Thread: Dogpiling in Hell Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024281
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
I'm really sorry, but this isn't going away, and is now derailing a Purgatory thread on bullying. So, in accordance with Tubbs' post to:
quote:
If you want to continue discussing whether or not dog piling exists or the function of the Hell board, then take it to the Styx.
daronmedway and Yorick on the Hell thread were complaining about dogpiling.

My comment there was:
quote:
We have had threads that have gone half a page if that, in Hell. Either no-one agrees with the call or the person who has been called to Hell sees the thread and posts an immediate apology.

The ones that go for pages and pages are the ones where a lot of other people agree with the call and the person called keeps responding but not apologising.
and that I saw dogpiling as a lot of people agreeing with the Hell call, rather than a Hell call where no-one agrees and the Hell thread sinks with only a few posts.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
There's a world of difference between criticising someone's behaviour on the one hand and a lengthy, abusive character-assassination that goes on for post after post and sometimes page after page.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
This is what I said -

quote:
Many forums can learn a lot from Hell imo.

I just (in danger of being Styx-ish here) hope the hosts will close threads that outlive their purpose and become more like dogpiles - which, you have to admit, has happened more than once.

 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Are any of the following dog-piling?

I've seen all three happen. Two of them are legitimate in Hell, the other we would want to discourage - but we can't always judge who actually has a horse in the race, and who's just wanting people to see them.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
daronmedway on the Purgatory thread has just said:
quote:
Yes, but most of the threads where name calling and protracted episodes of mass hectoring eventually occur are called Hell Calls. The offender is called to the thread. There's even an informal etiquette of PMing the shipmate being called. Yes, I do grant that participation is optional but let's not pretend that shipmates can happily ignore Hell calls and just carry on elsewhere on the boards as if nothing is happening.

That having been said, I do realise that the original purpose of most (if not all) hell calls is to resolve conflict, bring correction, or express irritation constructively. The problems, as I've said already, arise when Hell calls degenerate into "let's all outdo each other in calling a shipmate increasingly nasty names" until they plank themselves and then justify it as "self-defence". It just doesn't follow.
which ties in to what Alan has just said.

There are several ways of dealing with a Hell thread:
  1. re-read what you've said to be called to Hell, reconsider and apologise (people do that occasionally);
  2. apologise for being offensive, but you hold to your original opinion and will not be participating in the thread;
  3. argue it out with everyone attacking you, using name calling and any tactic that occurs to you may help.

Guess which response generates a dog pile?
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
I think what some of us hate to see is not the "someone said something wrong on the internet" and everyone jumped on them for saying it, but rather a bunch of people got mad at X and told him what a stupid, insensitive, unqualified-for-his-job, creep he was.

For me, it's a barrage of personal attacks that makes for a true dogpile. I've also wondered how telling person X that he's a horrible troll who needs therapy doesn't constitute jerkish behavior.

quote:
The ones that go for pages and pages are the ones where a lot of other people agree with the call and the person called keeps responding but not apologising.
Curiosity Kills, why do you expect people to apologize to you for having a difference of opinion?
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
I haven't said anyone should apologise for a difference of opinion. People don't get called to Hell for differences of opinion. They get called to Hell for offensively stated opinions and refusing to engage in discussion.

If you read the three options above and my comments on the Hell thread, if I was called to Hell for something, I'd first of all wonder what I'd done to be so offensive, and apologise if I'd got it wrong or for being offensive in the way I've said it if I stood by the opinion.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I think what some of us hate to see is not the "someone said something wrong on the internet" and everyone jumped on them for saying it, but rather a bunch of people got mad at X and told him what a stupid, insensitive, unqualified-for-his-job, creep he was.
Have you ever considered the question of why they got mad in the first place?

quote:
why do you expect people to apologize to you for having a difference of opinion?
Differences of opinion almost never get people called to Hell. If they did, we'd have about six calls for every Purg thread.

It's being offensive that gets people called to Hell. And even then, Curiosity's option 2 works perfectly well in terms of stopping the "dogpile" before it's started.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
I'm on the phone to the Inland Revenue as I type. The experience of being passed from one "advisor" to another repeating the same bloody stuff each time until even I feel bored is very much like this discussion. And eventually, just like the Inland Revenue, someone is going to decide that the status quo is most desirable outcome and I'll just have to keep phoning back until the bleeders do what's right and not what's easiest.

[ 07. November 2012, 11:50: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
 
Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
Even if I agreed with you, which I don't, the massive difference is that being part of the HMRC club is an obligation whereas you are here by choice - if you're not happy here then you can always leave.

HMRC might not be so keen to see you go.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Trust me when I say, as a brand new host (though these comments are entirely my personal ones), that watching this stuff play out is NOT 'easy'.

Nor is it 'the status quo'. I don't know ANY other board that has a mechanism like Hell that's designed to stop heated/personal disputes from derailing the discussions that they originated in. It's something that in my personal experience is unique to the Ship. And it's one of the reasons I admire the Ship, actually. I tell friends about the whole Heaven/Purgatory/Hell concept quite frequently, precisely because it's both unusual and very clever.

[ 07. November 2012, 11:56: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
Even if I agreed with you, which I don't, the massive difference is that being part of the HMRC club is an obligation whereas you are here by choice - if you're not happy here then you can always leave.

HMRC might not be so keen to see you go.
This is this and this ain't Hell so you can pack that nonsense in right now.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Trust me when I say, as a brand new host (though these comments are entirely my personal ones), that watching this stuff play out is NOT 'easy'.

Nor is it 'the status quo'. I don't know ANY other board that has a mechanism like Hell that's designed to stop heated/personal disputes from derailing the discussions that they originated in. It's something that in my personal experience is unique to the Ship. And it's one of the reasons I admire the Ship, actually. I tell friends about the whole Heaven/Purgatory/Hell concept quite frequently, precisely because it's both unusual and very clever.
I agree with you. I'm certainly not campaigning for the abolishment of Hell. No way. I'm saying that certain shipmates know how to work that admirable system in order to justify bullying.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
And certain other shipmates could end their Hell calls a lot more quickly if they adopted different tactics themselves.

They're under no OBLIGATION to adopt different tactics, mind you. I'm just saying that the situations that sometimes develop are not purely a consequence of people coming along to dogpile.

[ 07. November 2012, 12:04: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
If "Hell calls" are such a useful and wonderful community function, I wonder if we should institute them in real life. The offender can be called to town hall, and as he sits there the whole town can deride him for being an awful person with every flaw that everyone hates.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
daronmedway on the Purgatory thread has just said:
I do realise that the original purpose of most (if not all) hell calls is to resolve conflict, bring correction, or express irritation constructively.
I would put it in a different order. The official purpose Hell is more like (in order of priority)
Well, that's it really.

If a Hell call results in someone learning how to post their opinions in a way that doesn't get people hot under the collar (without necessarily changing those opinions) then that is great. People resolving conflicts is good too. But, those are a bonus not the purpose of Hell.

quote:
The problems, as I've said already, arise when Hell calls degenerate into "let's all outdo each other in calling a shipmate increasingly nasty names"
That's one of several games that some people seem to play in Hell; "I can be more nasty than you", "I'm more offended than you", "I can get the last word in" etc. IMO, such games mostly come down to simply shouting "hey! look at me!" and don't contribute to the purpose of Hell (and may well detract from it).
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
How many of your fellow citizens would you bother to turn out and join in that for, Zach? The ones who really wind you up or you think deserve it, or everybody?
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I'm on the phone to the Inland Revenue as I type. The experience of being passed from one "advisor" to another repeating the same bloody stuff each time until even I feel bored is very much like this discussion. And eventually, just like the Inland Revenue, someone is going to decide that the status quo is most desirable outcome and I'll just have to keep phoning back until the bleeders do what's right and not what's easiest.
I don't know the first thing about the nature of your dispute with the Inland Revenue, but it's entirely possible that all the people telling you the same thing are doing it because they genuinely believe what they are telling you is correct, and that no amount of you asserting to the contrary is going to convince them that out of all the people involved in these conversations, you are the only one who has it right.

It is certainly true that people TEND to stick with whatever they originally believe. If, however, you are correct, and can construct arguments to demonstrate why you are correct (probably by using forms of evidence and argument that they already recognise as legitimate), then I'm sure you'll be able to bring someone around to the correct point of view.

Another possibility is that one of them will manage to persuade you that THEY are correct and that some assumption YOU'VE made is mistaken or some part of your reasoning process is erroneous.

Yet another possibility is that both sides will just keep going until someone, somewhere, becomes completely exhausted.


Yep. Excellent analogy indeed.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
If "Hell calls" are such a useful and wonderful community function, I wonder if we should institute them in real life. The offender can be called to town hall, and as he sits there the whole town can deride him for being an awful person with every flaw that everyone hates.
Society has had forms of this for centuries. One of the more recent forms is called "the media". The latest, trendy form of it is called "social media".

But a bit earlier on I think they called it "the stocks".

[ 07. November 2012, 12:16: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Trust me when I say, as a brand new host (though these comments are entirely my personal ones), that watching this stuff play out is NOT 'easy'.

Nor is it 'the status quo'. I don't know ANY other board that has a mechanism like Hell that's designed to stop heated/personal disputes from derailing the discussions that they originated in. It's something that in my personal experience is unique to the Ship. And it's one of the reasons I admire the Ship, actually. I tell friends about the whole Heaven/Purgatory/Hell concept quite frequently, precisely because it's both unusual and very clever.
I agree with you. I'm certainly not campaigning for the abolishment of Hell. No way. I'm saying that certain shipmates know how to work that admirable system in order to justify bullying.
Examples from threads old and new please. As you’ve made this accusation before, I’m sure that you’ll have some readily to hand. The counter argument to that is that some Shipmates are equally adept at dishing it out in Hell, but then cry foul when others return the compliment:

I tell it like it is … They bully …

I'm defending my valid viewpoint ... They're picking on me by picking holes in my arguement ...

And some history for those who don’t remember the Ship before the Hell board was set up. There was never a golden age where everyone just got along … If people felt strongly enough about a poster’s behaviour or views, they would fight it out on the thread.

Hell gets the conflicts into one place so they don’t disrupt the rest of the boards. It is a containment field - if you feel that someone is out of line and feel that strongly, you can call them on it, say your piece and be done with it. If it is an issue where others feel you have a point, they may join in. (OTH, others may feel that a Hell call is unjustified and will tell you so in no uncertain terms). The Hell call may change things, it may not, but it’s a better alternative than the situation Boogie mentioned in her post on the Purg thread – where there is simply no mechanism for dealing with issues between posters.

If you really don’t feel comfortable with the kind of interaction that takes place in Hell, it is totally avoidable. It may be seen as bad form, but you don’t have to respond to or read a Hell call with your name on.

Tubbs
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
How many of your fellow citizens would you bother to turn out and join in that for, Zach? The ones who really wind you up or you think deserve it, or everybody?
Well, there's always the crowd that will make a habit of showing up. The ones that just like making pompous little speeches about other people's short comings.

quote:
But a bit earlier on I think they called it "the stocks".
Wow, you are singing the praises of hell calls with fewer illusions than I imagined. Props for honesty.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Well, there's always the crowd that will make a habit of showing up. The ones that just like making pompous little speeches about other people's short comings.
This is true. And funnily enough, in my experience those are exactly the people who then complain the loudest about bullying when their shortcomings are the ones being singled out.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Well, it's not a great analogy because I'm pretty sure the stocks were usually locked.

Here people walk into them voluntarily.

[x-post, replying to Zach]

[ 07. November 2012, 12:25: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Y'know, the point of my "real life" thing was to get people to think about what a hell call in real life would look like. And I don't think it would look as great as certain people here are putting on.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I haven't said anyone should apologise for a difference of opinion. People don't get called to Hell for differences of opinion. They get called to Hell for offensively stated opinions and refusing to engage in discussion.
Offensive to the callee.

And "refusing to engage" usually means "disagreeing with me".

Which is of course, offensive to the callee.

[Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, it's not a great analogy because I'm pretty sure the stocks were usually locked.

Here people walk into them voluntarily.

[x-post, replying to Zach]
The same goes for people who get it into their heads that they are being insulted.

Once again, look at real life. When, in the course of heated discussion, your office mate offends you, I would HOPE you don't stamp about the office screaming about what an awful person he is, and the rest don't join in agreeing that the other guy is just awful and should quit.

[ 07. November 2012, 12:30: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
But in real life, if someone is so upset that they are screaming, you can respond by screaming back or by trying to calm the situation (apology). Once calmer, you can then unpick what caused the uproar in the first place. Shouting back that you're right doesn't help in real life either.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Y'know, the point of my "real life" thing was to get people to think about what a hell call in real life would look like. And I don't think it would look as great as certain people here are putting on.
I don't think it looks great. At all. I don't think it's SUPPOSED to.

All societies have ways of expressing their displeasure with a member of society that they think are in the wrong. You're not proposing anything remotely radical, is my point. Whether we punish people through the legal system or punish them socially, the fact is THAT WE PUNISH PEOPLE. We express our displeasure with them.

Here on the Ship, Hell calls are the 'social' form of punishment (with Admin action being the 'legal' form).

The reason I mentioned social media is because of recent observations here in Australia about what can happen. We had a right-wing radio announcer say something appalling at a dinner. When word got out, his radio station was bombarded with messages, all the sponsors of his program got bombarded as well. Phone calls, emails, Facebook, Twitter.

It would have happily fitted the notion of 'dogpiling' that's put forward here. The radio announcer, clearly shaken by the fact that his apology-with-some-inbuilt-justifications hadn't immediately dissipated the heat, started making claims that it was 'terrorism'.

Did it go too far? Possibly. But he and his radio station were left in absolutely NO doubt that society viewed his comments as completely unacceptable. And that was EXACTLY what society was trying to communicate. It wasn't SUPPOSED to be pleasant. It was supposed to be sufficiently unpleasant to stop him from saying such appalling things again.

So it does already happen out there in the rest of the world.

[ 07. November 2012, 12:37: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
But in real life, if someone is so upset that they are screaming, you can respond by screaming back or by trying to calm the situation (apology). Once calmer, you can then unpick what caused the uproar in the first place. Shouting back that you're right doesn't help in real life either.
I agree. That is not what generally happens in hell calls, though, and it should be obvious that they aren't conducive to calming the hell down. In my personal experience just ignoring hell calls is far more conducive to that end.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
If you feel that all humans are just plain savages, Orfeo, and that the dear Ship should not and cannot attempt to be any different, then my objections have nothing to say to you. Indeed, that seems to be the whole point of hell.

But if any of us would hope that civility and Christian love can be a possibility here, then I just can't imagine how hell calls fit in to that.

[ 07. November 2012, 12:41: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, it's not a great analogy because I'm pretty sure the stocks were usually locked.

Here people walk into them voluntarily.

[x-post, replying to Zach]
The same goes for people who get it into their heads that they are being insulted.

Once again, look at real life. When, in the course of heated discussion, your office mate offends you, I would HOPE you don't stamp about the office screaming about what an awful person he is, and the rest don't join in agreeing that the other guy is just awful and should quit.
I have worked in an office where enough people got upset with the same manager's actions that a formal complaint was made and an investigation launched. People wanted her to lose her job.

I was not one of the people involved, but it got pretty nasty. Yelling? No. Lots of conversations in lots of offices? You bet.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Well, it's not a great analogy because I'm pretty sure the stocks were usually locked.

Here people walk into them voluntarily.

[x-post, replying to Zach]
The same goes for people who get it into their heads that they are being insulted.

Once again, look at real life. When, in the course of heated discussion, your office mate offends you, I would HOPE you don't stamp about the office screaming about what an awful person he is, and the rest don't join in agreeing that the other guy is just awful and should quit.
Nope, what usually happens is that people gather in the loo or by the water cooler to "discuss the situation". The tone of the discussion is often shaped by whether or not the person being discussed is usually reasonable and just having a moment or a complete tosspot.

Tubbs
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
If you feel that all humans are just plain savages, Orfeo, and that the dear Ship should not and cannot attempt to be any different, then my objections have nothing to say to you. Indeed, that seems to be the whole point of hell.

But if any of us would hope that civility and Christian love can be a possibility here, then I just can't imagine how hell calls fit in to that.
I don't accept the dichotomy. Civil people don't go around being eternally nice to each other. They just find more civil ways to be not nice on occasions.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
But if any of us would hope that civility and Christian love can be a possibility here, then I just can't imagine how hell calls fit in to that.
If civility and Christian love were the rule here, then we wouldn't have hell calls in the first place - because people would be acting with civility and Christian love on the other boards as well.

Hell calls happen when someone doesn't act with civility and Christian love on one of the other boards, and people are sufficiently annoyed at that behaviour to call them to Hell.

Why should you - or we - demand that civility and Christian love be the standard for those who are offended, but not for those doing the offending in the first place?
 
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
Even if I agreed with you, which I don't, the massive difference is that being part of the HMRC club is an obligation whereas you are here by choice - if you're not happy here then you can always leave.

HMRC might not be so keen to see you go.
This is this and this ain't Hell so you can pack that nonsense in right now.
With the way this site is set up there is no forcing someone to go with a hell call. If they leave it's because they don't want to work to resolve the issue or they're looking for a situation they can use for a nice attention getting flounce. Consider the fact it's a tiny fraction of shipmates who actually get a hell call at all and that it's usually the "frequent flyers" (multiple hell calls for being a jerk) who get dog piled and they feed the dog pile by continuing with the insults that got them there in the 1st place. It's very rare that I've seen multiple page shipmate hell calls that go on and on for any other situation. Well, I've seen a couple of folks get it while they're still relative newbies - but the first few to several pages are attempts to help them see the error of their ways and only a few yelling at them, until everyone gives up in frustration. There have also been several who truly do just plain ignore their hell call. I'm not one who could, it takes a certain personality type (not saying that's good or bad). Kind of takes the steam out of most of them, though I've seen some that last, they just refer to that thread for the next round of jerkish behavior rather than starting a new thread.

Is it perfect Christian behavior? No and not everyone that participates in those threads returns in kind. But it does provide an opportunity for problem solving and if the hell callee shows no interest in finding out what really is the problem or correcting any part of it that is their fault and continues with jerkish behavior it at least provides stress release for those who have been abused by the callee in other threads where they can't address the issue. Some people have such a knack for jerkish behavior they've pissed off a lot of people by the time the hell call is issued. I haven't yet been called to hell (and am not looking to either) but if I were I'd be trying to rectify the situation, not make it worse. Shipmates are very forgiving to those who admit they've made mistakes.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
It's interesting who objects to dogpiling.

It is often those who have been dogpiled in the past.

I recall Zach's first and last hell call ended in a dogpile.

No wonder he's not so keen on the idea.

I wonder ( in the interest of being a semblance of a Christian website ) that there might be some kind of mechanism in place where dogpiles are stopped by the ADMINS or hosts when it starts to become obvious it is happening?

Obviously, many will argue that the dogpilee should just walk away and ignore it.

But when you love the ship and you love being on it, walking away is really hard because you actually give a shit about what people think and seeing your name slandered and bullshitted around the place so much and people talking such rubbish about you and what they perceive you have said.

Walking away from that is sometimes like giving up. And who wants to give up on something they care about...?

Just a suggestion.....

[ 07. November 2012, 12:59: Message edited by: Evensong ]
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I haven't said anyone should apologise for a difference of opinion. People don't get called to Hell for differences of opinion. They get called to Hell for offensively stated opinions and refusing to engage in discussion.
Offensive to the callee.

And "refusing to engage" usually means "disagreeing with me".

Which is of course, offensive to the callee.

[Roll Eyes]
This is where the dynamics of Hell and especially the "Peanut Gallery" play a part.

When Person A calls Person B to Hell the denizens respond. If they perceive the call to be worthy of support then the callee has an uphill struggle, while if the call is generally considered "lame" then the caller is made to feel an ass, and the call will slide down the page, to be lost in a week or so.

In the first instance the callee isn't going to garner much support if they cry "they're bullying me!" Posters must have the self-awareness to recognise the way the wind blows and also be aware that the Ship is not intended to be the first, last and everything of their lives.
 
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
If you feel that all humans are just plain savages, Orfeo, and that the dear Ship should not and cannot attempt to be any different, then my objections have nothing to say to you. Indeed, that seems to be the whole point of hell.

But if any of us would hope that civility and Christian love can be a possibility here, then I just can't imagine how hell calls fit in to that.
I think it's a lesser of two evils. The Ship is attempting to be different - Hell is something unique to the Ship, and it works.

The problem is people, not Hell, and sometimes people take things too far. But if Hell wasn't there, then they'd take things too far in Purgatory instead.

So, without Hell, we'd still get 'dogpiling' (only in Purg instead), and all the interesting discussions would be overrun. With Hell, the same thing happens, but at least it's contained in one board, so doesn't spoil everything else.

Same with Dead Horses. It my not be philosophically the ideal, but practically, it does exactly what is needed.

Because although it'd be great if all our Shipmates were perfect, with civility and Christian love always flowing from our typing fingers, that's not the reality, is it? So Hell is necessary.

There are times where dogpiles have happened, and I've defended the person, if I think it's unfair. I also think, even when it is fair, there should be a limit. But you can't impose that limit from above without stifling everything else, so we discuss, point things out, defend, argue - which is what is happening here and on the other threads, which is IMO a great thing.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
If you feel that all humans are just plain savages, Orfeo, and that the dear Ship should not and cannot attempt to be any different, then my objections have nothing to say to you. Indeed, that seems to be the whole point of hell.

But if any of us would hope that civility and Christian love can be a possibility here, then I just can't imagine how hell calls fit in to that.
I think it's a lesser of two evils. The Ship is attempting to be different - Hell is something unique to the Ship, and it works.

The problem is people, not Hell, and sometimes people take things too far.
This is essentially my point. I'm emphatically not raging against the machine here. I think the Hell Board is necessary and helpful. I'm asking shipmates to reconsider the veracity of the "you can always leave" & "you don't have to listen" argument to justify the idea that name-calling and abusive forms of communication in Hell is not a form of bullying. It is.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
If you feel that all humans are just plain savages, Orfeo, and that the dear Ship should not and cannot attempt to be any different, then my objections have nothing to say to you. Indeed, that seems to be the whole point of hell.

But if any of us would hope that civility and Christian love can be a possibility here, then I just can't imagine how hell calls fit in to that.
I don't accept the dichotomy. Civil people don't go around being eternally nice to each other. They just find more civil ways to be not nice on occasions.
Agreed.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
and also be aware that the Ship is not intended to be the first, last and everything of their lives.
[Eek!]

Blasphemy!

It wouldn't bother you to be ostracized or banned then?

[Paranoid]


I still can't help but think the woman caught in adultery is the perfect parable for this issue......

[ 07. November 2012, 13:18: Message edited by: Evensong ]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
It's interesting who objects to dogpiling.

It is often those who have been dogpiled in the past.
A point I have made myself on several occasions. Though possibly with a subtly different emphasis.

quote:
I wonder ( in the interest of being a semblance of a Christian website ) that there might be some kind of mechanism in place where dogpiles are stopped by the ADMINS or hosts when it starts to become obvious it is happening?
OK, how would that work in practice? Should we close the thread if too many people have agreed with the caller? But then what of those others who may also be pissed off but no longer have a means of expressing it? And wouldn't that allow the callee to continue pissing people off without any consequences?

quote:
Obviously, many will argue that the dogpilee should just walk away and ignore it.
History has shown time and time again that the best way for someone to end a thread calling them to Hell is to apologise for the offence they have caused. Seriously, it works every time.

quote:
But when you love the ship and you love being on it, walking away is really hard because you actually give a shit about what people think and seeing your name slandered and bullshitted around the place so much and people talking such rubbish about you and what they perceive you have said.

Walking away from that is sometimes like giving up. And who wants to give up on something they care about...?
To address anyone who may feel that these paragraphs describe them: if you care so much about your fellow posters, why not consider the possibility that if a lot of them are saying the same thing about something you've done then they might be right, and amend your behaviour accordingly?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I still can't help but think the woman caught in adultery is the perfect parable for this issue......
Including the "go and sin no more" bit at the end?
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Trust me when I say, as a brand new host (though these comments are entirely my personal ones), that watching this stuff play out is NOT 'easy'.

Nor is it 'the status quo'. I don't know ANY other board that has a mechanism like Hell that's designed to stop heated/personal disputes from derailing the discussions that they originated in. It's something that in my personal experience is unique to the Ship. And it's one of the reasons I admire the Ship, actually. I tell friends about the whole Heaven/Purgatory/Hell concept quite frequently, precisely because it's both unusual and very clever.
I agree with you. I'm certainly not campaigning for the abolishment of Hell. No way. I'm saying that certain shipmates know how to work that admirable system in order to justify bullying.
If you really don’t feel comfortable with the kind of interaction that takes place in Hell, it is totally avoidable. It may be seen as bad form, but you don’t have to respond to or read a Hell call with your name on.

Tubbs
Again! [Roll Eyes] And for the record, I don't object to Hell calls. I object to the shipmates who use Hell Calls as an excuse to verbally abuse and, if possible, to ostracise people.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
@daronmedway - there are ways of bullying on an Internet forum. If you had every post you made ridiculed by the same person or group of people, you had unpleasant private messages from the same group of people and had to deal with a group of people gossiping about you in real life or one of the online cafés accusing you of things you had not done, which then coloured the responses that you received on the Ship, that would be bullying. A Hell call is not the same thing at all. It's far less insidious and allows you to either to argue it out in an open forum, which may well garner you support, or to see what the complaints are and deal with them.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
@daronmedway - there are ways of bullying on an Internet forum. If you had every post you made ridiculed by the same person or group of people, you had unpleasant private messages from the same group of people and had to deal with a group of people gossiping about you in real life or one of the online cafés accusing you of things you had not done, which then coloured the responses that you received on the Ship, that would be bullying. A Hell call is not the same thing at all. It's far less insidious and allows you to either to argue it out in an open forum, which may well garner you support, or to see what the complaints are and deal with them.
I DON"T OBJECT TO HELL CALLS.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Well, I hardly posted here expecting that I could end the illusions of people who love participating hell calls.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
Even if I agreed with you, which I don't, the massive difference is that being part of the HMRC club is an obligation whereas you are here by choice - if you're not happy here then you can always leave.

HMRC might not be so keen to see you go.
This is this and this ain't Hell so you can pack that nonsense in right now.
As the Ship is a leisure activity, being here is a choice. It’s not like there is a crack team of ninja’s who visit people’s houses, force them to log onto their PCs, tablets or phones and make them post.

