posted
So, those threads are worth putting up with bullies. Had you thought about hosting your own forum with those thread topics?
We have so many persons from here that started their own forums, and many are quite well-populated. You could invite your friend back to your own forum, too.
Your bitterness and resentfulness is tangible, and I'd like to see you feel more at home and at peace. I can't imagine choosing to share a playground with people I see as bullies again -- junior high school was more than enough. Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's more than enough room in this playground now that the political activists are slowly relinquishing their stranglehold on page one. There are enough fun-loving types here to have a rollicking good time in a variety of threads.
Rather than banishing trolls altogether, how about confining them to threads where they are welcome?
I should have learned by now to stay away from threads by and for Hatrack's founding elite. Perhaps a juicy FAQ to that effect is in order.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That assumes that confining anyone to a single thread is possible, and that so-called founding members actually have any power over what happens to whom. It is ultimately up to the mods, and the mods don't shy away from banning even long-time members (just ask Leto).
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:"you are intentionally trying to convince us to 'shun' people. This would be terribly harmful to the forum"
Ah. Beyond the kneejerk fear of seeming judgemental, can you explain why this would be so?
Because the best possible result of shunning someone is that they leave disappointed, and the more common result is that a big fight occurs and a bunch of people get mad. Neither of these are anything we want.
Additionally, if we are going to start calling whoever we want trolls, rather than only people who are intentionally trying to harm the forum, then it seems like feuds are almost a certainty. After all, I'm sure there are people who think anything wildly anti-Bush is trolling, and other people who think anything wildly pro-Bush is trolling, and others that think semantic arguments are trolling, and others that think posting lots of fluff is trolling, and so on and so forth. Our goal is NOT to have a bunch of subsections of Hatrack all shunning one another.
quote:I don't think that what Tom is sugesting is any different than what we would do if we met them IRL, so I don't think it is a problem.
It is just as bad a strategy in real life. Shunning people who bother you is one of the most common methods of bringing down serious trouble for yourself. It reaches its peak in Middle School feuds, but it's something very common everywhere - and it almost never is productive.
Thus, if people are doing it in real life, that just means it is even MORE of a problem.
quote:You aren't a troll, but there are times where I could care less what you think because you don't usually debate topics, you debate semantics......and you don't eevn do that very well most of the time. You actually LOSE peoples resect and attention because you are so busy telling us what we really meant that we just tune you out.
I disagree. If there is a disagreement on the meaning of terms that is preventing two sides from progressing on an issue, you might as well end the discussion right there if you aren't willing to go into the semantics of it. There will be no agreement until either (1)one side shows the other how they do not understand what they mean by the words they are saying, or (2)one side tricks the other into accepting their own definitions without realizing it. I don't like tricking people in arguments (that just leads to trouble eventually) so the only alternative is to explain to them what they really mean - or give up on them and the discussion entirely (which I'm not normally prepared to do). Whether it ultimately is effective or not, it's the only way to honestly progress.
Whether this gains me respect or not doesn't really matter. I'd like to think my points are convincing based on something more substantial than respect people might (or might not) have for the person making them.
But again, I think by Tom's definition this does make me a troll - which is one reason I'm inclined to say his definition is wrong.
quote:In other words, it's not necessary for someone to admit to being a troll in order for them to be a troll, but it's a fairly dependable standard and (IMO) a good place to draw the line.
But in this case, and other cases, they did NOT admit to being trolls. They just admitted to being other things, from which you decided to infer they were Trolls. The difference between the two is huge - like the difference between admitting you are a murderer and admitting you had an abortion.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: There's more than enough room in this playground now that the political activists are slowly relinquishing their stranglehold on page one. There are enough fun-loving types here to have a rollicking good time in a variety of threads.
Hatrack is seasonal. You start off with a little excitement to a Card related event, say a new book, or more movie stuff, or maybe he pops in and says "Hi." Then after a while you get into the warm fuzzies, get-togethers, and games of mafia or role playing certain stories. Then eventually the forum collectively gets bored and serious and brings up politics, religion, etc. And then someone pops in and sets the whole forum on fire until a Card related event recurs...
and the forum reincarnates.
