Thread Integrity

[Wolfblade]

I'd like to formally suggest a possibility someone mentioned to me today. ^_^

Could there maybe be a rule stating that when a person starts a general chat thread, their intent is protected? In other words, it would be nice if people could be allowed to try and just talk with other members of the forum community. If someone doesn't WANT a fight/debate/critique they shouldn't have one shoved down their throat. As things are now, there's kinda this ever-present threat of people posting to their thread and overshadowing any attempt at actual conversation on the intended topic with just ridiculing the person who dared to try and open up. That, or people feel that any public remark is an invitation to critique and/or debate. I mean, heaven forbid anyone have the nerve to try and just amiably interact with the community here, right? :3

For example:

http://www.furaffinityforums.net/showthread.php?tid=2956

A person tried to make an announcement about something that made her happy, to share a little bit of her own personal joy with a community she clearly identifies with. In response, she gets several mentions of congratulations and good wishes, but then the thread turns to subtle jabs at her character, and then into an all-out attack against her qualifications to be a mother. Even a "joke" about abortion was tossed into it. I would think it safe to assume that the announcement was not made to invite debate or critique over her method of obtaining pregnancy.

She expresses that she feels like leaving after the treatment she recieved:
http://www.furaffinityforums.net/showthread.php?tid=3035&pid=37458#pid37458

Another user mentions being tempted to leave in that thread because of the responses he got from a few people.

I would think keeping the forum hospitable to users who just want to interact amiably would be a priority over keeping the forums hospitable to behavior that inspires other users to leave.

Then there's:

http://www.furaffinityforums.net/showthread.php?tid=2954

A user makes a simple informal request, makes a remark that is misconstrued and taken as an offense, and gets some rather harsh replies to it. Even after repeatedly correcting the misunderstanding of his previous statement, AND trying (very admirably I think) to pacify the argument, AND stating that his request was already met (nullifying most of the comments against him to begin with), users kept criticising him. Again, the thread had to be locked to stop the harassment of the user from continuing.

The point is, if people see that posting ANYTHING here to try and interact with the community means they just have to deal with stuff like this if and when people decide they need to tell everyone who speaks just what they think of them: what is the point in bothering for anyone who doesn't find it funny and doesn't like drama?

So again, I would like to suggest that if a user posts a thread, they shouldn't be forced to endure whatever hostility some people might want to throw at them. Let people be able to interact here without it being turned into a fight or debate or critique just because someone else feels the need to do so.

 

[uncia2000]

IMO, Wolfblade, this doesn't actually need a "rule" so much as a note in the etiquette guidelines... or FAQ, for lack of those.

All that's required, where the topic is a simple request or announcement rather than genuinely "general chat" (regardless of the forum title) is for the poster to request that people stick to the topic.
If they have complicated the topic and become involved in side-topics, it's more difficult to step in unless things turn ugly. (e.g. a discussion that the original poster has apparently willingly opened up to side-topics is less likely to be (forcefully) shepherded back if the primary reason appears to be that they don't want to "lose the debate"... in such cases, we are as likely to have to request the original poster to stay on-topic!).

A user makes a simple informal request, makes a remark that is misconstrued and taken as an offense, and gets some rather harsh replies to it. Even after repeatedly correcting the misunderstanding of his previous statement, AND trying (very admirably I think) to pacify the argument, AND stating that his request was already met (nullifying most of the comments against him to begin with), users kept criticising him. Again, the thread had to be locked to stop the harassment of the user from continuing.

Permanent thread locks should not be required and just hitting runaway threads with those is a lazy "solution".
As with that one referred above, on what was originally a simple request, the option to re-open and re-focus the thread should lie with the original poster.

JM-02c, of course. (Thanks).

