Selective memory

[Rageaholic]

If I may make a point on failing to see the suck, asking why something is sucky for purposes of clarification is not the reason for that particular rule. Failing to see the suck is meant to address instances when an original poster is venting about something that happened, and others chime in to reply that the original poster is whining about nothing because they see the issue differently. Again, ASKING the original poster to clarify a point of confusion is not failing to see the suck, but STATING AN OPINION that said situation did not suck because it would not have bothered you is failing to see the suck.

That's something I respect about CS. I've been on other venting sites where members are unsympathetic assholes to one another. I don't mean just saying "Get over it" which is bad enough, I mean downright nastiness and hatred of people for being human. I respect that none of that horse shit would be tolerated at CS as it shouldn't be tolerated anywhere. I'm sure some of it exists on CS too, but it's usually the few bad apples who get banned anyway.

[Rapscallion]

The FTSTS rule is one we've debated recently, behind the scenes. It was brought in for reasons mentioned above, but the main one is that a large group of people tend to follow fashionable trends and the like. One person is seen doing something, and a whole load of others start doing the same, and they can be pretty vicious about it at times.

Someone posts a dirty bathroom story, and pretty quickly there's a load of similar tales from others where they tell their own story, and some are more than happy to try and up the ante. That happens. When people start trying to up it on the 'that didn't suck' side of things then you get people attacked. We use our discretion on reported cases.

Then we take flak from, sometimes, both sides.

Rapscallion

[Teysa]

I'll admit that I'll sometimes see posts where I'll think well, that doesn't sound so bad. I'll then remind myself that I wasn't there. I also know that many of the members are relatively new to customer service. Thus, their perceptions and expectations are probably different. I, on the other hand, have been working in customer service for too darn long so many of the things I considered sucky in the beginning are just mildly annoying these days.

I do think there are ways to clarify without being rude about it. A simple 'Maybe I missed it, but what was the customer's tone of voice?' should be fine. Saying that you don't see anyway the customer could have been sucky and in fact the poster was the sucky one is rude. (That being said, there should be ways to gently point out when it is indeed the case where the original poster was at fault. Not in a way to put them down but to make them think about they could handle such issues in the future.)

[blas87]

Like Raps said, FTSTS is a herd mentality thing, and it makes a lot of people question posting or even not want to post because they fear the sheep will come along with their "I don't see the suck!" or even the "But I do this!" or "But my boyfriend's mother's gynocologist's dog's neighbor did this one time and it was because of xyz!"

It gets old and sickening. If you start to feel like you have no right to post or that you'll just be nitpicked or FTSTS'd to death, or have your post picked apart by stupid anecdotes excusing why another member or their family member did this or that once, it gets so old.

I for one am so glad that that rule was put in place. Whether or not you think it's sucky or whatever your opinion, just remember that to some people, they can't wait to get home and post a story, and it's disheartening to log back on and read nothing but filth and nitpicking.

[guywithashovel]

I wish that rule had been in place when I still worked in customer service and was active at CS (2003-2005). It sometimes seemed like you couldn't post a story without at least one or two people picking it apart and making you look and feel like the worst and pettiest person on the planet.

[HYHYBT]

If I may make a point on failing to see the suck, asking why something is sucky for purposes of clarification is not the reason for that particular rule. Failing to see the suck is meant to address instances when an original poster is venting about something that happened, and others chime in to reply that the original poster is whining about nothing because they see the issue differently. Again, ASKING the original poster to clarify a point of confusion is not failing to see the suck, but STATING AN OPINION that said situation did not suck because it would not have bothered you is failing to see the suck.

Only in theory; or at least, according to the explanation I got last time this topic was up for discussion, only if you manage to guess why it's sucky and specifically ask about that. An ever-so-polite "Sorry, I don't understand; why is this sucky?" (or similar words with the same meaning and intent behind them) is, so far as I can recall, the only post I've ever made that drew moderator attention. Not a declaration that it wasn't sucky (which, certainly, would have been rude; but that fact would surely put it afoul of some other rule anyway), or "look how much worse it could have been," or "but I do that!" or anything along those lines, but a statement of confusion paired with a request for clarification.

Again, I *understand* the rationale, I respect your right to run your own board any way you see fit, and I hold no ill will against anybody here or there; that's no reason not to think it's stupid, wrong-headed, etc.

