This Really Bothers Me...

[MystyGlyttyr]

What's the point of ranting in front of others that probably don't want to hear it? Aren't most forums like public meeting places making a rant like yelling about jock itch in the grocery store?

Not really. Someone shouting in public you have to work not to hear. On a forum, it's very easy not to click something if you don't want to read it. Admittedly, on days when I'm feeling particularly pissy, I sometimes open the Off Topic thread and think "Good GOD, do these people do anything but whine??" Because we all have those days. The other 98% of the time, though, I scan the headlines and only click the rants that I'm curious about with no real thought towards the ones I'm not.

I don't post nearly as much as I used to, partly because I don't feel I have as much to say anymore, but also because I did get tired of having to go back and do so many "justifying" edits to my story to clear up that "race is relevant to this", "I don't actually believe this obvious exaggeration I used for humor", "I'm aware the other person had extenuating circumstances", "I'm aware this could be X condition" (which I know I've done before, but only in the cases where I really, truly thought that was the best explanation for what happened), etc.

Frankly, it's just not as much fun anymore to try and cover all my bases, rather than to just write creatively about that day's situation to try and entertain people. There was no big "report" moment, just a gradual wearing down of having to explain the joke over and over that finally has made me feel like I don't want to post anymore unless there's really some massive happening.

However, it might just be more frustrating for me than most people because I never SAW all the things that other people see, and I've had to learn all these rules and things about what's offensive. Just describing someone as being a black person is bad? Calling an overweight person overweight is bad? Saying someone is old is bad? I always just took those things as environment, setting of the players and stage, and now I know we're not supposed to visualize the players at all and just focus on the story, and honestly, I don't like that. I want to be able to see everything in my head as it happens and I have trouble if I don't have the characters on the set. Everything just looks like an XKCD comic. (And see, right here I immediately had the urge that I had to type "Don't get me wrong, I like XKCD", even though there should be no reason for me to have to say that. But I'm learning someone will get mad because they like XKCD and they think I'm insulting it just by pointing out that it's a stick-figure comic, which I'm NOT! All I'm saying is what it IS!)

Seriously, I'm pretty much making myself cry just writing this because it's so frustrating. You can't just TALK anymore, you have to tread around EVERYTHING. Nothing can be what it is, you can't acknowledge facts and truths about someone because it's wrong and that just doesn't make any sense to me!

[Boozy]

I actually have a theory about why being contrary for the sheer sake of it is so common on internet message boards. Bear with me as I explain.

As the internet becomes more popular, we're getting a wider range of personalities using message boards. However, forums are still populated more heavily by left-brained people than the general population.

If I complain at a cocktail party about how sad I am about a recent break-up, I'm likely to have an audience mixed with empathetic right-brained people and more analytical left-brained people. In fact, right-brained people are more likely to attend cocktail parties and other bustling social events. So I'll probably get a supportive response in that kind of setting. The left-brained folks there are overwhelmed by the gushiness of the right-brainers who are in their element.

Now, I tell the same story on the internet. Except now my audience is different. The intensely left-brained guy who reads that story isn't picking up on the emotional anguish in my tone. He's mostly just getting the details, and that's what he's focussing on. So instead of expressing empathy, he treats my sob story as a puzzle and attempts to solve the problem. His desire to help me is probably as genuine as all those right-brained folks at the cocktail party, but his approach is different. He's more likely to point out the mistakes I made in his effort to prevent me such heartache in the future.

I've noticed such a difference between my real-life acquaintances and my online acquaintances. It goes beyond the obvious differences that come from chatting online and chatting face-to-face. They're different in the way they approach things.

By the way, I'm one of those left-brained people, as evidenced by the fact that I puzzled this all out and bored you all to death. If I were right-brained, I'd have said something like, "I know exactly what you mean and I feel so bad for you" and left it at that.

[linguist]

I just wish we could all go back to telling stories of our lives and ranting about our coworkers and giving heartfelt advice without having to cover every single "what if" base and doubt everything the OP writes about.

to some extent i agree (though, as i stated earlier, i do like to give people the benefit of the doubt), but if someone posts a thread with a title like "was i sucky?" i just don't think that they have any place to complain if someone in the thread thinks that they were, or gives examples of situations that the conclusions they've jumped to may have indeed been sucky.