 

[blackdragoon]

i posted this thread out of boredom and it has done rather well serving the exact purpose you are refering to. this thread has no real topic it's just a general chat thread thats for just chatting with each other in general. not much else to it really. just keep things civil is all i ask.

http://www.furaffinityforums.net/showthread.php?tid=2951

 

[nobuyuki]

for the record: ettiquite is good, but the door swings both ways. It's not okay to encourage being a big crybaby over little things and derailing threads by bringing personal agendas onto them. Whatever little drama there might be is guaranteed to be big drama when people step into threads and turn it offtopic by trying to engage in a debate with someone who presents a dissenting opinion.

 

[InvaderPichu]

Even a "joke" about abortion was tossed into it.

:roll:

 

[Arshes Nei]

for the record: ettiquite is good, but the door swings both ways. It's not okay to encourage being a big crybaby over little things and derailing threads by bringing personal agendas onto them. Whatever little drama there might be is guaranteed to be big drama when people step into threads and turn it offtopic by trying to engage in a debate with someone who presents a dissenting opinion.

Moderator Complex?

I understand people will have dissenting opinions, but really if you feel it is that bad, then just do the moderators a favor and just report the if you TRULY feel the topic is derailed. I know Damaratus and others have requested it in the past.

Also if someone is making a request for you to stop deconstructing their posts into some bizzare text critique, I think it is also good ettiquette to respect that they don't want their posts turned into something misconstrued, please refrain from doing so. There is no point in doing a forum equivalent of a filibuster...

That's not gonna make the forums run perfect, but people who think other people are antagonizing, should realize and look at themselves before casting stones "in the name of justice".

 

[blackdragoon]

but people who think other people are antagonizing, should realize and look at themselves before casting stones "in the name of justice".

"let he who is without sin cast the first stone." is that what you mean arshes?

 

[Arshes Nei]

but people who think other people are antagonizing, should realize and look at themselves before casting stones "in the name of justice".

"let he who is without sin cast the first stone." is that what you mean arshes?

In this case no, because, if a recovering alcoholic is upset with another alcoholic for engaging in certain behavior for example, I have no problem with people sharing a dissenting opinion. I find that sometimes sharing various reasons even if heated actually presents viewpoints that I may not have thought of even if I may disagree with them.

I think when people think they "speak for the people" and get some complex they're doing people a favor, by thinking they can knock down windmills, it can very well backfire. Engage in a different viewpoint fine, think you're being a champion...sorry Quixote your princess is in another castle

The solution to report posts was given before. If they really feel they need to perform a duty, then use that instead thinking you can put out a grease fire with water.

 

[blackdragoon]

then you shouldn't have said: casting stones "in the name of justice". as it was confusing.

 

[Arshes Nei]

Just a quick rundown of notes on the threads being pointed out.

1. The pregnancy thread. Can I ask why is this only being half read. This wasn't just a post about "I'm pregnant congratulate me" There were circumstances she purprosely left in her post about the father running out on her AND asking for any males to take up the slack. That I believe opened "pandora's box"

2. The business logo, it's one thing to make a request, then accuse people of being capitalists, that's when people took offense. It the poster may have been naive or innocent enough about making said request, the problem was, if he's running a business, saying other people are capitalist isn't exactly a good foot to stand on. The poster never made a full apology about it, he still made accusations that others were money oriented and corrupted...even Dave seen where the reponses were valid, even though he deemed the person was innocent enough in their request.

 

[Wolfie]

I just think it's kinda crummy that there's this group of people always there to defend people for being jerks, but when one guy tries to defend people who are getting picked on, he gets treated like the bad guy.

I mean come on, a person happily announces that she's pregnant, and not only do people rip her apart, but then they try and say she asked for it. What? I mean seriously, we're supposed to believe you think she WANTED people attacking her, blaming her for the dad running off, and saying to abort her baby? I'm sorry, but that's not funny. Not in the slightest.

As for the other guy, I read that thread, and he was really REALLY polite and courteous responding to the people who were jumping on him. He already had his request answered, so all the "you'll never get anywhere that way" remarks seem kinda stupid to me. He already did get somewhere. Then he tried to get people to just chill, and they insisted on keeping on his case over something THEY misread, and he had already clarified more than once.

