What Is Harassment?

[D. Scarlatti]

Where does somebody that posts shit like this get off complaining about the way this forum is run, that's what I'd like to know.

I hope I'm not the only one that sees several layers of hypocrisy here.

[Cool Hand]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

I would tend to agree, and as I've said before, I'm definitely interested in ideas for countering hostility especially towards new posters.

I agree with Crumb and liv, but I don't think it's important just for new users. Users who have already arrived and jumped in with both feet can feel unwelcome sometimes too. Clearly, some have and some still do.

As for what the admins can do about it, I have no idea. I regard as highly dubious any additional rule making, as the proliferation of rules seems to be at odds with the strongest part of the foundation supporting the philosophy of this forum -- that freedom of thought and expression is paramount.

The best thing any of us can do to prevent harassing others on the board is to try to (oh how I wanted to say "and") maintain composure and apply a sort of "count to 10" rule before hitting the submit button. I'm trying to edit a lot more before I submit now, and lately I've been trashing a lot of replies I have spent time drafting (mostly this is on another forum). Mostly, those have been good decisions.

As for preventing harassment from other members, well, surely "ignore" is one viable option. Actually ignoring or not responding is another, as is doing your best not to let it get to you, even when you actually read something that bothers you personally. That can require a lot of patience and tolerance and thick skin, but we're all adults here. If or when it gets to be too much, getting away from the computer is great medicine.

I hate it that sometimes we lash out or are rude to each other, and that sometimes we feel verbally beaten or abused. I just don't see much the admins can do about it beyond what liv and VM already do, which is to offer encouragement and support when appropriate, and to administer gentle admonishments when called for too (had to add the "too" to avoid the stupid ending-with-a-preposition rule).

CH

[JoeP]

Originally Posted by Sweetie

1. To irritate or torment alot.
2. To wear out; exhaust.
3. To impede and exhaust (an enemy) by repeated posts on the same subject.

*plonk*

[freemonkey]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

Where does somebody that posts shit like this get off complaining about the way this forum is run, that's what I'd like to know.

I hope I'm not the only one that sees several layers of hypocrisy here.

Yes, and while we're at it, how about discussing the breaking of rules that are actually already in place?

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by freemonkey

Yes, and while we're at it, how about discussing the breaking of rules that are actually already in place?

Extant rules were broken? Can you elucidate?

[freemonkey]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Extant rules were broken? Can you elucidate?

Did I misread the post, or did Sweetie reference something that TomJoe said in a private message?

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by freemonkey

Did I misread the post, or did Sweetie reference something that TomJoe said in a private message?

I honestly don't know from that message. We'd have to ask TomJoe to know for sure.

And...Is it against the rules here to discuss PM contents? Or, just merely poor form?

I'll have to check them myself.

[D. Scarlatti]

Hard to say what rule is at issue there, that post being typically incoherent.

Even so, it reinforces my point about drawing scurrilous inferences about someone simply based on the fact they were caught viewing a certain thread. It just strikes me as laughable that the same person that's complaining about the manner in which this forum is run seems to infer a privilege for herself that allows for all sorts of unfounded suggestions and accusations about other people. As I said, the latter is far more objectionable behavior.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

Hard to say what rule is at issue there, that post being typically incoherent.

Even so, it reinforces my point about drawing scurrilous inferences about someone simply based on the fact they were caught viewing a certain thread. It just strikes me as laughable that the same person that's complaining about the manner in which this forum is run seems to infer a privilege for herself that allows for all sorts of unfounded suggestions and accusations about other people.

Yeah, well, we've a "Start a Rumor" thread here that does that as a matter of course. Of course, it's viewed as humor, whereas Sweetie's (and Adora's) have not been so viewed (by many, some did find it all amusing).

Since there was no discernable effect upon the RL reputations of anyone, I fail to see how it might have broken any laws (a rule included), such a slander or libel.

So far as I can see, unless somebody exposed actual personal information identifying the poster, to the detriment of the poster so exposed, there is no case.

[freemonkey]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

And...Is it against the rules here to discuss PM contents? Or, just merely poor form?

I'll have to check them myself.

Ah, so I see the rules don't state anything about revealing the content of PM's. I just assumed that it would be against the rules. I should have read them first.

I just happen to find it morally wrong, then.

[D. Scarlatti]

All I'm saying is that I see a big difference between two posters interacting in the same thread, during which one or both posters are flaming each other directly in response to one another, and making scurrilous suggestions about someone's alleged alcohol or drug use, supported by nothing except pure, baseless speculation. The former is pretty much unavoidable whereas the latter is pretty disgraceful, in my opinion.

That someone who is regularly engaging in the latter is now complaining to the administration about the former is the depth of hypocrisy, as far as I'm concerned.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by freemonkey

Ah, so I see the rules don't state anything about revealing the content of PM's. I just assumed that it would be against the rules. I should have read them first.

I just happen to find it morally wrong, then.

If done without the explicit sanction of the other poster, yes. Poor form. Bad manners. Subject to your (or any other poster's) personal disapproprium, but not grounds for any offical sanction for violation of the forum's rules.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

All I'm saying is that I see a big difference between two posters interacting in the same thread, during which one or both posters are flaming each other directly in response to one another, and making scurrilous suggestions about someone's alleged alcohol or drug use, supported by nothing except pure, baseless speculation. The former is pretty much unavoidable whereas the latter is pretty disgraceful, in my opinion.

That someone who is regularly engaging in the latter is now complaining to the administration about the former is the depth of hypocrisy, as far as I'm concerned.

Then you and others of that opinion are obliged to step up an make that clear, just as Sweetie has done with Adora. Just as you have attempted to so do. This forum is replete with such scurrilous suggestions, though. Some in jest, others not. Sweetie could well have thought that she was acting within the bounds of the community standards, seeing that is it not explicitly forbidden and others have engaged in such behavior.

