Flaming Via IM Programs

[MonCapitan2002]

I have a question about a policy position I want to ask about. Over on another forum I used to visit, I had got into a heated debate about the death penalty, While I happen to favour the death penalty, most of the people I participated in the thread with heatedly disagreed. I was even rudely and derisively mocked for my stance. One member even went so far as to flame me via Yahoo Messenger.

I reported his actions to the board's administrators as well as to Yahoo's abuse team. While I have yet to get a reply from Yahoo, I did get a reply from the board administrators. I requested that the member in question be banned from the forums due to his unwarranted behaviour. Their ultimate decision was to do nothing. He did not get punished in any manner whatsoever. They did an ostriched impression and informed me that it was beyond their scope of authority. This is in spite of the fact that his actions were directly related to what was going on in the boards. He basically looked up my profile and used it to find my Yahoo IM handle so he could flame me. I was livid and decided to file a complaint with the administrators of ther message board.

This would also not bode well for them if such information were to get out. Trolls would have free reign to flame other members via IM as much as they please and not worry about getting disciplined by the board's administrators. Since I know that members will be able to do as they please without having to worry about the consequences, I have decided to withdraw my participation in that message board.

Which brings me to my question. What is this forum's policy with regards to members harassing fellow members via instant messenger programs? I would like to know what you would do if I had a similar experience here. Your collective response will affect my continued participation in this forum. It is my opinion that harassment of that nature and via that method should warrant both a member and IP ban.

[LadyShea]

Are you serious? Simply block said person from messenging you...why did you give them permission in the first place? The admins of this board can't police IM programs...all of which have blocks, permissions and such that you should take advantage of.

I would be horrified if they banned members here for flaming in any manner or by any means. I can take care of myself as can you, and from what I can tell, this board's administrators prefer to let everyone handle things on their own. Read the information provided by the admins, this is more or less an unmoderated/self policing board.

[MonCapitan2002]

Oh. Well I did not realise that this is an unmoderated forum. The forum where the above occurred is moderated however. In that case, I will probably be a lurker.

[LadyShea]

Even if it was moderated, why on Earth would you expect them to ban people for behavior outside of their forum? I am having trouble comprehending your position.

And you can read about this forum's philosophy and guidelines here (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49).

[MonCapitan2002]

I don't think I explained the situation well. I was flamed on the board first. The flaming then spilled over into IM. I would also like to note that even if it is occurring via IM, a board member would still be deliberately harassing another member. This would definitely have an adverse affect on a message board if such behaviour became rampant. The two events were directly related.

[LadyShea]

I don't think I explained the situation well. I was flamed on the board first. The flaming then spilled over into IM. I would also like to note that even if it is occurring via IM, a board member would still be deliberately harassing another member. This would definitely have an adverse affect on a message board if such behaviour became rampant. The two events were directly related.

So, again I have to ask, why did you give permission for this person to message you on Yahoo? When they flamed you, why didn't you simply block them? Why expect the board's administrators to take care of it?

[MonCapitan2002]

I didn't. I wasn't even logged in when he flamed me. I would like to once again emphasise that he was still harassing another member. It should not matter what method was employed. I found about it when I logged in and was informed of the offline message. In my opinion that is an offense that at the very least should result in some form of disciplinary action.

Since I do know your policy beforehand, I will likely not have the same reaction here. I expected them to do something and they didn't that is why I am pissed. I already know that you won't do anything unless the harassment happens here.

[LadyShea]

I didn't. I wasn't even logged in when he flamed me. I would like to once again emphasise that he was still harassing another member. It should not matter what method was employed. I found about it when I logged in and was informed of the offline message. In my opinion that is an offense that at the very least should result in some form of disciplinary action.

My Yahoo requires I give everyone permission to message me, when I log in it asks me "So and so wants to message you"...your doesn't?

And I still think your expectation of disciplinary action is unreasonable since it happened outside of the forum. That's just me I guess. You need to do what makes you comfortable.

Since I do know your policy beforehand, I will likely not have the same reaction here. I expected them to do something and they didn't that is why I am pissed. I already know that you won't do anything unless the harassment happens here.

I am a bit puzzled by the use of "you/your", as I am not an admin and this board is self moderated I think you should use "we/our". It's certainly not MY board, I just hang out here. And just so you are aware, the admins won't do anything if you get harassed here either. It is self moderated/self policed. Unless there was some kind of death threat or publishing of personal information, I don't think they will edit or ban. I would urge you to read the link I provided.

[MonCapitan2002]

I thought you were. That is an error on my part.

[MonCapitan2002]

I fully understand that this is an unmoderated forum. I will bear that in mind when participating in this forum.

[viscousmemories]

Which brings me to my question. What is this forum's policy with regards to members harassing fellow members via instant messenger programs? I would like to know what you would do if I had a similar experience here. Your collective response will affect my continued participation in this forum. It is my opinion that harassment of that nature and via that method should warrant both a member and IP ban.
LadyShea is right, MonCapitan. We have no rules against flaming or harassment, and we will take no official action against any member who doesn't break one of the four rules we have here. I also second her recommendation that you read the link to the Freethought Forum Rights, Duties and Privileges (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49) that she provided, since this is all explained in some detail there.

We understand that some people prefer to post in a moderated environment with reasonable assurances that they will be protected from offensive speech. However I have to agree with LadyShea that even some of the more heavily moderated forums I'm aware of would do nothing about someone harassing you via an IM program. Most would probably recommend that you simply not list your IM address in your member profile.