Usually I just try to ignore this stuff. I spoke up against people who were attacking me once and I got crap for it. It's all just fun and games for one person to attack another, but if anybody attacks BACK, whether defending themself or defending someone else from crap they shouldn't HAVE to defend themself from, the person who's just retaliating is painted as the bad guy by the people who STARTED the shit to begin with.

I've seen a lot of really lame behavior here. But I mean jeeze people, picking on a pregnant lady then blaming HER for it? She spoke up, so it's her own fault if people made fun of her. I think that is really stupid.

 

[InvaderPichu]

I just think it's kinda crummy that there's this group of people always there to defend people for being jerks, but when one guy tries to defend people who are getting picked on, he gets treated like the bad guy.

These "jerks" you speak of aren't really jerks.

I mean come on, a person happily announces that she's pregnant, and not only do people rip her apart, but then they try and say she asked for it. What? I mean seriously, we're supposed to believe you think she WANTED people attacking her, blaming her for the dad running off, and saying to abort her baby? I'm sorry, but that's not funny. Not in the slightest.

If you had read Arshes post you might have found out WHY people did that.

 

[Damaratus]

And now you see the true horror of differing opinions.

Both of the threads in question started with a particular intent, but that intent was somewhat lost as it progressed further on. I've only just read through the both of them because I honestly wasn't tracking them.

The difficulty in passing administrative jurisprudence over these threads is that, regardless of personal opinion, an administrator has to consider the intent of the post. As well as the fact that the natural response to critical comments is quite often to think less and be ultra defensive.

It is obvious in the first thread regarding the pregnancy that things really started shifting away from poster's original intent. She was announcing something that she considered to be a good thing, and unfortunately, thanks to some poor considerations on both sides, things got rather ugly. There is not much an administrator could really do in this situation except lock the thread.

The actual discussions on the matter made sense and for the most part were not meant to be harassing, but rather stating a level of concern and particular opinion based on the progression of the topic. But because of the original nature of the thread these comments come off as extremely caustic, further evidenced by the fact that the lady who started the thread wanted to leave.

The "logo" thread was also of a similar nature in how things progressed. I do not believe that the person posted that thread in the expectation to get a rather large introduction to the world of starting a corporation, though he may have been given a lot to think about in terms of what else may need to be done if he ever wants an actual business logo. His original starting post was just asking for an image for his place, he didn't say that he intended to use it for a logo, for all I can tell it might have just been something that he could have posted on the wall somewhere for people to see. Then again, no one asked him what his intent was for the picture and went on their own assumptions. Then things simply fell into a defensive battle of opinions.

Additionally, there was a certain level of language barrier difficulties that arose, and that should have been taken into consideration by those people who were more adept with the English language.

So what does this mean? Regardless of how I have viewed these particular situations there is one thing that was grossly neglected in both of these topics. That is thought and consideration prior to posting on a thread. I mean that for everyone. Think before you post and it actually will help keep threads from becoming convoluted and abrasive. There were a lot of assumptions made based on the information presented, and neither the person posting, nor the people responding ever decided to ask the pertinent questions or give fully pertinent answers that would have clarified the situation.

If the woman who started the thread had not decided to continue to post little additional and at times confounding pieces of her story beyond her original starting post it would not have propegated further questioning from the other users. Likewise, if any of the users of that thread had been considerate enough to PM the woman and suggest that she may want to either give the whole of her story, or at least explain that the thread is beginning to move toward something that she would prefer not to discuss, and she simply meant for the thread to be her expression of happiness at having a baby the same line of questioning could have been avoided. (If the person who started the thread continued to have to deal with such things after asking the people to stop I would begin to issue warnings of harassment.)

In the "logo" thread, the same can be applied. Ask the right questions rather than make assumptions and you have an entirely different situation. Instead of just going into the intracacies of coporate logos, first ask if the intent is to use the image as an actual business logo or just something for people to look at in the cafe. Or, if you are the one who started the thread, and you're having trouble explaining things, try and find someone who can better voice what you are looking for or very calmly write out your full intent for the image that you are requesting. Realize that PMs can also be used for clarification well before you decide to make a response public.