WW’s question is perfectly legitimate. It’s designed to get someone to think about why they’ve made that particular choice and whether it’s the best one for them. It’s a variation of, “If dislike your partner / job etc so much then why …” Sometimes the answer is that secretly they love them, but can’t resist a good moan. Other times it’s because they know it’s really time to move on, but are just working through the practicalities before acting.

Tubbs
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
and also be aware that the Ship is not intended to be the first, last and everything of their lives.
[Eek!]

Blasphemy!

It wouldn't bother you to be ostracized or banned then?

[Paranoid]
[Big Grin] Yes, I'd be disappointed and I'd miss it. I'd lurk if it was still around (and that IMHO is more of an issue than "Whither Hell?") but I wouldn't be devastated.

Just in case anyone wonders: I have been dogpiled. Back in 2005 I suggested that a lot of old rockers had buried their musical differences to participate in Live8 as a way of boosting their sales. There may have been other calls but that was a serious dogpile!
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
@daronmedway - there are ways of bullying on an Internet forum. If you had every post you made ridiculed by the same person or group of people, you had unpleasant private messages from the same group of people and had to deal with a group of people gossiping about you in real life or one of the online cafés accusing you of things you had not done, which then coloured the responses that you received on the Ship, that would be bullying. A Hell call is not the same thing at all. It's far less insidious and allows you to either to argue it out in an open forum, which may well garner you support, or to see what the complaints are and deal with them.
I DON"T OBJECT TO HELL CALLS.
Then can we have some Ship related examples of what you do object to? That might help move the discussion on a bit.

Tubbs
 
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Well, I hardly posted here expecting that I could end the illusions of people who love participating hell calls.
Does sarcasm fall into the category of "civility and Christian love"? [Ultra confused] [Biased]

[ 07. November 2012, 13:39: Message edited by: goperryrevs ]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:

If you really don’t feel comfortable with the kind of interaction that takes place in Hell, it is totally avoidable. It may be seen as bad form, but you don’t have to respond to or read a Hell call with your name on.
Yep - Shamwari was called to hell recently and totally ignored it. The thread fizzled out very quickly.

It takes a tough character to do that, and I'm not sure that I could, but it certainly seems to work.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Does sarcasm fall into the category of "civility and Christian love"? [Ultra confused] [Biased]
That wasn't sarcasm. It was resignation.
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:

If you really don’t feel comfortable with the kind of interaction that takes place in Hell, it is totally avoidable. It may be seen as bad form, but you don’t have to respond to or read a Hell call with your name on.
Yep - Shamwari was called to hell recently and totally ignored it. The thread fizzled out very quickly.

It takes a tough character to do that, and I'm not sure that I could, but it certainly seems to work.
No it doesn't. You just don't participate. What is tough about that?
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
I asked you a question, Zach. Fancy answering it?
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
The Hell forum is not unique compared to other forums. I am member of another which has a "snake pit". The first difference is that one of the principles for the snake pit is an acknowledgement that some things are unresolvable and apologies are not expected, rather clarification of the nature of conflict. The second difference is that the snake pit is only visible to registered members.

A notable contrast here is that Hell appears to have as a principle that the resolution will be either by attrition and non-resolution after lengthy pages of discussion, or by apology and other negotiated settlement. It is also slightly less polite, but perhaps Christians are less polite by nature.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
@daronmedway - there are ways of bullying on an Internet forum. If you had every post you made ridiculed by the same person or group of people, you had unpleasant private messages from the same group of people and had to deal with a group of people gossiping about you in real life or one of the online cafés accusing you of things you had not done, which then coloured the responses that you received on the Ship, that would be bullying. A Hell call is not the same thing at all. It's far less insidious and allows you to either to argue it out in an open forum, which may well garner you support, or to see what the complaints are and deal with them.
I DON"T OBJECT TO HELL CALLS.
Then can we have some Ship related examples of what you do object to? That might help move the discussion on a bit.

Tubbs
With respect, I don't think it would. I've already made my objection clear and it's got little or nothing to do with how the Ship or the Hell board is officially constituted, hosted or administrated. It's to do with how certain shipmates - as private and free individuals - choose to use the Hell board and the Hell Call convention - to verbally abuse other shipmates. It's also to do with how those shipmates continue to justify their behaviour with erroneous arguments, especially the "it's not bullying because they can walk away" canard.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I honestly think that the Evensong thread should have been closed after it was clearly in a deadlock situation. As soon as hell calls begin to run on and on, that's the time to close them imo (Except for Phelps type calls which need to run on imo, to keep from many new threads being started)

There is an aspect of hell which is 'fun' in a nasty kind of way, I'm sure we all join the peanut gallery from time to time - even if we don't post. But I like no prophet's idea of having Hell visible only to members. It wouldn't feel quite so public for the callee then.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I am not presuming civility, Marvin. I am saying that hell calls are not conducive to maintaining it. Hell calls are, in fact, the complete opposite of civility themselves.

As aside, I do not presume, as you and certain others seem to, that community humiliations always fall on people that deserve it, and that the humiliation is always proportionate to the offense for people that really have done something wrong.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
It's to do with how certain shipmates - as private and free individuals - choose to use the Hell board and the Hell Call convention - to verbally abuse other shipmates. It's also to do with how those shipmates continue to justify their behaviour with erroneous arguments, especially the "it's not bullying because they can walk away" canard.
Agreed.

And this would also be sorted out by quicker closing of such threads.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
But the Evensong thread morphed into a discussion of other things: the original discussion on sex offenders which went back to Purgatory, bullying which is now in Purgatory, picking up on another thread, and this discussion. The original call has fizzled out - pretty much when Evensong stopped posting on the thread.

[ 07. November 2012, 14:10: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
I am member of another which has a "snake pit". The first difference is that one of the principles for the snake pit is an acknowledgement that some things are unresolvable and apologies are not expected, rather clarification of the nature of conflict.
I'm not sure what Hell you are reading if you think that's a difference.

We do not expect Hell to result in resolution of personal disputes.

We do not expect people to apologise if called to Hell.

One difference is I don't think Hell calls should clarify the nature of conflict.

All of those may happen, but that isn't the purpose of Hell.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
As soon as hell calls begin to run on and on, that's the time to close them imo (Except for Phelps type calls which need to run on imo, to keep from many new threads being started)
So, you have an arbitrary line you would set between threads that should be allowed to stay open and those that should be shut. Based on what? That some topics would result in lots of new threads if closed, so they should remain open? So, what happens if a thread calling someone to Hell is closed and someone has something new to add ... they start a new thread. So, that thread should presumably have been left open to prevent new threads starting by that logic. Do you expect hosts to be prescient and know whether or not someone will be called to Hell again in the next few weeks?
 
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I've already made my objection clear and it's got little or nothing to do with how the Ship or the Hell board is officially constituted, hosted or administrated. It's to do with how certain shipmates - as private and free individuals - choose to use the Hell board and the Hell Call convention - to verbally abuse other shipmates.
Well, ironically then, given the way the Ship works, the best thing you can do is call those people to Hell. How about it? A Hell thread calling the peanut gallery to Hell? We might end up with a whole new peanut gallery MKII laying into peanut gallery MKI? That would be fun...
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, you have an arbitrary line you would set between threads that should be allowed to stay open and those that should be shut. Based on what?
Based on whether they are calls to hell for shipmates or calls to hell about non-shipmates (eg Phelps). Those which are personal and calling fellow shipmates should be closed sooner - ie when they are becoming dogpiles imo.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
@daronmedway - there are ways of bullying on an Internet forum. If you had every post you made ridiculed by the same person or group of people, you had unpleasant private messages from the same group of people and had to deal with a group of people gossiping about you in real life or one of the online cafés accusing you of things you had not done, which then coloured the responses that you received on the Ship, that would be bullying. A Hell call is not the same thing at all. It's far less insidious and allows you to either to argue it out in an open forum, which may well garner you support, or to see what the complaints are and deal with them.
I DON"T OBJECT TO HELL CALLS.
Then can we have some Ship related examples of what you do object to? That might help move the discussion on a bit.

Tubbs
With respect, I don't think it would. I've already made my objection clear and it's got little or nothing to do with how the Ship or the Hell board is officially constituted, hosted or administrated. It's to do with how certain shipmates - as private and free individuals - choose to use the Hell board and the Hell Call convention - to verbally abuse other shipmates. It's also to do with how those shipmates continue to justify their behaviour with erroneous arguments, especially the "it's not bullying because they can walk away" canard.
Let me reflect this back at you …

You object to specific behaviours by certain shipmates, but you are unable to provide any examples of the kind of behaviour that you object to. You’d just like us to take your word for it that this behaviour exists and put a stop to it. But you’re fine with the Hell board.

There is a difference of opinion between Shipmates of what constitutes bullying and where the fine line lies between bullying and challenging someone’s behaviours / opinions in a robust and honest way. One is acceptable whilst the other isn’t. You’d like us to decide where the line between the two is – ideally in the same place you do – and then ensure it is not crossed.

How am I doing?

Tubbs
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, you have an arbitrary line you would set between threads that should be allowed to stay open and those that should be shut. Based on what?
Based on whether they are calls to hell for shipmates or calls to hell about non-shipmates (eg Phelps). Those which are personal and calling fellow shipmates should be closed sooner - ie when they are becoming dogpiles imo.
That does rather presuppose that threads do become dogpiles. There's no reason to close them before they become dogpiles if dogpiles don't happen.

Which is the point where these threads always arrive sooner or later. The point where, as Tubbs already asked, we ask for examples of dogpiles occuring. Every single thread has had the same response to that request.
 
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I am not presuming civility, Marvin. I am saying that hell calls are not conducive to maintaining it. Hell calls are, in fact, the complete opposite of civility themselves.
I think that's because you're looking at Hell calls in isolation. You look at Hell and say "it's not civil, therefore Hell is not conductive to maintaining civility".

But Hell does not exist in a vacuum. It is part of the whole Ship. What Hell does is say "there will be incivility, let's make sure it's consigned to one place".

So Hell actually is conductive to maintaining civility. It maintains the civility of all the other boards by taking all the incivility that would be there onto itself.

[ 07. November 2012, 14:33: Message edited by: goperryrevs ]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
It's to do with how certain shipmates - as private and free individuals - choose to use the Hell board and the Hell Call convention - to verbally abuse other shipmates.
If that was what they were doing, then surely they'd do it every time there was a hell call. The fact that they don't speaks volumes.

There are currently seven hell calls (eight, if you count both of the Martin v Jamat threads) on the board (most of which died a while ago). On two of them the caller got attacked more than the callee. Two others fizzled out pretty quickly due to the callee refusing to participate, and one died a swift death after the callee made a peace offering. So nearly three quarters of Hell calls in the recent past do not follow the pattern you're describing.

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
As aside, I do not presume, as you and certain others seem to, that community humiliations always fall on people that deserve it, and that the humiliation is always proportionate to the offense for people that really have done something wrong.
Can you show me an example of a dogpile that you don't think was deserved?
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Most of them, really. Though in my own life I am more prone to getting over offense than throwing a temper tantrum about it.

[ 07. November 2012, 14:43: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
@daronmedway - there are ways of bullying on an Internet forum. If you had every post you made ridiculed by the same person or group of people, you had unpleasant private messages from the same group of people and had to deal with a group of people gossiping about you in real life or one of the online cafés accusing you of things you had not done, which then coloured the responses that you received on the Ship, that would be bullying. A Hell call is not the same thing at all. It's far less insidious and allows you to either to argue it out in an open forum, which may well garner you support, or to see what the complaints are and deal with them.
I DON"T OBJECT TO HELL CALLS.
Then can we have some Ship related examples of what you do object to? That might help move the discussion on a bit.

Tubbs
With respect, I don't think it would. I've already made my objection clear and it's got little or nothing to do with how the Ship or the Hell board is officially constituted, hosted or administrated. It's to do with how certain shipmates - as private and free individuals - choose to use the Hell board and the Hell Call convention - to verbally abuse other shipmates. It's also to do with how those shipmates continue to justify their behaviour with erroneous arguments, especially the "it's not bullying because they can walk away" canard.
Let me reflect this back at you …

You object to specific behaviours by certain shipmates, but you are unable to provide any examples of the kind of behaviour that you object to. You’d just like us to take your word for it that this behaviour exists and put a stop to it. But you’re fine with the Hell board.

There is a difference of opinion between Shipmates of what constitutes bullying and where the fine line lies between bullying and challenging someone’s behaviours / opinions in a robust and honest way. One is acceptable whilst the other isn’t. You’d like us to decide where the line between the two is – ideally in the same place you do – and then ensure it is not crossed.
I'm not asking you (i.e. admins) to "do" anything. I'm asking shipmates (those free and private individuals) who dish out free-form verbal abuse along the lines of "You are a shit-eating spunky fuck weasel cunt who should leave the ship, and so-say all of us" to re-think their behaviour in the light of reality instead dressing it up as "protecting the ship from baddies" or "venting in a safe place" or some such fantastical claptrap.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
I'm not asking you (i.e. admins) to "do" anything. I'm asking shipmates (those free and private individuals) who dish out free-form verbal abuse along the lines of "You are a shit-eating spunky fuck weasel cunt who should leave the ship, and so-say all of us" to re-think their behaviour in the light of reality instead dressing it up as "protecting the ship from baddies" or "venting in a safe place" or some such fantastical claptrap.
Amen.
 
Posted by lily pad (# 11456) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Most of them, really. Though in my own life I am more prone to getting over offense than throwing a temper tantrum about it.
Zach, with respect, that's just not so. People who apologize easily don't get forced into it.

This is supposed to be a place of unrest. When an apology is in order, the group seems to have no trouble attempting to have someone conform. Those who do not like to apologize ever or who do not see the benefit, are often found at the bottom of the pile.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
But Zach82, this post here

quote:
Well, there's always the crowd that will make a habit of showing up. The ones that just like making pompous little speeches about other people's short comings.
says that you're going to find anyone joining in a Hell thread unacceptable. Because that's not referring to any personal abuse - the shortcomings causing the "pompous little speeches" are just as likely to be referring to the reason for the Hell call.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lily pad:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Most of them, really. Though in my own life I am more prone to getting over offense than throwing a temper tantrum about it.
Zach, with respect, that's just not so. People who apologize easily don't get forced into it.

This is supposed to be a place of unrest. When an apology is in order, the group seems to have no trouble attempting to have someone conform. Those who do not like to apologize ever or who do not see the benefit, are often found at the bottom of the pile.
Uh, do you know me well enough to say that I don't tend to just get over offense?

As for your belief in the efficacy of public humiliation, I have my beliefs, and I can only hope that your faith in ostracism becomes an instance of self reflection some day.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I'm not asking you (i.e. admins) to "do" anything. I'm asking shipmates (those free and private individuals) who dish out free-form verbal abuse along the lines of "You are a shit-eating spunky fuck weasel cunt who should leave the ship, and so-say all of us" to re-think their behaviour in the light of reality instead dressing it up as "protecting the ship from baddies" or "venting in a safe place" or some such fantastical claptrap.
Having read this whole thread, I find I am unsure what you are asking for. It is clear that there are some unspecified shipmates whose behaviour in Hell amounts, in your view, to dog piling which is, in your view, unfair. You are, however, unwilling or unable to link to cases in point. (This does make it harder for people to decide whether they agree with you or not, or indeed whether their posting behaviour is what you have in mind.)

You don't want Hell to be done away with, or the hosts or admins to do anything different, you just want the people concerned to desist. Have I understood this correctly?
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
Yes. That's about the size of it.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
It's interesting who objects to dogpiling.

It is often those who have been dogpiled in the past.
I think my experience may be instructional here. Those who think I only post one-liners will have to bear with me, because what I have to say will take longer than that.

I have been called to Hell more than once. Many, many times more than once. Somewhere between 10 and 20 times, I'd guess, but I didn't and don't keep track.

Some of them were bogus -- one was for disagreeing with a lawyer about the purpose of copyright law. The caller was roundly ridiculed and the thread petered out very quickly. Others were well-deserved.

Then came one almighty 20-pager that would, given the criteria laid out in this thread, be termed a "dogpile." Every grievance I had ever engendered, as well as a number of grievances of questionable provenance, was aired and fought over and relished.

Pace Curiosity's categories, I was not arguing it out with everyone attacking me. I did not appear on the thread at all. Which led to some nearly-vicious swipes about my personal character, as well as some cowardly clawing at my family (who also refrained from appearing on the thread) which I still haven't forgiven.

But this was the thread that finally got my attention, so to speak. After it had gone on long enough to get through to me, I apologized and agreed to modulate my behavior. I won't say I've been perfect ever since, but I think the precipitous drop off in frequency of Hell calls indicates I've been better. How much better I leave to my critics (those who have pre- and post- experience) to say.

There was also an attendant Styx thread which started with my camel's-back-breaking sin being mooted and my temporary suspension from café rights being laid out. In which also my friends but also the regular "waaaah it's a dogpile" crowd decried the dogpiling, and argued with others about the definition of dogpiling, in a manner not too dissimilar from what's going on in this thread.

The point of all of which is, sometimes dogpiling actually works. And given what an asshole I am, it probably isn't because of the saintly nature of the callee.

----------------------

As to the "real life" thing what needs to be said, and which anybody who has been on the internet more than 10 minutes knows, is that people say things on the internet that they never would say in real life. Things which, if they were said to a disputant in a pub, would result in a sock on the jaw. The pseudoanonymity of online communication seems to lower the inner censor in a lot of people, and they come out with crap that would be intolerable in all but a few real-life situations. So if the means of dealing with online out-of-line behavior is not transferrable to real life, it could very easily be argued it's because the nature of out-of-line online behavior is not representative of real life.

[ 07. November 2012, 16:14: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
What you describe in your fifth paragraph I would describe as a clear case of cyber-bullying/ abusive trolling. The positive outcome in your particular case doesn't make it any the less wrong; it could easily have had a disastrous result. As far as comment about 'real life' is concerned, the relative anonymity of the internet might well encourage the sort of 'dishing out' that one doesn't experience in real life, but that doesn't make the hurt experienced by the recipient any less 'real' - ask any teen who's been the recipient of an abusive Facebook post or text message...
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
What you describe in your fifth paragraph I would describe as a clear case of cyber-bullying/ abusive trolling. The positive outcome in your particular case doesn't make it any the less wrong; it could easily have had a disastrous result.
I'm not saying that behavior isn't wrong. But that behavior was in the minority, not the bulk of the thread. I'd say it comprised less than 5% of the thread counting by post, and far less than that counting by word. I apologize for not making that clear. (And it was, IIRC, by one, maybe two posters out of the dozens who took part.)

quote:
As far as comment about 'real life' is concerned, the relative anonymity of the internet might well encourage the sort of 'dishing out' that one doesn't experience in real life, but that doesn't make the hurt experienced by the recipient any less 'real' - ask any teen who's been the recipient of an abusive Facebook post or text message...
The comparison is inapt. We're talking about a hell thread, which is a response to assholic behavior, not a hate campaign against a teenager, which if it's a response at all, it's a response to something in real life, whether that something deserves a negative attack or not (e.g. a person being overweight or a rival to the queen of the prom for the quarterback's attention). And as has been said, bogus hell calls are rapidly shut (if not shouted) down.

[ 07. November 2012, 16:28: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
For those running the site Hell is a pragmatic solution to the occurrence of conflict in discussion.

But essentially, this discussion seems to boil down to in what way hell accomplishes either a) stigmatic shaming or b) reintegrative shaming (see here for a discussion of these concepts in criminal justice.)

How acceptable most posters find it, or find a specific hell thread, seems to vary depending onto what extent you think the result is to stigmatise/ostracise the callee, or reintegrate them. Those saying - well you can apologise, or change your behaviour - are suggesting reintegration strategies.

Reintegrative shaming / restorative justice was developed in formal criminal systems from observing systems existing in small communities. So in some ways it ought to be well suited to a small web community. Thing is, like all approaches to regulating behaviour it won't work successfully in every situation.

To date SoF have tended to think it is successful enough in its board management function, and the community perceive it as successful enough in is reintegrative function - to justify continuing it.

I do think there is merit to encouraging shipmates to think before adding to a hell thread. A post that is basically "What he said" is a bit pointless.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Let's change that to perceived in the eye of the Hell-caller assholic behaviour...

[reply to Mousethief; good points Doublethink but I suspect what a lot of the differences of opinion might boil down to (as to whether such 'shaming' is constructive or destructive) would depend on whether one was bullied as a kid or not. Daronmedway has said he was. So was I. That colours I suspect our approach to the issue but I would contend that it makes our opinion no less valid for that; one to a degree takes one's victim as one finds him/ her. ]

[ 07. November 2012, 16:33: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Let's change that to perceived in the eye of the Hell-caller assholic behaviour...

[reply to Mousethief]
But there you go. If it's not perceived by anybody else to be assholic behavior, the thread dies a-borning.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
Crossposted with MT's excellent explanation.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
But the whole point of Hell is that if the rest of the Ship doesn't agree with the call the Hell call dies or the caller gets dogpiled.

Of the Hell calls I've made:
edited as crossposting with everyone

(and what's being bullied as a kid to do with it? so was I)

[ 07. November 2012, 16:38: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
But the whole point of Hell is that if the rest of the Ship doesn't agree with the call the Hell call dies or the caller gets dogpiled.

Of the Hell calls I've made:
edited as crossposting with everyone

(and what's being bullied as a kid to do with it? so was I)
In my ten years I've never once posted a hell call. But you've posted 6! So, do people just go out of their way to be disagreeable to you or what, CK?
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
No, I just post things on the right boards. You're making a tangent from the Styx discussion about the workings of Hell.
 
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :
 
IMO, Hell should be abolished.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
No, I just post things on the right boards. You're making a tangent from the Styx discussion about the workings of Hell.
It's not a tangent, it has everything to do with the nature of hell calls. You believe everyone and anyone that is the victim of lengthy hell calls must be guilty, I am looking at the sort of people that do the shaming.

You brought up your many hell calls, so it's open for examination I think. Why is it you take such delight in ceremonial shaming here on the ship, CK? Are you the target of much more malicious posting? Is it out of Christian love that you so often show up in hell calls to gently point out other people's short-comings and misbehaviors?

Help me understand why public shaming rituals are so wonderful. I am sincerely gobsmacked that other people don't see it as malicious, savage behavior. I really believe that is self evident.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
No, I just post things on the right boards. You're making a tangent from the Styx discussion about the workings of Hell.
It's not a tangent, it has everything to do with the nature of hell calls. You believe everyone and anyone that is the victim of lengthy hell calls must be guilty, I am looking at the sort of people that do the shaming.

You brought up your many hell calls, so it's open for examination I think. Why is it you take such delight in ceremonial shaming here on the ship, CK? Are you the target of much more malicious posting? Is it out of Christian love that you so often show up in hell calls to gently point out other people's short-comings and misbehaviors?

Help me understand why public shaming rituals are so wonderful. I am sincerely gobsmacked that other people don't see it as malicious, savage behavior. I really believe that is self evident.
You often seem amazed when people disagree with you. I've got to admire your confidence in your own opinions.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
You often seem amazed when people disagree with you. I've got to admire your confidence in your own opinions.
Would that more people were confident that ostracism is not a healthy community function.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
IMO, Hell should be abolished.
If that was done then the symptoms of Hell, such as dogpiling, would remain. We would have more warnings, more shore leave, more plankings, the lot. Members would desert and few would want to be a Host, especially in The Styx.

The problems with any BB that has religion at its core is that the participants are querulous and argumentative by nature. Many cannot pick up a bible without bringing it down hard on another's head!

Just as in the wider context of Christianity, you're stuck with Hell.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
IMO, Hell should be abolished.
If that was done then the symptoms of Hell, such as dogpiling, would remain. We would have more warnings, more shore leave, more plankings, the lot. Members would desert and few would want to be a Host, especially in The Styx.

The problems with any BB that has religion at its core is that the participants are querulous and argumentative by nature. Many cannot pick up a bible without bringing it down hard on another's head!

Just as in the wider context of Christianity, you're stuck with Hell.
The problem is, either the hosting has to be draconian, as Sioni says (see what I did there?), or you end up with a board that has one board-wide point of view, and anybody expressing anything opposing it is immediately drummed out. The genius of the SOF is that it has avoided both of those extremes, and the Hell board is no small part of it.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
I think the issue comes down to how much of "don't be a jerk" is considered to apply, level of name calling and profanity, how much of it comes from a choir, and whether additional issues with the person who is hell-called are introduced.

Question: Is it the person who is called or is the call regarding the post or manner of posting by the person?

If the person is called, because they are not liked in general, the hell call is entirely differentially based than if it's in relation to an opinion on a particular thread. The response will be differentially based as well. I had the one-time experience of such a personal attack in Hell, and was profoundly amazed and provoked. I lost control, would have raged at this person if physical present with them, and would have considered physical violence against them in the moment if the discussion had been in person. So I think I get what this is about. Words mean may more than some casual Hell posters think, and at least some of the normal conversational and discussion forum based self controls and rules need to apply. Where is the line?

I have noticed on the ship in general that people are prepared to be more aggressive than my experience of people elsewhere (online and in person), including use of profanity, strong language and personally directed comments. As a relatively recently joined member, I gather that this is a feature of the ship, gloried in by old timers, where certain sainted posters' peculiar style of aggressive posting has been admired and emulated.

But I do get back to the "don't be a jerk" idea, and wonder if the jerkiness of another, or other unsavoury conduct, is sufficient to justify being a jerk back, and have others join in, in a circle jerk of jerkiness.

But I'd boil it all down to slightly increasing the emphasis in Hell to not being a jerk, even there.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
You often seem amazed when people disagree with you. I've got to admire your confidence in your own opinions.
Would that more people were confident that ostracism is not a healthy community function.
So you see it as always stigmatic shaming, never reintegrative ?
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Why is it you take such delight in ceremonial shaming here on the ship, CK? Are you the target of much more malicious posting? Is it out of Christian love that you so often show up in hell calls to gently point out other people's short-comings and misbehaviors?
Zach is quite correct in my opinion. People choose to be offended. As has been stated before Hell calls tell you a lot more about the caller than they do about the callee.