Posts: 2523 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:katharina: that so-called founding members actually have any power
What makes the founding elite so powerful is their ability to manipulate the mods. Imagine for instance what would have happened if someone espousing the LDS faith rather than the Quaker faith had posted in that "looking for a reflective, quiet church experience" thread.
The founding elite have also been guilty of baiting the hook before running to the mods.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
People who accuse of baiting usually have little self-control to begin with, and therefore blame others for their own rude reactions.
The reason LDS didn't post in Shan's thread is because Shan has been LDS, and she was sincere in looking for something else.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I at least had enough self control to stop bothering one of your friends when asked.
You'll forgive me if I don't embrace the paranoid label. My experience in one encounter with a Hatrack founder has convinced me it is true with many Hatrack founders in multiple occurrences. Funny that the label should come from you though.
Posts: 2655 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't be coy. You want to say something, spit it out. You don't want to say it out loud, don't allude to it.
Added: You did stop bothering someone when asked. That's great. I think...I think you might be better served if you found out why it was bothering her than accusing anyone of arbitrarily closing ranks.
posted
*amused* So, skillery, I wonder. Since I am not LDS, and certainly haven't been around here long enough to be a founding anything -- where do I fit into your paranoid little view of Hatrack?
Oh, and I was one of the people most actively requesting that your "favorite playmate" have his posts edited and/or get banned. Mostly because when he was JUST being odd and slightly inappropriate, I defended him. Repeatedly. So once he -- multiple times -- crossed the line into exceedingly hurtful and offensive, I felt obligated to report him. Repeatedly.
And just about when I felt a little bit bad about my part in that, I got an obscenity-laced email from him. So, yeah, no guilt here.
And kat's right. You are being incredibly paranoid. *pat pat* Stick around. We'll beat that out of you. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Davidson takes the snap from center, fades back to pass and... it's a long one to the endzone, TMedina leaps for it and Dagonee intercepts the Hail Mary.
That's TOO funny.
As for cliquishness and bullying - I had to go to junior high and high school. But as far as I know, nobody's parents are forcing them to read and post here.
posted
Exactly, Scott. Cliquishness yes, mod manipulation, nay. Any social group will form subgroups, so what? On the whole I find HR far more civilized than HS.
Belladonna, take a number, line forms on the right, no shoving. . .
Seriously though, did you see that recent PBS documentary, a Secrets of the Dead episode, that tried to establish that the psychotic symptoms of ergot mold in rye was a root cause of the Salem witch trials as well as much of the witch persecution in Europe? It made a very convincing case.
The symptoms of ergot poseining are very similar to what was described in diaries and court records of the Salem trials. But the most compelling evidence to me was when they overlaid a map of the rye-growing regions in Europe with a map of witch persections. It matched up extremly well.
posted
Yes, I find it particularly amusing as well how the people who read and post most on hatrack read and post most on hatrack.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know what skillery is talking about, but I think it's more human nature than bullies and the in crowd. Within any large group of people there is always going to be a smaller group that gets along particularly well with each other, and less well with the other members of the group. When that group, as it does on hatrack, contains several people who are loved and respected by everyone in the larger group, then you have a group of the elite.
I'm assuming from what I've read here that skillery was friends with fallow, who many people in that group (and many other people who aren't as important and thus not worth targeting) were openly critical of, and that's where he got the bullying accusation from.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to mention the fact that he was WAY past the line recently in chat, so we all had to hit ignore on him just to be able to converse with each other.
I defended fallow more than once, but finally I had had enough. I didn't campaign for him to be banned, but I didn't cry over it much either.
skillery, I still don't see the problem...if someone is rude I don't talk to him. If he is really rude I tell himhe is , and why I think he is. If he disagrees with me, but is even a little bit respectful about the conversation, then I have no problem.
Tres:
quote: I'd like to think my points are convincing based on something more substantial than respect people might (or might not) have for the person making them.
That is the point... if we agree to your often radical re-definition of terms, then there is no basis for disagreement. You don't usually make any point at all, besides the fact you like to argue.
