Xanthus Wrote:I don't see that as a forgone conclusion. I mean, if we do decide that INTERROGATION isn't acceptable, why does that automatically mean then, that every then has to answer every question?
No-one has suggested anything even remotely similar; in fact it has been suggested that if people do not want to answer a question they are faced with, they can simply choose to ignore it.
Also, and again I may have been misinterpreted, but I don't think it's the case that people will decide that either interrogators or kittens are unacceptable - simply that both exist and it might reduce headaches all round if we figure out a way for them to live together.
BlissfulIsis Wrote:If people are blatantly disrespectful and they, themselves, state they have zero respect for other people or only a select few, in many places on the board....why should they have to be reported?
Because it all comes down to perspective. What I might view as offensive and mean, someone else might not. Therefore, for clarity sake, if you have a problem with another member and honestly think they're breaking a rule, you need to tell the mod/admin team about it so that we're aware of it.
BlissfulIsis Wrote:I have reported one person. But as I stated before that little "!" doesn't work on most sites so I never bothered with it until recently.
The "!" does work here, though I admit it is somewhat confusing from my end of things. If you have an issue you can also bring it up just by PMing the staff member (or members) of your choice.
Quote:If people are blatantly disrespectful and they, themselves, state they have zero respect for other people or only a select few, in many places on the board....why should they have to be reported?
There are two reasons - first of all, not every staff member reads every post. I know I don't; I have a lot of offline committments and issues right now and for the forseeable future, so there simply aren't enough hours in my day. Second of all, something that one person perceives as "blatantly disrespectful" might be perceived as "harsh but acceptable" by someone else.
Yes, if a staff member sees something they think is problematic, we talk about it. But we can only work off what our own opinions are, so it helps a great deal if people bring to our attention anything they want looked at.
Elinox Wrote:BlissfulIsis Wrote:If people are blatantly disrespectful and they, themselves, state they have zero respect for other people or only a select few, in many places on the board....why should they have to be reported?
Because it all comes down to perspective. What I might view as offensive and mean, someone else might not. Therefore, for clarity sake, if you have a problem with another member and honestly think they're breaking a rule, you need to tell the mod/admin team about it so that we're aware of it.
I am not talking about them being disrespectful, I am talking about them actually saying " I don't respect people" then proceeding to prove that in their posts.
BlissfulIsis Wrote:I am not talking about them being disrespectful, I am talking about them actually saying " I don't respect people" then proceeding to prove that in their posts.
Can you please report the specific post/poster (in private, I do not want individual names being discussed in this thread)? I personally do not recall seeing anyone write that.
You go back to reporting problems to the staff, but if the offender didn't technically break any rules, then the staff can't really do anything can they? When I PMed the admin about the problem I was facing I recieved a reply that basically confirmed that I wasn't alone in my reasoning to report the offender. This gave me hope.
And I didn't mean that people were purposly bending the rules, I just meant they are smart enough to know that they are not breaking any rules. And if confronted, all they have to do is point back at the rules and say "I didn't break any, why are you giving me shit?"
I also don't think that it is so cut and dry as to say that no matter what we do, some kitten or some interigator (or instigator might be more fitting) would throw a fit if confronted. I mean, if someone did throw a fit because other members of the community were sick of their BS (fluffy or mean-spirited), then....do we really want those people hanging around? I know that sounds harsh but I mean it honestly. I know that if I found out I was causing someone (or a group of someones) pain or stress, I would greatfully back off, reevaluate my intentions and motives, and offer up heartfelt apologies. But, and I believe it was 'Hoku who said this, no one feels like they have done anything wrong. That's why I said that calling out the offenders might be a good idea. For one, they might not even know that they are a problem. And secondly, we're supposed to be a community. Confronting the problem here may bring us together and we can talk it out and find a resolution instead of covering it with a 'sensitive' band-aid.
Excellent point. If so many people are having a problem with one or two people, but there are no rules broken, how else can the situation be resolved for everyone without the topic being brought public? As I stated before, I would rather be pmed, or even called out rather than have people stew over their issue with me. Now, I know I am not like everyone else, but I would rather gte my feeling hurt a bit than be psuhing away so many others.
Logically speaking, calling out people for being unintentionally difficult, could backfire. It could create scapegoats.
If one or another ends up in the role of the scapegoat, for it's behaviour in one thread, then another person could, in theory, hide behind the role of a saviour, even if the other person has been the difficult one in another thread. Scapegoats don't really help anyone at all. PM-ing people and offering one's personal feeling towards their behaviour could be beneficial, in theory, but calling out X as a problem in public can cause more hurt than help.