[beyelzu]

capitan,


I dont think you should decide to be a lurker, rather you should take advantage of the power that this forum and im technology gives you. ignore people that you dont want to talk to.


it's like banning them on your very own.

[Dragar]

it's like banning them on your very own.

The only difference, for intents and purposes, is that you can't take pleasure in the fact someone else is suffering from being unable to contribute further on the board.

Which some people seem to find preferable.

[Ensign Steve]

Most would probably recommend that you simply not list your IM address in your member profile.

From the OP, I gleaned that he did not list his IM address, but the other user was able to deduce it based upon other information in his profle. Scawy!

[ChuckF]

From the OP, I gleaned that he did not list his IM address, but the other user was able to deduce it based upon other information in his profle. Scawy!

Hm, not really. I just deduced it based on a guess, and then again on a google search.

[slimshady2357]

I'm also a little suprised by the way you expect the admins of this other board to ban the person flaming you via IM.

You said the flames started on the board, were the flames on the board against the rules there? Are you angry that nothing has been done about his/her flames posted on the board, or only the flames via IM?

I must say though, beyond this clarification, I do seem to have reactions very similar to LadyS above.

Adam

[seebs]

I don't see any basis for a BBS for banning people for stuff that didn't happen on the BBS.

[MonCapitan2002]

I don't see any basis for a BBS for banning people for stuff that didn't happen on the BBS.
It started on the BBS and then escalated into IM. Not only that, but the person who did now nows he can get away with doing it again. I do not understand how no one I have interacted with can understand this very simple concept.

[Corona688]

I don't see any basis for a BBS for banning people for stuff that didn't happen on the BBS.
It started on the BBS and then escalated into IM.Right. So?Not only that, but the person who did now nows he can get away with doing it again. All you have to do is block it and it'll never ever happen again.I do not understand how no one I have interacted with can understand this very simple concept. We understand it, we just don't agree with it. Explain to me why should a board ban him for that first.

[LadyShea]

I don't see any basis for a BBS for banning people for stuff that didn't happen on the BBS.
It started on the BBS and then escalated into IM. Not only that, but the person who did now nows he can get away with doing it again. I do not understand how no one I have interacted with can understand this very simple concept.

What I am not understanding is why you're so upset about it. Some dick on a BB flamed you and you (hopefully) blocked him. So what? Why do you give a shit what he said?

[viscousmemories]

Um, unless I'm misreading the dick outed himself a few posts above here... ;)

[ChuckF]

Um, unless I'm misreading the dick outed himself a few posts above here... ;)

Not sure if you're talking about my poorly worded post up there. I should have said "I just now deduced it." I've never exchanged PMs with MonCapitan, just wanted to demonstrate that his screen name isn't necessarily hard to deduce. (Assuming of course that I got it right.)

[viscousmemories]

Ohhh... yeah, I thought you were saying it was you. :D

[ChuckF]

Heh. I'm definitely a dick, but for altogether different reasons.

[slimshady2357]

I don't see any basis for a BBS for banning people for stuff that didn't happen on the BBS.
It started on the BBS and then escalated into IM. Not only that, but the person who did now nows he can get away with doing it again.

How can he get away with it again? Didn't you block him?

And I noticed you didn't respond to my questions above, so I assume his posts on the board were not against the rules of that board. In that case, I really can't see why an internet board should ban someone for something that happens outside the board. If the person came HERE and flamed you, would you expect the other board to ban him THERE? :chin:

I do not understand how no one I have interacted with can understand this very simple concept.

Hmmmmm......

Adam

[livius drusus]

It started on the BBS and then escalated into IM. Not only that, but the person who did now nows he can get away with doing it again. I do not understand how no one I have interacted with can understand this very simple concept.

I think the conceptual disconnect here is that most folks who post on boards expect to be patrolled to whatever extent the terms of service stipulate. Most terms of service apply solely to the operations of the board itself, which is in actual fact the service in question. Anything outside of those operations exceeds the scope of the the board owners/managers.

I'm going to use a real world analogy now, although I generally find them hamfisted and less than accurate; I just think it might help sketch out the difference in perspective despite the inherent flaws.

Say you're at a bar. You have an altercation with someone over politics or domestic beer. The altercation escalates to an unsavory point and the bartender asks y'all to cool it or leave. When you do leave, you find the guy you were arguing with inside is waiting in the alley to get into with you again. You either engage him or ignore him on your way home; that's your choice.

If you went back to the bar the next day and told the bartender that this guy had waited for you outside and behaved in the exact manner the bartender had warned against, would the bartender be likely to refuse the guy service from that point on? No, because the guy took it outside. Even though your aggressor only knew you'd be there because he met you at that bar, even though the discussion originally escalated at that bar, the side alley is not the bartender's business.

Now, say you're at a school -- high school or college. Replace bar with classroom and bartender with principal or dean. That changes everything because schools as part of their "terms of service" act in loco parentis and seek very much to control the wider behavior of their students both for the putative good of the students and for the learning environment.

I wonder if perhaps you're thinking more in terms of schools than in terms of bars. Most discussion boards, however, are structured more like the latter than the former. From a practical standpoint, I think that's for the best: the internet is just too huge and hairy a place to police effectively. From an ethical standpoint, I prefer the administration exert less control on members and seek to empower them with options to define their own experience as much as possible, instead of acting as parents or principals and thereby effectively infantilizing an entire community of adults.

[MonCapitan2002]

I don't see any basis for a BBS for banning people for stuff that didn't happen on the BBS.
It started on the BBS and then escalated into IM. Not only that, but the person who did now nows he can get away with doing it again.

