Deadly internet bullying, OR ways in which the FF is like police brutality

[But]

Originally Posted by seebs

people who have been through much worse places

former commandoes

extremely skilled flame warriors

skilled enough not to use force they don't mean to

and not to feel any need to harm anyone seriously

would-be bullies get their asses handed to them

Get real, you're a collection of people typing words into the internets.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by But

Get real, you're a collection of people fucking ninjas typing words into the internets.

fify

[Adam]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Is anybody else's tea oddly amethyst-colored?

No, but mine has what appears to be a ruby in it. WTF?

[ChuckF]

Damn, a ruby. This place really is classy.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

So is different from other forums because here the in-crowd genuinely are all heroes.

Another cool example of you massively misreading something.

Nowhere did I say "heroes".

Nowhere did I say anything about the "in-crowd".

Those are your interpretations, not anything I said. I didn't say anyone was a hero, and I don't really think there's necessarily a well-defined, or even loosely-defined, "in crowd".

LOL seebs, do you ever listen to yourself?

Not usually.

[Qingdai]

An alternate idea is that people here already have thick skins and the knowledge that they are here because they want to be and it is just "sig on a page" to quote JoeP.

My tea is, "delicious popcorn tea." As per Qingdai jr.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by JamesBannon

On the use of ignore: It is a bad use of ignore to stop bullying. This simply enables the offenders.

It depends how broadly you choose to define "stop bullying". True, the ignore feature isn't going to stop any from engaging in bullying behavior, but I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise. What it does is make such behavior (mostly and usually) invisible to anyone who feels bullied, effectively eliminating it. To that extent I would say that the ignore feature is a very good way to stop bullying.

[JamesBannon]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

It depends how broadly you choose to define "stop bullying". True, the ignore feature isn't going to stop any from engaging in bullying behavior, but I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise. What it does is make such behavior (mostly and usually) invisible to anyone who feels bullied, effectively eliminating it. To that extent I would say that the ignore feature is a very good way to stop bullying.

The reason it's bad is because it puts the onus of behavioural control on the victim, not the perpetrator. It should always be the case that the demand is on the perpertrator to modify his / her behaviour.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by JamesBannon

The reason it's bad is because it puts the onus of behavioural control on the victim, not the perpetrator. It should always be the case that the demand is on the perpertrator to modify his / her behaviour.

In the abstract, sure. But in practice, I don't think it's useful to be dogmatic about it. If you know that a neighborhood is overrun by bigots who will hassle you if they see you because they don't like the color of your skin, and you go there specifically because you are in the habit of being harassed and then complaining about it, that's just dumb.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by JamesBannon

The reason it's bad is because it puts the onus of behavioural control on the victim, not the perpetrator. It should always be the case that the demand is on the perpertrator to modify his / her behaviour.

I think 'victim' and 'perpetrator' imply a legal (or at least formal) context and interaction that simply isn't analogous to posting messages to one another on a free, public, largely unmoderated discussion forum. That said, we have had many long discussions and debates on the subject of 'bullying' and 'harassment' here over the years, and the one thing I can say with certainty is that there is no broad agreement on what constitutes either or what can or should be done about it.

With consideration of our founding principles, recognizing our own limitations and considering the stated wishes of our members over the years, we have opted for the least controlling forum management approach. So I will have to disagree with what follows from your assertion: that we should be judging the behavior of our members and demanding that they conform to our view of what is proper.

It is quite enough, in our opinion, to implore visitors here to ignore content that offends them or seriously consider whether visiting here at all is a good choice for them. As much as I hate to say it, the really isn't for everyone. There are any number of heavily moderated forums for people who prefer to put control of what they read into someone else's hands.