[Lace Neil Singer]

I'd agree with that; also, a lot of people on the autistic spectrum use the internet cuz it's just so much easier to get your viewpoint accross with words than it is with speech. I like using message boards, having a picture by my name to express myself and a quote or picture as my sig for the same reason. Plus there's smilies to help express the emotions that I find so hard to put accross in real life. But there is a tendency for people on the spectrum to be like Boozy said; also, sometimes, to not realise that they're being rude or that what they're saying isn't exactly helpful in the situation. I second guess myself a lot, and sometimes even go back and edit my post; not cuz I'm trying to change what I say but cuz I read it back and realise I'm coming off wrong.

[Peppergirl]

to some extent i agree (though, as i stated earlier, i do like to give people the benefit of the doubt), but if someone posts a thread with a title like "was i sucky?" i just don't think that they have any place to complain if someone in the thread thinks that they were, or gives examples of situations that the conclusions they've jumped to may have indeed been sucky.

Personally, if I feel I've been sucky and ask if I have, I am fully prepared to bear the brunt of the responses. That's what I'm looking for.

I think what Blas means here though, is the ones that are just ranting about their day, or the sucky customers they've encountered. I think we're entitled to do that without having to go back and explain every little detail for the 'devils advocate' types that are SIMPLY there to wreak havoc, not to offer any contstructive advice.

We all know they're there. And here. And we know who they are. And, for the most part, the mods are pretty good with dealing with them, particularly over there. There are several on this side that I feel have stepped over the boundaries, but the rules are looser over here and my opinion is not the judging factor.

Just speaking for myself, I have gotten pretty good at trying to ignore those particular posters. There have been instances where I've tried to play peacemaker and lighten everyone up during a debate, but I've gotten insulted for my trouble, so I've stopped. Ignoring is a great thing. I'm working on getting better at it.

And thanks, Raps, for two great sites. I really don't know what I would do without them. I'm hopelessly addicted.

[linguist]

I think what Blas means here though, is the ones that are just ranting about their day, or the sucky customers they've encountered. I think we're entitled to do that without having to go back and explain every little detail for the 'devils advocate' types that are SIMPLY there to wreak havoc, not to offer any contstructive advice.

the thread she referred to in the original post was a thread she started on cs titled "was i sucky?" it seems that if she did that, she should be prepared for some people to think that she may have been.

[Rapscallion]

However, it might just be more frustrating for me than most people because I never SAW all the things that other people see, and I've had to learn all these rules and things about what's offensive. Just describing someone as being a black person is bad? Calling an overweight person overweight is bad? Saying someone is old is bad? I always just took those things as environment, setting of the players and stage, and now I know we're not supposed to visualize the players at all and just focus on the story, and honestly, I don't like that. I want to be able to see everything in my head as it happens and I have trouble if I don't have the characters on the set. Everything just looks like an XKCD comic. (And see, right here I immediately had the urge that I had to type "Don't get me wrong, I like XKCD", even though there should be no reason for me to have to say that. But I'm learning someone will get mad because they like XKCD and they think I'm insulting it just by pointing out that it's a stick-figure comic, which I'm NOT! All I'm saying is what it IS!)

I suppose I'd better step in here with a view from the other side.

I've had people complaining about consistent stereotyping from some members on grounds of race or age or whatever. Sometimes it was just thoughtless and the usage was just careless. Sometimes it was deliberate (the charmless neo nazis who tried to invade a year or three back are a good example).

It gets pretty grim when people who are getting constantly belittled for no suckiness on their part are chased off the forum. Some people just stopped posting, and others let me know and then left anyway.

Weight issues, for example. If someone posted a tale about how a morbidly obese five hundred pound man insisted on a disability scooter and burned it out after twenty yards, and then burned out every other scooter and complained that their two hundred and fifty pound weight limit was ridiculous, then that would be quite acceptable on cs.com.

However, when you get people who are badly overweight - the majority I have to admit because they eat too much - reading that, it's not a problem as most overweight people know not to order furniture for themselves that's made out of balsa wood. Other posts are the ones we need to worry about.

"This female land whale came in with her crotch fruit..." The rest of the tale had nothing to do with her weight.

"So I took the monstrous ham beast to the counter..." Again, there were tales like that that ignored the weight once the insult was in.

These weren't just descriptions, they were insults. The posters weren't meaning to attack any overweight people of the membership, especially since they can't even see them, but those words hurt. The person reading it may think that they wouldn't mind meeting that person, but they also know that they're going to be thought of less because of that poster's attitude. I've had people tell me that they didn't like people that some posters didn't like being all described as old, or whatever a poster's pet peeve was.