How can he get away with it again? Didn't you block him?
As a result of the harassment, I blocked all people not on my messenger list. Now the only way a person can IM through that service is if they are already on my buddy list.

And I noticed you didn't respond to my questions above, so I assume his posts on the board were not against the rules of that board. In that case, I really can't see why an internet board should ban someone for something that happens outside the board. If the person came HERE and flamed you, would you expect the other board to ban him THERE? :chin:
Yes he did break rules in the thread. At least one of his posts was edited. If he came here and flamed me, I wouldn't bother asking he be banned there. If flaming were against the rules here (from the rules posted in the thread that was linked to previously, it seems that flaming is not against the rules here), I would file a complaint with this board's administrative staff.

[Soubrette]

Ahh those halcyon days when Adam and I constantly abused instant messager :yup:

I too was confused as to why someone would allow anyone to become a buddy (or whatever it's called) without knowing who it was but I think the OP is saying that sometimes people can IM you without being on your buddy list.

I think :)

Sou

[MonCapitan2002]

It depends on the settings you choose. For instance, with Yahoo messenger, you can block all people not on your messenger list. This option is also available with AIM.

[MonCapitan2002]

Please disregard this thread. I overreacted to the flame and got pissed off. What I do find interesting is that I recently made an on-topic post in a thread the flamer posted. Would you believe that he actually told me not to reply to his threads? Talk about arrogance.

[LadyShea]

Please disregard this thread. I overreacted to the flame and got pissed off. What I do find interesting is that I recently made an on-topic post in a thread the flamer posted. Would you believe that he actually told me not to reply to his threads? Talk about arrogance.

He's obviously a dick, and you now have an online nemesis. No worries, I have (had) gobs of them in my decade+ online.

[MonCapitan2002]

I guess having an online nemesis would be kind of cool. Having nemesis is always cool. I now have something interesting to talk about.

[Ensign Steve]

I don't see any basis for a BBS for banning people for stuff that didn't happen on the BBS.
It started on the BBS and then escalated into IM. Not only that, but the person who did now nows he can get away with doing it again. I do not understand how no one I have interacted with can understand this very simple concept.

I see that the issue has pretty much been resolved, but...for the record, and for your peace of mind, MonCapitan, I do understand where you're coming from. Since you first started this thread I have understood your position and did not think you were coming out of left field. I just didn't say anything because I didn't want to get into it with LadyShea when she was in one of her moods. ;)

[Seven of Nine]

Wowser, do some of you guys sound hard-hearted. I've run across spider listings of myself often enough to know just how easy it would be for some jerk to follow me around to harrass me, and have had to deal with quite a bit of that, too, which is one of the reasons why I don't have IM.
Except, that I do, whether I want it or not (and I don't...but, I guess I'll cry on MonCapitan's shoulder, if that starts to get to me, and not any of yours? ;)

I think MonCapitan's question was perfectly reasonable...and even if it weren't, why give MC a hard time for asking it? Are all of us newbies expected to ask questions only of great brilliance? :D

[Seven of Nine]

Ahh those halcyon days when Adam and I constantly abused instant messager :yup:

I too was confused as to why someone would allow anyone to become a buddy (or whatever it's called) without knowing who it was but I think the OP is saying that sometimes people can IM you without being on your buddy list.

I think :)

Sou

My ISP has now made it possible for anyone at all to IM me. They're so proud of giving me this "extra service" that I could scream.

[Ensign Steve]

I think MonCapitan's question was perfectly reasonable...and even if it weren't, why give MC a hard time for asking it? Are all of us newbies expected to ask questions only of great brilliance? :D

Wow, what a stupid question.

:hearts: :7of9: :hearts:

[viscousmemories]

Wowser, do some of you guys sound hard-hearted.
Could you be more specific? Whenever someone makes an ambiguous statement like that in a thread I've posted in I can't help but wonder if it was intended for me, and I prefer to respond to aspersions cast on my character.

I've run across spider listings of myself often enough to know just how easy it would be for some jerk to follow me around to harrass me, and have had to deal with quite a bit of that, too, which is one of the reasons why I don't have IM.

Except, that I do, whether I want it or not (and I don't...but, I guess I'll cry on MonCapitan's shoulder, if that starts to get to me, and not any of yours? ;)
It didn't seem to me that MonCapitan was looking for a shoulder to cry on. He started this thread in the Forum Administration forum and explained in his OP that he was looking for policy clarification. I was under the impression his questions were answered to his satisfaction, but if not I hope he'll post to let us know. But it's true that if he had posted in the Watering Hole lamenting the fact that someone was harrassing him I would have probably given him a more compassionate and less formal response. Maybe the same can be said for the other posters as well.

I think MonCapitan's question was perfectly reasonable...and even if it weren't, why give MC a hard time for asking it? Are all of us newbies expected to ask questions only of great brilliance? :D
I also thought his questions were perfectly reasonable and I thought we gave him perfectly reasonable answers. Granted he also got a fair number of bewildered responses, but I don't think questioning or even criticising his expectations of a given forum administration necessarily amounts to giving him a hard time for asking questions. Again though since you haven't specified which comments you're referring to I'm not really sure what your objection is.

[MonCapitan2002]

My question was regarding your policy. I was not looking for a shoulder to cry on. In any case, I thought I should note that the guy who flamed me actually had the gall to tell me not to post replies to threads he starts. Talk about arrogance. Who the fuck does he think he is to ask a question like that. I am still dumbfounded by the request. The post I made was on-topic as well. I forwarded it to some of the admins and one of them basically told me to ignore it.