[Angakuk]

It seems to me that there are basically two positive ways of dealing with a bully, whether online or in real life. The first is to force the bully to change his behavior, if you can manage to accomplish that. The second is to prevent yourself from being the victim of that bully. Most of us have more control over our own behavior than we have over the behavior of others. So, it would seem to me that I am much more likely to succeed at preventing myself from being the victim of bullying by making a change in my behavior so that the situation is altered in such a way that I am no longer the victim. Yes, this does put the onus on the victim. However, I think it is nearly always the case that the responsibility to effect change is on the person who wants to see change happen.

With regard to mickthinks, he thinks that he sees evidence of a significant degree of bullying at and he wants to see it stopped. His approach to changing this situation seems to be one of trying, first of all, to convince others to see the problem in the same way he sees it and, secondly, to convince them join him in a program designed to force the alleged bullies to stop their bullying behavior. If he can achieve the first objective, then the second objective is probably doable. Personally, I think that the first objective is probably out of reach. For the simple reasons that his perception of the problem is counter-factual and he doesn't have the personal charisma that it would take to convince others to adopt his counter-factual perception.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

There are any number of heavily moderated forums for people who prefer to put control of what they read into someone else's hands.

The thing about mickthinks' agenda is that he is not advocating more formal moderation. He wants the members of to take control of the content at , if, and only if, he can persuade most of them to see things his way. What he fails to realize is that , as it is currently constituted, is under the control of its membership. is the way it is (whatever that is), largely because most of the regular posters here like it that way.

mickthinks' efforts remind me of an experience from my teenage years. I was actively involved in a church youth group, not because I was a Christian, but because it was one of the few social activities I was allowed while I was grounded by my parents (and I was grounded much of the time). Anyway, I made a serious effort to change the character of the group so that it would be more social and less religious. I will leave you to make your own guesses about how successful I was in that endeavor.

[Dingfod]

I'm sure pointing out the bullying behavior reduced the bullying behavior, other than that little bit of mocking the pointer-outer with some bullying behavior bit.

Okay, not so much.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Net result, would-be bullies get their asses handed to them, after which everyone goes back to drinking tea with pinkies out.

So is different from other forums because here the in-crowd genuinely are all heroes. LOL seebs, do you ever listen to yourself?

Mick

@incrowd's.thx

I made this thread to ask you a specific question, and you ignored it.

Is there any particular reason for that?

[MonCapitan2002]

Originally Posted by JamesBannon

The reason it's bad is because it puts the onus of behavioural control on the victim, not the perpetrator. It should always be the case that the demand is on the perpertrator to modify his / her behaviour.

I understand your point here, however bear in mind that this forum was designed from the outset to be largely unmoderated. The way the was designed was to leave the moderation of content largely to the members using the ignore features. These tools were made so extensive that the ignore features I see here can't be found anywhere else.

Here you can ignore a specific users avatar or signature. You can ignore specific threads. You used to be able to ignore specific posts as well (a feature we need to get back, by the way). The forum was designed in such a way that minimal moderation would be needed since members would be given tools to completely ignore objectionable posters if they so wished.

If the were designed to be more heavily moderated then you would have a stronger case here. I am sure that if this forum were designed with more extensive moderation in mind, then some of the more objectionable members here would have been expunged long ago. However, if that were to happen, the would lose one of its most identifying traits. The only other lightly moderated board I know of is the RPGFan message boards, but its content is too narrowly focused and membership too small to be as much fun.

[mickthinks]

I made this thread to ask you a specific question, and you ignored it.
Yes, erimir, there are a number of reasons for that, I guess. One, you addressed me in third person, which helped me feel that we weren't in the same room, and two, the hyperbole of your choice of title didn't fill me with confidence that you were willing to take the issue seriously. Sorry, I guess I've just added another to the unresolved issues.

Mick

[seebs]

I don't see how this is any more hyperbolic than your claim of some kind of essential similarity between Chuck's "lulz" and potentially-fatal attacks intended to cause real harm.

[erimir]

I prefer not to call someone out directly in an OP because obviously as a public thread other people can participate, not just you.