All parties involved in threads like this should in some manner take the consideration of the others involved into account. You may have an opinion you wish to express, but think good and hard before you start asserting something that may not be in the best nature on a particular thread (even if it is on topic). You always have the option of creating a different thread to discuss such matters, sending a PM to a user, or doing both and asking them to participate in the new topic because you would like their opinion on the matter. That way you can at least have levels of respect on both sides and you don't have to simply keep things entirely in PMs.

I'm not trying to deny any person their right to their opinion, I'm simply trying to offer up suggestions as to how to avoid these kinds of situations in the future. Respect on both sides normally yields a better forum discussion, even when differing opinions arise.

 

[Arshes Nei]

Damaratus, thank you once again for you level headedness on the situation, that's why I also believe there are two sides to every story as well.

Just as you stated there were different ways to handle the threads in question as well. I won't disagree with those solutions either, just as I previously stated there is the report button if you think people are truly out of line.

 

[nobuyuki]

I'm not going to argue with your main point Damaratus, but I wanted to illustrate something you said which highlights my own point which I made earlier. You said this about the business logo thread at the end:

things simply fell into a defensive battle of opinions.

The first few abrasive opinions were not a call to battle by any means. Every time a potentially abrasive or caustic opinion appears in this place, the same forum haunts (should we call them wannabe public defenders, since they like to label people with dissenting opinions "trolls"?) end up coming onto that thread and THEY are the ones who start the defensive battle of opinions. Having an opinion on the matter which is presented abrasively or caustically is no excuse for someone who is not the moderator to come on every single thread and derail it by telling people how they should and shouldn't present (or even have) their opinion. It's stupid bullshit and I'm surprised no one's ever been punished for this specific sort of meta-dickery. It is what destroys threads, not people who disagree.

Perhaps it's gone unpunished because it hasn't been pointed out before in a concise way like how I'm attempting to do right now. Or, maybe there's a less professional sentiment under the surface. I could speculate quite a bit on this matter, but I think saying too much could get me in trouble, so I'll let everyone come to their own conclusions.

 

[Damaratus]

The first few abrasive opinions were not a call to battle by any means. Every time a potentially abrasive or caustic opinion appears in this place, the same forum haunts (should we call them wannabe public defenders, since they like to label people with dissenting opinions "trolls"?) end up coming onto that thread and THEY are the ones who start the defensive battle of opinions. Having an opinion on the matter which is presented abrasively or caustically is no excuse for someone who is not the moderator to come on every single thread and derail it by telling people how they should and shouldn't present (or even have) their opinion. It's stupid bullshit and I'm surprised no one's ever been punished for this specific sort of meta-dickery. It is what destroys threads, not people who disagree.

Perhaps it's gone unpunished because it hasn't been pointed out before in a concise way like how I'm attempting to do right now. Or, maybe there's a less professional sentiment under the surface. I could speculate quite a bit on this matter, but I think saying too much could get me in trouble, so I'll let everyone come to their own conclusions.

It's funny, because the other side is convinced that you and those associated with you are the ones who are responsible for the breakdown in threads.

There is a rift in a selection of the users on this site. Both sides tend to misinterpret each other, as well as respond to each other acerbically. There isn't an excuse to give an opinion in a caustic manner in the first place, nor is there sufficient reason to respond back again in such a manner that is effectively acting as a moderator. Though I am sure that you as well as the rest of the members of the forum have enough sense to realize that though the person may talk the talk, they are not, in fact, a moderator or administrator.

But I'm not going to start divvying out punishment; which has; once again; not surprisingly; been suggested by both sides as an ends to these problems. Otherwise, I would have to punish both sides, because essentially they both end up at fault. The first for the initial unnecessary caustic response, and the second for their assertive nature in return. If I chose to focus on only one, then I would be effectively shutting up a selection of opinions on the forums, and not really taking care of the reason that the whole thing began in the first place. No sense in enabling one behavior and disabling the other.