[Seven of Nine]

Wowser, do some of you guys sound hard-hearted.
Could you be more specific? Whenever someone makes an ambiguous statement like that in a thread I've posted in I can't help but wonder if it was intended for me, and I prefer to respond to aspersions cast on my character.

I apologise for any unintended ambiguity, and it was also not my intention to cast asperions on anyone's character.

I've run across spider listings of myself often enough to know just how easy it would be for some jerk to follow me around to harrass me, and have had to deal with quite a bit of that, too, which is one of the reasons why I don't have IM.

Except, that I do, whether I want it or not (and I don't...but, I guess I'll cry on MonCapitan's shoulder, if that starts to get to me, and not any of yours? ;)

It didn't seem to me that MonCapitan was looking for a shoulder to cry on.

I didn't say he did. All I said was I would now be hesitant to do so.

He started this thread in the Forum Administration forum and explained in his OP that he was looking for policy clarification. I was under the impression his questions were answered to his satisfaction, but if not I hope he'll post to let us know. But it's true that if he had posted in the Watering Hole lamenting the fact that someone was harrassing him I would have probably given him a more compassionate and less formal response. Maybe the same can be said for the other posters as well.

Perhaps you're right.

I think MonCapitan's question was perfectly reasonable...and even if it weren't, why give MC a hard time for asking it? Are all of us newbies expected to ask questions only of great brilliance? :D
I also thought his questions were perfectly reasonable and I thought we gave him perfectly reasonable answers. Granted he also got a fair number of bewildered responses, but I don't think questioning or even criticising his expectations of a given forum administration necessarily amounts to giving him a hard time for asking questions. Again though since you haven't specified which comments you're referring to I'm not really sure what your objection is.[/QUOTE]

Again, you have my apology for posting.

*slinks off thread*

[viscousmemories]

Wowser, do some of you guys sound hard-hearted.Could you be more specific? Whenever someone makes an ambiguous statement like that in a thread I've posted in I can't help but wonder if it was intended for me, and I prefer to respond to aspersions cast on my character.I apologise for any unintended ambiguity, and it was also not my intention to cast asperions on anyone's character.
All I meant is that unless you think "some of you guys" is specific and there's an inoffensive variety of "hard-hearted", I don't see how your comment could be interpreted as anything but an ambiguous character aspersion aimed at some of the posters on this thread. And when you went on to say that if you ever need a shoulder to cry on you wouldn't look to any of ours, it suddenly sounded like you were referring to all the posters on this thread. I accept that you didn't do this intentionally, I'm just explaining how it came across to me as a poster on this thread.

It didn't seem to me that MonCapitan was looking for a shoulder to cry on.I didn't say he did. All I said was I would now be hesitant to do so.
I understood that. What I don't understand is how you came to the conclusion--based on our posts in this thread--that if you should ever find yourself being harrassed online you should hesitate to look to any of us for a shoulder to cry on.

Again, you have my apology for posting.

*slinks off thread*
Like I said in my previous post, I don't believe questioning and/or criticising your viewpoint amounts to condemning you for expressing it - so in my opinion it isn't necessary for you to apologize or slink off the thread. Of course whether to continue with the discussion is your prerogative, but it wasn't my intention to make you feel as if your input is unwelcome.

[Seven of Nine]

Wowser, do some of you guys sound hard-hearted.Could you be more specific? Whenever someone makes an ambiguous statement like that in a thread I've posted in I can't help but wonder if it was intended for me, and I prefer to respond to aspersions cast on my character.I apologise for any unintended ambiguity, and it was also not my intention to cast asperions on anyone's character.
All I meant is that unless you think "some of you guys" is specific and there's an inoffensive variety of "hard-hearted", I don't see how your comment could be interpreted as anything but an ambiguous character aspersion aimed at some of the posters on this thread.

I wrote that some "sounded" hard-hearted, not that I believed that anyone was.

And when you went on to say that if you ever need a shoulder to cry on you wouldn't look to any of ours, it suddenly sounded like you were referring to all the posters on this thread. I accept that you didn't do this intentionally, I'm just explaining how it came across to me as a poster on this thread.

Again, I apologise.

It didn't seem to me that MonCapitan was looking for a shoulder to cry on.I didn't say he did. All I said was I would now be hesitant to do so.

I understood that. What I don't understand is how you came to the conclusion--based on our posts in this thread--that if you should ever find yourself being harrassed online you should hesitate to look to any of us for a shoulder to cry on.

vm, your post was a good example: you found my post unclear, and asked me to restate it, yet you didn't seem at all hesitant to comment fully, in the meantime, on what you thought it said, and to take umbrage to its presumed meaning, and you still appear to be saying that there's no other way to interpret my post as anything but a wholesale character aspersion.

Every post I've read of your is a thing of beauty, so I wish I could say that you're always going to have that experience with mine, but you most assuredly aren't.
Given that something horrible enough has happened to me that I long to start a thread on the subject, I'm going to be at my worst, and even less likely to write as clearly as is the standard for FF members, so what I write isn't likely to be up to par.

Again, you have my apology for posting.

*slinks off thread*
Like I said in my previous post, I don't believe questioning and/or criticising your viewpoint amounts to condemning you for expressing it - so in my opinion it isn't necessary for you to apologize or slink off the thread. Of course whether to continue with the discussion is your prerogative, but it wasn't my intention to make you feel as if your input is unwelcome.[/QUOTE]

So "ambigious character aspersion" is a good thing?
It's not in my book, so I'll be posting far more carefully here (or not at all when that isn't possible) from now on, in order to avoid giving offence when none is meant.