Personally, I'd much rather that the person who I'm talking with would inform me, personally, either in IM or in the thread I am talking with them in, that they feel I am being difficult, than to be called an instigator or worse in public. Instigator, interrigator, whatever you want to call it, are all loaded terms and are dependant on intent, and my intent is never to interrogate or instigate. And in the same manner, I'd much rather tell a person that they're crossing a line with me when I am talking with them, either in PM's or in the thread I'm talking with them in, rather than to go around calling them out on being this or that which in all honesty could just be me being sensitive to their choice in words or topics. I know that people that I might not get along well with, get along great with other people and I don't want to put a label on them that which could problems for them, or even divide the people of where I am talking.
I've seen it happen before. There is no place, anywhere, on the internet, where everyone likes everyone else to the same amount. You can never get along with "everyone". Sooner or later, certain people are going to end up just not being friends. I've seen an online community of 30 or so people, who were close knit to the point where we referred to ourselves as a family more than anything else, split right down the middle because one person got on another person's nerves. This person was called out on being rude and difficult to get along with. It sparked a huge debate amongst the moderators of the community, a group of people I was a member of at the time, and two of the mods chose to side with the person who was being pointed at as the source of trouble. The perceptions of the people involved were different and in the end the break-up was so bitter that neither part of the community survived it. This was a long time ago, and since then the person who was the fiercest defender of the person has contacted me and apologized for how he acted, her stooped to vicious insults in defence of his friend.
I have made it a point of my internet behaviour since then that if I have a problem with a person then I do my best to overcome it, and set my personal feelings aside, when talking with people. That if I feel a line is crossed then I either report it to the authorities or confront the person itself or [b]make the choice[/u] not to do anything, knowing that I'll have to set my frustrations aside when talking with the person.
And if multiple people did report a person, stating why they felt the person was being difficult, I do believe in the moderators ability to ask the person to tune down. After all, it's a part of the rules that the mods are in charge here and that you aren't to argue with them if they deem that you're out of line. If they did mouth off at the mods then they'd end up kicked, and with just cause. There's No reason to think that reporting people for bending the rules doesn't have any result.
If people really believe that the moderators aren't doing a good enough job, and that the community should take matters into their own hands, then I feel that the moderators either aren't getting the respect that they deserve or they would have to be incompetent. In either case, I would suspect that a community that has either of those problems isn't going to live very long.
Taiaka Wrote:I believe the only way to solve this is to call out the offenders. If no rules were broken then the admin don't have a leg to stand on. If we, as a community see members continue to misrepresent what we stand for and repeatedly bend the rules...well then, its up to us the people to stop this, no? There needs to be consequences not changes and concessions. I don't believe it would be just to start slapping members with sensitivity labels. That punishes those people that feel they are being attacked and might create a cliquish environment or seperations that we don't want to harbor.
Personally, this sentiment baffles me a little. I understand that friction between people is perceived as negative thing within a community, but it is bound to happen, and is not always a bad thing. For myself, I have learned a great deal from such situations, it can motivate at times too. I know I get excited when someone asks me a question, I want to explain, I want to share my perspectives - and just as much, want to hear that of others, the fullness of them, not just a little blurb.
I do not think vigilantism is a good solution for those that have a habit of rubbing people the wrong way - especially since they're not breaking rules. I think that such actions - especially when, to me at least, it seems to be a minority experiencing problems with the current system (50% in favor of not having question options, seems only a few here saying rules are being broken/bent). It's just not possible to get along with everyone, I don't even think it's intentional. So, to publicly call out individuals that a small group has problems with, seems excessive. Especially since the repercussions it could potentially have. The individuals feel outcast and unwanted, others that thought the person made good points feel forced to keep their lips shut less the same happen to them, potentially the administration staff is seem as just being figurehead enforcement - and all the power goes to those who are most liked or popular. On a side note, I think everyone picks their words carefully, as to not get into trouble. To say that the interrogators do this on purpose, as to "bend" the rules, instead of working with/in them (as everyone is expected to, and does), is a fallacious argument.
If no rules are broken, then what's the problem? Perhaps those that see a problem are just too close to the subject to look at it as objectively as others/moderators. To progress to an extreme, for a community (physical) to rise up against a member in the community, who just doesn't get along with anyone else, but does not break any laws, would be seen (at least to me) as being unethical - especially so since it's usually a minority that suffers for being different from the general community.
Archer Wrote:The flip side of that is, of course, "they don't need to be ammended because of a few rotten apples who take everything far too personally and assume other parties are out to get them".
Quoted because I think it's a valid side to the whole debate that has rarely been mentioned (personally, I'm a touch scared to bring it up beyond the passing touch), and worth consideration.
Selcar Wrote:50% in favor of not having question options, seems only a few here saying rules are being broken/bent
You've made the false assumption the two are linked. I voted no, but I think there's a problem.