[Peppergirl]

. Not a declaration that it wasn't sucky (which, certainly, would have been rude; but that fact would surely put it afoul of some other rule anyway), or "look how much worse it could have been," or "but I do that!" or anything along those lines, but a statement of confusion paired with a request for clarification.

Again, I *understand* the rationale, I respect your right to run your own board any way you see fit, and I hold no ill will against anybody here or there; that's no reason not to think it's stupid, wrong-headed, etc.

Of course you're fully within your rights to think it 'stupid' and 'wrong headed', but I think Raps pretty eloquently explained the rationale behind it.

I don't think most people (mods included) have a problem with the politely worded requests for clarification, but as Raps stated, even an innocuous question will sometimes cause the herd mentality to kick in, and the thread goes downhill fast.

Unfortunately, we aren't staffed enough to police the board to the degree that this would require, so it's easier to simply avoid the issue all together.

It's really unfortunate, but I think it's more of a commentary on herd mentality and 'sheeple' more so than it is on our decisions to keep it off the boards.

Again, you're certainly entitled to your opinion that it's stupid - but I'm also entitled to mine that your distaste is somewhat misguided in this regard.

[aurelemsrealm]

HYHYBT, keep in mind that I'm not a moderator, so I'm not speaking on behalf of the mods. I was just explaining my understanding of failing to see the suck. I'm guessing my explanation is an accurate description of the rationale. Mods feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that.

The main reason I felt inclined to comment on it at all was because I did get caught in a situation on CS where some posters told me that a customer in a story I posted was not (in their opinion) sucky. My response was that they were welcome to think whatever they wished, but I still felt the way I felt about it regardless of what anyone else had to say. I just wanted to vent and get it out of my system. That's exactly what I did. I was not interested in continuing the argument on whether or not the customer was truly sucky. So, I quit responding to the discussion even though I still read the replies. Some posters continued trying to argue the point even though I said I was done with arguing my point, and was not interested in addressing the issue any further. So, as I said, I quit responding to the discussion at that point because it was getting uglier than necessary. Unfortunately, an argument did start between those who thought I was being overly sensitive and those who were defending me. The mods ended up getting involved even though I was no longer actively participating in the argument by that time.

It did feel a bit awkward to watch that incident unfold. I was grateful to those who stuck up for me. I was also willing to agree to disagree with those who criticized me. Mainly, I just wanted to vent at the moment, and then let it go. I was just surprised at how heated the argument got even though I stopped responding well before it was finally closed.

[Jester]

I've seen to some degree, where some Members feel slighted, and feel that they are being censored and go all First Amendment on the Admins/Mods asses.

I was a broadcasting major in college, and was and still am a First Amendment junkie. I am a free speech whore. I admit it freely and proudly.

That being said, oftentimes people forget that free speech goes more than one way. If you come into my house and start telling me what a whore my niece is, you have every right to say that. I also have every right to tell you to get the fuck out of my house. (I don't have the legal right to do what I would probably do to someone who did such a thing, but that's another story completely, and doesn't lend itself quite as well to the issue at hand.)

Let's ignore the fact that not all of the posters or mods are from the U.S., and not every country in the world has the same free speech provisions as the U.S. does. Even if we accept that free speech is a right granted to everyone (or that it should be if it isn't), too many people ignore the fact that there can still be rules in various places, and that exercising your free speech may have ramifications in those places.

Example: Some dude comes in to my bar and starts telling random customers that they are idiots, that they're going to hell, that they're football team sucks and anyone who roots for them is a loser, that alcohol is the devil's tool, whatever. Legally, we as a business cannot prevent the man from saying these things. However, as we are a private business, and he is disrupting our business with his harrassment of our customers, whether or not he is a paying customer, we can tell him to get out of our bar. We can throw him the fuck out. Because he is on private property.

A web site/discussion forum is no different. CustomersSuck.com belongs to Rapscallion. You may not like his site, and you may not like his rules, but it IS his site, and they ARE his rules. And just as I can and will toss a troublesome customer out of my bar, and I can and will tell an obnoxious asshole to get out of my truck if he pisses me off, so can Raps. And he also has the right to temper his reaction. He can, directly or through his appointed mods, tell the offender to chill out or stop doing something. It's his house. Just like in my bar, management and staff can (and will) tell the theoretical obnoxious customer that he needs to tone it down, and if he doesn't, we can toss him. If someone lights up a cigarette in my truck (Rule #1 in the Jestermobile is No Fucking Smoking), I can choose to either tell the offender to put the cig out, or just pull over and throw them out. My property, my right to decide whether to have such guests in it. My bar's property, their right to decide.

