussions and positive interactions with the people I consider friendly acquaintances. If someone starts to get antagonistic, I'd prefer to have no interaction with them rather than a negative one, so I either leave or else selectively ignore what they said.
Unfortunately, when I've tried to do this lately it hasn't worked as well as it used to. In my thread on Alzheimer's, when I tried to ignore Lisa's insult and move on with the discussion, Parkour jumped in and attacked her, thereby ruining the thread and forcing me to leave.
What I don't understand is the mindset that says, I'd rather get into a personal fight than ignore someone who's being rude.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are a whole bunch of posters whose posts are full of ego. It's just unpleasant to engage the whole ego-dance.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Can you can explain, in the interest of general edification, how Samp's post is worse than Kat's post that immediately follows it?
They both seem to be within the TOS by my reading, and they both are intentionally insulting.
katharina simply indicated she probably wouldn't enjoy SA, and Samp decided to insult her personally by calling her prudish. Unless I'm missing something in her response she replied with in essence don't insult me, it's tasteless.
He insulted her, and she insulted him back. You are missing something.
She did not insult him back. She said in essence that if you are to engage in tasteless behavior get in a mud pit, where that sort of behavior belongs. She didn't indicate that he belongs in a mud pit, has been in a mud pit, etc.
I don't much enjoy spending more time dissecting statements that took far less time in their formation. I did forget the original premise of this thread, but I didn't get any direct indication from katharina that she was putting on a "holier than thou" attitude regarding SA, merely that she wouldn't enjoy the forum.
-------
Samp:
quote:The problem I have is that I don't easily play the dysfunctional 'reset button' game that hatrack's been at for a while, where each new thread is supposed to be sudden instant neutral ground for people who are frequently derogatory and disrespectful of other people in prior threads.
New threads are not reset buttons, in that a posters personality resets to 0 and we go from there based on what they are writing. They are reset buttons in that somebody is saying, "I want to talk about this now." It's perfectly valid to say, "I still want to talk about your behavior from a previous thread." in that thread. If you do it too much obviously it becomes obnoxious and undesired.
quote:I forget that what you're supposed to do is in each new thread, pick at the edges of openly hostile or derogatory intent towards people you dislike. Then, if they respond to you with the full context of their history towards you, this is now wrong.
Or you could maintain a level of decor and respect at all times and allow other posters to behave as they will, rather than attempting to bait them out until they respond thus compelling me to clean up.
I'm trying not to moderate on the fringes, but at same time sometimes nipping a problem in the bud as it were saves a lot of headache, but it comes at the expense of people thinking I'm being heavy handed.
quote:So, at the beginning of katharina's multi-thread kick of making sure we understand she thinks she's too good for SA and members of that forum seem to explain why the forum is in the shape it is in, I should have worded it specifically to the audience, and the dance could continue!
Multi-thread? I hadn't noticed her posts in "I am now officially a goon" thread. That does give some context, that I wish I had had when I originally posted. When I respond to whistles I read the thread the post is found within, but I'm not currently in the habit of reviewing the front page.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not 100% sure whether Samp is referring to the same thing I'm thinking of, but Kath has made a habit of rudely telling people they aren't worth her time at the slightest provocation, while engaging in much of the same behavior she objects to. And this has been going on for well over a year. Plenty of us have tried a variety of tactics to get her to stop, sometimes appealing to decency and sometimes engaging her on her own level, and she always responds angrily that it's all our fault.
quote:New threads are not reset buttons, in that a posters personality resets to 0 and we go from there based on what they are writing. They are reset buttons in that somebody is saying, "I want to talk about this now." It's perfectly valid to say, "I still want to talk about your behavior from a previous thread." in that thread. If you do it too much obviously it becomes obnoxious and undesired.
Yes. This.
Now, I must admit that in this particular case, it's not like there was anything amazingly insightful going on worth preserving. BUT Samp's comment was blatantly rude for the sake of being being blatantly rude. Any justification other than "it was fun" is probably a rationalization. And it contributes to an overall impression that hatrack is about angry feuds instead of about intelligent discussion. I maintain another account on another forum when I want angry ranting. I try my best not to bring it here.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: BUT Samp's comment was blatantly rude for the sake of being being blatantly rude.
quote:There's also the minor part where I was making that post with all the seriousness of when I called the entire forum a bunch of rubes, so this is all just a great example of 'remember your audience.' So, whoops!
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: [qb] Can you can explain, in the interest of general edification, how Samp's post is worse than Kat's post that immediately follows it?
They both seem to be within the TOS by my reading, and they both are intentionally insulting.
katharina simply indicated she probably wouldn't enjoy SA, and Samp decided to insult her personally by calling her prudish. Unless I'm missing something in her response she replied with in essence don't insult me, it's tasteless.
He insulted her, and she insulted him back. You are missing something.