The solution still rests in that both sides need to pay more attention to how things are being presented in the threads. Think before you present an opinion, do not make a jab at the opposing side that you know will egg them on (I pray that was not your intention with your post), and if you receive a caustic reply even though you are maintaining an amicable nature, then report it and the rules of the forum should take affect and handle the situation accordingly.

This is not a quick fix situation. Both sides are currently too riled up at each other to actually work things out properly. Both are convinced that the other is the plague that is causing the degradation of the forums. The truth, as I see it, is that it's the interaction of the two that is causing the problems. Acids and bases are explosive when mixed. So are strong opinions and the reactions to them. If the forum threads are going to get to a point where discussion occurs and does not degrade into arguments then it's going to involve both parties that are currently at odds, and some kind of agreement between them to stop all of this petty bickering.

I am only one administrator, I can only present my own opinion of the matter and try and enforce things as I see fit. I try to listen to both sides and make an informed decision, no matter how strong or imbalanced the opinions of the opposing sides are.

 

[Arshes Nei]

It's funny, because the other side is convinced that you and those associated with you are the ones who are responsible for the breakdown in threads.

There is a rift in a selection of the users on this site. Both sides tend to misinterpret each other, as well as respond to each other acerbically. There isn't an excuse to give an opinion in a caustic manner in the first place, nor is there sufficient reason to respond back again in such a manner that is effectively acting as a moderator. Though I am sure that you as well as the rest of the members of the forum have enough sense to realize that though the person may talk the talk, they are not, in fact, a moderator or administrator.

You are correct, and I'm not going to disagree with your statements. I actually *do not* mind so much as one disagreeing with my viewpoints, I do have a problem when one thinks they have an authorative position as a moderator, if they feel moderation is required, and repeated again please REPORT the post. Even if you disagree with the decision a moderator may make in the end, at the very least it isn't exactly helpful if you think you're acting on their behalf, and yes we know they're not moderators ...but I do find it a disrespect even if untintentional if they think it's ok to do your jobs for you.

 

[Maitryx]

Idea from Bokracroc!
XD!!  In the famous words of the girl from Black Eyed Peas (I think?):

"No, no drama.  You don't want no drama."

Just trying to lighten the mood. o.o

 

[Damaratus]

You are correct, and I'm not going to disagree with your statements. I actually *do not* mind so much as one disagreeing with my viewpoints, I do have a problem when one thinks they have an authorative position as a moderator, if they feel moderation is required, and repeated again please REPORT the post. Even if you disagree with the decision a moderator may make in the end, at the very least it isn't exactly helpful if you think you're acting on their behalf, and yes we know they're not moderators ...but I do find it a disrespect even if untintentional if they think it's ok to do your jobs for you.

Exactly, it is far better to deal with the report and hopefully slowly reduce not only the occurrences of people acting in that manner, but also of the posts that lead to such responses in the first place.

*wishes there was a button for forum aspirin*

 

[Arshes Nei]

Exactly, it is far better to deal with the report and hopefully slowly reduce not only the occurrences of people acting in that manner, but also of the posts that lead to such responses in the first place.

*wishes there was a button for forum aspirin*

I do not envy your position, and even though we've had opposing viewpoints, I will say I always appreciated your level headedness in the matter.

 

[Wolfie]

:

Okay, so there's two sides to the problem.

One side's contribution is only ever as a reaction to the other side.

Cause and effect people. If you don't like an effect, remove the cause.

Arshes: When you step into a thread, you do not give your opinion, you IMPOSE your opinion. Look at your posts to the logo guy. You're not saying "this is how I think it is" you're saying "This is how it is, period." Even though he got what he was asking for, and that shows that things CAN and DID work outside of how YOU think they do.

You keep accusing Wolfblade of acting like a moderator, but really, you do the same thing. You step in and you say your opinion as if you are the authority on whatever it is you're talking about. When someone disagrees with you or tries to tell you that you're wrong, or you're being needlessly caustic in how you present your opinion, you act as if they're attacking you. If people weren't so quick to just pick on people for the stupidest thing, there wouldn't be any need for someone to come to their defense.