Where do we draw the line? The problem comes from the permutations possible. A forum of a dozen people will have a reasonable number of permutations of acceptability - anything off limits will be easy to spot. We've currently got over thriteen hundred accounts that logged in during the last thirty days on cs.com - imagine how many peoples' feelings that involves. I don't want to see people belittled in any particular manner (except for that tosser Fred Phelps and his misbegotten clan, but I made special exceptions for them in the site rules over there).

By the same token, I don't want a forum full of whiny crybabies who do their level best to get their own way by hitting the report button regularly and screaming, "Offensive!"

It's something I've been thinking heavily about for some time. I'm trying to watch the cultural currents of the forums and make best guesses. Sometimes we rein in, sometimes we let the reins go looser. Generally speaking, though, I do what I can to influence things, helped by the advice of people I trust to be consistent (the rest of the team).

I've actually come to the conclusion that forums have a natural size for working well, and I think we're over that size on CS.com. I may be wrong, and I'm doing what I can to promote a culture of tolerance in both directions.

We also try to keep tabs on people who are skirting the rules. We tend to notice if someone's SCs are always dark skinned or overweight or whatever. Fact is, Mysty, you've never given us any cause to believe that you're biased in any way. We've known you for ages and you're one of us, as far as I'm concerned. If you said that the person screaming at you was black, then that was just the colour of their skin. Can you say the same about someone who just signed up? Since the start of the year, we've had one day on which we didn't get any registrations. The rest of the days have averaged about five, and occasionally they got into double figures. Most don't post - I suspect that an average of one a day comes from a spambot, but I have no figures to back that up.

The big question for the administration and moderation side is just what do we do about it? Do we moderate every post and rewrite them so that they form acceptable tales? Far too much work, and then the tales aren't the property of the authors (not that there'll be any). Let chaos reign? After a vicious series of flame wars, the remaining clique will settle in to roast any newbie that enters before getting bored and going off to do the same elsewhere.

A society with rules that are too tight isn't going to develop and evolve. A society without boundaries isn't a society.

We're trying to find a happy medium. I suspect we'll be looking for a long, long time, but we're still looking. At the moment, we're having to set the rules based on what suits a significant percentage of the board whilst trying not to alienate anyone but the most extreme. We try to allow reasonable expression, but with a team of a dozen or so people we cannot see everything or step into everything that could cause offence.

That's why we have to rely on people using the report button. If we don't know that something is wrong or causing genuine offence (not just to try and gets moderators to fight their battles, and that happens from time to time), then we can't do anything.

Does that make sense?

Rapscallion

[Rapscallion]

Looks like I killed this thread!

Rapscallion

[blas87]

You most certainly did not, Raps.

I do apologize for my absense after posting last, as it's now actually summer type weather in Wisconsin and while it lasts, I probably won't be posting day in and day out anymore

I don't mean to offend the moderating and admin team at CS/here. I'll always stand up for you guys because you definetly all go above and beyond to keep these sites clean.

My problem more or less lies within some of the people who just seem to always want to turn threads into pissing contests, or having to tear apart every aspect of a story thread and analyze it until it's in more pieces than a multi hundred piece puzzle.

I'm not one to be easily offended, just more or less tittered that some of my threads have been jacked or the thunder stolen by someone who just had to come in and stir the pot, or start bringing up "But what if?" and I know some other members have that same issue, or sometimes feel afraid to post because someone will get on their soapbox.

[Slytovhand]

I was mostly kidding about the contrary part.
Though I do dislike an all pro-wank-fest discussion. Everyone going, "Ditto!" irritates me on a cellular level.

Ditto that!





(Devil's Advocacy... I use it cos often I haven't decided one way or another. I like to be right, so I'll take a look at different sides and see which seems to make more sense, so it's a way to look at them - the fore's and againsts).

Actually I play devils advocate frequently not believing a word of what I say, I just like a good arguement. I used to love debating.

No you don't...


Smiley, you need to move out of Utah...

DesignFox... well, emotions are irrational.. they are by definition. Emotions are.. well, emotional. Intellect is rational... so, anyone saying crap about what you feel is irrational is a tosser... as for invalidating how you feel - then, they're even bigger tossers!

Mysty.. what's 'XKCD'?

Boozy - I like your theory.. sorry, not bored by it.. but then, I'm a lefty

Peppergirl... keep trying to lighten them up.. I suspect that there are a lot more smiles and laughs from such things behind the keyboards, than insults (I know I don't always post a lol when I get amused...). And also, there's also been times when I've felt a thread has gone places I don't think it really should.. but hey...


Raps

Actually I play devils advocate frequently not believing a word of what I say, I just like a good arguement. I used to love debating.