Most of the time you are the only one who agrees on the "new" definition, but it doesn't stop you from telling us we are all wrong and you are right. Semantics is only good for a few things....when it is a substitute for critical thinking about the issues being discussed it only hurts the conversation and leaves everyone unsatisfied but you.
Not my idea of a good way to spend an evening.
But this brings up another point...even though Tres and I disagree on this and many other points we can still beash each ohter up o the pigskin pick'em thread, and sometimes we have a good discussion despite ourselves...
There have been some people who came in here breathing fire, adn I spoke up against their style, but two days later found myself giving video game reviews to them, or trading quips with them on another thread. As long as they are decent to others here, I don't care that they are liberal/conservitive, or LDS, or RC, or Wiccan......
So I think Hatrack is still far more civil than most places, which is why I come here more often.
Skillery, the only way to keep a thread on the first page is to either post in it a lot, or make sure it is intresting to a lot of people here. There isn't a rule that prevents you from digging one up and bumping it, you know.
If I don't like someones attitude I will make sure they know about it...it is far better to be honest about that than to skulk around and pretend to not care. That way if they get banned like fallow did, they can't say they weren't warned. After I do so I will usually will avoid them, unless they try to change their attitude. This doesn't mean that I want everone to think the same as I do, or that I don't enjoy a good argument.....it just means that is you don't have fairly good manners don't expect to be invited to the table.
Tres, if you are a troll, you are a fairly subtle one.
quote:What makes the founding elite so powerful is their ability to manipulate the mods. Imagine for instance what would have happened if someone espousing the LDS faith rather than the Quaker faith had posted in that "looking for a reflective, quiet church experience" thread.
(thanks, Kat - )
skillery, it's no secret to folks around here that I was raised as a cross-section of LDS and Roman Catholicism - with pretty powerfully negative experiences - and that I have been "in search" if you will for quite some time. The LDS members here are the ONLY LDS members I've had any experience with that leave me with any positive feelings for that particular brand of religion, and their input is certainly welcome anytime. So, I really don't understand your concern about that . . .
As far as Mike goes, I, too defended him for a long time. But you know what? He doesn't need or want anyone's "defense" here. Let it go, skillery - take a break and a deep breath - everyone had their own experiences with him, and from the sounds of it, he could be downright mean. He wasn't mean to me, but by all accounts, I may have been the exception to the rule. By some accounts, I was too stupid to know any better. *shrugs* I tend to take people at face value.
There are times when I just need to turn off the ole PC and go away for awhile - so much is lost in the electronic world when we don't have access to the other 90% of how people communicate.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:As long as they are decent to others here, I don't care that they are liberal/conservitive, or LDS, or RC, or Wiccan......
It took me a Google search to realize you meant "Roman Catholic" by RC. The only "RC" I was familiar with was "Remote Control", which kind of increased my suspicions that we do, in fact, have a robot posting. Oh well. )
Posts: 2292 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right, Kwea, sorry for not clarifying in my post. I was talking more about the face-caving, missile-clad, beeping robots from miles underground, not the hot robots from Poland.
Posts: 2292 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I don't recall, skillery - I figure there are some threads where you just play and have fun - and sometimes play is messy.
I had an absolutely fine time one Friday night-over a year ago I think - when fallow was flish and a bunch of us were just role-playing dancing and having fun at some absurd party thread . . . *shrugs*
For as much fun, or as intense a we can get over serious topics, I always wonder what I am missing by not seeing the person/people during our interactions. It just kind of leaves me wondering from time to time what someone really meant by something - the kind of wondering that probably would be non-existant if we were in one big happy group . . .
For folks that have been around a long time, they have learned to interpret writing styles, I think, so they are maybe a little less put off by certain things folks say or do -
It's just a communication process - a fairly fascinating one - and one that I am actually learning a valuable skill from - how to STOP and THINK before I POST. (or speak IRL) This is not an easy skill for me, and I am grateful for Hatrack's patience with my learning curve!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
That's TOO funny.![[Frown]](frown.gif)