I just find it really ignorant to use "dissenting opinion" to describe people being jerks. You guys can have a dissenting opinion, and you demand to be allowed to be rude and abrasive when presenting it, but any opinion dissenting to you or your behavior is somehow in the wrong.

Is it REALLY that hard to just TRY and present your "dissenting opinion" without being MEAN to people? AND, do you really HAVE to actually voice your dissenting opinion EVERY time you have one? Just because someone might think something you disagree with, or have an interest you think is stupid, that doesn't mean they want to hear what you think. There's places for debate and discussion. There should be a place safe for just friendly chat.

Both sides are being hypocritical but only one side is admitting to it.

 

[Arshes Nei]

:

Okay, so there's two sides to the problem.

One side's contribution is only ever as a reaction to the other side.

Cause and effect people. If you don't like an effect, remove the cause.

Arshes: When you step into a thread, you do not give your opinion, you IMPOSE your opinion. Look at your posts to the logo guy. You're not saying "this is how I think it is" you're saying "This is how it is, period." Even though he got what he was asking for, and that shows that things CAN and DID work outside of how YOU think they do.


Both sides are being hypocritical but only one side is admitting to it.

I'm very straight forward and blunt, I'm well aware people can interpret that as imposing however, far be it from me when I talk about the SUBJECT itself to tell people they have no right to post in a thread, although I have said that people could very well do research before stating an opinion as well. We are on a forum, not all moods can carry, as yak said previously not everyone is TRYING to say it the most offensive way possible, try looking at it the LEAST offensive way too.

As for the logo thread, you're also misinterpreting as well. I *read* his post, I am *well aware* he got someone to work on the graphic for him, my posts were more about *why* what he was saying can garner a negative reaction. It is something to think about as well. However, each of his posts were doing pokes at those who mentioned compensation in the "Guise" of politeness, although as Damaratus stated, English is his second language so maybe his posts were coming off the wrong way. I just don't think it's fair to accuse others being capitalists when one is starting a business, no matter how many "pleases" or "thank yous" you throw in there.

 

[Hanazawa]

It's possible to state your opinion, where it differs, without drawing attention specifically to the person who you're disagreeing with. Compare "I like red", "Blue is totally the best color ever", and "I also agree that red is a good color", as opposed to "I like red", "Blue is totally the best color ever", and "OMG the first person says they like red you're being mean by saying that blue is the best!!!".

If someone comes in and harrasses you after "I also agree that red is a good color", then you have some basis for moderative action, but if you run in screaming "OMG the first person says they like red you're being mean by saying that blue is the best!!!" you're asking for any arguments you hear back.

 

[I_Own_Charles]

OH SNAP

 

[Wolfie]

However, each of his posts were doing pokes at those who mentioned compensation in the "Guise" of politeness,...

...We are on a forum, not all moods can carry, as yak said previously not everyone is TRYING to say it the most offensive way possible, try looking at it the LEAST offensive way too.

:3

I just don't think it's fair to accuse others being capitalists when one is starting a business,

Capitalist:
1. a person who has capital, esp. extensive capital, invested in business enterprises.
2. an advocate of capitalism.
3. a very wealthy person.

What a horrible thing to accuse someone of :O

so, I will repeat again that: I STRONGLY AGREEE with the idea of charging WHETEVER AMOUNT OF MONEY and artist decide to charge for his/her job. And yes, I agree too, with the fact that my business has the goal to make money and to integrate itself to the circle of capitalist economy, but I do sustain that “there are times for everything” and that “we all are free to decide how and when we do our job, and over all, how do we value it”.

He doesn't seem to at any point be using capitalist as a derogatory term, unless you WANT to read insult into a harmless word.

As much as we're told we can't take sarcasm as insulting when sarcasm is by definition meant to insult people, don't you think maybe you were bit too quick to take offense from a word that has none in its definition?