Raps' property, his house, his business....his right to decide.

I may not really have a right to speak of this, being as I was once a real problem member...

Actually, it seems to me that that would give you MORE right to speak of this, seeing as you've been on both sides of things, as it were.


And I would like to repeat that I have not always agreed with some of the decision made by the mods. Some I understood later, some I still disagree with. There was one instance a few years ago where a bad situation developed between myself and another CS member. I went public with it for various reasons, and that post was immediately removed. At the time I did not understand why. It was calmly explained to me, and once I calmed down, I understood that their decision was correct. I realized that my emotions had overruled my intellect, and that, however strongly I felt about the situation, the post did in fact violate some very basic CS rules.

Did I whine and cry and stamp my foot and call the mods Nazis? No. Why? Because I'm not a (complete) moron. I'm not (completely) immature. And I am (somewhat of) an adult.

More than I can say for the people who gave Ree such shit.

[Canarr]

I also think there are some members who can attest that I have also sent PM's when I felt a person handled themselves very well on the board, or behaved in a way that made me proud to have them as a member of the site.

Yes, definitely. I got a little thank-you-note from Ree (that I considered a very nice touch) after backing off a discussion in a thread where I (and several other posters) went against the "Don't tell posters that what they experienced wasn't sucky!" rule. Ree called us out on it, sternly but politely, and that was it - for me, at least, though apparently not for everybody.

As to the FTSTS-rule, I don't like it. While I get Raps' reasoning behind it, and can see the benefit of the rule for a venting platform, I feel that any community in which you cannot voice serious criticism can easily develop into a bunch of "yaysayers" (is that even a word?), meaning that a herd of people will be crying "Awesome!" no matter what the actual topic, while anyone disgreeing will rather keep their opinion to themselves - and thus, the community may lose the value of different viewpoints.

But, as several others here have already stated: Raps' home, Raps' rules; one man, one vote. I can voice my opinion here on Fratching if I disagree with the rules, but ultimately, if the rules stay, then I can either accept them, or I can leave. And, for the most part, I like it here.

[Andara Bledin]

While I get Raps' reasoning behind it, and can see the benefit of the rule for a venting platform, I feel that any community in which you cannot voice serious criticism can easily develop into a bunch of "yaysayers" (is that even a word?), meaning that a herd of people will be crying "Awesome!" no matter what the actual topic, while anyone disgreeing will rather keep their opinion to themselves - and thus, the community may lose the value of different viewpoints.

There are a lot of ways you can suggest that perhaps a poster could have avoided the suck entirely without saying anything about the event not being sucky.

^-.-^

[Rapscallion]

We've been debating the rule itself of late. Nothing finalised in any direction.

Rapscallion

[guywithashovel]

The rule isn't perfect, but for the most part, I honestly like it. Part of me wishes it had been in place when I worked retail and was an active poster on CS. If I remember correctly, some of the mods said that some members had come to them and said that even though they liked the site very much, they were entertaining thoughts of leaving because they were tired of having to defend themselves every time they posted a work story. I can relate to that. I remember feeling the same way. Besides, they (mods) did say that if you feel a post is inappropriate in any way (e.g. someone posting a story about contaminating a customer's food) you should report it.

[Canarr]

There are a lot of ways you can suggest that perhaps a poster could have avoided the suck entirely without saying anything about the event not being sucky.

^-.-^

Maybe - maybe not. Depends on the situation, of course. I'll try it on occasion, and sometimes I'll get a rap on the fingers from a Mod for the attempt - justified, no doubt, since I'm breaking a rule. Still, it's not exactly conducive to a constructive discussion if even a politely phrased inquiry or suggestion may be a rules infraction. Or may not be; sometimes I'm not too clear on it myself.

I understand that the intent behind the rule is to create a friendly environment for those coming to vent, lest they feel pressured by the naysayers and then start leaving the forum. My problem is, the FTSTS rule may cause the same reaction in others posters - rather than consider and reconsider whether or not a reply violates the rule, many may decide to not even bother anymore, and write nothing.

@Raps: good to read. I don't claim to have the perfect solution - as stated, the rule does serve a valid purpose - but I'm looking forward to seeing the solution you come up with.

[Rapscallion]

I don't know that there's a perfect solution. Quite honestly, there's no situation where we can please everyone. We try to follow common sense and a general sense of what's right.

Rapscallion