[Dingfod]

IRCC, the rules do prohibit revealing personal information about another poster. I'm not sure if any was revealed or not. It could be revealing that TomJoe was lurking in a porn thread could be considered pretty personal information.

[Ari]

Although it's rarely enforced I would say trolling rules work well enough against public harassment. If someone is disturbing threads for no other reason than to attack someone at seems a bit like trolling. With the ignore feature we can shrink this definition to be someone who is being disruptive enough that the ignore feature no longer functions properly (such as if they completely disrupted the flow of the thread).

In the end I think the philosophy of the forum only works fully when everyone can act like an adult. Since it's quite obvious some people here can't, we end up with problems.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Warren

IRCC, the rules do prohibit revealing personal information about another poster. I'm not sure if any was revealed or not. It could be revealing that TomJoe was lurking in a porn thread could be considered pretty personal information.

It might be personal, but it seems that it would be open information to anyone on this board. Plus, I don't see that it could besmirch anybody's reputation for so doing.

As to whether personal details are exposed, there's no way to do that unless the poster so exposed acts to correct it...and I'm assuming that making it clear to an administrator would be the advisable route, given that posting such would merely confirm that which was only speculative (to all other thread readers) to that point.

[D. Scarlatti]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

Then you and others of that opinion are obliged to step up and make that clear ...

I don't think so. I have no interest in recommending policy changes to the administration. I don't believe any are required. I'm not the one that's complaining. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the complaint under consideration in this thread. In my opinion the OP's own behavior here is far more objectionable than what it is she's bitching about.

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

It might be personal, but it seems that it would be open information to anyone on this board. Plus, I don't see that it could besmirch anybody's reputation for so doing.

Not around here. We might smirch someone's reputation, but no besmirching is allowed.

As to whether personal details are exposed, there's no way to do that unless the poster so exposed acts to correct it...and I'm assuming that making it clear to an administrator would be the advisable route, given that posting such would merely confirm that which was only speculative (to all other thread readers) to that point.

My post was wildly speculative. I couldn't figure out how freemonkey thought that was a violation so I went for the long bomb. So what it got intercepted, at least I tried.

[Leesifer]

It is very hard to just forget previous threads and I just don't feel the OP is totally genuine.

[freemonkey]

Originally Posted by Warren

My post was wildly speculative. I couldn't figure out how freemonkey thought that was a violation so I went for the long bomb. So what it got intercepted, at least I tried.

The post that I referenced appeared to be revealing a confidentiality between 2 people via PM. My moral compass finds such behavior repugnant, and because I was busy making my face I neglected to look at the actual rules to see if it was prohibited.

I admit I may be entirely mistaken about what the post was about, and TomJoe seemed to have it handled, so I did not press the issue at the time.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

I don't think so. I have no interest in recommending policy changes to the administration. I don't believe any are required.

And I'm right there with you.

I'm not the one that's complaining. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the complaint under consideration in this thread.

So, you're complaining about somebody's hypocrisy, right? You are complaining, and it's completely legitimate.

In my opinion the OP's own behavior here is far more objectionable than what it is she's bitching about.

Oh, I don't know about that. I'm personally offended that any poster wishes to act to censor another poster when they have an available remedy that they are unwilling to use. That seems like overkill retribution, rather than expression of an opposing opinion.

The OP has already tried to claim the altruistic soapbox by claiming that another poster is driving away yet other posters with her postings. To that I say, they had the opportunity to place the offender on "ignore" as well, yet they chose to absent themselves. That's their choice and not something which requires a remedy through promulgation of new rules, particularly rules which run directly counter to the ideal behind this forum.

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by JoeP

*plonk*

Adora
Sweetie
Both of them

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by Warren

Not around here. We might smirch someone's reputation, but no besmirching is allowed.

How about "asmirching"?

(Hmmm...sounds a lot like "assmunching".)

[D. Scarlatti]

I agree with all that godfry, but I just want to reiterate that I'm not complaining, not even about the hypocrisy. People are free to be hypocrites, and people are free to point out the hypocrisy. I think that's the whole point of there being very few restrictions on what people can post here.

What's also amusing to me is that in the "Goodbye" thread, from whence much of this nonsense arose, several members have either expressed what seems to me genuine concern or else attempted to inject a little levity into the proceedings. At nearly every such instance, Sweetie returns with more malice and innuendo.

I'm sure there might be a genuine issue somewhere that warrants some discussion in the administration forum, it's just a bit difficult to take seriously its source, in this instance, and in this thread.

[godfry n. glad]

Originally Posted by D. Scarlatti

I agree with all that godfry, but I just want to reiterate that I'm not complaining, not even about the hypocrisy. People are free to be hypocrites, and people are free to point out the hypocrisy. I think that's the whole point of there being very few restrictions on what people can post here.

What's also amusing to me is that in the "Goodbye" thread, from whence much of this nonsense arose, several members have either expressed what seems to me genuine concern or else attempted to inject a little levity into the proceedings. At nearly every such instance, Sweetie returns with more malice and innuendo.

Yeah... I know. Most of it was entirely unnecessary and entirely counterproductive. That's why I thought she might actually be experiencing a manic episode and was seriously concerned for her. Since, she's evidently spent more time posting, because she's fair more composed and coherent of late. Even so, I do not agree with her position and see no reason to change anything.

I'm sure there might be a genuine issue somewhere that warrants some discussion in the administration forum, it's just a bit difficult to take seriously its source, in this instance, and in this thread.

Always, but always, consider the source. The OP has stated her case and I think it her choice to so so. I also think those who disagree have that choice as well. So far, we're doing as we say we do.

That, I like. I hope it continues as is.