I've been doing tarot and am fairly clairvoyant. And I try to be at least in a good mood - will that be enough for you?? (you thread-killer, you!!)

One thing I have noticed (bringing it back to the OP), is sometimes a post will go out of the type Blas was talking about, and somehow (perhaps because of the reason for this thread), they'll appear think less of themselves. Blas,(and using yours merely as an example, esp since you started this thread) you did one about your grouchy neighbour downstairs, and you vented, but didn't want to do anything, almost like in fear or trepidation of having a say to her.. why? Go for her! And vent! (but go for her as well...). Sort of like a "What I'd like to do..."... well - do it then!!

Perhaps there should be some sort of 'just venting' tag or something? I did think of a venting forum.. but I think there's one out there called "Customers Suck" or some such similar... so it's already been done...



Yes - I'm coming in late to this thread......that's why it's a long post!

[Peppergirl]

I guess I don't understand the concept of playing 'devils advocate' or just being around to shit-stir.

Can someone who likes to do this please explain it to me?

Nyoibo, since you've said you like to do it, tell me why. Although I must say, I've never found you to be particularly like that.

Maybe if I understood the reasoning behind it, I wouldn't get so freaking annoyed by it.

[blas87]

I don't understand it, either.

Quite frankly, I don't like having the minority opinion and being ganged up on by people. I'm not as brave as members like Rubystars who can keep going and keep getting flack but not let it get to them.

Maybe that's why people always play devil's advocate with me, because they know it bugs me!

[Boozy]

I guess I don't understand the concept of playing 'devils advocate' or just being around to shit-stir.

Can someone who likes to do this please explain it to me?

I like to do it, although I don't tend to do it very often.

The devil's advocate position is supposed to make people think outside the box. It's supposed to challenge their beliefs and opinions on subjects that aren't necessarily as black-and-white as people believe. Ideally, it forces people to think about why they have the opinion they do. Often, being challenged by a devil's advocate re-affirms one's original opinion. But being forced to reason out an argument and articulate your thoughts is never a bad thing when it comes to debate.

But again, this is really about blas' situation. She's asking her friends to trust her and offer support about a personal matter. Friends should know when to do that.

[Nyoibo]

No you don't...

Yes I d... Oi no fair

[BroomJockey]

The point of playing "Devil's Advocate" is so that someone doesn't get complacent in their reasons for thinking a specific way. As soon as your answer becomes "because that's what I think" to a question, you've stopped thinking. It's fine to have beliefs, but they should be reasoned beliefs.

There doesn't need to be evidence, such that it's okay to have a belief in God simply because you feel the Universe is too complex and wonderful to have been randomly spawned from nothing, but it's not okay to think that thieves should have their hands cut off, because cutting them off is a good idea.
Why is it a good idea? If you cut their hand off, they are less able to do honest work.
"Yes, but it's a fair punishment for thieving."
Why? If they can't do honest work, they'll either steal again, die, or become a burden on society by begging.
"Yes, but that's their fault for stealing."
So a father who stole bread to feed his starving family deserves death?
"Well, no."
And that's when the argument breaks down on their end. They have a belief, but they've lost the reasoning behind it. If you don't have a reason for believing something, why continue to believe it? Especially if you're trying to convince others.

Remember, the three pillars of an argument are "pathos" (appeal to emotion), "ethos," (appeal to ethics), and "logos," appeal to logic. Emotion is for whipping people in to quick, unreasoned responses about something. It's not good for getting long-lasting converts. Mobs can be turned by a quick word. Ethics is good for convincing people something is right for a group beyond the individual. Works reasonably well at maintaining people. But if you want long-lasting impact, it's important to have a solid logical framework. But in order to maintain that framework, it must be constantly evaluated. You can't believe something just because you've always believed it. To pull that argument I previously postulated in to a more abstract fashion, replace "cutting off of hand" with "severe punishment that changes abilities in society." Anything from limiting what jobs someone is allowed to have to suspending driver's licences permanently to burning down the houses of arsonists. If you ever believe something "just because it's the right thing" but can't actually argue it, and have that argument stand to counter arguments, you're using pathos.

Devil's Advocates prevent you from falling back to purely emotional arguments, because they want some reasoning. Also note that ethics and morality are different. Morals are about what is right and wrong. Ethics is about what's best for a group, often. I'm unsure if you've ever heard "Morally, you're right, but ethically, that stinks" or some variant. A case would be a doctor forcing life-saving treatment on a patient when the treatment is against the patient's beliefs. Morally, it's right to save that life, ethically, going against the patient's wishes is incorrect.

I hope I've cleared this up some.