She did not insult him back. She said in essence that if you are to engage in tasteless behavior get in a mud pit, where that sort of behavior belongs. She didn't indicate that he belongs in a mud pit, has been in a mud pit, etc.
I don't much enjoy spending more time dissecting statements that took far less time in their formation. I did forget the original premise of this thread, but I didn't get any direct indication from katharina that she was putting on a "holier than thou" attitude regarding SA, merely that she wouldn't enjoy the forum.
And that's what you're missing. Not that we necessarily should discuss it any more, because I agree that it's not really useful at this point. I have no horse in this race -- I actually like both Samp and Katie quite a bit.
I just agree with the statement that your moderation, thus far, has been pretty inconsistent, and so was trying to get a read on how you are seeing things. Which I have.
Anyway, not to knock you -- moderating a place like this is a largely thankless and, in my opinion, miserable job. So you have my respect for even attempting it. And I know you're still probably trying to figure out your style and where your particular lines are on different things.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: Multi-thread? I hadn't noticed her posts in "I am now officially a goon" thread. That does give some context, that I wish I had had when I originally posted. When I respond to whistles I read the thread the post is found within, but I'm not currently in the habit of reviewing the front page.
Ah. But whatever. Just hold others to the same standard ... once you find it ... and I'm happy.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: What I don't understand is why people, including yourself, find it worth their time to participate in antagonistic feuds on Hatrack.
The only things of any value to me on this site are interesting discussions and positive interactions with the people I consider friendly acquaintances. If someone starts to get antagonistic, I'd prefer to have no interaction with them rather than a negative one, so I either leave or else selectively ignore what they said.
...
What I don't understand is the mindset that says, I'd rather get into a personal fight than ignore someone who's being rude.
Very well said.
Posts: 194 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing with the Alzheimer's thread is that there's literally like two people who might actually speak in Libertarianism's defense here. It's a hot button issue that's very to easy to make seem like it's not worth their time to argue (or at least not worth their time to participate civilly) and the thread was started out with Libertarianism already on the defensive. I know a lot of different people contributed to the thread's decline, but the chances of it lasting more than a page were slim to begin with.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah I've basically stayed out of that one up till now for a reason, and the contribution I just made is sort of bypassing the whole original post.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yeah, that thread is "Libertarianism: sure does look like it is founded on unworkable ideas. Defend if you care"
guess what will happen
guess
I'll tell you what would happen if someone put up a thread like that about something I believed in: I'd defend it with the best argument I could think of, or else admit I was wrong. Or if the OP was written insultingly (which mine in the Alzheimer's thread was not) I might ignore the thread altogether.
But while you're here, maybe stick around for a second and explain to me why you get in personal fights with people on the forum instead of ignoring them. What's in it for you?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: I'll tell you what would happen if someone put up a thread like that about something I believed in: I'd defend it with the best argument I could think of, or else admit I was wrong. Or if the OP was written insultingly (which mine in the Alzheimer's thread was not) I might ignore the thread altogether.
See, now you're just talking crazy talk... That just doesn't happen on the Internet!Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: But while you're here, maybe stick around for a second and explain to me why you get in personal fights with people on the forum instead of ignoring them. What's in it for you?
Hint: if my 'personal fights' are in all posting circumstances not 'I hate you personally' but rather 'your posting and/or argument is dumb, here's why' it's not a personal fight. Even if I keep saying that their posting or arguments are dumb consistently, because they're dumb.
And this is because it's edifying, fun for me, and because I am opinionated and like to espouse my viewpoints and fight back against really really dumb things. And since Hatrack has been dysfunctional for years and filled with acrimony and flat-out insane people, I get more entertaining exchanges here than elsewhere. Any 'feuds' I am in literally don't exist beyond the posting page, and my 'acrimony' is earned by literally months and months of ridiculous and contemptible behavior by the other party. I'm fine with being dismissive towards people who earn that reputation. It comes back to the reset button issue.
If you're thinking I'm in a feud with, say, Katharina? Let's think about that in particular, then! She has earned that reputation in spades! Anyone who spent months being called howling jackals and 'worthless pieces of trash' beneath her notice might also be considered in a 'feud' with her, too. Good!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I generally don't really have a problem with your posting style, for the reasons you cite. But your comment to kath in this thread was blatantly rude and was not prompted by anything that warranted it. There's a difference between having some fun with a situation that's gotten degenerate, and actively contributing to making the situation worse.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:And this is because it's edifying, fun for me, and because I am opinionated and like to espouse my viewpoints and fight back against really really dumb things.
I see. In that case, we approach Hatrack with very different aims in mind. I certainly understand how your approach can be fun. The adrenaline rush of self-satisfaction and one-upmanship is extremely pleasant (see the Brin quote below). It's one of the reasons I always come back here.
But if that satisfaction were all I got from the board, it wouldn't be a very enriching or worthwhile experience. Seems like empty calories to me, compared with the value of actually learning something and teaching others what you know. That used to happen here a lot, and even when it didn't happen people saw it as the ideal.