I don't think you're correct in saying that there is any behavior on FF akin to police brutality (even if it was only inadvertently deadly) - you were the one engaging in hyperbole, imo. I'd be willing to take the issue seriously, if I saw you actually support your, imo, highly exaggerated claims.

But because I don't want to frame the debate on your terms, you don't want to respond at all? It's funny how whenever I ask you a question, you almost always find some reason not to answer it.

[mickthinks]

seebs: I don't see how this is any more hyperbolic than your claim ...
erimir: ...you were the one engaging in hyperbole, imo.

Tu quoque is not a denial, so I guess we are agreed on the point I was making about your hyperbole, erimir, and you understand my reason for not responding to your OP.

I promise I will come back to your unresolved issue when all mine have been resolved.

Mick

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

I promise I will come back to your unresolved issue when all mine have been resolved.

Mick

"I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today". - J. Wellington Wimpy

[seebs]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

seebs: I don't see how this is any more hyperbolic than your claim ...
erimir: ...you were the one engaging in hyperbole, imo.

Tu quoque is not a denial, so I guess we are agreed on the point I was making about your hyperbole, erimir, and you understand my reason for not responding to your OP.

This is at best disingenuous. Do you genuinely believe that you and erimir are agreed?

That said, I think again you're not understanding a linguistic convention. The thread title is a sarcastic reference to comments you've made -- he's incorporating the "police brutality" comparison specifically because you yourself said, in your own words, that you thought there was a similarity. It's a reference to your hyperbole; obviously he doesn't mean it.

I promise I will come back to your unresolved issue when all mine have been resolved.

I do not think your issues will be resolved while you habitually put words in other peoples' mouths. You would do better to phrase your interactions as questions about what other people mean than assertions about what you've concluded they mean -- especially given your long history of being told that you guessed wrong.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

seebs: I don't see how this is any more hyperbolic than your claim ...
erimir: ...you were the one engaging in hyperbole, imo.

Tu quoque is not a denial,

I was obviously denying that I was engaging in hyperbole. If I was agreeing with you that I was engaging in hyperbole, I would've said "You were also engaging in hyperbole" - "You were the one doing X" implies that the speaker was not doing X, and you were. Are you unfamiliar with this idiom?

The thread title is comment on your hyperbole, and I don't think it's particularly exaggerated. That is essentially the comparison you made - the FF mob engages in behavior like that of a police bully who pushes someone over and inadvertently causes that person's death.

I left out the word "mob", that's the only difference I can see.

I promise I will come back to your unresolved issue when all mine have been resolved.

That's interesting, because you are almost never satisfied that any of your issues have been resolved, and you always find a way to claim that you have some other unresolved issue.

It's a simple question, why don't you answer it for once, instead of picking irrelevant details to complain about?

[seebs]

Mick, pragmatic consideration: Once you've established (whether justly or unjustly) a reputation for not being cooperative or sincere in your engagements, you are in a poor position to go around setting terms.

In particular, "resolution" is not a usable standard. Think more in terms of "spending some real time". If someone spends an hour or two of time writing responses to you on an issue, and you end up feeling it's not resolved, that doesn't mean that person hasn't put substantial time into trying to address one of your concerns. Refusing to spend five minutes answering a question for someone who's spent an hour trying to help you makes you look pretty arrogant and rude.

Furthermore, you seem to have a collective responsibility view of this, which makes no sense. The people here are individuals. You should deal with them individually. If you have issues that are not specifically and personally with erimir, that should not factor into how you address erimir.

[mickthinks]

Once you've established (whether justly or unjustly) a reputation for not being cooperative or sincere in your engagements, you are in a poor position to go around setting terms.
er ... okay.

Refusing to spend five minutes answering a question for someone who's spent an hour trying to help you makes you look pretty arrogant and rude.
erimir spent an hour trying to help me?

... you seem to have a collective responsibility view of this, which makes no sense.
So maybe I don't?

[erimir]

Do you have any intention of answering my inquiry?