Some of these posts make it sound like the caller is some sort of innocent victim who has been pushed beyond the bounds of human endurance by another's outrageous opinions and MUST respond. Give me a break. Call someone to Hell. Fine. But don't dress it up as some sort of justifiable moral outage or something.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
So you see it as always stigmatic shaming, never reintegrative ?
I am saying that, even when there is a legitimate need for changed behavior (which I don't see as happening as often as there are long hell calls), public shaming is a wicked means to that end, and more often than not an ineffective means anyway.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
It's interesting who objects to dogpiling.

It is often those who have been dogpiled in the past.
I think my experience may be instructional here...
Stellar post, MT

I wanted to pull out one segment:


quote:
Pace Curiosity's categories, I was not arguing it out with everyone attacking me. I did not appear on the thread at all. Which led to some nearly-vicious swipes about my personal character, as well as some cowardly clawing at my family (who also refrained from appearing on the thread) which I still haven't forgiven.
This to me would represent a huge line-crossing. Another example, A while back, we had an argument in Hell that involved a woman who's husband had walked out on her days before. In the course of a typical spat, several people began congratulating her husband on making the right decision.

Like I said, within days of the event.

There were all kinds of justifications for doing so--- I don't remember them, but what I do remember thinking, over and over, was "I wouldn't treat a dog like that. Not even one that bit me."
I just couldn't imagine kicking someone when they were down like that, no matter how bad they may have treated me.

And I basically was a coward and said nothing in her defense, because I knew all that would happen was I would get a lot of sneery comments about "fluffy bunnies" and people would begin combing my case file for any bit of personal information they could use against me. I went chickenshit.And I still hate myself for that. Really. I should have said something.

SO, really all I have to contribute this discussion (at this point, anyway) is this-- maybe some folk who scream about Hell dynamics are doing so because they hate the Hell concept and want it abolished. I don't. I think it is cathartic and cleansing. (Although I do admit my favorite moments in Hell are when perception seems to be restored--when people go from frothing to instructive teasing.)

But maybe some who express contrary opinions in Hell are doing so for a reason. (I would point out Sine and Pyx_e's posts on the Evensong thread, for instance, If I may without derailing. These are long-standing shipmates who have gotten to know quite a few of us, and when they say stuff like "You guys are acting in ways that don't jive with what I know about you," I would tend to listen.) And for some people it might take great courage to say " Something feels off about this." Not fluffy-bunny at all.

And "asbestos underwear" needs to be worn by everyone-- not just the target of a Hell-call. So, if someone decides to say (making something awful up) "What kind of asshole brings up someone's recent miscarriage in an argument?" they are offering valid feedback to the person who "went there". And the person who went there deserves no more protection from the consequences of their words than the target of the thread does.

And some people are just going "Yippee! To the Barricades!" I get that. They don't do the people who are honestly offering feedback any favors. Really. Have some better argument than "Hell isn't nice."

None of this is to suggest any change in policy, of course, none of this can be policed, for one thing. But IMO it would make for a much more honest discussion if (let us say) people of the majority opinion didn't simply pounce on minority opinions with "you just don't get Hell." Take that five second count to digest the opinion, same way you are hoping the Hell-- callee will.

And again, MT, I can't say how impressed I am that you would open yourself up like that.

[ 07. November 2012, 17:53: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
That's an interesting question Doublethink.

I would say that public shaming never works in a reintegrative sense. That's not to say that a person's behaviour is never shameful, just that public shaming has the opposite effect.

If someone needs their shameful behaviour pointing out to them, it needs to be in private or it'll always be stigmatic, I think.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The genius of the SOF is that it has avoided both of those extremes, and the Hell board is no small part of it.
I expressed elsewhere that one of the things that attracted me to the boards was that I would go to Hell and see two people reaming each other out in horrific ways, then see the same two people expressing appreciation of each other in Purgatory or All Saints.

We make a lot of noise about community-- the thing is Hell is not the greatest place on the boards to build community. But if that's really what you want-- go build it! Go pray for folk n All Saints, by name. Go play with them in the Circus. Find out more about how they tick in Purg. Hell is great, Hell might be one of the best cathartic features one could build into a message board-- but it's not the be-all end-all, unless you choose to make it so.

I wonder if the people who are extra--offended by Hell are exactly the people taking it way too seriously. Someone reaming you on a message board does not define you.

[ 07. November 2012, 18:07: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
And "asbestos underwear" needs to be worn by everyone-- not just the target of a Hell-call. So, if someone decides to say (making something awful up) "What kind of asshole brings up someone's recent miscarriage in an argument?" they are offering valid feedback to the person who "went there". And the person who went there deserves no more protection from the consequences of their words than the target of the thread does.
Exactly. I'd add that if you don't want your personal life discussed unfeelingly in Purgatory or viciously in Hell, don't post about your personal life on the Ship.

[ 07. November 2012, 19:13: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
As near as I can make out, what the bulk of you objectors are saying is "Keep Hell just as it is, except the hosts should pull people up/ close threads off more quickly." Because there is no way of creating a rule or mechanism that will do what you want without individual host case by case judgement.

Under thes circs, your only real hope of change is to appeal to the individual Hellhosts as persuasively as possible. Or get chosen one yourself.

Or I suppose you could PM the alleged habitual dogpilers and attempt to show them the error of their ways.

Because your only alternative that might be effective is to call them to Hell.

Because your only alternative

[ 07. November 2012, 18:13: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Why is it you take such delight in ceremonial shaming here on the ship, CK? Are you the target of much more malicious posting? Is it out of Christian love that you so often show up in hell calls to gently point out other people's short-comings and misbehaviors?
Zach is quite correct in my opinion. People choose to be offended. As has been stated before Hell calls tell you a lot more about the caller than they do about the callee.

Some of these posts make it sound like the caller is some sort of innocent victim who has been pushed beyond the bounds of human endurance by another's outrageous opinions and MUST respond. Give me a break. Call someone to Hell. Fine. But don't dress it up as some sort of justifiable moral outage or something.
Point taken Sine.

I nearly started a Styx thread on how Hell worked a few weeks back after starting the GeeD thread. What triggered that thought was the impression I had to produce a more outraged thread than I really felt to circumvent the peanut gallery who are prone to arrive and say "worst Hell thread ever".

If Hell is intended to act as containment, how does that square with those Shipmates who regard it as entertainment and will criticise if the thread is not entertaining enough or those who will post at the beginning of a thread "worst Hell thread ever".
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:

If Hell is intended to act as containment, how does that square with those Shipmates who regard it as entertainment and will criticise if the thread is not entertaining enough or those who will post at the beginning of a thread "worst Hell thread ever".
They are behaving in a jackassy manner. Tell Marv to eat them. He's expressed a taste preference.

[Kelly-- don't name-call in the Styx. Thanks. K.A ]

[ 07. November 2012, 18:23: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Exactly. I'd add that if you don't want your personal life discussed unfeelingly in Purgatory or viciously in Hell, don't post about your personal life on the Ship.
Yup. Both individuals in the scenario run a risk, and both need to count the cost.

[ 07. November 2012, 18:26: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
If Hell is intended to act as containment, how does that square with those Shipmates who regard it as entertainment and will criticise if the thread is not entertaining enough or those who will post at the beginning of a thread "worst Hell thread ever".
It doesn't. If this sort of thing only happened occasionally, it wouldn't matter so much. But there are a few shipmates who make it their business to screw up Hell threads on a regular basis. The ones that particularly bother me are the ones who do their best to derail many Hell threads into discussions of themselves. Why the admins haven't called commandment 1 on these folks is a complete mystery to me.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
For a person that calls others to reflect on their behaviors so often, CK, you sure are resistant to examining your own. Please answer my questions. Is it your job to find behaviors to correct in hell perhaps?
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Zach, I am trying to use the boards the way I understand them to be set out, and take things to Hell when requested to, or when I know the next thing I post will garner that instruction. I can only take responsibility for my own actions and face the consequences of them. If I call someone to Hell and the call turns back on me, that's my problem and I have to deal with it.

Personally I feel it's below the belt to bring in personal information that I may know about other Shipmates and try not to on a Hell thread; I can't remember if I've always been successful. And unless I have something to say on a Hell thread, I don't feel beholden to add my pearls of wisdom to every thread.

For the record the people I have called to Hell, as far as I remember, are Audrey Ely, Eddy, leo and more recently, Mark Betts, GeeD and Evensong.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
That's an interesting question Doublethink.

I would say that public shaming never works in a reintegrative sense. That's not to say that a person's behaviour is never shameful, just that public shaming has the opposite effect.

If someone needs their shameful behaviour pointing out to them, it needs to be in private or it'll always be stigmatic, I think.
On the other hand there is a substantial body of evidence supporting the fact that reintegrative shaming does work - in other settings. I don't think any research has been done on internet forum specifically. Do you have any evidence for your view that it won't work ?
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
On the other hand there is a substantial body of evidence supporting the fact that reintegrative shaming does work - in other settings.
Maybe a better word is "intervention." (no joke, I'm wondering if the dynamic can be the same.)
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
On the other hand there is a substantial body of evidence supporting the fact that reintegrative shaming does work - in other settings. I don't think any research has been done on internet forum specifically. Do you have any evidence for your view that it won't work ?
Only from my experience with children - and I know this might not carry over to adults, but I'd bet it does. Publicly shaming children does not work, it simply makes them resentful and far less likely to trust you or listen to you.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
The equivalent in children is when you say, "now you bit Susie, now let me see you go and say sorry to Susie" or some variant thereof.
 
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
IMO, Hell should be abolished.
If that was done then the symptoms of Hell, such as dogpiling, would remain. We would have more warnings, more shore leave, more plankings, the lot. Members would desert and few would want to be a Host, especially in The Styx.

That's always spoken as an absolute truth. Not even for the first time on this thread and always on threads about Hell. It usually comes third, after the sequence of "Take this subject to Styx if you want to discuss it," followed by, "If you don't like it you can leave." I don't think it's true.

Those of us who post on lots of other message boards have found some that don't allow personal attacks at all and yet don't blow-up from unvented steam. The moderator presence is not felt more often and it doesn't seem like there are more people banned. On the contrary I think lots of once regular shipmates like Newman's Own deserted precisely because things got cruel and ugly in Hell.

I don't think Hell needs to be abolished. I like the threads about public figures we can't stand, the neighbor's barking dogs and general rants about all sorts of things. We could even call each other to Hell about issues and actually stick to that issue while respecting the person. (I think the recent call to Moo was a good example of that.) I just don't see the need for personal attacks at all.

Another myth is the one that says people who apologize are instantly forgiven. The one time I apologized after a Hell call it was followed by a dozen people giving the person I apologized to the "not-worthy," smiley for being so gracious as to accept my apology. It was just another opportunity to give me a little kick and show whose side they were on. Freely given apologies are great but any time someone here, or IRL, actually demands an apology, I always wonder who they think they are and how they ever got to be so full of themselves. It should be enough that the shipmate quits doing whatever is annoying people. I don't see the purpose in making them grovel.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Zach, I am trying to use the boards the way I understand them to be set out, and take things to Hell when requested to, or when I know the next thing I post will garner that instruction. I can only take responsibility for my own actions and face the consequences of them. If I call someone to Hell and the call turns back on me, that's my problem and I have to deal with it.

Personally I feel it's below the belt to bring in personal information that I may know about other Shipmates and try not to on a Hell thread; I can't remember if I've always been successful. And unless I have something to say on a Hell thread, I don't feel beholden to add my pearls of wisdom to every thread.

For the record the people I have called to Hell, as far as I remember, are Audrey Ely, Eddy, leo and more recently, Mark Betts, GeeD and Evensong.
You may have been completely justified in your every hell call for all I know- and let's not forget your not infrequent posting in others' hell calls. But that still doesn't explain why you have to fall back on them so frequently. I can't see that 6 hell calls is average around here, though maybe I'm wrong.

It seems to me that if people really wanted an apology, a more effective means would be to take a break to cool off, then privately tell offenders how their behavior made them feel. Because that's how it works in real life. To be honest I don't think hell calls are about wanting an apology or changed behavior at all. Some people just want to be offended, and want others to reinforce their tantrums. If people would just admit that, I don't think I would have anything to say here.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Haven't you seen restorative justice done in schools, Boogie? It's a similar idea - where all the aggrieved parties gather in one place and express their feelings and usually agree some way forward.

I guess the problem with the Ship is that it's difficult to either restrict it to the aggrieved people or agree a contract.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
On the other hand there is a substantial body of evidence supporting the fact that reintegrative shaming does work - in other settings.
Maybe a better word is "intervention." (no joke, I'm wondering if the dynamic can be the same.)
Interventions are supposed to be friends and family confronting people with their behavior in a gentle, loving manner. That ain't what hell calls are.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
The equivalent in children is when you say, "now you bit Susie, now let me see you go and say sorry to Susie" or some variant thereof.
No problem - but not in public (in front of an audience)

This can't be done on a public board, I know. But I wonder how many aggrieved parties started off by PMing the one they called to hell first, to try and sort out their differences?

Playground fights attract an audience, so do Internet fights, it's just human nature - but not restorative in any way imo.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Zach, I haven't been arguing for changed behaviour, I don't know where you've read that into anything I have said. Others on this thread have been arguing for that. I have been saying Hell is about containment throughout this thread and also on the Evensong thread.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Zach, I haven't been arguing for changed behaviour, I don't know where you've read that into anything I have said. Others on this thread have been arguing for that. I have been saying Hell is about containment throughout this thread and also on the Evensong thread.
Oh, I admit I am conflating arguments a little. Since I'm not doing so in a manner to make you look worse off, I hope you don't mind if I not make 100 different posts for 100 slightly differing views.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
The one time I apologized after a Hell call it was followed by a dozen people giving the person I apologized to the "not-worthy," smiley for being so gracious as to accept my apology.
I don't remember that one, but that is indeed lame.

Although I don't think it happens often, there have been times when we have pigeonholed people-- when they pretty much can do no right. (I'm sure I did it, too, I just only notice it when it's someone I haven't pigeonholed.)

Another made up example but I'm pretty sure I have seen it before.

Hell Callee "I guess I see your point about X."

"Wonder how long that will last."
"Well, that's convenient. I guess you can't stand the heat anymore."
"Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, I guess." (OK, the last is just a joke, but you get what I mean.)


I've been the target of that kind of dynamic by a lone shipmate-- and that was bad enough. If a small group of shipmates develop an attitude of this nature toward someone-- ugh. Can't imagine.

Again, I can't think of any specific incidents of this currently happening-- because it ain't me:D-- but it is something to guard against, if you want to keep things real.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
And "asbestos underwear" needs to be worn by everyone-- not just the target of a Hell-call. So, if someone decides to say (making something awful up) "What kind of asshole brings up someone's recent miscarriage in an argument?" they are offering valid feedback to the person who "went there". And the person who went there deserves no more protection from the consequences of their words than the target of the thread does.
Exactly. I'd add that if you don't want your personal life discussed unfeelingly in Purgatory or viciously in Hell, don't post about your personal life on the Ship.
Except that the ship is explicitly set up to allow for mostly anonymous posting of personal details, and posters sometimes find that they move from, say All Saints support to discussing the issues more generally in Purgatory and getting cathartic relief and other meaning from the free discussion -- some us idiotic people anyway. It's one of the reasons we bother coming to the site.

I'm still on the Not Being A Jerk thing, to which I'd clarify to include avoidance of deliberate cruelty to others. And I get the argument of This Is How It's Always Been, but I think it's invalid.
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :
 
(God knows we shipmates love a good, groveling apology before we re-clasp the errant sheep to our collective bosoms.)
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Actually a quick trip to AS will show that a lot of shipmates share all kinds of details about their lives, and for the most part, the only consequence is the support, encouragement and solidarity of other shipmates. That does bring an element of extra vulnerability toward the unpopular into the mix.

So, if I can refer to Mousethief example-- when people started "going there" with his family, he had an entourage of friends to back him up and cry foul. In the example I mentioned-- not so much. The hue and cry, as a matter of fact, revolved around the audacity of the one or two who spoke up to dare judge the tactic.

And I'm not going to plow through Oblivion to research, but I do wonder how many of the hue and cryers in both situations were the same people.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
Call someone to Hell. Fine. But don't dress it up as some sort of justifiable moral outage or something.
This finger points both ways. Most of the hell-call detractors here aren't calling for a change in how the ship operates, rules, or whatever -- just telling other people how nasty they are and that they should be nicer to one another. In short, ITTWACWS. There is a lot of squabbling for moral high ground, and the anti-dogpile crowd is far from innocent in that regard.

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
If Hell is intended to act as containment, how does that square with those Shipmates who regard it as entertainment and will criticise if the thread is not entertaining enough or those who will post at the beginning of a thread "worst Hell thread ever".
That's a feature, not a bug. That's the way bogus hell threads are shut down. If everybody says "this is a lame hell call" and nobody jumps in to decry the callee, the thread dies. Which is exactly as it should be.

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
And I'm not going to plow through Oblivion to research, but I do wonder how many of the hue and cryers in both situations were the same people.
The thread was deleted shortly after it was archived. Put a total spanner in my nursing-a-grudge behavior, dammit.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
But that still doesn't explain why you have to fall back on them so frequently. I can't see that 6 hell calls is average around here, though maybe I'm wrong.
It works out to once a year. That hardly seems like CK is rushing to Hell at the drop of a hat.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
As I said, I don't know the average, but 6 sure seems like a lot. I average zero a year. Have you called 11 people to hell, MT? Are you close to 10, Kelly?
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
@daronmedway - there are ways of bullying on an Internet forum. If you had every post you made ridiculed by the same person or group of people, you had unpleasant private messages from the same group of people and had to deal with a group of people gossiping about you in real life or one of the online cafés accusing you of things you had not done, which then coloured the responses that you received on the Ship, that would be bullying. A Hell call is not the same thing at all. It's far less insidious and allows you to either to argue it out in an open forum, which may well garner you support, or to see what the complaints are and deal with them.
I DON"T OBJECT TO HELL CALLS.
Then can we have some Ship related examples of what you do object to? That might help move the discussion on a bit.

Tubbs
With respect, I don't think it would. I've already made my objection clear and it's got little or nothing to do with how the Ship or the Hell board is officially constituted, hosted or administrated. It's to do with how certain shipmates - as private and free individuals - choose to use the Hell board and the Hell Call convention - to verbally abuse other shipmates. It's also to do with how those shipmates continue to justify their behaviour with erroneous arguments, especially the "it's not bullying because they can walk away" canard.
Let me reflect this back at you …

You object to specific behaviours by certain shipmates, but you are unable to provide any examples of the kind of behaviour that you object to. You’d just like us to take your word for it that this behaviour exists and put a stop to it. But you’re fine with the Hell board.

There is a difference of opinion between Shipmates of what constitutes bullying and where the fine line lies between bullying and challenging someone’s behaviours / opinions in a robust and honest way. One is acceptable whilst the other isn’t. You’d like us to decide where the line between the two is – ideally in the same place you do – and then ensure it is not crossed.
I'm not asking you (i.e. admins) to "do" anything. I'm asking shipmates (those free and private individuals) who dish out free-form verbal abuse along the lines of "You are a shit-eating spunky fuck weasel cunt who should leave the ship, and so-say all of us" to re-think their behaviour in the light of reality instead dressing it up as "protecting the ship from baddies" or "venting in a safe place" or some such fantastical claptrap.
You have no control over or responsibility for what other people do. But you can change your own behaviour and lead by example. After all, posting that someone is "a shit-eating spunky fuck weasel cunt who should leave the ship, and so-say all of us" is a bit like telling someone that you disagree with that they should enjoy the praise of men as they have received their reward in full . Although my Biblical scholarship is never going to set Kerg alight, I know that a smiley doesn't make the comment any less unkind and it could be seen as an illustration of the kind of thing you're arguing shouldn't happen.

Tubbs

[ 07. November 2012, 21:08: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
If "Hell calls" are such a useful and wonderful community function, I wonder if we should institute them in real life. The offender can be called to town hall, and as he sits there the whole town can deride him for being an awful person with every flaw that everyone hates.
It's not quite the hell call, but De Bono's Six Thinking Hats allows a group to operate safely in different modes. The black or red hat would be the closest, though the technique is expected to be used on ideas, and not people.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
If Hell is intended to act as containment, how does that square with those Shipmates who regard it as entertainment and will criticise if the thread is not entertaining enough or those who will post at the beginning of a thread "worst Hell thread ever".
It doesn't. If this sort of thing only happened occasionally, it wouldn't matter so much. But there are a few shipmates who make it their business to screw up Hell threads on a regular basis. The ones that particularly bother me are the ones who do their best to derail many Hell threads into discussions of themselves. Why the admins haven't called commandment 1 on these folks is a complete mystery to me.
Doesn't mean they won't get called on Commandment 1 next time they do it. Which some people reading this thread might want to bear in mind next time they fancy playing that particular game.

Tubbs
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
Hell is the board of most-free expression. That means it's the board with the fewest limitations. Aside from unavoidable legal limitations, we're not keen to implement much of anything in particular in that regard. Because when you build strainers into toilets they stink.

So go, enjoy your (mostly) free expression. If you can, considering that we're a bunch of shitty humans.

And remember: voting is just governmental dogpiling.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
As I said, I don't know the average, but 6 sure seems like a lot. I average zero a year. Have you called 11 people to hell, MT? Are you close to 10, Kelly?
People deal with their conflicts in different ways. Hell is one option available. I'm not sure that an 'average' means anything precisely because people wouldn't all choose the same approach.

So you may well be correct in suggesting that CK's use of Hell is 'above average'. But there's a large and wide logical chasm between that and any conclusion that CK's use of hell is 'excessive'. That's why I pointed out the rate of Hell call is once a year.

Frankly, if CK herself hadn't explicitly pointed out how many Hell calls she had made, I wouldn't have ever thought 'that CK, she makes such a lot of Hell calls'. Something that happens on average once a year doesn't come close to registering for me as a frequent occurrence.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I fear I have gone too far in singling CK out, but I have in my world view the idea that some people just like getting offended, and so the motivations of hell callers are open to questioning for me.

As I've said, if offended parties really wanted apologies or changed behaviors, there are better ways of going about it. It just doesn't seem obvious to me that the health of our community relies on reinforcing easily offended parties with community shaming rituals. If people need that to cope or resolve disputes, then they have issues.

[ 07. November 2012, 21:38: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Actually Zach82, I haven't gone into Hell threads with the motivation of changing things, except possibly the Mark Betts call. There, as Mark Betts was so new and was posting across a number of threads and boards, calling him to Hell was to point out he was posting in a way that was winding me up, if not others. The way that thread went others agreed and Mark Betts did change his posting style.

Audrey Ely and Eddy I suspected of trolling and/or crusading and the only way I could point that out was in Hell. leo I suspected of plagiarism, ditto.

GeeD was derailing the Jimmy Savile thread and Doublethink had posted a request to split out different strands. Calling GeeD to Hell on his own thread was a way of continuing to argue with him without the derailment.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I fear I have gone too far in singling CK out, but I have in my world view the idea that some people just like getting offended, and so the motivations of hell callers are open to questioning for me.
Yes, fair enough. But in my view someone who gets offended on average once a year is not someone who 'just likes getting offended'.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I fear I have gone too far in singling CK out, but I have in my world view the idea that some people just like getting offended,
Isn't that special.

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
As I said, I don't know the average, but 6 sure seems like a lot. I average zero a year. Have you called 11 people to hell, MT?
At least.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
Some shipmates may know that I've been the subject of quite a few hell calls myself. I actually think that I deserved them all and, believe it or not, as a direct result of those calls I have tried to modify my posting style so as to be less confrontational. However, I'd have say that the dog-piling elements of those threads have been the least effective factor in terms of promoting positive change while being most memorable in terms of genuine hurt.

This has been a very helpful thread for me and I'm grateful to Curiosity for starting it. To my mind, the balanced and insightful contributions of Alan Cresswell and, particularly, Kelly Alves prove that the Admins understand the dynamics - both good and bad - of the Ship really very well indeed.

I also find it encouraging that such a broad spectrum of opinion can be found among the Admins, ranging from Tubb's and Marvin's almost Scientological "fair game" doctrine of dog-piling through to Alan Cresswell and Kelly Alves's more nuanced approach.

It's also good to see the same spectrum of opinion among shipmates too. I can appreciate that this is - and always will be - the case.

Personally, I think that the hell board does perform a valuable and for most part highly enjoyable function. The ship would certanly be the poorer for losing it. I also happen to think that some self-imposed moderation from certain shipmates would actually make the Hell board more effective in it's stated purposes.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I guess I'm just stuck feeling it self evident that community shaming rituals are for malicious savages.
 
Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I still can't help but think the woman caught in adultery is the perfect parable for this issue......
I, on the other hand, can't see how it's relevant at all. The woman taken in adultery was presumably otherwise minding her own business and not going around chucking rocks at people and generally being a jerk; neither was she needling people, posting wholesale condemnations of others, or defending the indefensible.

None of us is Jesus, and nobody is getting stoned here (not in that sense anyway). Yes, some Hell calls involve an element of moral condemnation (though, when they do, it's often the callee who's the condemner, rather than the caller) but often they're just a matter of 'you get up my nose' - and it turns out that some posters get up a lot of people's noses. Sometimes that means that those people don't get a fair hearing in Hell - that's tough, but at least they have the chance to learn from it. Victims of a real-life stoning don't really have the 'live and learn' option.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I'm not asking you (i.e. admins) to "do" anything. I'm asking shipmates (those free and private individuals) who dish out free-form verbal abuse along the lines of "You are a shit-eating spunky fuck weasel cunt who should leave the ship, and so-say all of us" to re-think their behaviour in the light of reality instead dressing it up as "protecting the ship from baddies" or "venting in a safe place" or some such fantastical claptrap.
And who specifically are these abusive posters you're asking to re-think their behaviour? Are they people who use bad language? Are they people who use bad language but have a good point to make, or make their point badly? Are they people who use bad language that you don't like, or in a way you don't like, or bad language that I don't like?

Loads of people have posted on Evensong's Hell Call thread. Which of those posters are you asking to 're-think'? Who decides who is 'dogpiling' and who is incredibly angry and wanting to vent at the object's insensitivity?

Besides, now you've said what apparently you wanted to say (albeit to no identifiable person) what happens? What happens if whoever it is you're addressing doesn't re-think their posting behaviour, seeing as you say yourself the Admins aren't to play a role in this arbitration? What happens if they do? How will we know, seeing we don't even know who you mean in the first place and not everyone reads every post in exactly the same way?