Now many of the most active posters no longer have that ideal in mind. Time for me to finally quit, maybe. I've been coming here since college, though, so maybe I'll give it a while longer.
quote:Any 'feuds' I am in literally don't exist beyond the posting page, and my 'acrimony' is earned by literally months and months of ridiculous and contemptible behavior by the other party. I'm fine with being dismissive towards people who earn that reputation. It comes back to the reset button issue.
No, I don't think it does. If you approached the forum the way I do, there'd be nothing that needs resetting. I post about issues. If someone departs from the issue to say something antagonistic, I don't need to switch threads to "reset" or forget about it -- I don't pay any attention in the first place.
I agree with you that there are people on the board who display contemptible traits in their posts. We probably even agree about who these people are. But I see no benefit in telling them what I think of them. My impression of them as people isn't important, even to me. If they can show me a place where I've made a mistake in my reasoning, that's what's valuable.
quote:If you're thinking I'm in a feud with, say, Katharina? Let's think about that in particular, then!
Kat is a funny case. Without going too much into detail about the problems I see in her posts, I'll just say that she hasn't always been like she is now. I'm not sure what happened. I don't think I've had any real interaction with her in a few years, and that strikes me as the best way for someone who disagrees with her to proceed.
quote: We all know self-righteous people. (And, if we are honest, many of us will admit having wallowed in this state ourselves, either occasionally or in frequent rhythm.) It is a familiar and rather normal human condition, supported -- even promulgated -- by messages in mass media.
While there are many drawbacks, self-righteousness can also be heady, seductive, and even... well... addictive. Any truly honest person will admit that the state feels good. The pleasure of knowing, with subjective certainty, that you are right and your opponents are deeply, despicably wrong.
Sanctimony, or a sense of righteous outrage, can feel so intense and delicious that many people actively seek to return to it, again and again. Moreover, as Westin et.al. have found, this trait crosses all boundaries of ideology.
Indeed, one could look at our present-day political landscape and argue that a relentless addiction to indignation may be one of the chief drivers of obstinate dogmatism and an inability to negotiate pragmatic solutions to a myriad modern problems. It may be the ultimate propellant behind the current "culture war."
posted
I realized a few years back that one of the things I got most ridiculously sanctimonious about was forum behavior. Which is pretty silly, when you think about it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Occasionally. But, hey, the decline of one webforum -- and the general decline of the Internet over the last seven years -- is peanuts when compared to the actual things going on in my life, so it's not like it comes up often. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the record, I DO enjoy the sort of thing Samp enjoys doing, and there are other forums where that sort of thing is universally agreed to be acceptable, which is where I do it.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if we could choose how we want to interact with one another. Like if we could pick to interact in the way that Samp prefers, or in the way that Destineer prefers...
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Occasionally. But, hey, the decline of one webforum -- and the general decline of the Internet over the last seven years -- is peanuts when compared to the actual things going on in my life, so it's not like it comes up often.
Ha! Good on you, then. Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I wonder if we could choose how we want to interact with one another. Like if we could pick to interact in the way that Samp prefers, or in the way that Destineer prefers...
I don't think I'm having a problem with that. I actually embody it profoundly well.
quote:Kat is a funny case. Without going too much into detail about the problems I see in her posts, I'll just say that she hasn't always been like she is now. I'm not sure what happened.
Kay! Well, she's like she is now one way or another, so ..
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't believe y'all have spent this much time thinking about me.
I can assure that no... concomitant? conversant? Dang it, what's the word I'm looking for? committerant? dagnabbit, what is it? time has been spent from this side.
------
My opinion of the awful forums has not changed. They sound distinctly unpleasant, even more so than normal Internet blather, and that a lot of things are knee-jerk here now would be totally at home there.
Like name calling out of the blue. That sounds perfect for that kind of forum.
-----
Anyone know that word I was looking for? conversive?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:My opinion of the awful forums has not changed. They sound distinctly unpleasant, even more so than normal Internet blather, and that a lot of things are knee-jerk here now would be totally at home there.
SA can be distinctly more unpleasant than Hatrack. It is also considerably more vibrant. I would say it's similar to the difference between living in New York City and Ft. Wayne, Indiana.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's so odd to me that unpleasantness correlates somehow with vibrancy. Yet, in this forum, it seems to be the other way around. Maybe not for the success of 2 or 3 threads, but for the overall forum, I think there is a tendency to lurk and let the big personalities fight it out, than to post for the sake of polite and thoughtful conversation.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: It's so odd to me that unpleasantness correlates somehow with vibrancy.
Doesn't seem too odd. I don't think it would be coincidence that the Hundred Schools of Thought came about during the Warring States period for example.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Time for me to finally quit, maybe. I've been coming here since college, though, so maybe I'll give it a while longer.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