As I said, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding; it may not bother you, but it bothers me, so, I'm the one who isn't happy with my input.

[Dragar]

I probably came off a bit hard in my post. My apologies to MonCapitan if I did upset him/her.

[viscousmemories]

Look Seven of Nine, I wrote you a book! :)

I wrote that some "sounded" hard-hearted, not that I believed that anyone was.
I noticed that distinction, but in my opinion that doesn't substantially change the meaning of the statement. Is our disconnect perhaps that you don't interpret "hard-hearted" as a character aspersion? To me it's synonymous with callous, insensitive, heartless, etc. Roughly on par with saying "Some of you guys sound like real assholes". If I were to say that and someone took offense, do you think it would help if I defended my comment by saying "No, no... I didn't say you are a real asshole, I said your post made you sound like a real asshole."?

And when you went on to say that if you ever need a shoulder to cry on you wouldn't look to any of ours, it suddenly sounded like you were referring to all the posters on this thread. I accept that you didn't do this intentionally, I'm just explaining how it came across to me as a poster on this thread.
Again, I apologise.Thanks, but I'm really not looking for an apology. I have truly accepted that you meant no offense.

I understood that. What I don't understand is how you came to the conclusion--based on our posts in this thread--that if you should ever find yourself being harrassed online you should hesitate to look to any of us for a shoulder to cry on.
vm, your post was a good example: you found my post unclear, and asked me to restate it, yet you didn't seem at all hesitant to comment fully, in the meantime, on what you thought it said, and to take umbrage to its presumed meaning, and you still appear to be saying that there's no other way to interpret my post as anything but a wholesale character aspersion.
Hopefully my explanation above makes it more clear why I responded as I did.

Every post I've read of your is a thing of beauty, so I wish I could say that you're always going to have that experience with mine, but you most assuredly aren't.
Thanks, I'm flattered. :)

Honestly though I don't have that experience with most of my own posts, much less anyone else's. You really shouldn't interpret my disagreeing with your opinion or your manner of expressing it on one occassion as anything more than that.

Given that something horrible enough has happened to me that I long to start a thread on the subject, I'm going to be at my worst, and even less likely to write as clearly as is the standard for FF members, so what I write isn't likely to be up to par.
I could probably write a book in response to this sentence, but I'll go for the short story version. :)

The most relevant point is that if something horrible enough has happened to you that you long to start a thread on the subject, the odds are probably very good that you won't choose to frame it as a policy question and post it in the Forum Administration forum. That alone is probably going to ensure that the tenor of responses you get will be significantly different.

However, in my opinion it is not advisable to post at all on a public, unmoderated discussion forum about a traumatic personal experience unless you are prepared to deal with the fact that people may say some hurtful things in response. First you have people like myself who are very analytical and skeptical, and tend to put reason and rationality before the emotional response. Second you have people who might not understand the degree of importance you assign a particular occurrence and who may not be as sensitive as you'd like. Thirdly, to be very blunt, some people are real assholes and will say hurtful things simply because they can.

Once upon a time I was a member of a forum in which a young man posted a very emotional plea for support, alleging to have been raped by a TA at his university. We were all very sympathetic, naturally, but as he continued to post and explain the details of what had occurred, some of us started to question whether 'rape' was an accurate description of the event. We were all vocally supportive, but some of us expressed some skepticism (in somewhat dispassionate terms, imo), that the TA in question was in fact guilty of rape.

Some people were outraged that there were those of us who would respond with anything but unconditional emotional support, and left the forum over it. Others thought it was fine to be skeptical but that we should've expressed ourselves with more compassion, etc. The guy quit posting altogether, so we have no way of knowing what he ultimately concluded about our posts. What I do know is that six months later, the court case against the TA was dismissed as having no evidentiary basis (sorry if I'm mutilating legal terms here... but that's how I remember it).

Anyway the moral of the story is that people are going to respond to emotional pleas in whatever way they feel is most appropriate. I favored the compassionate but skeptical stance with the guy in my story and I don't regret it at all. I think it was the appropriate response and I feel as though I was vindicated by the dismissal of the case against the TA.

Of course if this makes you less comfortable seeking my shoulder to cry on I understand. But I wouldn't personally describe myself as hard-hearted and I don't think anyone who knows me well would either. I'm just cautious and deliberate, I think.

So "ambigious character aspersion" is a good thing?
It's not in my book, so I'll be posting far more carefully here (or not at all when that isn't possible) from now on, in order to avoid giving offence when none is meant.

As I said, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding; it may not bother you, but it bothers me, so, I'm the one who isn't happy with my input.
No, I don't think it's a good thing. I meant that just because you said something that I interpreted as offensive doesn't mean that I think you're a bad person or that you shouldn't express yourself at all. It's really not that big of a deal, I only intended to illuminate the fact that some statements can have unintended consequences.

It's what I call the "you people" syndrome (okay I just made that up) and I have had horrible experiences with doing it myself. When you address potentially offensive comments to a vague assortment of people, you never know who's going to take it personally. I used to have a bad habit of making comments about the posters at IIDB as if they all share a brain, and it blew up in my face every time someone my generalization didn't apply to responded. That's really the major point I was trying to make. I didn't mean to make a federal case out of it.