I'm not saying that you don't have a point but at the moment you're just standing on an orange crate in the middle of the town square yelling at the passing crowd some of whom may be heckling, some of whom don't see what your problem is.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I guess I'm just stuck feeling it self evident that community shaming rituals are for malicious savages.
1) You say that like we're not malicious savages.

2) I would assert that the Girardian aspect of Hell is not one we can realistically abolish. Especially considering that it's participant-driven, not a design function of Hell.

3) Show me a long-standing human construct without some vague form of community shaming mechanisms.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I am familiar with the works of Rene Girard, and the connection had occurred to me more than once during the course of this thread. Good reading, though he seems to have gotten the idea that Satan is bad, and that Christian community really is possible.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
As I said, I don't know the average, but 6 sure seems like a lot. I average zero a year. Have you called 11 people to hell, MT? Are you close to 10, Kelly?
I have called exactly one person to Hell, and it was fuckin' stupid. I was just in a pissy mood.

I ran into said person in the cafe two minutes later and was ashamed of myself. Lesson learned. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I still can't help but think the woman caught in adultery is the perfect parable for this issue......
Including the "go and sin no more" bit at the end?
If you've done something wrong, of course.

But you seem to think by virtue of being dogpiled, you have automatically done something wrong and therefore deserve it.

But the crucifixion and the parable of the woman caught in adultery (and no doubt there are others) is positive proof that that idea is complete bullshit.
 
Posted by Mullygrub (# 9113) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
....We had a right-wing radio announcer say something appalling at a dinner. When word got out, his radio station was bombarded with messages, all the sponsors of his program got bombarded as well. Phone calls, emails, Facebook, Twitter.....
True, dat. And I'm with the people on this one, orfeo -- that individual's words and subsequent attempts at apology as reported in our media were disgusting and worthy of retributive response. He was foolish and ought to have known better. He also has a history of dickish behaviour, as it is. However, his comments were made, not in a public forum, but at a private dinner. If we're going to call on "real life" examples, then I would suggest the same applies to the Ship; we all comment here publicly, and as such, it is right that we expect a public response as par for the course. If we don't like it, well... (and that's where the current discussion is trending off, as I see it).

Having said that (she says, with her "No, I'm not trying to contradict myself" hat on),

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

As to the "real life" thing what needs to be said, and which anybody who has been on the internet more than 10 minutes knows, is that people say things on the internet that they never would say in real life.
***
[cut for space, but the whole paragraph is relevant to my comment]
***
So if the means of dealing with online out-of-line behavior is not transferrable to real life, it could very easily be argued it's because the nature of out-of-line online behavior is not representative of real life.
Agreed. The insistence on this thread that "real life" examples provide the supporting evidence of what should be considered socially acceptable* on-line conduct here seems unreasonable. As MT says so well, they are different worlds, as it were. We can expect things to be different (Customer: "I expect better service!", Bernard: "Well, expect away!")...

*Incidentally, socially acceptable according to whom? As has already been stated, this is a multinational, multidenominational, multilifeexperiential, multisocialskilllevelial forum, hence the need for the Ship's own set of guidelines concerning poster behaviour.

quote:
Quoth Tubbs:
It’s not like there is a crack team of ninja’s who visit people’s houses, force them to log onto their PCs, tablets or phones and make them post.
I so very much want there to be a SoF crack team of ninjas. So very much.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I've never called anyone to hell, but I have participated in hell calls every now and then. After getting my own, I was mortally sorry I ever did.
 
Posted by Mullygrub (# 9113) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I've never called anyone to hell, but I have participated in hell calls every now and then. After getting my own, I was mortally sorry I ever did.
And we learn.

Similar happened to me in the early days, and I worked out that I needed to spend a bit more time shuttingthefuckup and learning the nuances of relationship in these parts before jumping on into the firey business of Hell in future. Taught me a bit of online-persona-temperance, you might say, a lesson for which I am very grateful (awww), and which I have observed (in all my lurking) playing out often in Hell for other ill-equipped/-reasoned/-informed newbies*.

ETA: *It usually seems to be these types, is what I mean.

[ 08. November 2012, 00:51: Message edited by: Mullygrub ]
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I've never called anyone to hell, but I have participated in hell calls every now and then. After getting my own, I was mortally sorry I ever did.
I don't recall calling anyone from the ship to hell either.

I think I've called my extended family twice but. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Mullygrub (# 9113) on :
 
ps. I'm still reading the title of the thread on the Main Board as "Doppleganging in Hell".

Go figure.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
And we learn.
The lesson I learned was sympathy for the ceremonially shamed of our community. I don't think that's the learning experience people have been talking about.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
The woman caught in adultery DID so something wrong, for crying out loud. She committed adultery!

[ 08. November 2012, 01:11: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I guess I'm just stuck feeling it self evident that community shaming rituals are for malicious savages.
1) You say that like we're not malicious savages.

2) I would assert that the Girardian aspect of Hell is not one we can realistically abolish. Especially considering that it's participant-driven, not a design function of Hell.

3) Show me a long-standing human construct without some vague form of community shaming mechanisms.
Excellent post on all points.

I would like to address a point that has always bugged me, capsulized in #1-- These arguments that Hell serves this righteous purpose of community intervention and the process is never tainted by mind think or group mentality. Wow, that would be a miracle of human behavior.

Nah, the truth is, sometimes people get wound up in being as nasty as they want to be. And if individuals have to suck up the fact that they are going to hear unpleasant truths about themselves, it's only fair to me to ask mosh-pit people to at least consider* that the license that Hell offers might bring out some of the more unsavory aspects of their own personality. Caveat Emptor all around, big girl panties all around.


*Not formally, not by change of policy, but by gentle-person's agreement.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The woman caught in adultery DID so something wrong, for crying out loud. She committed adultery!
So are you saying she is justly the object of the community's wrath? Her guilt isn't lost on me, but the guilt of the community in that story isn't lost on me either.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The woman caught in adultery DID so something wrong, for crying out loud. She committed adultery!
Duh.

But Jesus wouldn't let people dogpile her for it!!
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
...considering that we're a bunch of shitty humans.
What's this "we" business? Speak for yourself.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
True story.

Some of us are holier than thou.
 
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Haven't you seen restorative justice done in schools, Boogie? It's a similar idea - where all the aggrieved parties gather in one place and express their feelings and usually agree some way forward.

I guess the problem with the Ship is that it's difficult to either restrict it to the aggrieved people or agree a contract.
Similar, but not similar enough IMO.
In our schools it was used as an alternative to legal/police action.
At the outset it is already understood and accepted who is aggrieved and who the aggriever*.
If this is not the case then mediation does not take place, AFAIK.

All parties have their support persons immediately present.
There is a mediator present to ensure that it does not stray into personal attacks. The aggrieved person states how the action has affected them.

It is hoped that this will produce empathy/sympathy/contrition in the aggriever who will then want to make amends in some way. Or will at least be persuaded to do so.

*I can't think of the correct word.

[ 08. November 2012, 01:58: Message edited by: Latchkey Kid ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
True story.

Some of us are holier than thou.
Evensong, in all sincerity, it is remarks along these lines in Hell that probably do the most to fuel your Hell calls.

It is up to you how you respond to Hell calls (and indeed whether you respond at all), but you cannot avoid the fact that the choice of response has an influence on the outcome.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Evensong, in all sincerity, it is remarks along these lines in Hell that probably do the most to fuel your Hell calls.
It was so totally a joke!!!!! It was just such a great play on words I couldn't resist. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
I liked it. [Snigger]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Yes, but the problem with the internet is that 'joke' intonation doesn't necessarly come across. You need to be really, really careful, particularly in a context where people are already cranky (and we're talking about Hell here, so frequently they are).

I think everyone has had an experience at some point of a post or e-mail that has been read in a 'tone' that was completely different to the tone the author had in mind.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The woman caught in adultery DID so something wrong, for crying out loud. She committed adultery!
Duh.

But Jesus wouldn't let people dogpile her for it!!
No, he wouldn't let them stone her for it. If you equate being insulted on a website with being stoned to death, there's something seriously wrong with your thinking.

[ 08. November 2012, 03:34: Message edited by: mousethief ]
 
Posted by Mullygrub (# 9113) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You need to be really, really careful, particularly in a context where people are already cranky (and we're talking about Hell here, so frequently they are).
Yes -- context is everything. Except for natural peanut butter from the health food shop; that also accounts for a lot (yum).

But seriously, context is important. The nature of Hell as I have observed her is robust, passionate, combative, heated, upfront (none of this passive bollocks), where the likelihood of an impassioned post being misunderstood is a good deal greater than in, say, Heaven or Circus. Or, at least, in Heaven or Circus a misunderstood post will be mutually laughed over and/or congenially pursued for understanding or whatever.
 
Posted by Mullygrub (# 9113) on :
 
[Gah. Lost my "edit" timeframe. Was going to add:]

[Forgot my "thus"!! [Hot and Hormonal] ]

Thus, I find I'm back to pondering expectations of posting etiquette depending on the context of the board. And while I have, along with others as already touched on here, observed some godawful behaviour in Hell, I also know myself well enough (ish) to appreciate that, on the whole, that kind of deplorable stuff is in the minority of post-content/intent. Therefore, I can generally (eventually) recognise that if I'm finding myself offended, hurt, or affronted by something someone has posted, I ought to take a step back for a bit to gauge my response against the broader community's response to same or like.
 
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Evensong, in all sincerity, it is remarks along these lines in Hell that probably do the most to fuel your Hell calls.
It was so totally a joke!!!!! It was just such a great play on words I couldn't resist. [Big Grin]
I like to think that I am alert to these in general, if not yours in particular, but I still haven't got it. Perhaps an emoticon would help for Orfeo and others to prevent your being misread.
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
I sense this thread is pretty done, but I would like to throw one point in from my own possibly unique perspective as a bona fide dogpilee. But possibly not.

It hurts.

I mean, really genuinely, honestly, truly hurts. Real sleep-disturbing, confidence-shaking, darkness-bringing, life-deranging HURTS.

Now, if you gentle people who defend the process are happy with that, all well and good, but please don't misunderstand it or deny it.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I sense this thread is pretty done, but I would like to throw one point in from my own possibly unique perspective as a bona fide dogpilee. But possibly not.

It hurts.

I mean, really genuinely, honestly, truly hurts. Real sleep-disturbing, confidence-shaking, darkness-bringing, life-deranging HURTS.

Now, if you gentle people who defend the process are happy with that, all well and good, but please don't misunderstand it or deny it.
No, I'm not happy with it.

But I am deeply troubled by some of the reasoning that's going on here. There is a dangerous double standard.

Evensong's comments on the original Purgatory thread were deeply inflammatory and I have had several PM's from people who felt they couldn't post in the open but were upset by her comments.

So, if 'we're' bothered by Evensong's comments it's because we misunderstand her and if she's bothered by our comments it's because we're bullying.

I'm not saying two wrongs make a right but I am concerned by this hyper-responsibility for comments and reactions that seems to be expected of us and at the same time we're not allowed to have a reaction to what she wrote.

Way back on about page 2 or 3 on the Hell thread I pointed out that one of my complaints was that Evensong critiqued an abuse survivor on her survival strategy. She denied this so I quote what she said.

In may well be that she didn't mean what I thought she did but two things: 1. I'm not the only one to read it that way and 2. The person I was quoting reads these boards and was bothered by Evensong's response.

Now I'm not suggesting that people can be held responsible for other people's reactions but we ARE all responsible for our own actions. It seems to me that there is an attempt here to play the victim and not take responsibility.

AFZ
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Yorick, the problem is the person who has been called to Hell and received that sort of kicking has probably said things that have hurt others on other boards. What you see as a dogpile is those people who have been hurt saying so. Now I know there are people who have gratuitously joined in because they just do, but pages of posts from anyone and everyone is a sign that lots of people have been hurt.

I called Evensong to Hell because it damn well hurt me hearing her dismiss the experiences of the children and others I had walked with through abuse experiences. And I called GeeD for dismissing my and other women's experiences of living through the atmosphere that allowed Jimmy Savile to thrive.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:


I'm not saying two wrongs make a right but I am concerned by this hyper-responsibility for comments and reactions that seems to be expected of us and at the same time we're not allowed to have a reaction to what she wrote.


Not hyper- responsibility, just simple responsibility.

And for the record I personally am leaving ES Hell thread out of it, and thinking of general trends-- except for the examples I used of the difference between people genuinely reflecting and people decrying "Hell Meanness" in general, just because Sine and Pyx_e provided good ones. The poking really does seem mutual on the ES thread. All around.

[ 08. November 2012, 06:31: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
Maybe.

But a simple "I'm sorry! I didn't mean that! What I was trying to say was..." goes a hell of a long way.

AFZ
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Totally agreed.

The sad fact of the matter is that you can wait till hell freezes over for that sometimes-- pun totally intended-- and at some point you gotta ask if it's really worth that much of your stomach lining to keep waiting.

[ 08. November 2012, 06:45: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
I'm sorry, that sounded really prescriptive. YMMV, absolutely.
 
Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
There was a comment way back on this thread about people who can dish it out but can't take it and it seems to me that that's exactly what we have here. Yorick, you have, in the past, indulged in absolutely vicious personal attacks on a number of shipmates. If you regret that now, it's the first I've heard of it.

Evensong, you have until just recently, given every appearance of enjoying the fact that you are goading others. Perhaps you didn't mean to do so; perhaps you are only guilty of over-estimating the amusement value of your witticisms - but then again, it's not as though there's been any shortage of people telling you that they are not amused. The sole fact of being in a minority does not alone make for a convincing martyr - and comparisons to the crucifixion would be offensive if they weren't so laughable.

Having said all that, I actually agree that sometimes the dogpiling goes too far for my tastes, but tastes vary - one person's irritating gadfly is another person's tormentor. I don't see how you can legislate for better behaviour - it's up to us all to step in and/or speak up if that's how we perceive the situation.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I'm sorry, that sounded really prescriptive. YMMV, absolutely.
Hee hee... no worries. The problem is that I genuinely didn't know she didn't mean it...

AFZ
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The woman caught in adultery DID so something wrong, for crying out loud. She committed adultery!
Duh.

But Jesus wouldn't let people dogpile her for it!!
No, he wouldn't let them stone her for it. If you equate being insulted on a website with being stoned to death, there's something seriously wrong with your thinking.
Dear oh dear. Such a literalist.

Others don't seem to have such trouble with the metaphor.

Perhaps there is something seriously wrong with your thinking?
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Evensong, in all sincerity, it is remarks along these lines in Hell that probably do the most to fuel your Hell calls.
It was so totally a joke!!!!! It was just such a great play on words I couldn't resist. [Big Grin]
I like to think that I am alert to these in general, if not yours in particular, but I still haven't got it. Perhaps an emoticon would help for Orfeo and others to prevent your being misread.
Why did no one take issue with Sine?

He started the comment. I just tagged along FFS! [Paranoid]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
There was a comment way back on this thread about people who can dish it out but can't take it and it seems to me that that's exactly what we have here. Yorick, you have, in the past, indulged in absolutely vicious personal attacks on a number of shipmates. If you regret that now, it's the first I've heard of it.

Evensong, you have until just recently, given every appearance of enjoying the fact that you are goading others. Perhaps you didn't mean to do so; perhaps you are only guilty of over-estimating the amusement value of your witticisms - but then again, it's not as though there's been any shortage of people telling you that they are not amused. The sole fact of being in a minority does not alone make for a convincing martyr - and comparisons to the crucifixion would be offensive if they weren't so laughable.

Having said all that, I actually agree that sometimes the dogpiling goes too far for my tastes, but tastes vary - one person's irritating gadfly is another person's tormentor. I don't see how you can legislate for better behaviour - it's up to us all to step in and/or speak up if that's how we perceive the situation.
Perfect.
[Cool]

[ 08. November 2012, 07:11: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
As for getting people to apologise, the best way to ensure they don't is to call them to hell and dogpile them.

But I've found when I've apologised to people for hurting their feelings, that's not good enough.

They want me to acknowledge I am wrong and they are right EVEN if I think no such thing.

And the baying crowd doesn't withrdaw until they taste blood.....

I suppose I could start pretending. That might keep people happy.

But for old times sake I'll give it a go:

Curiosity and AFZ. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, offended you or caused you to believe I was being deliberately inflammatory on such a horrendously painful and difficult issue. That was not my intention.

I admire your working with abused children and survivors. I don't think I would personally be capable. I hope your ministries in this area are long and fruitful.

[ 08. November 2012, 07:34: Message edited by: Evensong ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Thank you Evensong.
 
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :
 
I have kept away from this thread (which I have only dipped into, not read in full). When CK called me to Hell, she accused me of hypocrisy and of lying. Her evidence for this? That I had not instantly agreed with her. She then repeated her accusations of lying, in a manner which I could only interpret as malicious. I know nothing of CK's life, and how conversations there proceed. In my little corner of the world, accusations such as she glibly made are not swiftly made. I found these extremely hurtful.

I then posted on another thread. I think it was CK's Hell call for Evensong, but can't be certain. CK's immediate response was to threaten me with a return to the Hell call she had made for me.

The conclusion I drew from this is that CK is simply a bully, and derives pleasure from her bullying. This may not be the real life CK, but it is the way in which she has come across on these boards. This conclusion seems very similar to that to which Evensong refers.

I apologise in advance to the Styx hosts if this post is not appropriate for this board.

[ 08. November 2012, 07:50: Message edited by: Gee D ]
 
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Evensong, in all sincerity, it is remarks along these lines in Hell that probably do the most to fuel your Hell calls.
It was so totally a joke!!!!! It was just such a great play on words I couldn't resist. [Big Grin]
I like to think that I am alert to these in general, if not yours in particular, but I still haven't got it. Perhaps an emoticon would help for Orfeo and others to prevent your being misread.
Why did no one take issue with Sine?

He started the comment. I just tagged along FFS! [Paranoid]
Now I get it. I could blame my slowness on my cold, but I was probably just slow.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
Thank you Evensong.

That's really meaningful.

We can now go back to vigorously disagreeing in Purgatory if you like? [Biased]

AFZ
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Why did no one take issue with Sine?

He started the comment. I just tagged along FFS! [Paranoid]
1. History. Probably. The whole point is I'm not trying to "take issue" with your comment, I'm trying to convey what happens to you in Hell when people are already cranky with you. If Sine is handed a Hell call, the lessons might be relevant to Sine.

2. TONE. Tone tone tone. More than anything else, I don't think you have Sine's way with words. It's as simple as that.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Answer to GeeD
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
But you seem to think by virtue of being dogpiled, you have automatically done something wrong and therefore deserve it.
Yes. Yes I do. That is absolutely, 100% what I'm saying.

Because while there may be one or two Shipmates who are just jerks and like attacking other Shipmates in Hell, when it gets to the point that two or three pages of Shipmates are saying the same thing then the far greater likelihod is that they've got a point.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:

2. TONE. Tone tone tone. More than anything else, I don't think you have Sine's way with words. It's as simple as that.
... which is no shame-- most people on the planet don't.

Also, Sine has been contributing in a variety of ways for years-- most of us have a sense of his tone. That sort of thing takes time. If you want people to learn how to read your voice, you have to build it up slowly.

And I guess part of that process includes learning how to read your own voice. I have gotten in trouble myself a couple times posting things I thought were snarky but funny, but people read them as "angry and frothing".

Truth of the matter was, the common denominator was "Loads of coffee." I just need to step back when I've had a few cups.

Little self-checks like that can help a lot.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
I'm not asking you (i.e. admins) to "do" anything. I'm asking shipmates (those free and private individuals) who dish out free-form verbal abuse along the lines of "You are a shit-eating spunky fuck weasel cunt who should leave the ship, and so-say all of us" to re-think their behaviour in the light of reality instead dressing it up as "protecting the ship from baddies" or "venting in a safe place" or some such fantastical claptrap.
And who specifically are these abusive posters you're asking to re-think their behaviour? Are they people who use bad language? Are they people who use bad language but have a good point to make, or make their point badly? Are they people who use bad language that you don't like, or in a way you don't like, or bad language that I don't like?
I've already explained (ad nauseum, some would say) what behaviour I'm talking about. And other shipmates seem to understand what I'm talking about, including those who tend to disagree with me. So, no, I don't think I'll start naming names.

quote:
Loads of people have posted on Evensong's Hell Call thread. Which of those posters are you asking to 're-think'? Who decides who is 'dogpiling' and who is incredibly angry and wanting to vent at the object's insensitivity?
The people who can decide it's dog-piling are the shipmates themselves, those who do it, those to whom it is done, and those see it being done. I'm specifically asking those shipmates who use Hell Calls as an opportunity for free-form verbal abuse and explicit attempts at ostracism to re-consider their behaviour as a form of bullying and, on that basis, to stop doing it.

quote:
Besides, now you've said what apparently you wanted to say (albeit to no identifiable person) what happens? What happens if whoever it is you're addressing doesn't re-think their posting behaviour, seeing as you say yourself the Admins aren't to play a role in this arbitration? What happens if they do? How will we know, seeing we don't even know who you mean in the first place and not everyone reads every post in exactly the same way?
Well, I don't imagine anything 'official' will happen. I simply hope that some of the more extreme examples of what I've already identified will, perhaps over time, become less common. Finally, who's "we" in that last sentence? Because from where I'm sitting I can see quite a few shipmates who seem to know precisely what I mean.

quote:
'm not saying that you don't have a point but at the moment you're just standing on an orange crate in the middle of the town square yelling at the passing crowd some of whom may be heckling, some of whom don't see what your problem is.
Oh well. I'll just have to content myself with the fact that some shipmates can see what I'm talking about and live in hope that those who can't will eventually see the light. It's a cross I'm willing to bear. [Biased]

[ 08. November 2012, 08:08: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Answer to GeeD
Thank you for taking it off the thread.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:


Because while there may be one or two Shipmates who are just jerks and like attacking other Shipmates in Hell, when it gets to the point that two or three pages of Shipmates are saying the same thing then the far greater likelihood is that they've got a point.
Have to agree.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
I don't know about that Marvin. It seems to me that Evensong presses theological buttons elsewhere. (I think that's why I have no problem at all with her - I have no theological buttons) Then they take out their annoyance in Hell, on subjects which are totally unrelated.

She has a playful/irreverent way of speaking about their deeply held convictions.

They can't always take it.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
But I am deeply troubled by some of the reasoning that's going on here. There is a dangerous double standard.

Evensong's comments on the original Purgatory thread were deeply inflammatory and I have had several PM's from people who felt they couldn't post in the open but were upset by her comments.

So, if 'we're' bothered by Evensong's comments it's because we misunderstand her and if she's bothered by our comments it's because we're bullying.

...

Now I'm not suggesting that people can be held responsible for other people's reactions but we ARE all responsible for our own actions. It seems to me that there is an attempt here to play the victim and not take responsibility.
This is so very, very true.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:


She has a playful/irreverent way of speaking about their deeply held convictions.

They can't always take it.
Can't speak for the world, but I just had to say this to a certain famous family member of mine a couple of days ago-- when she thought she was just being playful-- "I appreciate you have a certain kind of sense of humor, but if you want to actually have a rapport with me, you have to respect that I have boundaries."

At some point people have to decide about their stomach linings, but at some point people also have to decide whether that snappy one-liner is worth rapport.

(I had a friend of mine recently school me hard about this one. I chose rapport. And am glad I did.)

[ 08. November 2012, 08:14: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I sense this thread is pretty done, but I would like to throw one point in from my own possibly unique perspective as a bona fide dogpilee. But possibly not.

It hurts.

I mean, really genuinely, honestly, truly hurts. Real sleep-disturbing, confidence-shaking, darkness-bringing, life-deranging HURTS.

Now, if you gentle people who defend the process are happy with that, all well and good, but please don't misunderstand it or deny it.
Yorick, while I may not have been banned/suspended as often as you have I certainly have been banned for a longer period. I add this only to try and help you see that you are not alone in your struggle to be part of this community and yes sometimes it does hurt.

But, and isn’t there always a “but” with me....... Most of my hurt was my own doing (as was yours). You were given a thousand chances to moderate your approach and tone in a thousand Purg threads in your various incarnations and you blithely wittered on hurting many others.

When it rightly gets to Hell it is going to be difficult. Sometimes love is. You have been around long enough to know that I am not a “nice” Christian.

Please will explore my proposition that calling out “It Hurts” does not in fact make me feel sorry for you. It makes me feel like saying “Learn to stop being hurtful and people may treat you better.” Stop playing the victim card when you are being nasty yourself.

And the killer argument? You are still here and you are a better shipmate (along with a swathe of others, many in this thread, myself included). Tell me what would have got you or me many of the others to self-moderate? Honest argument was not working.

You make it sound like lying awake at night struggling is a bad thing. Every time it happens to me I grow up a bit, become more patient, more compassionate, less of a jerk. I am HAPPY you have struggled, it’s a sign of maturing. Keep Struggling!

The ship is a spiritual battle ground and my relationship has NEVER been easy, it just makes me love it more, for all it has taught me. And make no mistake you have been a huge part of that and I am proud to have you as a shipmate. I like ES too. And Twilight. And RooK. I’m still not sure about Kelly

And what Marvin said.

Fly Safe, Pyx_e
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
at some point people also have to decide whether that snappy one-liner is worth rapport.

For instance.
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Now I get it. I could blame my slowness on my cold, but I was probably just slow.
No, no. You're right. I should include emoticons more.

I couldn't possibly hope to keep up with demigod Sine.

[Biased] [Big Grin] [Biased] [Big Grin]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
"Can't take it" is a pejorative description. It implies that they/we/whoever ought to be able to take it and is failing in not being able to.

It could equally unhelpfully be applied to bullying or dogpiling.

It seems to me that dogpiling (the working definition being lots of posting in opposition) is the only mechanism the community has for expressing disapproval. Community disapproval may be bullying, or it may be valuable correction. I expect both go on in varying degrees. The problem is that I don't see the alternative.

If a particular individual is regularly being dogpiled by lots of intelligent posters, it seems to me they ought to think about that. It is unlikely to be pointless bullying most of the time.

On the other hand if the posters here are unintelligent bullies most of the time then that's a hard problem to fix.
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
at some point people also have to decide whether that snappy one-liner is worth rapport.

For instance.
Never knowingly uncrossed a line.
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
quote:
On the other hand if the posters here are unintelligent bullies most of the time then that's a hard problem to fix.
It's the seemingly intelligent ones who bother me.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
She has a playful/irreverent way of speaking about their deeply held convictions.

They can't always take it.
So what, they're allowed to attack us but we're not allowed to attack them back? When they do it it's just "being playful" but when we do it it's "bullying"? When we "can't take it" it's our problem, but when they "can't take it" it's still our problem?

Fuck. That. Shit. [Disappointed]
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Please will explore my proposition that calling out “It Hurts” does not in fact make me feel sorry for you. It makes me feel like saying “Learn to stop being hurtful and people may treat you better.” Stop playing the victim card when you are being nasty yourself.
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
[Crosspost]

Yup, and I'll reiterate what I said to Mom-- it's one thing when you have a miscommunication, it's another when you describe how it impacted you and that just gets blown off. 50 % of communication is listening.

[ 08. November 2012, 08:47: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The woman caught in adultery DID so something wrong, for crying out loud. She committed adultery!
Duh.

But Jesus wouldn't let people dogpile her for it!!
No, he wouldn't let them stone her for it. If you equate being insulted on a website with being stoned to death, there's something seriously wrong with your thinking.
"Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me." Really?
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
(Gentle Admin hint)

Y'know, y'all have enough material about the Woman caught in adultery to make a great thread in Purg.
 
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
She has a playful/irreverent way of speaking about their deeply held convictions.

They can't always take it.
So what, they're allowed to attack us but we're not allowed to attack them back? When they do it it's just "being playful" but when we do it it's "bullying"? When we "can't take it" it's our problem, but when they "can't take it" it's still our problem?

Fuck. That. Shit. [Disappointed]
Is it a case of attack the idea and not the poster? There is a difference betweeen saying 'Your idea does not fill me with warmth and joy' as opposed to 'Your existence is a waste of $4.50 worth of elements'.

Where this falls down is when this polite expression of distress is blithely ignored or simply not recognised, and it is a hot button issue.

And here I fail and can get in touch with my inner snark.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
And the baying crowd doesn't withrdaw until they taste blood.....

I suppose I could start pretending. That might keep people happy.

But for old times sake I'll give it a go:

Curiosity and AFZ. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings, etc

I admire your working with abused children etc
I read this - by what you've written - that you're pretending to apologise to get the 'baying crowd' off your back. In fact, that's precisely what you have written. Why even bother with the final two paras when you preface them with 'I could start pretending..... here goes.....:' [Confused]

I'm willing to think you really don't want to deliberately hurt people for the sake of it, that you actually meant those sentiments despite your own disclaimer! But even as someone who rather likes some of your posting and thinks you've got a lot to offer discussion here, I really can't figure out what you actually truly mean, or what you sincerely want to say, when you get into that mode. Your style really interferes with comprehension of your meaning, at least for me. And I would genuinely like to read your views and ideas!

Here, in the Styx, eg, you could just tell Mousethief directly, 'I don't think you've understood me properly' rather than the condescending and infuriating and more hellish: 'maybe there's something seriously wrong with your understanding'.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
On the other hand if the posters here are unintelligent bullies most of the time then that's a hard problem to fix.
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
It's the seemingly intelligent ones who bother me.
Figures.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

Here, in the Styx, eg, you could just tell Mousethief directly, 'I don't think you've understood me properly' rather than the condescending and infuriating and more hellish: 'maybe there's something seriously wrong with your understanding'.
Yeah, classic "you" statement, predictably inflammatory.

[ 08. November 2012, 09:46: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :
 
I get what Yorick has said about it hurting. I'm glad it's improved him as a person and a Shipmate in the long run. But that probably would have been little consolation at the time.

The closest I came to being dogpiled was in Hell, when I started a thread that a good number of people thought was lame. A few people stuck up for me, but I was surprised at heavy handed way a couple of people reacted to my OP. I played along with equally strong language, which just escalated things.

Thing is, they were right. They could have told me nicer, but I probably wouldn't have got it. I didn't really understand why Hell was there. I could have just posted something on the TICTH thread and it would have been fine. I think a good number of Shipmates who spend a lot of time in Hell don't get why it's there.

But some background, when this happened was a difficult time in my life. My dad was in his last few weeks of his life, I was off work so I could spend time with him, and spent a lot more time on the Ship than I usually do would - probably too much time. So, my reactions and choices were very influenced by what I was going through. Looking back, even the thread I posted had an unspoken link with losing my dad, which other posters would have been oblivious to - it just seemed like inconsequential bullshit to them (quite understandably).

My point is that we're all complicated people, and we all have stuff going on in our lives that other Shipmates simply don't see. All they have to go on are those few words we post. And we make huge judgements on those people from those few words. I've not called anyone to Hell yet - I've come close a couple of times. Once was when someone said something unnecessarily insulting in purg. I just PMd a host, who picked up on it and posted on the thread, I felt vindicated and got over it. The other times have been over posting styles of other shipmates. My motivation would never have been so that they get dogpiled, but to try to point out and make them realise how unhelpful their inflammatory style can be. The problem is, when people open threads like that, you suddenly find that many people agree with you, and say so, which leads to the dogpiling effect.

I think the ideal thing is that we all become more self aware, and more patient with others. I don't think the victim card helps. It just inhibits us from looking at ourselves properly. I don't think that being quick to blame others helps either - it does the same thing. I've got a lot out of this thread - I hope others have too. It's given me an awareness of my own shortcomings, and I hope I'm a better person and contributor to these boards as a result of it. I hope the same goes for those who have been on the various sides of the argument that brought all this to attention.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
As for getting people to apologise, the best way to ensure they don't is to call them to hell and dogpile them.
No.

As with any form of bad behaviour the only way to deal with it is to confront it. When someone misbehaves, the behaviour is seen and nothing is done about it, it gives a clear signal that their behaviour is OK. The way to make sure that bad people carry on being bad people is to ignore their behaviour. This is particularly true with bullying.

On the ship we have Hell. It isn't perfect but it works. Very well most of the time.

Where this falls down, and there has to be an exception to every rule, is when the bad behaviour takes the form of attention seeking. "There's only one thing worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about," - Wlide. That is where hell fails, as it gives the the person misbehaving what they want. Don't worry though, because we have rules against that too, we call it trolling.

As for dogpiling: For people who do mathematics, here's a hypothesis. The number of people posting in a dogpile is directly proportional to the number of people who have been pissed off.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Evening:
I read this - by what you've written - that you're pretending to apologise to get the 'baying crowd' off your back. In fact, that's precisely what you have written. Why even bother with the final two paras when you preface them with 'I could start pretending..... here goes.....:' [Confused]

I'm willing to think you really don't want to deliberately hurt people for the sake of it, that you actually meant those sentiments despite your own disclaimer! But even as someone who rather likes some of your posting and thinks you've got a lot to offer discussion here, I really can't figure out what you actually truly mean, or what you sincerely want to say, when you get into that mode. Your style really interferes with comprehension of your meaning, at least for me. And I would genuinely like to read your views and ideas!
I thought about this and decided that after all that has gone before, at this point the most generous interpretation was required of me.

AFZ
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

Here, in the Styx, eg, you could just tell Mousethief directly, 'I don't think you've understood me properly' rather than the condescending and infuriating and more hellish: 'maybe there's something seriously wrong with your understanding'.
Yeah, classic "you" statement, predictably inflammatory.
Those words were his words, not mine.
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :
 
In the interest of having a congruent personality my new mantra is "if you wouldn't say it on Facebook don't say on the ship." Because I delete a lot of snappy comebacks on Facebook because it's "realer".

Yesterday someone I know posted something offensive about Presidrnt Obama and I really wanted to ream him a new one with the rusty auger. Unfortunately I see him at my church every Sunday and that inhibits me.

Somehow it doesn't seem personally helpful to have one standard of behavior there and a different one here. I suppose I could be an asshole all round but I'm not willing to take the RL consequences. Your mileage may vary.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I know I keep harping on this self evidently bad ceremonial shaming thing, but I do have to give the posters here some credit. It seems that they are completely aware of the connection between hell calls and scarlet letters and the like, though they excuse it because such real world ethical concerns about community shaming don't count online.

What seems to be equally obvious from the other side, but not clear to me at all, is that ceremonial shaming is the only way to maintain the peace of our community.
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :
 
My understanding is that the ship isn't trying to solve an unsolvable problem but rather to contain it. Sort of like the crazy old aunt locked in the attic room.
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :
 
(oh dear. Now I've offended all the shipmates who are posting from a locked attic room. And I know there must be some.)
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Someone upthread accused me of viewing hell in isolation. The thing is, it's just the opposite. I view hell as just the mean part of the ship, while everyone else acts like what happens there just doesn't count. So people who are perfectly humane and reasonable can join kicking circles, but still be humane and reasonable, because what happens in hell doesn't count or something.

[ 08. November 2012, 11:59: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
It does count Zach, it's all part of the Ship, but it's the only place we can say:
"Look, what you're saying there is out of order." or
"You have been offensive here", or
"You're trying it on there mate, you're crusading/trolling/plagiarising."
And I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

What people are disagreeing with is a lot of other Shipmates joining in. But two things come from the peanut gallery, that calls aren't made trivially because if the peanut gallery don't agree with the call the Hell caller will get shouted down, so if, for example, I make a Hell Call I've got to be prepared to fight it out myself and feel I've got good enough grounds to make the call. But if the peanut gallery agree with it they will all join in. It also means anyone else wanting to say something similar has a chance to join in and will ride in on the coattails of the person making the call because they aren't prepared to put their heads over the parapet and paint a target on themselves by making the call in the first place.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
though they excuse it because such real world ethical concerns about community shaming don't count online.
It's perfectly possible to come to a different conclusion, either on the grounds that someone doesn't think the ethics are breached, or on the grounds that community shaming exists in the real world every bit as much as it does online.

Neither of those routes involves saying "ethical concerns don't count".

The biggest flaw in your argument is assuming that everyone else shares exactly the SAME "real world concerns about community shaming" that you do.

[ 08. November 2012, 12:16: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Zach - you challenged me up thread for making Hell calls. Writing that last post, I realised the reason I do so is that I think if I'm prepared to dish it out in Hell, I should also be prepared to paint the target on myself by making the calls.

[ 08. November 2012, 12:19: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I can't think of any social setting I've been in where peer pressure (with the implicit or actual sanction of community shaming) wasn't a major part of making things work.

The alternatives seem likely to veer towards totalitarian states where everything is prescribed, or complete anarchy where there is no cohesion.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
It does count Zach, it's all part of the Ship, but it's the only place we can say:
"Look, what you're saying there is out of order." or
"You have been offensive here", or
"You're trying it on there mate, you're crusading/trolling/plagiarising."
And I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

What people are disagreeing with is a lot of other Shipmates joining in. But two things come from the peanut gallery, that calls aren't made trivially because if the peanut gallery don't agree with the call the Hell caller will get shouted down, so if, for example, I make a Hell Call I've got to be prepared to fight it out myself and feel I've got good enough grounds to make the call. But if the peanut gallery agree with it they will all join in. It also means anyone else wanting to say something similar has a chance to join in and will ride in on the coattails of the person making the call because they aren't prepared to put their heads over the parapet and paint a target on themselves by making the call in the first place.
Like I said a couple posts ago, it doesn't seem obvious to me that we need to resort to ceremonial shaming to say "You have been offensive here." No one seemed much impressed by my suggestion of "take some time to cool off, then send a pm." But this is online. Why deal with these things like ADULTS when we can do it the schoolyard way?

One of my earlier memories is of a dozen children standing in a circle around me, holding hands, and jeering at me for playing on the swings with a girl on my first day at a new school. But it corrected the undesirable behavior, I never played with that girl again, and even started being rather cruel to her to make up for my infraction- so it's all good according the the arguments on this thread.

[ 08. November 2012, 12:29: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
Zach, I wonder if there's some correlation with our views on free speech here.

When it comes to people BEING offensive, you don't want to reign them in, and I do.

When it comes to TELLING people they're being offensive, I'm all for it being done forcefully and you want to hold off and be civil and restrained about it.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
But the behaviours we're asking to be changed here are offensive posting, personal attacks, dismissive responses and refusal to engage with arguments on a debating board. Things that mean the Ship allows the range of debate that it does without deteriorating into a slanging match every other thread. Those are things things that get taken to Hell, not differences in opinions.

And if the no-one else agrees with the thread it dies or the caller gets challenged.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Zach, I wonder if there's some correlation with our views on free speech here.

When it comes to people BEING offensive, you don't want to reign them in, and I do.

When it comes to TELLING people they're being offensive, I'm all for it being done forcefully and you want to hold off and be civil and restrained about it.
The other side of that is how we both react when we feel we are being offended. I actively try to not be offended, and to take measures to get over it when I do feel offended. I'm not always successful, but I try not to post when I am upset about what other people have said.

You, to be honest, seem more prone to fits of rage about it.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
But the behaviours we're asking to be changed here are offensive posting, personal attacks, dismissive responses and refusal to engage with arguments on a debating board. Things that mean the Ship allows the range of debate that it does without deteriorating into a slanging match every other thread. Those are things things that get taken to Hell, not differences in opinions.

And if the no-one else agrees with the thread it dies or the caller gets challenged.
Y'see, I am not saying that callees are always innocent. I am saying that hall calls themselves are a vicious way of correcting behaviors. The general argument here is that the ends justify the means.

And this "not differences of opinion" thing needs to stop. While a difference of opinion is rarely the sole justification of a hell call, there are certain positions that incline the schoolyard gang to be a heck of a lot less charitable about the callee and a lot more forgiving of the caller.

[ 08. November 2012, 12:46: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Well, I'd agree if someone came on here and advocated certain illegal acts they'd almost certainly end up in Hell.

But if you're referring to the orfeo's Hell call to you, I was also posting on the thread that triggered it and was also saying I wasn't comfortable with online communion.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Well, I'd agree if someone came on here and advocated certain illegal acts they'd almost certainly end up in Hell.
That's if the admins didn't get there first. And, if someone was quick on the Hell call it might be a very short thread (you know, we do close threads calling Shipmates unable to respond). Commandment 7 is one we take very seriously.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Y'see, I am not saying that callees are always innocent. I am saying that hell calls themselves are a vicious way of correcting behaviors.
Then what's a better method?

Let me link this to a part of an earlier post of yours:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
No one seemed much impressed by my suggestion of "take some time to cool off, then send a pm."
The reason that doesn't work is that it doesn't address the situation when lots of people are upset or angered by the same post/Shipmate. The very situations where a large Hell call might develop (because, as a number of people have discussed, a Hell call where other Shipmates can't see the validity of the Hell call doesn't have any legs).

You're aware of the phrase "justice must not only be done, but seen to be done?". Despite your concerns about community shaming, our entire justice system is built around the notion that everyone gets to see what happens, and express their thoughts on the outcome. Hopefully their satisfaction.

PMs don't achieve that.

If you have some suggestion that somehow succeeds in both limiting the people who can be actively involved AND enabling everyone to see the outcome, I'm all ears.

I would remind you, though, that a year or two ago someone (IngoB?) proposed a "duel" board, and it flatlined.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
CK, if you want to give people honest assessments of their behavior, then you pick a terrible place to do it. Have a little awareness of how your little assessments come across in the context of a jeering circle of children.

Orfeo, you're just taking the discussion in circles. Let's leave it at "I think ceremonial humiliation is wrong," and you thinking "The ends justify the means and mob rules anyway."
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
Originally posted by Evensong:
As for dogpiling: For people who do mathematics, here's a hypothesis. The number of people posting in a dogpile is directly proportional to the number of people who have been pissed off.
And I'm saying that the hectoring verbal abuse of the kind to which I'm objecting is inexcusable no matter how pissed off a group of people might be.

In other words: Hell calls with multiple contributors? Yes. Free-form verbal abuse, name calling and you-can-always-leave-the-ship type "advice"? No.

[ 08. November 2012, 13:13: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Orfeo, you're just taking the discussion in circles. Let's leave it at "I think ceremonial humiliation is wrong," and you thinking "The ends justify the means and mob rules anyway."
I am specifically asking you if you have any other suggestions besides the one you yourself recognised didn't get any support. That's the exact OPPOSITE of taking the discussion in circles!

[ 08. November 2012, 13:14: Message edited by: orfeo ]
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
It does count Zach, it's all part of the Ship, but it's the only place we can say:
"Look, what you're saying there is out of order." or
"You have been offensive here", or
"You're trying it on there mate, you're crusading/trolling/plagiarising."
Or
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
As for all the asshats claiming that the people calling her out for her bullshit are "bullies" - fuck you. The absolute last thing this site needs is people telling a shithead troll like Evensong that she's the victim.

 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
(oh dear. Now I've offended all the shipmates who are posting from a locked attic room. And I know there must be some.)
I escaped my attic. Watch your back.
 
Posted by Thyme (# 12360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
It seems to me that Evensong presses theological buttons elsewhere. (I think that's why I have no problem at all with her - I have no theological buttons) Then they take out their annoyance in Hell, on subjects which are totally unrelated.

She has a playful/irreverent way of speaking about their deeply held convictions.

They can't always take it.
Sorry Boogie, wrg to Evensong it is not the case that the rest of us are unable to take a joke or are oversensitive. I gave up on Evensong (in fact I very nearly called her to hell myself) when I read her posts on the hell thread Comet started when jlg (Jennifer) died. Just read the first page of that thread for classic Evensong at her worst. It's on the Glory board with the other two jlg threads.

There is nothing 'playful or irreverent' about her extreme lack of taste, insensitivity and general total ignorance of jlg's health problems. See this

As someone pointed out a few posts later she had not at that point posted on either the All Saints or the Purgatory threads. She dived straight into the Hell thread as soon as it opened. And not, as Comet and others did, to vent grief in a way not appropriate for other boards, but a necessary part of grieving in this situation, but deliberately to be as obnoxious as possible, and have all the attention on herself.

Evensong seems to me to spend a lot of time in Hell quite apart from her own hell call threads and maybe she is showing us the truth of the advice “Pay attention to what you hear: with the measure you use, it will be measured to you, and still more will be added to you."
 
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I am saying that hall calls themselves are a vicious way of correcting behaviors. The general argument here is that the ends justify the means.
I disagree. Hell calls aren't a vicious way of correcting behaviours. Dogpiling is, but you seem to be talking as if Hell calls must necessarily end with a dogpile. Most don't. Most serve their purpose well. I've read plenty of hell calls that aren't vicious at all, they just take personal conflicts that aren't welcome elsewhere on the ship into a space where they can be tackled.

It's not that the end justifies the means, but that sadly dogpiling is sometimes a result of having Hell. I, along with many others, think that is a generally bad thing (but despite that, as mousethief and Yorick have both said, can still work). It would be great if we could get rid of the bad side effects of having hell, but the suggestions so far (closing threads early, ingo's duelling idea, closing hell altogether) would also destroy all the benefits that Hell brings.

Honestly, I find it a shame that you're still using your own hell call to heighten your own sense of indignation. If I was called to hell, the first thing I'd do would be to take a long hard look at myself, my posting style etc., and try to understand how I'd managed to piss someone (or more than just one person) off that much, rather than assume that they must be wrong. Most of these things are varying shades of grey, rather than black or white.
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
You, to be honest, seem more prone to fits of rage about it.
That's just the thing. It's a self-selecting group and you don't have to pass any tests to sign up. You're going to get a wide range of behaviors.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
Originally posted by Evensong:
As for dogpiling: For people who do mathematics, here's a hypothesis. The number of people posting in a dogpile is directly proportional to the number of people who have been pissed off.
And I'm saying that the hectoring verbal abuse of the kind to which I'm objecting is inexcusable no matter how pissed off a group of people might be.

In other words: Hell calls with multiple contributors? Yes. Free-form verbal abuse, name calling and you-can-always-leave-the-ship type "advice"? No.
The post that tips a Hell thread over from an honest and robust discussion of a difference of opinion / disagreement about a poster’s behaviour into a flame war / dog pile can be yours. [Or mine]. I remember the Hell thread that MT mentioned in his post – vividly – as I was one of the participants. It was, pretty much, exactly as he described:

quote:
Then came one almighty 20-pager that would, given the criteria laid out in this thread, be termed a "dogpile." Every grievance I had ever engendered, as well as a number of grievances of questionable provenance, was aired and fought over and relished.
A few days later when the dust had settled, I read it back and felt thoroughly ashamed of myself. Whatever valid point I had, if I’d ever had one, had got completely lost in The Red Mist ™ and I had said way too much. So I PM’ed MT to apologise. He was far more gracious that I deserved, but one thing from his PM that stuck with me was his comment that in all his Hell Calls, this was the only apology for overdoing it that he’d ever had.

The post that tips the thread over from honest and robust discussion of a difference of opinion to flame war / dog pile might be yours or mine. There’s an old saying, “Don’t go food shopping when you’re hungry” as you always end up buying more than you need, followed by a visit to the café for a vat of coffee and a bloater muffin. Posting on the Internet is a bit similar. Best not done when upset, angry, drunk etc. Now when I feel The Red Mist ™ descending, I try to log off, do something else for a bit and then go back to it. Sometimes someone’s made my point for me. Other times I decide that it really doesn’t matter that much. Other times I wade in.

I don’t doubt that being the receiving end of a Hell call can hurt, so can the actions that provoked it. People have the right to be angry or hurt with you when you do something they feel is shitty. They also have the right to express that.

The only person’s behaviour that you can change is yours. Don’t tell others what to do and complain that you’re being hard done by unless you’re prepared to lead by example. That’s just shitty behaviour. Not happy about the Peanut Gallery when you’ve been called to Hell … Then don’t join a Hell Call where you don’t have a dog in the fight. Wish people would be nicer to each other, then be nicer to them. Don’t fight your point like a Honey Badger and then complain when others respond in kind. Feel that you’ve over done it on a Hell Call, PM the person and say sorry. The above is easier to type than to live out, but … If people feel that strongly about these things, then in the words of a well known slogan, Just Do It.

Tubbs

[ 08. November 2012, 13:44: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Orfeo, you're just taking the discussion in circles. Let's leave it at "I think ceremonial humiliation is wrong," and you thinking "The ends justify the means and mob rules anyway."
Orfeo said that? I missed it. I must not be reading through this thread carefully enough.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
One of my earlier memories is of a dozen children standing in a circle around me, holding hands, and jeering at me for playing on the swings with a girl on my first day at a new school. But it corrected the undesirable behavior, I never played with that girl again, and even started being rather cruel to her to make up for my infraction- so it's all good according the the arguments on this thread.
As long as you're equating that sort of thing with hell calls, you'll never understand.

Because the sort of undesirable behaviour Hell calls are a response to isn't even slightly comparable to playing on the swings with a girl. It's stuff like saying everyone who disagrees with your theological preferences is a heretic, or claiming that anyone who doesn't agree with your "chop all abusers, potential abusers, and anyone who looks and acts a bit funny up into into tiny pieces" approach to child protection wants to make child abuse legal. The sort of stuff that is really offensive. The sort of stuff that really fucks up any hope for discussion.

What you're saying is: those sorts of behaviour are perfectly fine, and it's the reactions to them that are the problem. Well I strongly disagree. And believe me, if it ever came to banning one or the other I know exactly which side my vote in the Admins Lounge would be for.

[changed the second "protection" to "abuse", thus correcting a pretty glaring error!]

[ 08. November 2012, 15:12: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
One of my earlier memories is of a dozen children standing in a circle around me, holding hands, and jeering at me for playing on the swings with a girl on my first day at a new school. But it corrected the undesirable behavior, I never played with that girl again, and even started being rather cruel to her to make up for my infraction- so it's all good according the the arguments on this thread.
As long as you're equating that sort of thing with hell calls, you'll never understand.

Because the sort of undesirable behaviour Hell calls are a response to isn't even slightly comparable to playing on the swings with a girl.
I'm not going to disagree with Marvin, because he's right.

But, there is one point where your analogy can be applied to Hell. A Hell call is what happens when someone does the equivalent to jeering at someone for playing on the swings with a girl. We've seen plenty of jeering on the Ship over the years; lot's of people trying to intimidate and put down those who disagree with them. And, how do Shipmates deal with that? They call them to Hell.

School-yard bullies operate on those who sit and take it (I know, I'm a 'sit and take it' person). If someone stands up to bullies, on their own behalf or on behalf of another, there's a potential for a fight. We have Hell for people to stand up to our own bullies, and if it gets to a fight then it's already in the right place.
 
Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :
 
237 posts in 26 hours! 16 of them from the person whose own call to Hell provoked this unbelievably long and repetitive discussion.

This person, whose contribution to criticism included insults about the size of another poster's penis, has apparently learned nothing and forgotten much.

My experience of the Christian tradition makes a a priority of once called -- and perhaps still is -- examination of conscience. Conflict on the level of this thread is a serious matter. I am actually surprised that so few posters involve God and the need for God's help in the process. Twelve Step programs put this at the heart of their path to spiritual growth. "When we were wrong, promptly admitted it." You can't admit something if you don't spend time and prayer in trying to understand what happened and what your own role in the conflict is. Rationalization, defensiveness, and self-justification are no substitutes.

I recall my mother saying, as she observed the endless, repetitive, ultimately stagnant political arguments of our extended family:

"Like dogs with a bone. Dogs with a bone."

[ 08. November 2012, 14:28: Message edited by: roybart ]
 
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :
 
The more I read this thread the more I am convinced that Hell needs to be consigned to the dustbin. It is simply an excuse for all of us to indulge our more depraved nature.
 
Posted by Dark Knight (# 9415) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
The more I read this thread the more I am convinced that Hell needs to be consigned to the dustbin. It is simply an excuse for all of us to indulge our more depraved nature.
If that bothers you, you should stay away from it.

Hell exists so that the other boards can exist. Like it or not. Get rid of hell, and all that depravity you want to hold at arms length would simply appear on the other boards, particularly Purgatory. A functioning Purgatory requires a functioning Hell.

I haven't been here as long as others, but I have seen a couple of hundred incarnations of this very thread that we are on. The Admins always listen and let everyone have their say. But Hell remains, and will endure. It has to be thus.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
The more I read this thread the more I am convinced that Hell needs to be consigned to the dustbin. It is simply an excuse for all of us to indulge our more depraved nature.
We heard you the first time. I disagree. I've seen the Ship without Hell, and it wasn't pretty.