[Seven of Nine]

Look Seven of Nine, I wrote you a book! :)

I wrote that some "sounded" hard-hearted, not that I believed that anyone was.
I noticed that distinction, but in my opinion that doesn't substantially change the meaning of the statement. Is our disconnect perhaps that you don't interpret "hard-hearted" as a character aspersion? To me it's synonymous with callous, insensitive, heartless, etc. Roughly on par with saying "Some of you guys sound like real assholes". If I were to say that and someone took offense, do you think it would help if I defended my comment by saying "No, no... I didn't say you are a real asshole, I said your post made you sound like a real asshole."?

In my mind, there's a substantial difference between being a real asshole and sounding like one, so yes, it would make all the difference to me. If you're saying that the two statements are considered synonymous here, I'll take your word for it, though. :)

And when you went on to say that if you ever need a shoulder to cry on you wouldn't look to any of ours, it suddenly sounded like you were referring to all the posters on this thread. I accept that you didn't do this intentionally, I'm just explaining how it came across to me as a poster on this thread.
Again, I apologise.Thanks, but I'm really not looking for an apology. I have truly accepted that you meant no offense.

I understood that. What I don't understand is how you came to the conclusion--based on our posts in this thread--that if you should ever find yourself being harrassed online you should hesitate to look to any of us for a shoulder to cry on.
vm, your post was a good example: you found my post unclear, and asked me to restate it, yet you didn't seem at all hesitant to comment fully, in the meantime, on what you thought it said, and to take umbrage to its presumed meaning, and you still appear to be saying that there's no other way to interpret my post as anything but a wholesale character aspersion.

Hopefully my explanation above makes it more clear why I responded as I did.

Well...no; not really. You appear to be saying that there's no difference between being purposely insulting and putting ones' foot in ones' mouth? or not?

Every post I've read of your is a thing of beauty, so I wish I could say that you're always going to have that experience with mine, but you most assuredly aren't.
Thanks, I'm flattered. :)

Honestly though I don't have that experience with most of my own posts, much less anyone else's. You really shouldn't interpret my disagreeing with your opinion or your manner of expressing it on one occassion as anything more than that.

I have don't have a problem with not agreeing, but I do have a problem with offending you, and others, unintentionally. I'm the child of exceptionally courteous parents.

Given that something horrible enough has happened to me that I long to start a thread on the subject, I'm going to be at my worst, and even less likely to write as clearly as is the standard for FF members, so what I write isn't likely to be up to par.
I could probably write a book in response to this sentence, but I'll go for the short story version. :)

The most relevant point is that if something horrible enough has happened to you that you long to start a thread on the subject, the odds are probably very good that you won't choose to frame it as a policy question and post it in the Forum Administration forum.
That alone is probably going to ensure that the tenor of responses you get will be significantly different.

Frankly, I wouldn't chance it now, and I wouldn't ask any public questions regarding policy, either.

However, in my opinion it is not advisable to post at all on a public, unmoderated discussion forum about a traumatic personal experience unless you are prepared to deal with the fact that people may say some hurtful things in response. First you have people like myself who are very analytical and skeptical, and tend to put reason and rationality before the emotional response.

You see this as a problem, vm? I don't, personally speaking.
My only criticism of that approach is one I mentioned earlier:
if a post is so unclear that you don't comprehend it, what's the purpose of asking that it be clarified, only to go ahead and reply as though you were sure you understood it? Wouldn't it be a better use of your analytical powers to get the clarification for which you've asked first?

Second you have people who might not understand the degree of importance you assign a particular occurrence and who may not be as sensitive as you'd like. Thirdly, to be very blunt, some people are real assholes and will say hurtful things simply because they can.

You've just summed up what also happens on many moderated boards.

Once upon a time I was a member of a forum in which a young man posted a very emotional plea for support, alleging to have been raped by a TA at his university. We were all very sympathetic, naturally, but as he continued to post and explain the details of what had occurred, some of us started to question whether 'rape' was an accurate description of the event. We were all vocally supportive, but some of us expressed some skepticism (in somewhat dispassionate terms, imo), that the TA in question was in fact guilty of rape.

Some people were outraged that there were those of us who would respond with anything but unconditional emotional support, and left the forum over it. Others thought it was fine to be skeptical but that we should've expressed ourselves with more compassion, etc. The guy quit posting altogether, so we have no way of knowing what he ultimately concluded about our posts. What I do know is that six months later, the court case against the TA was dismissed as having no evidentiary basis (sorry if I'm mutilating legal terms here... but that's how I remember it).

At a moderated board we were treated to a long, drawn out story, supposedly posted by three different people, in which a member was killed, pronounced dead at a hospital, only to rise again, as it were, after having zero vital signs for over half an hour. She had the oddest CPR, too.
We had every response you mention here,except that no one left the forum over it, and I caught hell for not being "compassionate enough" to swallow this story whole, although I cared a great deal about her.

Anyway the moral of the story is that people are going to respond to emotional pleas in whatever way they feel is most appropriate. I favored the compassionate but skeptical stance with the guy in my story and I don't regret it at all. I think it was the appropriate response and I feel as though I was vindicated by the dismissal of the case against the TA.

Yes. I gave our member a great deal of healthy attention, because my feeling is that she was desperately neglected at home, and that worked out very well, so I have no regrets, either.