I'd love it if Hell became redundant because everyone always carefully considered their views and how to express them, and so never ended up dismissing the people they disagree with as heretics, stupid, deceived (or, even worse, deceptive) etc., where no one ever trampled into a discussion of a sensitive subject with a pair of size 12 boots trampling all over people who are struggling with their personal history and ongoing pain. But, I don't see that happening soon. People have depraved natures, and while some people indulge that nature Hell will be necessary.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
The more I read this thread the more I am convinced that Hell needs to be consigned to the dustbin. It is simply an excuse for all of us to indulge our more depraved nature.
Disagree strongly. The Hell board performs a vital function on the Ship. Just because it gets abused (IMO) from time to time is no reason for its banning anymore than adultery is a reason for banning of all sex.
 
Posted by roybart (# 17357) on :
 
I take the point about "human depravity." I also understand the reasoning behind the creation of Hell on Ship of Fools. Like Saturnalia, Hell is meant to function as a place to isolate animosities and behaviors that would otherwise clutter other Boards. Something like a quarantine ward?

On the thread we are discussing, however, a call to Hell seems to have encouraged, probably unintentionally, certain behaviors and allowed them to spread once more to other threads.

On and on they march, with no interest in letting go, let alone resolving things. I am a moderator on a discussion board devoted to one of the performing arts. Our version of the 10 commandments" are stricter than SofF's, but the ban on "ad hominem attacks" has actually improved the level of discussion.

As some posters have suggested, perhaps the sanest response is indeed to stop reading certain threads and to ignore certain posters. Or, as a couple of members have put it, to "fuck off."

[ 08. November 2012, 15:03: Message edited by: roybart ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
And I'm saying that the hectoring verbal abuse of the kind to which I'm objecting is inexcusable no matter how pissed off a group of people might be.
I have a lot of sympathy with this argument. However it does seem to me that if a group of posters all make their views known in a hellish-but-measured way (a restrained dogpile), and the recipient of these views dismisses them without engaging, then the dynamic is only going to go in one direction.

It is also worth noting that some of the meanest comments in hell have been non-abusive, but mildly-worded close-to-the-knuckle and painfully-accurate characterisations.
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
It is also worth noting that some of the meanest comments in hell have been non-abusive, but mildly-worded close-to-the-knuckle and painfully-accurate characterisations.
It's not a very good idea to compare someone to a Jane Austen character, for instance...
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
The more I read this thread the more I am convinced that Hell needs to be consigned to the dustbin. It is simply an excuse for all of us to indulge our more depraved nature.
All of us? Even those who choose to post in Hell (which is not all of us) do not have indulge in our depraved nature.

This is the fourth reply to disagree with that post. Does that make it a dogpile?

I'd say no. All the replies are looking at a different aspect of the post, one post can generate multiple replies.

However repeating something without taking in others points of views: That is insulting. When done on the non-Hell boards it can result in a Hell call, and when done in Hell generate a dogpile. Dogpiles do not occur without reason.
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :
 
One of the better lines I've heard:

I commented to a friend "It's not mean if it's true."

She responded: "It's especially mean if it's true."
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by roybart:
I am a moderator on a discussion board devoted to one of the performing arts. Our version of the 10 commandments" are stricter than SofF's, but the ban on "ad hominem attacks" has actually improved the level of discussion.
Of course, different sites have different dynamics. What works in one place, probably won't work in another. The number of people participating in the boards, the level to which they are personally committed to their opinions, the range of subjects under discussion are one group of factors. Another is the philosophy of the management (for want of a better term); how valued is freedom to express any view, for example.

We have a Commandment here that is effectively "no ad hominem attacks outside Hell". We found that a simple "no ad hominem attacks" rule didn't work here because people are too closely associated with their views. We would need to engage in very heavy hosting to clamp down on anyone who expresses a view that a particular belief is heretical, for example. And, our management philosophy is exactly the opposite, we want as light a hand hosting as possible and we want to give people as much freedom as possible to express their beliefs so they can be discussed.
 
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :
 
Was that a prelude to a Hell Call, Balaam? [Help]

I have taken other people's point of view in to account. I have read other people's opinions and considered them. I posted twice because I saw the postings in between reinforcing my point of view and I wanted to state that they had strengthened my opinion rather than weakened it. I'm sorry if my seeming repition offended you or any other shipmates. That was no my intent.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
The ship's policy concerning ad hominem is essentially "no ad hominem outside hell". Some shipmates read that policy as saying, "abusive ad hominem is wrong but if you must do it do it hell", other shipmates read it as, "abusive ad hominem is useful but disruptive, please only do it in hell", and yet others read it as, "abusive ad hominem is so fucking fantastic we've got a special board for it". For me I think the first two are legitimate. The third isn't.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
The ship's policy concerning ad hominem is essentially "no ad hominem outside hell". Some shipmates read that policy as saying, "abusive ad hominem is wrong but if you must do it do it hell", other shipmates read it as, "abusive ad hominem is useful but disruptive, please only do it in hell", and yet others read it as, "abusive ad hominem is so fucking fantastic we've got a special board for it". For me I think the first two are legitimate. The third isn't.
Show me where, in the entire history of the Ship anyone has said the third thing ever.

Tubbs

[ 08. November 2012, 17:41: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
Fair call. It's a hypothesis, not a statement of fact. Sorry, I should have said that some shipmates appear - judging by their conduct on certain hell threads - to read it as, "ad hominem is so fantastic that we've got a special board for it".
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I think that a shipmate who always showed up on hell calls to express themselves in the strongest invective irrespective of the issue would be a cause for concern. I can't say I can think of anyone just now but perhaps there are some who fit that posting pattern.

Ironically enough, if they really got on my nerves the chief means of expressing that and determining who else had noticed would be a hell call.
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think that a shipmate who always showed up on hell calls to express themselves in the strongest invective irrespective of the issue would be a cause for concern. I can't say I can think of anyone just now but perhaps there are some who fit that posting pattern.
I recall one or two from the past. Shipmates who've been here longer can probably remember more. On the whole, though, there were usually people perfectly willing to call them on their behaviour--not for every single incident, but often enough that someone who had been here a while would know that they had been reviled by someone who was incorrigibly bitter and taken seriously by no one. It probably wasn't particularly healthy for the Boards, and the Admins tended to watch very closely after a while and tended to tighten the leash (at least, it seemed that way observing from the outside).

I tend to keep an eye on the Hell threads, but I can't really think of anyone who is quite like that now.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
You, to be honest, seem more prone to fits of rage about it.
That's just the thing. It's a self-selecting group and you don't have to pass any tests to sign up. You're going to get a wide range of behaviors.
My hall calls also taught me to recognize such easily offended people and to simply end the discussion before they start becoming hysterical.
 
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
Was that a prelude to a Hell Call, Balaam? [Help]
Not for twice, no. [Biased] It'll have to get a lot worse before that. Nor was I personally insulted. I was using the repeat post as an example of posting the same thing without taking into account what what others are saying. It takes more than two to become abusive.
 
Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Fair call. It's a hypothesis, not a statement of fact. Sorry, I should have said that some shipmates appear - judging by their conduct on certain hell threads - to read it as, "ad hominem is so fantastic that we've got a special board for it".
It does appear to me, maybe not now but at least with some hell calls a while back (a year or more, but I don't remember exactly), that a hell call frequently provoked what appeared to me something reminiscent of a shark feeding frenzy. They also appeared somewhat as a Hell Circus game competition of who could produce the most vicious insult, but the creativity dropped and the insults became pretty predictable.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think that a shipmate who always showed up on hell calls to express themselves in the strongest invective irrespective of the issue would be a cause for concern. I can't say I can think of anyone just now but perhaps there are some who fit that posting pattern.
I recall one or two from the past. Shipmates who've been here longer can probably remember more. On the whole, though, there were usually people perfectly willing to call them on their behaviour--not for every single incident, but often enough that someone who had been here a while would know that they had been reviled by someone who was incorrigibly bitter and taken seriously by no one. It probably wasn't particularly healthy for the Boards, and the Admins tended to watch very closely after a while and tended to tighten the leash (at least, it seemed that way observing from the outside).

I tend to keep an eye on the Hell threads, but I can't really think of anyone who is quite like that now.
I wonder if some of the communal angst about the subject comes from that time. Because hell wasn't just the containment area it is supposed to be; two things I remember being expressed over and over again were along the lines of "this is the place where we purge the Ship of the weak and unworthy" and "This is where the Alphas hang, if you don't like it, go play on one of those wimpy boards, like [insert name of any other board on the site.]" I pretty much stayed out of Hell for a couple years, just because that vibe was definitely not something I wanted to be a part of.

I certainly think things got very different pretty quickly once that dynamic was broken up-- kudos to those acting H&A's who took it on-- but maybe vestiges of the problems that arose from that dynamic still exist.


So basically:

To the first dynamic, I think we just need to recognize that the people who created that dynamic are no longer holding it, and trust the process of Hell. ( I confess that this dynamic my be why I am so anxious about the point of "minority opinions"-- they may be wrong opinions, but honest exchange needs to allow for them. I need to learn to trust the process, too.)

To the second-- there is no reason on earth to believe that Hell is your proving ground for Ship worthiness. It's perhaps one of the most important functions we have on the Ship. It certainly is one of the more entertaining places on the Ship. But it is what it is, and no more. Only you can give the power to say whether a Hell call negates your self-worth or anyone else's.


And there still is that choice to keep the hell out of Hell if you don't like the vibe. Hanging out there doesn't make anyone better or smarter or braver than you, and vice versa.


Case in point: Hart and Churchgeek. Two of the smartest, most creative, most useful members of these boards. They rarely set foot in Hell. And there's nothing I see going on in Hell can hold a candle to either one of them. Appreciate Hell for what it is, but don't give it power it doesn't have.
 
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
It does appear to me, maybe not now but at least with some hell calls a while back (a year or more, but I don't remember exactly), that a hell call frequently provoked what appeared to me something reminiscent of a shark feeding frenzy. They also appeared somewhat as a Hell Circus game competition of who could produce the most vicious insult, but the creativity dropped and the insults became pretty predictable.
Yes, I remember it well. I was one of the Hosts who put in a bunch of effort to shut it down, because those buggers were doing it on every single thread, never mind hell call.

Oddly enough, one of them (no names) is now one of those complaining about dogpiling. Funny how people change, isn't it.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Fair call. It's a hypothesis, not a statement of fact. Sorry, I should have said that some shipmates appear - judging by their conduct on certain hell threads - to read it as, "ad hominem is so fantastic that we've got a special board for it".
It does appear to me, maybe not now but at least with some hell calls a while back (a year or more, but I don't remember exactly), that a hell call frequently provoked what appeared to me something reminiscent of a shark feeding frenzy. They also appeared somewhat as a Hell Circus game competition of who could produce the most vicious insult, but the creativity dropped and the insults became pretty predictable.
Yeah, that is exactly what I was talking about above.

I think there were a couple folk who really got off on pitting people against each other, weakening friendships (or "alliances"), isolating folk, and seeing if the could drive people off the Ship. we have some crusty-ass, cranky people on the Ship, but I honestly can think of nobody currently actively participating that fits that MO.

[ 08. November 2012, 21:01: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

Oddly enough, one of them (no names) is now one of those complaining about dogpiling. Funny how people change, isn't it.
But people who play politics are excruciatingly predictable.

Suddenly I'm craving rabbit stew.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
balaam:
quote:
All of us? Even those who choose to post in Hell (which is not all of us) do not have indulge in our depraved nature.
Exactly. For example Golden Key often posts in Hell, and I've never seen anything mean come off her keyboard. And I can't remember anyone chiding her for being unHellish either, because although stated politely, what she says is pertinent and intelligent. She is one of those who use Hell to gently nudge people toward reconciliation. An almost impossible task, but by God, she puts her shoulder into it! [Overused]
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
I wonder if some of the communal angst about the subject comes from that time....
I wonder how you've gotten it into your head that hell has changed all that much. I don't see it.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Well, who knows how anything gets into this cute little head of mine.

I see a difference. I also see residue of old habits. If you don't, I accept that. Peace be unto you.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Well, who knows how anything gets into this cute little head of mine.

I see a difference. I also see residue of old habits. If you don't, I accept that. Peace be unto you.
Evensong has said some offensive, thoughtless things in her days. As have lots of hell callees. But some of the most absolutely malicious, intentionally hateful things I have ever seen uttered on the ship were by the righteous people doing the calling.

[ 09. November 2012, 02:52: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:

This has been a very helpful thread for me and I'm grateful to Curiosity for starting it. To my mind, the balanced and insightful contributions of Alan Cresswell and, particularly, Kelly Alves prove that the Admins understand the dynamics - both good and bad - of the Ship really very well indeed.

I also find it encouraging that such a broad spectrum of opinion can be found among the Admins, ranging from Tubb's and Marvin's almost Scientological "fair game" doctrine of dog-piling through to Alan Cresswell and Kelly Alves's more nuanced approach.
It's hard to accept this as a compliment when you are calling my respected colleagues "Scientological."

I think we a pretty much restating the same general things with different takes. Marv and Tubbs have greatly contributed to my own insight.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Well, who knows how anything gets into this cute little head of mine.

I see a difference. I also see residue of old habits. If you don't, I accept that. Peace be unto you.
Evensong has said some offensive, thoughtless things in her days. As have lots of hell callees. But some of the most absolutely malicious, intentionally hateful things I have ever seen uttered on the ship were by the righteous people doing the calling.
If you don't make some effort in the OP of such a Hell thread, you run a very high risk of the Hellions dogpiling you the caller on the rather tiresome grounds that you have just started the lamest Hell thread ever. Which is a poor start for a Hell call.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
To be fair, I actually said that their doctrine of abuse in hell seems to bear similarities to the "fair game" concept found in Scientology. I was criticising what I perceived to be a particular point of view, not the person in particular. I see their view as almost "Scientological".
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
some of the most absolutely malicious, intentionally hateful things I have ever seen uttered on the ship were by the righteous people doing the calling.
Isn't that just sort of the natural tendency of the thing?

Personal example:
Dumbfuck drives through a stop sign and almost runs over me and my son crossing the street. He probably didn't intend to, judging by his "oops, sorry" wave. I waved a very angry gesture in return. When he skidded to a stop, outraged that I would be so rude, I can assure you that he then heard some amazingly malicious and intentionally hurtful language from me. Because, frankly, his lack of intention to crush my son under his piece-of-shit car would have soothed me naught at all. And I wanted him to feel, from flushed brow to worthless scrotum, how very fucking little his offended-ness mattered compared to his offense.

Clearly, progressions here are of a lesser degree. Nevertheless, intentionality is by due course more an aspect of being the caller than the callee. Unless the callee is a motherfucking troll.

So your argument is kind of shitty.

If any of you want Hell to be different, post differently there. We have absolutely no problem with people posting politely there saying, "Oi, tha' 'urt me fillens, tha' did." "Crickey, sorry mate." But if other adults wish to express themselves with only minimal (mostly-legal) limitations, I'm not so sure what's so hard to tolerate about that. Systemically speaking, I mean. You're just as free to express your countervailing opinions. Which is really the symmetrical beauty of it.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
I'm afraid I keep coming back to the history of Hellions challenging Hell threads on being lame if they don't feel that the call is suitably vicious or entertaining. I started two of the current Hell threads at the top of the board, and the ethos of Hell made me think* that to make one of the Hell calls stick I had to make a much more aggressive Hell call than I would have chosen, because I believed that a polite challenge would have had the resident Hellions lining up to declare it the lamest Hell call, ever. I suspect that this is the same sort of ethos that runs alongside the complaints against dog piling.

* my fault, my responsibility, I accept this and I know I have to deal with the fall out

PS for much of this thread I've had the phrase "Hoist with his own petard" running through my head
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I believed that a polite challenge would have had the resident Hellions lining up to declare it the lamest Hell call, ever.
That belief was grounded in observation. I do think the chorus of "lame" greeting hell calls is tiresome, as noted above by others, but also has an inflammatory effect in that it eggs the caller on to post more invective to be less "lame".

The whole view of hell as entertainment is very unhelpful to getting conflict resolution in civil terms. Clearly civility is being partially breached in that a hell call is posted to start with. But there's no need to egg it on to further limits with some odd notion of entertainment and "hellishness" whatever that means.
 
Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
because I believed that a polite challenge would have had the resident Hellions lining up to declare it the lamest Hell call, ever.
I would demur. There's polite as apologetic and there's polite as the glowing shell of a barely-contained irradiated core. The really lame is the cursing a blue streak over something trivial.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I'm afraid I keep coming back to the history of Hellions challenging Hell threads on being lame if they don't feel that the call is suitably vicious or entertaining. I started two of the current Hell threads at the top of the board, and the ethos of Hell made me think* that to make one of the Hell calls stick I had to make a much more aggressive Hell call than I would have chosen, because I believed that a polite challenge would have had the resident Hellions lining up to declare it the lamest Hell call, ever. I suspect that this is the same sort of ethos that runs alongside the complaints against dog piling.

* my fault, my responsibility, I accept this and I know I have to deal with the fall out

PS for much of this thread I've had the phrase "Hoist with his own petard" running through my head
I cannot speak for everyone, but it seemed to me the reaction to your Hell call of Gee D was not based on the 'quality' of the call in the sense of how much invective there was, but much more on people not thinking that Gee D had said anything terrible or offensive in the first place.

Certainly, my reaction to the initial call was "I can't see what was upsetting", and when I scrolled down a number of people seemed to have the same reaction.

Which, I hasten to add, doesn't mean you were making it up or anything. It was more that people were putting different interpretations/angles on the conversation that led to the Hell call.

The reaction to a call seems to me to be dictated in large part by this, ie do lots of people sympathise with the call, do lots of people NOT sympathise, or do we end up somewhere in the middle?

The ones in the middle are in some ways the most genuinely interesting, but they're rare.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
And I'd be agreeing with your demurring Firenze but I'm sure we all remember a row of peanut-gallery posters chiming in with "lame" and [Snore] in response to a hell call.

[cross post]

Orfeo it may be perfectly legitimate to observe that the caller has over-reacted, or that things aren't as they say them. But that's quite different from the chorus of "not entertaining enough for me" that I've often seen.

[ 09. November 2012, 08:03: Message edited by: mdijon ]
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
Orfeo it may be perfectly legitimate to observe that the caller has over-reacted, or that things aren't as they say them. But that's quite different from the chorus of "not entertaining enough for me" that I've often seen.
Hmm. Okay.

I'm not entirely sure to what extent 'lame' actually literally means 'not entertaining'. And to what extent it's simply a particular method of saying 'you've over-reacted' that has evolved.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
orfeo, I did get agreement on my challenge of sexism from a number of people, but because I'd challenged on sexism, Marvin objected and we got into a dispute about that, which I took to Purgatory. Marvin didn't disagree that I had grounds for challenging GeeD, he said so on the thread, just the grounds on which I challenged him.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm not entirely sure to what extent 'lame' actually literally means 'not entertaining'. And to what extent it's simply a particular method of saying 'you've over-reacted' that has evolved.
When it's posted as a one-word comment, particularly in conjunction with a [Snore] I tend to the former interpretation, when it's combined with a description of why the caller has over-reacted I'd tend to the latter.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm not entirely sure to what extent 'lame' actually literally means 'not entertaining'. And to what extent it's simply a particular method of saying 'you've over-reacted' that has evolved.
When it's posted as a one-word comment, particularly in conjunction with a [Snore] I tend to the former interpretation, when it's combined with a description of why the caller has over-reacted I'd tend to the latter.
Seems a rational enough approach, frankly!
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Back here I linked to examples:
quote:
If Hell is intended to act as containment, how does that square with those Shipmates who regard it as entertainment and will criticise if the thread is not entertaining enough or those who will post at the beginning of a thread "worst Hell thread ever".
And they were just the first few I hit when looking back through Oblivion, not a particularly extensive search.

[ 09. November 2012, 08:14: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Sorry, to double post.

I think what I'm trying to clarify is that if Hell is to be used for conflict resolution, which is what IngoB was saying about the Duel board that failed, so to be used for picking up on something somewhere and saying, "Actually, I found this incredibly personally offensive" to a Shipmate, the way it works now Hell is not being allowed to be a place to do that.

And no, I don't see why public offence should be privately settled by PM. The person who is offended may get a private apology out of that, but the public offence is not corrected. And, to be honest, those people who are good at dishing out offensive comments aren't so great at apologising either, so why on earth do you expect a pm exchange will get any more of an apology than a Hell thread would?
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
to be used for picking up on something somewhere and saying, "Actually, I found this incredibly personally offensive" to a Shipmate, the way it works now Hell is not being allowed to be a place to do that.
I don't see why not. The actions of other posters might make it more difficult to do that, but to say you are not allowed to express offence in Hell seems an over-reaction.

BTW I don't think the purpose of hell is for conflict resolution. That might be a result, but I don't think it is the main aim of the place. The aim is to be a place where conflict can happen. Whether it is resolved or not is up to the parties concerned.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Back here I linked to examples:
quote:
If Hell is intended to act as containment, how does that square with those Shipmates who regard it as entertainment and will criticise if the thread is not entertaining enough or those who will post at the beginning of a thread "worst Hell thread ever".
And they were just the first few I hit when looking back through Oblivion, not a particularly extensive search.
I suppose we could pick through each of your examples in detail. But, to do so would be to a) focus on individuals to an extent that's probably inappropriate to the Styx (which isn't the place to state "Shipmate X is a blithering idiot who feels the need to object to practically everythung posted in Hell" - not that I would say that is necessarily accurate in relation to any of your links) and b) in at least some cases was bashed out in the threads you linked to.

Your examples, and others I for one can think of, highlight some practices by individuals that are potentially counter productive in Hell. But, at the same time if someone posts a Hell call that is basically "I disagree with your theology" then they deserve a few correctional posts to remind them that discussions of theological disagreements belong in Purgatory. Although if they're reading a call as "I disagree with your theology" when in fact the thread is "I'm offended by the arrogant assertions that your theology is right, and I'm a heretic for questioning it" then they will quickly find that their attempt to call the thread 'lame' will be challenged. Just as one semi-hypothetical example.

Yes, posting in Hell does result in a target being painted on you. That target could result in attacks of the "that's so lame" sort - but the person posting that attack is also painted with a target. Which usually results in them getting targetted to - especially if the call in question has some validity (and there have been very few Hell calls without some validity, those where I have been called being among the very few genuinely lame threads of course [Biased] ).

And just to finish. I want to remind people that there have been individuals who have treated Hell as some form of playground (I listed some unhelpful games at the start of this thread). Those people have attracted the attention of the admins, and most of them are already on a short leash. We usually give people second chances, some might say the chance to gather enough rope to hang themselves. That doesn't mean people have unlimited license to piss around in Hell, especially if by so doing they undermine the very purpose of Hell.
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
BTW I don't think the purpose of hell is for conflict resolution. That might be a result, but I don't think it is the main aim of the place. The aim is to be a place where conflict can happen. Whether it is resolved or not is up to the parties concerned.
Which could be a verbatim quote from any of the admins repeated time and again on every "I don't like Hell" thread we've had, since the first such thread (which was probably only a few days after we created the board).
 
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :
 
If I had my way, anyone complaining about the quality of a Hell call (as opposed to its validity) would get a week to scour the internet looking for something they found more entertaining. I tend to skim past any comment mentioning how lame the call is these days, but my impression is that it tends to be a complaint based on the perceived insignificance of the offence or the lack of invective, neither of which should be relevant.

OTOH, arguments that the OP is simply wrong are very relevant, and even to be encouraged. What matters is that a personal dispute is being properly aired, not that everyone jumps on the callee. That dispute might be over something apparently trivial, but even so, Hell is the proper place for it, and anyone who complains about the lameness of a call is both subverting the proper operation of Hell and encouraging overblown playing to the gallery. If there's a problem, it starts there.

My favourite memories of Hell are of things that some posting here would have you believe never happen. One was a very short thread started over a minor matter. It was resolved so promptly and amicably that the Peanut Gallery hadn't even arrived to complain about its lameness. That was a perfect example of how Hell can work very efficiently when it's allowed to, without people feeling the need to stir everything up or complain of boredom.

The other was a couple of Hell calls started in the same week which were politely but firmly slapped down by everyone for being inaccurate, unfair, based on misunderstandings, and so on. In all cases, those involved were very respected shipmates (names withheld to spare blushes). And in all cases, those people showed why they were respected, because they were able to step back, admit their mistakes, apologise/accept apologies and move on. It was remarkably quick and painless.

The common theme is that these people were prepared to admit their mistakes, even when it made them look foolish. If you think it's hard to accept that you may have said something offensive, imagine what it must be like if you just gave someone both barrels because you completely misread one of their posts. Where aggression escalates, it's almost always (I won't make a general claim) because someone, either caller or callee, isn't prepared to own up to their mistakes.

There are probably cases where people go completely over the top, but if everyone had the same grace and humility to acknowledge their mistakes when they were pointed out, I'm confident that this thread wouldn't even exist.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
BTW I don't think the purpose of hell is for conflict resolution. That might be a result, but I don't think it is the main aim of the place. The aim is to be a place where conflict can happen. Whether it is resolved or not is up to the parties concerned.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Which could be a verbatim quote from any of the admins repeated time and again on every "I don't like Hell" thread we've had, since the first such thread (which was probably only a few days after we created the board).
I've absorbed something then.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Isn't that just sort of the natural tendency of the thing?
I don't think so, and I think the culture of hell does more then merely vent that sort of thing, it actually fosters it. Let's call it escalation.

Callees might post some bad things, but hell calls are actually worse. Very often they are merely part of escalating the situation and perpetuating bad feelings far longer than the situation otherwise merits.

Once again, this is just like real life. Some people think it's helpful to have things out right then and there, but in a pique we say things that we wouldn't otherwise say, and we get offended at things that wouldn't otherwise be hurt by. Just look at real life again. Do you like being with that person that shouts "Oh no he didn't! You can't put up with that- you go tell him RIGHT NOW that putting trash in the recycling bin is not gonna fly!"

Well, I know I don't hang around people who escalate matters pointlessly.

[ 09. November 2012, 10:43: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
In whose judgement is the call pointless and unmerited? I think your point about conflict escalation leading to more lasting hurt is well made, but to take the view that the calling is pointless and unmerited seems to pre-judge it.

Sometimes it might be, sometimes it isn't. Others can judge on the thread. Sometimes the mob goes one way, sometimes the other.
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I would remind you, though, that a year or two ago someone (IngoB?) proposed a "duel" board, and it flatlined.
I was going to mention that. That board ('Much Ado About Nothing'/MAAN) was basically Hell-without-dogpiling. The caller and callee were supposed to agree rules of engagement and other people were asked (but not required) to let them get on with it. And it seemed to work (in that it did do the job that IngoB suggested it would do).