Of course if this makes you less comfortable seeking my shoulder to cry on I understand. But I wouldn't personally describe myself as hard-hearted and I don't think anyone who knows me well would either. I'm just cautious and deliberate, I think.

vm, much of the time, I simply don't have the ability tp post in the manner a cautous and deliberate person like yourself needs, and there's nothing I can do about that.
No harm; no foul, as far as I'm concerned. :)

So "ambigious character aspersion" is a good thing?
It's not in my book, so I'll be posting far more carefully here (or not at all when that isn't possible) from now on, in order to avoid giving offence when none is meant.

As I said, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding; it may not bother you, but it bothers me, so, I'm the one who isn't happy with my input.
No, I don't think it's a good thing. I meant that just because you said something that I interpreted as offensive doesn't mean that I think you're a bad person or that you shouldn't express yourself at all. It's really not that big of a deal, I only intended to illuminate the fact that some statements can have unintended consequences.

Pointing this out to me won't do any good because I already know that, and knowing that doesn't help, but thank you for trying. :)

It's what I call the "you people" syndrome (okay I just made that up) and I have had horrible experiences with doing it myself. When you address potentially offensive comments to a vague assortment of people, you never know who's going to take it personally. I used to have a bad habit of making comments about the posters at IIDB as if they all share a brain, and it blew up in my face every time someone my generalization didn't apply to responded. That's really the major point I was trying to make. I didn't mean to make a federal case out of it.

Point well taken. As I said earlier, I won't be posting nearly as much, which is all I can do, as long as you or whoever (it really doesn't matter, isn't willing to ask me what I mean when my posts are vague. Take a look at this horrible mess:
http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1950
If members hadn't been willing to doggedly question me that day, I could not have told them what was wrong. Fortunately, it was only a thread begging for help with my IE problems, so no members were harmed by my inability to express myself.
As far as I know, there are no "Sheltered Workshop" message boards available, so if this doesn't turn out to be the right board for me to be a real part of, then I will happily visit and lurk only . Again: no harm, no foul. It'll be no one's fault; not even mine. :)

[Dragar]

If members hadn't been willing to doggedly question me that day, I could not have told them what was wrong. Fortunately, it was only a thread begging for help with my IE problems, so no members were harmed by my inability to express myself.

I'll be saddened to hear you'll won't be contributing so much, Seven. I've enjoyed reading your input.

If you're really concerned about your 'inability to express yourself', why not practice? It probably won't improve if you don't.

[Seven of Nine]

If members hadn't been willing to doggedly question me that day, I could not have told them what was wrong. Fortunately, it was only a thread begging for help with my IE problems, so no members were harmed by my inability to express myself.

I'll be saddened to hear you'll won't be contributing so much, Seven. I've enjoyed reading your input.

If you're really concerned about your 'inability to express yourself', why not practice? It probably won't improve if you don't.

Dragar, what a sweetheart you are! :hearts:
I have lots of free time and spend a great deal of it on message boards, so I have perhaps 20,000 posts spread over a number of them, but practice doesn't bring the improvement I would prefer; there's a limit to how much that will benefit me.

[Dragar]

Dragar, what a sweetheart you are! :hearts:

:blush:

Yeah, well, just wait until I say something even more vague than usual, or just plain thoughtless. Then there'll be tears and trantrums and everyone will be all riled up...eugh. It won't be pretty.

Just you wait.

I have lots of free time and spend a great deal of it on message boards, so I have perhaps 20,000 posts spread over a number of them, but practice doesn't bring the improvement I would prefer; there's a limit to how much that will benefit me.

Well, this seemed to come across just fine. :)

Still, not everyone learns different skill as the same speed. And the example you posted - of your computer troubles - was probably more an exception than a rule. Computers are notorious for being confusing and difficult to use; you're not alone in that, or in your struggles to express yourself.

Still...you're the one who knows what makes you happy and what doesn't. But I'd still miss your posts.

[Seven of Nine]

[QUOTE]Dragar, what a sweetheart you are! :hearts:

:blush:

Yeah, well, just wait until I say something even more vague than usual, or just plain thoughtless. Then there'll be tears and trantrums and everyone will be all riled up...eugh. It won't be pretty.

Just you wait.

I'll look forward to it. ;)

I have lots of free time and spend a great deal of it on message boards, so I have perhaps 20,000 posts spread over a number of them, but practice doesn't bring the improvement I would prefer; there's a limit to how much that will benefit me.

Well, this seemed to come across just fine. :)

Still, not everyone learns different skill as the same speed. And the example you posted - of your computer troubles - was probably more an exception than a rule.

I honestly can't evaluate that myself; I just know that it happens far too often. :crazy:

Computers are notorious for being confusing and difficult to use; you're not alone in that, or in your struggles to express yourself.

Good points, of course. :)

Still...you're the one who knows what makes you happy and what doesn't. But I'd still miss your posts.

Ha. They all say that...at first. :D

[livius drusus]

Seven, I think you express yourself eminently well. That IE thread was nothing, nothing compared to tech supporting my dad over the phone. Believe you me.

Working out misunderstandings is always a pain in the ass in this word-dependent medium. I'd really hate to see you internalize that and give up posting. :(

[Dragar]

You should hear my Mum. Remember the whole 'illegal operation' error message? She was certain this meant the police were going to be knocking on our door any minute....

[viscousmemories]

Frankly, I wouldn't chance it now, and I wouldn't ask any public questions regarding policy, either.
I'm sorry, Seven of Nine. It wasn't my intention to make you feel uncomfortable sharing personal issues, asking for policy clarification or posting here in general. If that's all I've accomplished with my last few posts then I'll just bow out of this discussion now. It isn't worth chasing you off just to explain myself any further on this relatively minor issue.