I don't think the experiment ran for long enough for a definitive conclusion, but, as the participant in one of the threads I would say that it worked noticeably BETTER than Hell in achieving conflict resolution*, but not so well as Hell as a safety vent/anger containment venue.

And it's been said many, many times that containment rather than resolution is why the Hell board is here, because the point of Hell is to enable discussions in Purgatory (and other boards) to take place on subjects people care deeply about, without personal disputes getting in the way. If the Admins ever decide that, as a matter of active policy, they want to encourage the resolution of disputes, then re-introducing MAAN would be a good start. I don't understand that to be their current policy.


(*FWIW, I've made 4 Hell calls** (counting MAAN as an annex of Hell for this purpose) and received 1 in seven years. In every single case I believe that I have liked and understood my opponent more at the end of the thread than I did at the start. Conflict resolution happens in Hell, even if it is not the reason why the board exists).

(**OK, the limerick Hell call to comet and others was not, perhaps, the most deep and serious personal argument there has ever been, but the others all had real feeling behind them).
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
some of the most absolutely malicious, intentionally hateful things I have ever seen uttered on the ship were by the righteous people doing the calling.
intentionality is by due course more an aspect of being the caller than the callee. Unless the callee is a motherfucking troll
Yes, nothing much has been said here about intention, but I feel it's critical. The intended purpose of dogpiling is to hurt the dogpilee. That is pretty much the definition of dogpiling, actually. The justifications for this are well set out on this thread, but that is the clear intention, full stop.

However, it's not always so easy to understand the intentions of the dogpilee in their behaviour that 'earns' them this intended hurting. It may be that they set out to hurt the dogpilers and it may absolutely not be*, but it is undoubtedly the intention of the dogpilers to cause hurt. That, I think, is the difference that Our Lord Jesus would be getting all pissed off and then depressed about (though I'm no expert on this, I freely admit. You'll probably have a better idea of His feelings than I).

* I hesitate to attribute intention in postings being as it's such an upfucked load of stupid bollocky thing to do, but I would bet my right kidney that Evensong has never, ever intended genuinely to hurt anybody here by anything she has posted, and I would bet my left kidney that plenty of her dogpilers couldn't say that under the direct glaring, judging gaze of their Almighty Creator.
 
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :
 
In another of my favoured internet haunts, people like to point out that "intent is not magic". Just because some posters don't intend to offend others, doesn't mean they don't. Otherwise you risk ending up with a situation where you tell people they have no right to be hurt by what you say to them.
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
Which of the following would Jesus give the biggest shit about?

a) someone not intending to hurt somebody, but doing so;
b) someone intending to hurt somebody and doing so.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Which of the following would Jesus give the biggest shit about?

a) someone not intending to hurt somebody, but doing so;
b) someone intending to hurt somebody and doing so.
And maybe the actions or words that prompted the call weren’t intended to hurt or offend either. But they did. The accountability and responsibility thing cut both ways. Maybe the person making the Hell Call just wanted to say their piece and didn’t intend to hurt and offend either.

Jesus’ teachings can be summarised as, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind. And love your neighbour as yourself”. In terms of practical application, this would mean trying show love and kindness to your neighbour and treat them as you’d like them to treat you. Jesus would be equally concerned about both a) and b). a) isn’t thinking about the impact of their actions on others and b) is aware of the impact but did it anyway.

OTH, I find if I assume most people mean well and were just thoughtless, I am so much happier. On the whole most people are far more likely to be thoughtless or put their foot in their mouth than malicious or unkind. But there are exceptions to that rule. [Biased]

Tubbs

[ 09. November 2012, 13:35: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I think it would be better to hesitate to attribute intent. It is too easily done in a self-serving manner and tends to line up with one's prior views.

It is probably unhelpful to focus on individuals for all the reasons that made you hesitate, but I doubt any individual has consistently pure intent when they appear to be frequently hurtful.
 
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Which of the following would Jesus give the biggest shit about?

a) someone not intending to hurt somebody, but doing so;
b) someone intending to hurt somebody and doing so.
Alas poor Yorick the answer is both.

In terms of personal morality, Jesus cares deeply about our intentions. He made this clear on numerous occasions with the consistent references to a kind of inside-out-morality. (Clean the inside of the dish first...). Along with that comes a responsibility to not only intend for the best but do one's best to achieve it also. I may not intend offence by use of a particular word but I may not realise how damaging said word is to some because I might not know about the connotations - but once someone pointed it out to me, I'd need to amend my ways.

In terms of the hurting person. I believe Jesus cares for the hurting the same regardless of intend or cause. In John 11 we see Jesus weeping at a graveside because of the pain and anguish of the dead man's sisters. His compassion for many others - such as ensuring that his mother was looked after by John as he hung on a cross is also very apparent.

So yes, intention is very, very important. Conversely intention should not be used as a cop-out for irresponsibility. At the risk of rehashing old arguments; an Hell call may often not be because of intended offence - but an unwillingness to listen and understand why people were bothered by something is a whole different kettle of ball game.

AFZ
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Maybe the person making the Hell Call just wanted to say their piece and didn’t intend to hurt and offend either.
Granted. But we're NOT talking about Hell Calls or the Usefulness of Hell, or the Importance of People Discovering How Shit They Really Are. That's all interesting stuff, but what we're talking about here is the issue of dogpiling.

The intention of the dogpilee might have been to cause hurt, or it might not. The intention of the dogpiler is to cause hurt. That means dogpiling can be a shittier thing to do than the behaviour that earns dogpiles. This is in simple contradiction to Marvin's suggestion that dogpilers necessarily deserve their kicking.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
The intention of the dogpiler is to cause hurt.
You seem clear about that. Is it because that is part of the definition of dogpiling for you?
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Maybe the person making the Hell Call just wanted to say their piece and didn’t intend to hurt and offend either.
Granted. But we're NOT talking about Hell Calls or the Usefulness of Hell, or the Importance of People Discovering How Shit They Really Are. That's all interesting stuff, but what we're talking about here is the issue of dogpiling.

The intention of the dogpilee might have been to cause hurt, or it might not. The intention of the dogpiler is to cause hurt. That means dogpiling can be a shittier thing to do than the behaviour that earns dogpiles. This is in simple contradiction to Marvin's suggestion that dogpilers necessarily deserve their kicking.
That simple contradiction leads to a difficult decision: at what point does the level of disapproval (as expressed in the volume and extent of posts), in Hell or elsewhere cease to reasonable and become a "dogpile"?
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Maybe the person making the Hell Call just wanted to say their piece and didn’t intend to hurt and offend either.
Granted. But we're NOT talking about Hell Calls or the Usefulness of Hell, or the Importance of People Discovering How Shit They Really Are. That's all interesting stuff, but what we're talking about here is the issue of dogpiling.

The intention of the dogpilee might have been to cause hurt, or it might not. The intention of the dogpiler is to cause hurt. That means dogpiling can be a shittier thing to do than the behaviour that earns dogpiles. This is in simple contradiction to Marvin's suggestion that dogpilers necessarily deserve their kicking.
Why the different standards? Why the assumption that both parties have different motivations?

Tubbs
 
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
The intention of the dogpiler is to cause hurt.
You seem clear about that. Is it because that is part of the definition of dogpiling for you?
Indeed, knowing intention is very difficult, if not impossible. If dogpiling occurs then I suppose those doing the dogpiling could be working under a number of possible intentions, including:
1. They think someone deserves it
2. They think it's some form of game
3. They want to impress their peers (ie: others engaging in the dogpile) with their wit and quality of insults
4. They're going along with the crowd
5. Something else

or, a combination of motives.

And, even option 1 does not necessarily imply they intend harm. They may be attempting to lovingly and gently correct someone they consider to have behaved badly, they may or may not be any good at being loving and gentle.

Which is why although we are aware of different ways of abusing Hell and undermining it's purpose, and suspect that some of those abuses are happening, we rarely call people on them. We just don't know if they are pissing about or genuinely aggrieved. Which is a leniency that several people posting on this thread have benefitted from.
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
I speak from personal experience, Tubbs. I have received obviously intentionally harmful personal abuse from people towards whom I know for certain I intended no harm. I see similar things apparently happening to others. I dislike the process, and think it a serious flaw of the Ship.

It's my perspective, that's all. Mileages vary.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Indeed I think your mileage was once that those seeking to guess your intent were wide of the mark and that even the attempt to make a window into your soul was fundamentally flawed.

I don't understand what experience of another's intent might be. It can surely only be an impression rather than actual experience.

When you say that others obviously intended to hurt, might it simply have been that they were furiously pissed off with you? And that your lack of intent to hurt anyone might not be so obvious when you are furiously pissed of with someone else?

[ 09. November 2012, 14:17: Message edited by: mdijon ]
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I speak from personal experience, Tubbs. I have received obviously intentionally harmful personal abuse from people towards whom I know for certain I intended no harm. I see similar things apparently happening to others. I dislike the process, and think it a serious flaw of the Ship.
And yet, it is a process in which you have participated.

My skin is thicker than some and I wasn't offended (as my later remarks to you show, I trust) but I question to what extent you can really be said to know that.

I bring this up primarily to emphasize points made above; if you want a better behaviour in Hell, model a better behaviour in Hell. I'm not proud of every post I've ever made in Hell, and my views have evolved over time. I've never regretted a post I failed to make, though, and there have been many where I had the grace to think twice before hitting the "Add Reply" button.
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I don't understand what experience of another's intent might be. It can surely only be an impression rather than actual experience.
Well I guess you're right, but when twenty-one people say 'you are a shit-eating spunky fuck weasel cunt who should leave the ship, and so-say all of us', I think it's fair to assume their collective intention is to hurt. But yeah, perhaps it's just Christian Love, and I'm experiencing it wrongly.
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
OB, that was a mean thing for me to say, and I apologise. I don't see how it applies directly to the question of dogpiling though. It's one thing for an individual to say something mean, but another for a group of people to do so with collectively harmful intention. That's a different creature altogether, from the recipient's perspective at least.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
OB, that was a mean thing for me to say, and I apologise. I don't see how it applies directly to the question of dogpiling though. It's one thing for an individual to say something mean, but another for a group of people to do so with collectively harmful intention. That's a different creature altogether, from the recipient's perspective at least.
Each dogpile is made up of individual posts added to together to make a whole. Why would your post not be counted in the pile while others would be?

And what's with this "group of people ... with a collectively harmful intention" comment?

Tubbs
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
Well, Yorick, as I re-read my original post about leo I wasn't very proud of myself either. I wish it had been one of those posts I left unposted.

I wasn't really trying to address dog-piling at that point, though--I was struck by your phrase "intentionally harmful personal abuse from people towards whom I know for certain I intended no harm" and replying to that. Every dog-pile, after all, starts with a single post.

I think your experience may be unique, though. At one time there was a wide sense among Shipmates that you had betrayed their trust. To your credit, you've stuck around and, IMHO, demonstrated that the Ship has become something important to you. Believe it or not, when you are away for a while I actually miss seeing you around.
 
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :
 
I have a hard enough time getting a clear idea of my own intentions, let alone those of the people I live with. I have no hope of knowing the intentions of people posting here, except insofar as they tell me explicitly what their intentions are. And the idea of a collective intention of a group of posters even existing, let alone being able to know what it is, is fantasy or delusion.
 
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :
 
Yorick, I apologize for making my comments personal. I though I was posting in Hell and did not realize my mistake until after I posted and right before I left my computer for RL. But that's just a reason, not an excuse. I was out of line and I regret it.
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
Not at all- it wasn't the least bit offensive and was pretty well said, I thought. No apology required, but thanks any way.
 
Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
... some of the most absolutely malicious, intentionally hateful things I have ever seen uttered on the ship 0were by the righteous people doing the calling.
Well, we must be inhabiting different boards, then, because I would say that self-righteous and hurtful is one of the things most likely to earn a Hell call, unless the poster is perceived to be answering like with like. Also likely to earn Hell calls are those who appear to blithely disregard the possibility that they might be hurting others.

These are relatively public boards. If a poster has managed to piss off 30 readers, how many people are allowed to reply? 5? 10? Fuck that.
We have people here who seem to want the right to offend but not the right to be offended back in return,especially when that comes with the added pain of discovering that they are in a minority.

Zach, I accept that you genuinely mean well, but I'm (not very) afraid that I find it absolutely un-fucking-believable that one, in particular, of the complainers here has never intended to hurt others. I also think that you will usually find, in almost any so-called dogpile, several well-meaning posters trying to give good advice.
Neither is it my experience that people are told to leave the ship - they are told to leave if they don't like the culture, or if they can't accept the rules, or if they can't engage; they might be advised to take a break from posting, but I don't think they are often told to just leave. But please feel free to prove me wrong - there are so many vague and exaggerated allegations flying around here, a few hard facts would be very welcome.
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Tubbs:
Each dogpile is made up of individual posts added to together to make a whole. Why would your post not be counted in the pile while others would be?

And what's with this "group of people ... with a collectively harmful intention" comment?
Good questions, both. I would say that, as an atheist, I am likely to find myself in a minority position in any discussion here. That's not an excuse of course, but because of my worldview I think it's easier for my, erm, assertive approach to discussion to be unpopular and to be found offensive.

In any case, a dogpilee is necessarily in the minority, by definition. Everybody who attacks one simultaneously will be seen collectively, however individualistic they feel they are.

The group thing is beyond my grasp of sociology, but I believe it's all to do with herd territory behaviour and mutual associative reinforcement and shit like that. You know, 'in group' stuff. It makes people feel inclined to join the mob in looting in rioting, when they would not dream of doing smashing shop windows and grabbing iPads and training shoes on their own.
 
Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
Yes, you are an independent and intelligent free-thinker, not afraid to court unpopularity, whereas anybody who disagrees with you is either a sheep or a sad member of rent-a-mob. How stupid of me never to have understood that before.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Well I guess you're right, but when twenty-one people say 'you are a shit-eating spunky fuck weasel cunt who should leave the ship, and so-say all of us'
Except that isn't what happened. No-one actually said that did they? And whatever they said that you are characterising like that will have had a context. It probably isn't helpful to go through post by post one of your old dogpiles, but perhaps it would be worth acknowledging that a) they don't come out of nowhere b) there are not many people on this forum who have an explicit and context-less intention to cause hurt.

I appreciate that they did cause hurt to you (and perhaps I have done in the past also) but that is more likely to have come out of reacting to being angry over something rather than a deliberate intention to hurt.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
...but when twenty-one people say 'you are a shit-eating spunky fuck weasel cunt who should leave the ship, and so-say all of us',
I'd be tempted to laugh at the exuberantly demotic language.

A few weeks ago I was standing behind a carpark when a man standing very near me screamed "Fuck off you fucking blond fucking Surrey slag cunt!" in the general direction of someone else. But it it didn't' change the score.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Zach, I accept that you genuinely mean well, but I'm (not very) afraid that I find it absolutely un-fucking-believable that one, in particular, of the complainers here has never intended to hurt others.
I suppose this is aimed at me, but no matter whom you do mean, this is incredibly passive aggressive.

quote:
I also think that you will usually find, in almost any so-called dogpile, several well-meaning posters trying to give good advice.
That's exactly what makes their advice worthless and their manner of address extremely insensitive. A hell call is the LAST place to try to engage people sensitively.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
Does it count as dogpiling* when it happens in styx ?

(* And why do we use this term, we don't even have a clear definition - and I have no idea what the metaphor references ?)
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
It strikes me that some people here think I don't realise and appreciate what a complete wanker I can be (and often have been on this website), and that this fact mitigates the bad behaviour of others towards me.

Laughably wrong on the first count and depressingly wrong on the second.
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
...but when twenty-one people say 'you are a shit-eating spunky fuck weasel cunt who should leave the ship, and so-say all of us',
I'd be tempted to laugh at the exuberantly demotic language.
I did.

(It wasn't mine).
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
Is that not a mitigating factor? If it isn't then you are suggesting that getting annoyed with and swearing at someone who is behaving like a wanker is as bad as doing it arbitrarily and out of the blue.

Added to which I doubt the bad behaviour of others towards you is quite as stark as you imagine it to be.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
These are relatively public boards. If a poster has managed to piss off 30 readers, how many people are allowed to reply? 5? 10? Fuck that.
We have people here who seem to want the right to offend but not the right to be offended back in return,especially when that comes with the added pain of discovering that they are in a minority.
Exactly. If you stand up on a soapbox in the middle of a public square and yell something that pisses off 50 people, you should count yourself lucky if only 20 yell back at you. Also, there are people who have built up asshat-ish posting histories for years and therefore have earned themselves the opprobrium of many shipmates, and they reap what they have sown.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I did.
No harm done then?
 
Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Zach, I accept that you genuinely mean well, but I'm (not very) afraid that I find it absolutely un-fucking-believable that one, in particular, of the complainers here has never intended to hurt others.
I suppose this is aimed at me, but no matter whom you do mean, this is incredibly passive aggressive.
Not according to my understanding of passive-aggressive, it isn't. I agree it's worded a little oddly, but that's because I am trying to avoid personal attacks. Let me try again: I accept you have an honest, genuinely benevolent and disinterested concern, even though I don't agree with all the assertions you have made.
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I did.
No harm done then?
Oh shit, no, I took ken's post literally. I thought he meant the language daronmedway used, which I quoted, was funny, not that if he received that sort of abuse he would laugh at it- which I now see is of course what he meant. No, I'm a thin-skinned wuss who takes these things personally, and harm was indeed done. Still alive though, and still a Shipmate too. [Smile]

And that's quite enough about me on this thread, I'm sure.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
Not according to my understanding of passive-aggressive, it isn't. I agree it's worded a little oddly, but that's because I am trying to avoid personal attacks. Let me try again: I accept you have an honest, genuinely benevolent and disinterested concern, even though I don't agree with all the assertions you have made.
Well you're right. Considering it was fairly obvious you meant me, it was closer to just plain aggressive. It is, indeed, exactly the sort of vaguely vicious behavior that passes for "sensitive engagement" in these hell calls.

[ 09. November 2012, 18:13: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by passer (# 13329) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:

And that's quite enough about me on this thread, I'm sure.
One for the Quotes file? [Cool]
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
A hell call is the LAST place to try to engage people sensitively.
Yet, there are those who do so successfully--Golden Key (as was mentioned earlier) does it quite well. I can remember seeing it done by Doublethink, QLib, and mdijon to name just a few who are active on this thread. I seem to remember (though the gray cells may be slipping up on this one) that Laura used to do it quite well too.

It takes a certain knack, but there are people who have the gift. Oddly enough, they are the same people who manage to engage people sensitively on the other boards as well.
 
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :
 
I'd always assumed that the term dog piling alluded to the fact that where one dog dumps its stuff others are sure to follow, until there's a great big pile of it. In dogs, I believe, it's a territorial marking thing. But it sort of implies that people do it in a semi-unthinking manner analogous to canine behaviour.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
And that's quite enough about me on this thread, I'm sure.
I'm most impressed at your level of insight. Learnt at the bottom of a dogpile perhaps?
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
I'd always assumed that the term dog piling alluded to the fact that where one dog dumps its stuff others are sure to follow, until there's a great big pile of it. In dogs, I believe, it's a territorial marking thing. But it sort of implies that people do it in a semi-unthinking manner analogous to canine behaviour.
Close. If one dog attacks, the rest are far more likely to join in.

Rook said it was just like Girard here, and that's exactly how Girard thought about violence in human society. People join in the destruction of victims without even much thinking about it, just because the mob is doing it.

Gives a lot of insight into "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

[ 09. November 2012, 18:28: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
And that's quite enough about me on this thread, I'm sure.
I'm most impressed at your level of insight. Learnt at the bottom of a dogpile perhaps?
Don't take the bait, Yorick. Just walk away.

[ 09. November 2012, 18:32: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
Zach, I accept that you genuinely mean well,
meant you, Zach82 and was not intended to be aggressive
quote:
but I'm (not very) afraid that I find it absolutely un-fucking-believable that one, in particular, of the complainers here has never intended to hurt others.
referred to a post by A.N.Other and was intended to be....
Oh, what's the word? Oh yes....

.... assertive
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
referred to a post by A.N.Other and was intended to be....
Oh, what's the word? Oh yes....

.... assertive
Pardon my paranoia, then. Though it would have been assertive to be up front about what you were talking about.
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
Hosting

Please do not fight or make personal attacks in the Styx. I appreciate that this is something that people feel strongly about, but if you want to take pot shots at other posters, then call them to Hell. (The irony!)

Hosting

Tubbs
 
Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
Let's try a different tack: if there were to be a rule about dogpiling, what would it look like? How would it deal with the following scenarios:
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Yup.

To me, it's up to people who hate dogpiles to suck it up, be brave, and express your opinions. Suggestion: Show me, don't tell me. Have something more substantial to say than "You guys are vicious" or "This looks like a dogpile."

SO: Hellcaller "Kelly, your constant defense of the use of teabags tells me you are a knuckle dragging sloth who should be institutionalized for the benefit of the human race.Your mother must be ashamed of having given birth to you. Your cat wears combat boots."

(Crazy-ass pile-on ensues. People are obviously trying to top each other.)

(Wrong way)Protester: "You guys are getting out of hand.Don't be so mean."


(Right way)Protester: "OPer, how in the hell exactly does it break your ass if Kelly uses teabags? Does she sneak into your house at night and stuff your loose Earl Grey into tiny little silk sacks? Honestly, your frothing rage about the issue suggests a pitiable level of fragility."

[ 09. November 2012, 19:34: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
You’re being disingenous, QLib, and it’s not helping the discussion. Dogpiling is real enough to those on the receiving end of it, and I think it’s a problem. So do a few others here. You don’t, and some others don't, and that’s fine too.

You will notice that some of those of us who do feel dogpiling is a problem make no suggestion that anything should be done about it except that dogpilers should regulate themselves a bit better. If you don’t think this applies to you, well smashing. Have a nice weekend.
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
You might want to check the quotes file, Kelly...
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
You’re being disingenous, QLib, and it’s not helping the discussion. Dogpiling is real enough to those on the receiving end of it, and I think it’s a problem. So do a few others here. You don’t, and some others don't, and that’s fine too.

You will notice that some of those of us who do feel dogpiling is a problem make no suggestion that anything should be done about it except that dogpilers should regulate themselves a bit better. If you don’t think this applies to you, well smashing. Have a nice weekend.
I don't think she's being disingenous at all, I think she's pointing out a real problem-- if we make a no-dogpiling rule, people who are inclined to harass people will figure out a way to use it to harass people.
 
Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
You’re being disingenous, QLib,
I'm not being disingenuous - 'what kind of rule would you like to see?' seems to me a perfectly legitimate question, and one designed to promote dialogue rather than stifle it.
quote:
Dogpiling is real enough to those on the receiving end of it
Is there anybody here who hasn't had a pasting in Hell at some point? If dogpiling is objectively real as opposed to being a matter of perception, then it should be possible to reach a working definition, shouldn't it?
quote:
... and I think it’s a problem. So do a few others here. You don’t, and some others don't,.
We all agree there's an issue, presumably, otherwise what are we all doing here?
quote:
You will notice that some of those of us who do feel dogpiling is a problem make no suggestion that anything should be done about it except that dogpilers should regulate themselves a bit better.
I don't notice any concrete suggestions, but even if there is to be self-regulation, it would be helpful to have some kind of agreement on what the regulations are or could be. I've been trying to self-regulate on dogpiling for yonks - clearly, it hasn't made much difference.

eta X-posted with KA

[ 09. November 2012, 19:59: Message edited by: QLib ]
 
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
Well, to be honest, I think the solution to the problem of dogpiling will need to be cultural. I have seen a huge change in the attitudes of young people towards bullying in school since I was a child. In those days, we had to accept bullying happened and stand up to it individually. Nowadays the pervading cultural value is that it's extremely uncool to bully, and it doesn't happen as much- or so it's my impression. If the Ship could foster a similar culture of the uncoolness of dogpiling, perhaps it would lead to a similar effect on the behaviour of Shipmates.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
I notice how you switched the terms dogpiling and bullying there without bothering to make the case that the former was synonymous with the latter.

That aside, if such a change was implemented what then about the behaviour of disruptive and offensive shipmates who no would no longer experience community-level feedback? Would that behaviour then improve or deteriorate?
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
It strikes me that the big divide here is between those who believe the community is entitled to en masse voice disapproval, and those who believe that such displays of community muscle are mob rule and/or bullying of maverick individuals who ought to be allowed to express themselves freely.

This seems to me a very fundamental issue of self-image and one's relationship to a community. I can see how those who see themselves in the latter role find the communities response very painful.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
<snip>
... if we make a no-dogpiling rule, people who are inclined to harass people will figure out a way to use it to harass people.
And the first people they harass will be the Hellhosts, for not doing their/our job properly. Thanks a bundle.
 
Posted by Loquacious beachcomber (# 8783) on :
 
I ask this question with some measure of fear and trepidation, but it is a serious question.
It has been asserted that if someone is called to Hell for bogus reasons, the community will side with the callee and verbally smite the caller.
It has also been made quite clear that the Admins are no longer prepared to tolerate comments such as "This is the lamest Hell call ever" or "I really am not enjoying this spectacle."

So, is there a reasonable way to say "I, for one, do not think this Hell call is reasonable or necessary" without either sounding preachy or risking the wrath of the Hosts and Admins?
I can see the need to not be smarmy and to not interfere in a deserving Hell call, but how does one side with the callee without risking the wrath of the Ship's crew?
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Loquacious beachcomber:

So, is there a reasonable way to say "I, for one, do not think this Hell call is reasonable or necessary" without either sounding preachy or risking the wrath of the Hosts and Admins?
I can see the need to not be smarmy and to not interfere in a deserving Hell call, but how does one side with the callee without risking the wrath of the Ship's crew?
Well, first off, have you ever actually seen an H/A officially call someone on making those comments? Or are you talking about when Hellhosts make bitchy non-host comments about such comments? Big difference.

Second-- Assuming the latter, even still you are going to get a lot better results from folk in general (IMO) if you post "I, for one, do not think this Hell call is reasonable or necessary because..." Don't assume people know what you mean by 'unreasonable' or 'unnecessary'.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
<snip>
... if we make a no-dogpiling rule, people who are inclined to harass people will figure out a way to use it to harass people.
And the first people they harass will be the Hellhosts, for not doing their/our job properly. Thanks a bundle.
Yes, nobody is mentioning what it feels like to get dogpiled in the Styx. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Oh, but Kelly, I really empathise! [Big Grin]
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Loquacious beachcomber:
It has also been made quite clear that the Admins are no longer prepared to tolerate comments such as "This is the lamest Hell call ever" or "I really am not enjoying this spectacle."
To clarify what you think is clear: people who make a habit of this kind of participation might garner more focused scrutiny from the Crew. Occasional utterances by otherwise Untroublesome¹ Shipmates is unlikely to have much consequence.

quote:
So, is there a reasonable way to say "I, for one, do not think this Hell call is reasonable or necessary" without either sounding preachy or risking the wrath of the Hosts and Admins?
I think your quoted statement looks functional. Cogently-stated supportive arguments for your viewpoint rarely go amiss either.

¹ For the record, you don't qualify.

[CROSSPOST!]

[ 09. November 2012, 21:48: Message edited by: RooK ]
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I've taken to pming callees advising them to just ignore their calls. The people I've done so with haven't often taken the advice, but sometimes it's difficult to recognize escalation in the moment.
 
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :
 
As somebody who despises the 'lamest Hell call ever' call with all my being*, I would suggest not making comment at all. Clearly the person writing the OP felt it was significant; who cares if it doesn't rise to our levels of what qualifies as a worthy hell topic.

*I can only assume it involves a hidden trauma as a child involving a cat and 3 potatoes.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
The other side of that being, why do we have to enshrine and encourage absolutely every temper tantrum that people feel like pitching.
 
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :
 
Zach, Shutting the Hell up neither encourages or discourages. Life will go on for the ship without our comments. Particularly our less constructive comments.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I'll clarify myself here. (again) I am not for letting mean people off the hook. I am just anti-temper tantrum too. You don't think calling people out for their inability to deal with disputes like healthy grown ups is constructive. Well I don't think temper tantrums are constructive either.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
Clearly the person writing the OP felt it was significant; who cares if it doesn't rise to our levels of what qualifies as a worthy hell topic.
Indeed. there is no Minimum Ire Quotient for Hell. If someone wants to flip out over a hangnail, more power to them.

The "Lame!" shriekers who chime in on hell OPs make me think of a bunch of losers sitting by the side of a ring holding up their olympic judging placards. Only this is a scoring game, and they're just trying to feel important.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I'll clarify myself here. (again) I am not for letting mean people off the hook. I am just anti-temper tantrum too. You don't think calling people out for their inability to deal with disputes like healthy grown ups is constructive. Well I don't think temper tantrums are constructive either.
I find them very constructive. If I couldn't flip my lid on at least a weekly basis, I'd probably have to be committed. It's after the spleen is vented that some real shit can get done.

Just 'cause it doesn't work for you doesn't mean you get to decide if it works for anyone else.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
The "Lame!" shriekers who chime in on hell OPs make me think of a bunch of losers sitting by the side of a ring holding up their olympic judging placards. Only this is a scoring game, and they're just trying to feel important.
That's the difference of perspective here. I think adults who deal with their disputes with temper tantrums are the pathetic people trying to feel important by seeking out others to affirm their tantrums.
 
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :
 
I guess what I don't like is where grown ups make a one line statement identifying that they feel some one else's Hell call is below par.

It dismisses the opening poster.
It says 'Your thoughts and feelings are of no value. You are of no value'.

You know the whole 'opposite of love is disinterest, not hate' type thing.

[cross post]

[ 10. November 2012, 02:11: Message edited by: Patdys ]
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
The "Lame!" shriekers who chime in on hell OPs make me think of a bunch of losers sitting by the side of a ring holding up their olympic judging placards. Only this is a scoring game, and they're just trying to feel important.
That's the difference of perspective here. I think adults who deal with their disputes with temper tantrums are the pathetic people trying to feel important by seeking out others to affirm their tantrums.
where is the affirmation asked for? in the case of the judgers, they are imposing their opinions on something that isn't necessarily about them at all. in the case of the ranters, they may pull the stompstompscream routine, but no one has to listen, read, respond, nothing. they aren't imposing it on anyone other than the hosts. And I, personally, don't mind and even rather enjoy it.

I don't need anyone's affirmations for my rages, they are self-affirming. and therapeutic. and I really don't care if you approve.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
I guess what I don't like is where grown ups make a one line statement identifying that they feel some one else's Hell call is below par.

It dismisses the opening poster.
It says 'Your thoughts and feelings are of no value. You are of no value'.

You know the whole 'opposite of love is disinterest, not hate' type thing.

[cross post]
except that's not really true, is it? if it was disinterest, there's be no response at all. what it really says is "Your thoughts and feelings are of value and I'm jealous of the attention it's getting you, so I'm going to tap dance like crazy over here to get the spotlight on me."
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
I guess what I don't like is where grown ups make a one line statement identifying that they feel some one else's Hell call is below par.

It dismisses the opening poster.
It says 'Your thoughts and feelings are of no value. You are of no value'.
Maybe it's because my first job was at a grocery store, but it's hard for to care what your grievance is when you react like this.

quote:
where is the affirmation asked for? in the case of the judgers, they are imposing their opinions on something that isn't necessarily about them at all. in the case of the ranters, they may pull the stompstompscream routine, but no one has to listen, read, respond, nothing. they aren't imposing it on anyone other than the hosts. And I, personally, don't mind and even rather enjoy it.
So we can only post on hell calls if we agree? You can't see how that is actually fostering temper tantrums? Real life has consequences for temper tantrums, which is why they don't work in real life.

If you don't want people to judge you for what your tantrums, don't post them. It's only the same standard applied to everything else here.

quote:
I don't need anyone's affirmations for my rages, they are self-affirming. and therapeutic. and I really don't care if you approve.
Then why post them in hell so everyone can see them?

[ 10. November 2012, 02:24: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Jeeze that's alotta typos. Sorry for my poor proof reading, dear lovelies.
 
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
quote:
Originally posted by Patdys:
I guess what I don't like is where grown ups make a one line statement identifying that they feel some one else's Hell call is below par.

It dismisses the opening poster.
It says 'Your thoughts and feelings are of no value. You are of no value'.

You know the whole 'opposite of love is disinterest, not hate' type thing.

[cross post]
except that's not really true, is it? if it was disinterest, there's be no response at all. what it really says is "Your thoughts and feelings are of value and I'm jealous of the attention it's getting you, so I'm going to tap dance like crazy over here to get the spotlight on me."
Yes Ma'am. At a deeper level it does. Every time we post, it is to an audience. So, this is a way of comparatively boosting our audience share at anothers expense I guess.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Oh brother, the "You're just making the thread about yourself" line. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

So we can only post on hell calls if we agree?
Agree? certainly not. challenge the content? if you have something to challenge, go for it. the only thing better than a rant is a good scrap. Judging the value of the content? get a life.

quote:
You can't see how that is actually fostering temper tantrums? Real life has consequences for temper tantrums, which is why they don't work in real life.
the beauty of the Ship is that we have a safe place for that. It is very unlike "real life" as you put it. Hooray for us. And who cares if it fosters temper tantrums? Hell, I think it's way healthier than pretending all is hunky-dory until one day you snap and beat your boss's car up with a baseball bat.

quote:
If you don't want people to judge you for what your tantrums, don't post them. It's only the same standard applied to everything else here.
personally, I don't give a shit. It reflects oh so much on the judger and says nothing about me. hold up your little placards, it's like holding up a giant sign saying "lookit me! lookit me!"

quote:
quote:
I don't need anyone's affirmations for my rages, they are self-affirming. and therapeutic. and I really don't care if you approve.
Then why post them in hell so everyone can see them?
Actually, for the same reason you'd post in All Saints. 2 sides of the same coin. We're a social animal. it just feels better to share our joys, sorrows, and frustrations with others. It's not affirmation, just getting it out there. I've heard people tell others to "scream into your pillow" when they're upset. I'm here to tell you that screaming into your pillow is a cop out. stand on the roof and let it howl.
 
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :
 
Zach, There are multiple threads on this boat that don't interest me.
I don't get tat, I rarely drink gin and I have studied just enough of the bible to realise I know bugger all.

So I choose not to participate.

Why is a hell thread any different?
If you have no interest in the topic, or feel it is of no value to you, simply pass it by.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
no one has to listen, read, respond, nothing. they aren't imposing it on anyone other than the hosts.
Why this is so hard for some folks to absorb I will never understand.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Oh brother, the "You're just making the thread about yourself" line. [Roll Eyes]
Zach, any time we post we're drawing the attention over to ourselves, one way or another. It's up to us how we use that. if it's a judgy little "wow, this sucks" then that attention grab is pretty pointless and makes the poster look like an attention whore with nothing useful to contribute.

But if we post something that contributes to the discussion or rant or whatever, we're still grabbing a moment of the spotlight but we're actually contributing content - perhaps furthering the discussion, offering another POV, commiserating, disputing the premise, whatever. it's about giving to the conversation, rather than taking.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Y'know why this "You're making this thread about you" rubbish needs to stop? Because every single time we post in every single thread we are posting what we think and feel. Every single thread is, to a certain extent, about the people involved. Every single conversation is about the people who are talking.

Never ONCE have I see that line applied to someone who barges into a thread to talk about their personal problems. It has ALWAYS been in situations where people just don't feel like talking to the person involved.

quote:
Agree? certainly not. challenge the content? if you have something to challenge, go for it. the only thing better than a rant is a good scrap. Judging the value of the content? get a life.
Double standard still. You affirm every single tantrum on any old whim, but contempt for those tantrums have to be solid and reasonable?

quote:
the beauty of the Ship is that we have a safe place for that.
Ah, we should put that in the ship description. "Why get a blog when you can come to the ship to scream like a little girl because someone said something kinda mean to you the other day?"


quote:
Why is a hell thread any different?
If you have no interest in the topic, or feel it is of no value to you, simply pass it by.
Oh, I don't say hell calls are lame because I lack interest. I say they are lame because I think most of them could have been easily gotten over like a grown up.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Oh, I don't say hell calls are lame because I lack interest. I say they are lame because I think most of them could have been easily gotten over like a grown up.
So what? If they bother you so much, why do you even read them? If you're so grown up, move on!
 
Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Oh, I don't say hell calls are lame because I lack interest. I say they are lame because I think most of them could have been easily gotten over like a grown up.
Your last sentence I like. It engages the poster. It is not dismissive of their thoughts or existence. Here you are engaging with them in disagreement. They then have the right to rebuttal. I see a big difference.

I will bow out of this tangent here, but will read and digest any further replies.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
So what? If they bother you so much, why do you even read them? If you're so grown up, move on!
"Temper tantrums are ridiculous" is not an indictment of getting angry, it's about overreacting to minor things. This objection would only apply if one went far past "Grow up" to a 4 paragraph essay on how pointless and uninteresting it all was.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Agree? certainly not. challenge the content? if you have something to challenge, go for it. the only thing better than a rant is a good scrap. Judging the value of the content? get a life.
Double standard still. You affirm every single tantrum on any old whim, but contempt for those tantrums have to be solid and reasonable?
never once did I say it has to be solid and responsible - just that if it isn't, you'll look like a douche. fine with me. look like a douche if that's what you want. I'm just saying that it says volumes about you and nothing about the OPer.

quote:
quote:
the beauty of the Ship is that we have a safe place for that.
Ah, we should put that in the ship description. "Why get a blog when you can come to the ship to scream like a little girl because someone said something kinda mean to you the other day?"
If you like. So what? it ain't up to you.


quote:
quote:
Why is a hell thread any different?
If you have no interest in the topic, or feel it is of no value to you, simply pass it by.
Oh, I don't say hell calls are lame because I lack interest. I say they are lame because I think most of them could have been easily gotten over like a grown up.
so yay, don't read 'em.

There is a whole lot on this ship that makes my eyes cross. I don't jump down in Eccles and shout, "who gives a damn what color socks you wear during Epiphany?" It ain't my thing, so I butt the fuck out. I respect that other people do care, and I leave them to it. Hell, every time I accidentally click on the Mornington Crescent thread I begin to wonder if it's a bunch of loons speaking in code. Double that for any mention of cricket. it ain't my bag. I just don't have two cares to rub together about it. so I brace myself, flex my clicker finger, exhale, and move on.

You think people who find a safe and healthy way to express anger, rage, bitterness, and all those other things we're supposed to pretend real adults don't feel are wrong? Good for you. We disagree. It's been known to happen before, disagreement. I'm okay with it. I think you're wrong, you think I'm wrong, and the sun will still come up in Barrow sometime in January. Whoopty-do.
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Oh, I don't say hell calls are lame because I lack interest. I say they are lame because I think most of them could have been easily gotten over like a grown up.
So what? If they bother you so much, why do you even read them? If you're so grown up, move on!
It's that whole residue of "Hell is a proving ground!" I was talking about.

It's not. Some people might still think it is, but it's not. If the vibe in there is getting extra ugly, detox from it for a while. Ain't no shame.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
"Temper tantrums are ridiculous" is not an indictment of getting angry, it's about overreacting to minor things. This objection would only apply if one went far past "Grow up" to a 4 paragraph essay on how pointless and uninteresting it all was.
you know what, though? One person's minor is another person's last straw. Years ago, when I first was venturing into Hell, one of our californians (Kenwritz or RuthW, I believe) posted a solid vent about protesters blocking traffic on the freeway. I, cocksure in my world of no traffic problems, belittled their frustration and did a high and mighty rant about the first amendment and how beautiful it is to see people exercising their right to free speech. They both chewed my ass, and rightly so. What the fuck do I know about it? Apparently, traffic woes in SoCal are a much bigger deal than I imagined. Okay, fair enough.

The thing is, we're all slogging through this world and a lot of it sucks. to me, a traffic clog is a minor pain in the ass. that's because I actually get into one maybe once every 5 or 6 years. to someone who deals with it perhaps daily, it's a huge problem.

Hell, I see rants and whinges all the time on the ship that in my world would be laughable. but the flip side is that I would probably have a good solid meltdown if a political pollster called my house. we are a diverse people from all walks of life and damn near all continents. If I lose my shit one day because, say, some asswipe decidsd to come onto my property to sell something, it might look pretty lame to those of you who see that stuff a lot. Here, it's an invasion of privacy and RUDE. so suck it up and let me vent and I won't ridicule someone else who has a hissy over a 3 hour power outage.
 
Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Ain't no shame.
this this this thisthis THIS!

No shame, man. we all need to walk away sometimes. me too. me a lot, actually; I have a hair trigger on this temper of mine. I often find that if I'm reading something of someone else's and I feel my back all hunch up and I start biting my lower lip and OMG I HAVE TO FIX THEM! I ask myself, hey, is this my business at all? can my response wait an hour, a day, a year? If I go make the coffee and walk the dogs and come back, will someone more level headed have said it better?

a good portion of the time, the answer is yes. walk away. let it go. the world will not combust and you're not responsible for fixing other people's ailments.

Trust the hosts and admins to keep any errant hell threads from getting out of control and doing a hostile takeover of the UN. the rest - let it go.

ETA - I just realized this might appear to be pointed at Zach - it's not. It's meant to be general.

[ 10. November 2012, 03:19: Message edited by: comet ]
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
If I go make the coffee and walk the dogs and come back, will someone more level headed have said it better?
[Big Grin] Heh. YMMV. Coffee actually makes me kind of dangerous when I hit the boards.

"Know Thyself" is a good precept, as you say.
 
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
"Temper tantrums are ridiculous" is not an indictment of getting angry, it's about overreacting to minor things.
I don't know how we decide which things are minor. There isn't any universal scale for it.

It's not to the point whether someone else would get cranky in the same situation. Freedom of expression, whatever it means, most certainly means that people will react to situations differently, and have different things that press their buttons.
 
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
no one has to listen, read, respond, nothing. they aren't imposing it on anyone other than the hosts.
Why this is so hard for some folks to absorb I will never understand.
If they don't want to understand, they won't understand. Some folks take pride in personal obtuseness.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
As comet says, how do you know what makes someone overreact on a thread? You don't. Unless they say what has made them lose the plot. The way Hell goes, I've been part of threads when the criticism has been for the person for being such a wuss. Going back to me, and knowing this is the Styx where personal attacks are disallowed, how would a Hell thread starting:

"How dare you dismiss my experiences and knowledge of the time without even bothering to read it because it doesn't touch your self-importance. I'm raging here because I was fucking 13 when I was an inpatient at Stoke Mandeville in the 1970s and I fucking well know what it was like, you moronic imbecile."

have gone? And how many people would have criticised for revealing personal information? And how many would have told me not to hang my dirty washing out to dry on the internet?
 
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I've taken to pming callees advising them to just ignore their calls. The people I've done so with haven't often taken the advice, but sometimes it's difficult to recognize escalation in the moment.
A PM from someone who hasn't been involved in the discussion that sparked the disagreement offering that sort of advice may have the opposite effect to the one you're hoping for. [Biased]

Tubbs

[ 10. November 2012, 08:20: Message edited by: Tubbs ]
 
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :
 
For me, it's simply the difference between saying "this is lame" and "I think this is lame because XYZ". The former contributes nothing except making one look like a dismissive asshole. The latter actually contributes to the discussion.

Same goes in purg. A one-sentence dismissal or derision of someone else's point of view with no reasoning given is of no benefit to anyone.

What is incredibly apparent to me might not be so evident to everyone else. That might be a flaw in them; it might be a flaw in me. Only by discussing and listening can we ever find out which it is.
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
The answer is simple, dog-pile any dogpilers. That'l teach 'em.

Fly Safe, Pyx_e
 
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 
Always did pick you for a sadist.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


And just in case I wasn't sufficiently clear:

[Biased] [Big Grin] [Biased] [Razz] [Big Grin]
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
Agree? certainly not. challenge the content? if you have something to challenge, go for it. the only thing better than a rant is a good scrap. Judging the value of the content? get a life.
Exactly. It isn't that I think you have to enshrine or encourage any hell call, you simply need to have something worth saying. If your point is that the call is an example of overwrought emotion over Kelly's teabags then explain why. If your point is that the callee had a point and ought to be heard explain why. If your point is that there is no substance to the call except a string of expletives then say that.

But just "lame" and [Snore] communicate to me that you wanted an entertaining bit of invective. Which I think we're all agreed isn't what should be aimed for.

If your point is that hell calls are always counter-productive, then saying that on each hell thread without specifics to that call would be rather tedious after a while, but at least it would communicate more of your mindset than "lame" would.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think that a shipmate who always showed up on hell calls to express themselves in the strongest invective irrespective of the issue would be a cause for concern. I can't say I can think of anyone just now but perhaps there are some who fit that posting pattern.
I recall one or two from the past. Shipmates who've been here longer can probably remember more. On the whole, though, there were usually people perfectly willing to call them on their behaviour--not for every single incident, but often enough that someone who had been here a while would know that they had been reviled by someone who was incorrigibly bitter and taken seriously by no one. It probably wasn't particularly healthy for the Boards, and the Admins tended to watch very closely after a while and tended to tighten the leash (at least, it seemed that way observing from the outside).

I tend to keep an eye on the Hell threads, but I can't really think of anyone who is quite like that now.
I wonder if some of the communal angst about the subject comes from that time. Because hell wasn't just the containment area it is supposed to be; two things I remember being expressed over and over again were along the lines of "this is the place where we purge the Ship of the weak and unworthy" and "This is where the Alphas hang, if you don't like it, go play on one of those wimpy boards, like [insert name of any other board on the site.]" I pretty much stayed out of Hell for a couple years, just because that vibe was definitely not something I wanted to be a part of.

I certainly think things got very different pretty quickly once that dynamic was broken up-- kudos to those acting H&A's who took it on-- but maybe vestiges of the problems that arose from that dynamic still exist.
I think this is bang on. I certainly recognise this dynamic and could, with a little persuasion, be convinced that it's on the wane. I don't specifically remember the H and As breaking it up but that could be because I'm not very observant and they are very good at what they do.

However, I think a separate but related dynamic still exists which, while being less toxic, is still problematic. Upthread I called this dynamic "scientological" because I think the practice of mass verbal of abuse of certain shipmates bears similarities (on a small scale) to the Ethical Punishment of Suppressive Persons within Scientology.

These comparisons are, of course, hyperbolic. I don't think for a moment that this is in any sense official ship policy or some kind of conspiracy. I'm just offering up a somewhat playful comparison between the abusive dog-piling of longstanding shipmates branded as "shit-eating trolls" by other shipmates and the aggressive Ethical Punishment of people whom the PTB in Scientology consider to "possess a distinct set of characteristics and mental attitudes that cause him to suppress other people in his vicinity" (i.e. people who don't toe the cult party line).

[ 10. November 2012, 14:41: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
I grow weary of this. The repetition of viewpoints is no longer fruitful.

Does anyone have any new to add, with respect to actual Ship's business? And, for the record, vague preferences for unenforceable modification to human nature don't qualify.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
I often find that if I'm reading something of someone else's and I feel my back all hunch up and I start biting my lower lip and OMG I HAVE TO FIX THEM!
Yes, sometimes duty calls.

(The protesters on the freeway rant was mine! And I too have learned a lot about other parts of the world by reading about the little things that make people lose their shit.)
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Daron, it really angers me when you use something I said to compare Ship dynamics to Scientology. That is a highly inflammatory insinuation that I would never make. Dig up your own examples to make that case. I do not agree with you.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
My first thought was that "hyperbolic" is so often a euphemism for "untrue accusation that I don't care to support".

But actually I think that for anyone who sees themselves as almost certainly in the right and unfairly put-upon by the community, to have a crowd of posters all telling them that they are wrong must feel similar to being the sane person that somehow got themselves into a scientology meeting. When the crowd of wronger-than-wrong posters don't seem to be able to absorb their brief explanation of affairs, and instead become a more annoyed and emotional, then clearly we do have a scenario close to a cultish oppression of the individual.

The problem is that the difference between the scientology scenario and the community behaving in a predictable way towards an offensive and dismissive poster is very observer dependent.
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Does anyone have any new to add, with respect to actual Ship's business?
Not really except it seems to me that the bad old days in Hell which Ms Alves insists we must all get over were when you and Sarky Cow were primarily setting the tone.

Perhaps a group shaming is in order.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
I realise that this is probably a lost cause, but the research I referenced was on reintergrative shaming. Which seems to have been variously misunderstood on this thread as something akin to the stocks, or standing someone in their underpants in the town square and decrying their moral character.
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :
 
I don't know what you meant but I meant standing someone in their underpants in the town square and decrying their moral character.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
Well to be fair, if you actually managed to catch Rook and get his trousers off - I would consider decrying his moral character. If only in homage to your fortitude.
 
Posted by Loquacious beachcomber (# 8783) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
I don't know what you meant but I meant standing someone in their underpants in the town square and decrying their moral character.
For reference, see Genesis 2:25.
 
Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :
 
I think we could sell tickets at top dollar for that one.

(responding to doublethink of course.)

[ 10. November 2012, 20:35: Message edited by: Sine Nomine ]
 
Posted by Loquacious beachcomber (# 8783) on :
 
(Forgot to add a link for online Bible lookup, and missed the edit window.)
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Isn't what's being said that Hell is effective where it's used to point out issues on the Ship (or rant about external issues) - where it's re-integrative. So posts saying "You are being a total pain on that thread because ..." and someone else saying "And over here I find this unacceptable because ...", which could feel like a dogpile, but is attacking the Ship based issues.

But when Shipmates use Hell to humiliate and attack, using information from elsewhere on the Ship, personal things such as losing jobs or family breakdown and use that to attack on a Hell thread, that's counter-productive.

And it's that use of personal information as a bludgeon that I was trying to highlight above.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Daron, it really angers me when you use something I said to compare Ship dynamics to Scientology. That is a highly inflammatory insinuation that I would never make. Dig up your own examples to make that case. I do not agree with you.
Excuse me Kelly, I said the dynamic I perceive was separate but related precisely in order avoid such misunderstandings. Notwithstanding, I apologise for implicating you in what I said.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
"Temper tantrums are ridiculous" is not an indictment of getting angry, it's about overreacting to minor things.
Where by "overreact" you mean "react more strongly than I, Zach82, think they should." Because there is no universally agreed-upon list of proper reaction levels for each and every situation.
 
Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
But when Shipmates use Hell to humiliate and attack, using information from elsewhere on the Ship, personal things such as losing jobs or family breakdown and use that to attack on a Hell thread, that's counter-productive.
I think it's well-established that using information gleaned in All Saints is a complete no-no, and people have been soundly trounced for doing so. It's a bit trickier when people have posted personal stuff all over the place, including Hell.

I remember a good few years ago, a long, painful but ultimately (I thought) quite fruitful discussion in Hell about marriage breakdown where several of us disclosed some details about our personal circumstances. I don't think anybody has ever used that information against any of the posters.

More recently, I posted something in Hell about a family problem, trying to disguise the details a bit, and had some people chiding me for posting about other people's private lives, while others began pretty unpleasantly speculating about details I hadn't provided in a way that made it very tempting to put them straight by providing more detail. I learnt from that.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Yes, QLib, I think it was that thread convinced me that a personal opening thread in Hell was likely to garner as much prurient questioning for more details as criticism for being affected by things and the point of any challenge would be lost.
 
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
I grow weary of this. The repetition of viewpoints is no longer fruitful.

Does anyone have any new to add, with respect to actual Ship's business? And, for the record, vague preferences for unenforceable modification to human nature don't qualify.
Kill it, kill it with fire.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Where by "overreact" you mean "react more strongly than I, Zach82, think they should." Because there is no universally agreed-upon list of proper reaction levels for each and every situation.
Well yeah. Who else's opinions would I argue from?
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Where by "overreact" you mean "react more strongly than I, Zach82, think they should." Because there is no universally agreed-upon list of proper reaction levels for each and every situation.
Well yeah. Who else's opinions would I argue from?
So you wish to be the sole arbiter of to what and how intensely one can react to ideas and positions brought up in Hell? Evidently no one else is up to your standards for the job.
 
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Well yeah. Who else's opinions would I argue from?
You could allow yourself to be influenced by a perceived consensus from other posters?
 
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
This is one of those situations that is not going to be solved by one thread. Hopefully everyone who has participated in or read this thread has the ability to process alternate opinions, in which case we might see voluntary changes. Over time.


In the mean time, this discussion has covered enough ground. Peace be unto you all, and let life commence.


Kelly Alves
Admin
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0