[Seven of Nine]

Frankly, I wouldn't chance it now, and I wouldn't ask any public questions regarding policy, either.
I'm sorry, Seven of Nine. It wasn't my intention to make you feel uncomfortable sharing personal issues, asking for policy clarification or posting here in general. If that's all I've accomplished with my last few posts then I'll just bow out of this discussion now. It isn't worth chasing you off just to explain myself any further on this relatively minor issue.

I'm nearly always uncomfortable posting in those two areas, plus a couple more, and you must not be chasing me off, because here I am, still posting. ;)

[LadyShea]

I am pretty sure Seven of Nine was referring to my posts, at least in part. I certainly wasn't cryptic or anything, I really am bewildered that someone would try to have someone else banned over flames. I guess I simply do not understand asking others to protect me from being pissed off or offended or whatever or avenge me for it when it does happen.

I don't have anything at all against Mon Capitan, nor was I trying to attack him, I expressed my bewilderment and gave him a chance to respond, which he did.

If I scare people from posting, that is certainly not my intention either. I am simply blunt, usually post off the cuff, and sometimes am not all that thoughtful, but I am really not hard-hearted. I also think I can be very supportive and helpful if I am able to empathize with a situation.

If anyone ever has a problem with me, I fervently wish they would say it to me, flat out, I am all for working things out and viewing issues from different perspectives.

[Seven of Nine]

If anyone ever has a problem with me, I fervently wish they would say it to me, flat out, I am all for working things out and viewing issues from different perspectives.

I have no idea if this is directed to me, but since my name is mentioned in the post, just let me say for the record,
LadyShea, that if you think, for any reason that we have a personal problem, please feel free to PM me regarding it. However, I am entirely unaware of having a personal problem with you.

Once again, I would like to apologize to every single person who posted on this thread for ever posting any comment here at all!! I cannot imagine regretting it more, believe me! :(

[LadyShea]

I have no idea if this is directed to me, but since my name is mentioned in the post, just let me say for the record,
LadyShea, that if you think, for any reason that we have a personal problem, please feel free to PM me regarding it. However, I am entirely unaware of having a personal problem with you.

I don't think we have any personal problems whatsoever. I love your posts and think you're a super addition to this board.

I think you had a problem with my posts in this thread. I may be wrong. All I am saying is that when/if you, or anyone, has a problem with one of my posts, just use my name in the thread. No reason to be ambiguous with "you guys" or "some of you" unless that is actually the case.

Again, I may be wrong here and you very well may have meant more than just me, and that's fine. I just don't like the idea of people feeling they need to pussyfoot around me (Ensign Steve ;)). If I piss you (general you, not specific you) off, say "Wow, LadyShea, you pissed me off and are being a bitch". I swear I can deal.

Once again, I would like to apologize to every single person who posted on this thread for ever posting any comment here at all!! I cannot imagine regretting it more, believe me! :(

Why would you apologize for posting your thoughts and feelings? I don't accept that apology because it's completely unnecessary. You did nothing wrong.

I also can't imagine what it is you regret. Again, you did nothing wrong that I can see. I only posted to clarify myself and my participation in this thread.

[Seven of Nine]

[QUOTE=Seven of Nine]
I have no idea if this is directed to me, but since my name is mentioned in the post, just let me say for the record,
LadyShea, that if you think, for any reason that we have a personal problem, please feel free to PM me regarding it. However, I am entirely unaware of having a personal problem with you.

I don't think we have any personal problems whatsoever. I love your posts and think you're a super addition to this board.

Thank you.

I think you had a problem with my posts in this thread. I may be wrong. All I am saying is that when/if you, or anyone, has a problem with one of my posts, just use my name in the thread. No reason to be ambiguous with "you guys" or "some of you" unless that is actually the case.

Yes, that was actually the case. I found the overall tone, as possibly a shyer person than many members here, somewhat forbidding. One reason for this is that Ensign Steve was posting as I was, so that I didn't read her lighter, balancing post.

Again, I may be wrong here and you very well may have meant more than just me, and that's fine. I just don't like the idea of people feeling they need to pussyfoot around me (Ensign Steve ;)). If I piss you (general you, not specific you) off, say "Wow, LadyShea, you pissed me off and are being a bitch". I swear I can deal.

From your point of view, I probably pussyfoot around everyone; it's how I am.

Once again, I would like to apologize to every single person who posted on this thread for ever posting any comment here at all!! I cannot imagine regretting it more, believe me! :(

Why would you apologize for posting your thoughts and feelings? I don't accept that apology because it's completely unnecessary. You did nothing wrong.

Because I never actually succeeded in correctly expressing them and was inadvertantly insulting?

I also can't imagine what it is you regret. Again, you did nothing wrong that I can see. I only posted to clarify myself and my participation in this thread.

I'm too shy to always post comfortably with such an outgoing group, plus I failed to post what I meant, which drew too much attention to my post, which always embarrasses me.

Thank you for clarifying, LadyShea. :)

[Ensign Steve]

Again, I may be wrong here and you very well may have meant more than just me, and that's fine. I just don't like the idea of people feeling they need to pussyfoot around me (Ensign Steve ;)).

bitch

[LadyShea]

Again, I may be wrong here and you very well may have meant more than just me, and that's fine. I just don't like the idea of people feeling they need to pussyfoot around me (Ensign Steve ;)).

bitch

Bitch?! Bitch?!

Oh yeah, I am a bitch, that's okay then.

[Seven of Nine]

:roflmao: