Thread: Personal attack? 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=029438
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
According to Eutychus, I made a personal attack in this post. I don't see it. I was indeed critical of OliviaCA's usage of the word "misunderstanding" to describe the response she has received on that thread. That to me is a substantive point about her postings, not a personal attack.
And that OliviaCA is not acknowledging disagreement, but tries to reduce it to lacking explanations and misunderstandings, was first raised by Eliab here ("On the contrary, ...") and later affirmed by him here. I was writing "we" simply because that issue has been remarked on by someone else than me as well.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Firstly, I did not say you were "making a personal attack"; I said you were "veering into personal attack territory", which is one step down from calling you on an outright personal attack. It was a warning rather than a whistleblowing, if you like.
I formed this impression of you veering into personal attack territory from the general tone of your post, which to my mind seeks to belittle the poster rather than engage with the argument, even as they express a feeling of being "crushed".
The specific line which formed grounds for me to post a host warning was this one:
quote:
needlessly multiplying smileys
Posters' styles can often be annoying; but using them as ammunition to attack their position has habitually been construed here as attacking the person not the issue. It is strongly discouraged (outside Hell).
Finally, to this line, emphasis mine: quote:
we understand what you are saying and still think that it is wrong?
This in isolation would be acceptable, but in the context of your overall post comes across as an attempt to enlist others' tacit support, not only for your arguments, but also for the bludgeoning style in which you choose to expound them. It can be read as an invitation to dogpile. There is no excuse for that.
Your posts here speak only for you.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
I sure hope that OliviaCA was feeling crushed, but by the weight of contrary argument not by enormous misunderstanding. I do try. To call the former the latter is however dismissive. And to maintain this consistently even after this has been flagged repeatedly as unwanted is mildly insulting. And as far as bringing the heat is concerned, maybe you missed that she pretty much called all opposition to her posts as suffering from the stroop effect? Admittedly, that makes no particular sense if one knows what the stroop effect is, but what was clearly intended there is to dismiss all contrary arguments outright as a kind of congenital cognitive failure.
If my tone was getting slightly (but really only slightly) harsher, then because OliviaCA was just merrily ignoring the reasonable requests to take her opposition seriously.
Furthermore, since you appear to have overlooked the 2nd paragraph of my OP here: "we" as in "Eliab and me". See above. And I note that Eliab had this to say about the smiley parade earlier: "I think you are explaining your arguments very well (and would do so even better if you'd drop the damned smilies)."
I think feedback that less smileys would be more is not particularly insulting and serves the common good ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
(by virtue of reducing the number of pointless smileys... ). Cognitive dissonances may ensure otherwise. After all, smileys are supposed to indicate emotional states. And if someone writes disagreeable things, with a constant smile plastered on their face - then are we facing a psychopath? In the end, these smileys just create a visual disturbance that distracts from content. Not that I'm speaking against the judicious use of smileys to express intentionality, of course. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Firstly, if you feel the poster is not engaging with you intelligently, the answer is not to resort to increasing amounts of abuse in Purgatory, but to walk away or call them to Hell.
quote:
She pretty much called all opposition to her posts as suffering from the stroop effect? Admittedly, that makes no particular sense if one knows what the stroop effect is, but what was clearly intended there is to dismiss all contrary arguments outright as a kind of congenital cognitive failure.
That is not the same as veering into personal attack territory.
quote:
If my tone was getting slightly (but really only slightly) harsher, then because OliviaCA was just merrily ignoring the reasonable requests to take her opposition seriously.
See above. As a much longer-term poster, you are expected to be more familiar with the rules and why not, lead by example to foster a better board culture.
I genuinely regret that you prefer to exercise your considerable talent in point-scoring attempts in the Styx. You know better, but choose not to act accordingly. That's a waste of your skill and, I would venture, endears precisely nobody to your cause.
quote:
Furthermore, since you appear to have overlooked the 2nd paragraph of my OP here: "we" as in "Eliab and me". See above.
See above. You have completely missed my point. Assuming you can assimilate other posters into the content of your posts as you did is simply rude, and more seriously in the context of your post, can be construed as an invitation to dogpile.
quote:
"I think you are explaining your arguments very well (and would do so even better if you'd drop the damned smilies)."
Noted. Also noted: unlike you in that post, he managed to compliment as well as make a swipe. That mitigates it considerably.
quote:
I'm speaking against the judicious use of smileys to express intentionality, of course.
To be absolutely clear on this point:
If overuse of smileys (or maddening punctuation) irks you, either take it to Hell or complain to a host.
(And for my money, your frivolous use of smileys in the Styx is at your own risk, and appears to me to be an attempt to divert from the substance of my response).
[ 21. May 2015, 13:27: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by OliviaCA (# 18399) on
:
I've only just noticed this thread, and would just like to say that my reference to the Stroop Effect, and feeling it like a gale-force wind, was a description of my *own* mental state while trying to explain the "attention model of consciousness/self-experience", because it was like trying to separate the printed colour of the word from the meaning of the word itself.
It was absolutely not a comment on anyone else.
And about smileys; I use them to express a friendly smile, ie. honestly, perhaps somewhat over-enthusiastically on occasion, ( but I can be v enthusiastic ), when I am smiling, happily or apologetically or in attempting to reduce tension, ( as women tend to do far more than men in offline life too ). I do not use them to mock or gloat etc. I stopped using them, most of the time anyway, in replies to EliaB after he expressed dislike of them.
.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
tangent/
If I can put my oar in:
Back in my days as a member of the crew I was a particular fan of the fifth of our 10 Commandments.
This is a pretty robust forum, and I don't think that characteristic is going to change anytime soon.
/tangent
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I genuinely regret that you prefer to exercise your considerable talent in point-scoring attempts in the Styx.
Your hostly intervention was untimely, one-sided and inconsistent. Those are the points I'm making, and good to hear that you think I'm scoring with them.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
That's a waste of your skill and, I would venture, endears precisely nobody to your cause.
I couldn't care less about endearing anybody to my cause. As a court, Styx is decidedly kangaroo. I'm providing negative feedback, as I do when I think a H&A call against me was unjustified. What you with that feedback is your problem. Take it to heart or attach it to your IngoB voodoo doll and burn it, whatever. I do with your hostly admonitions what I always do: I knuckle under. That's after all why I am still around...
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
(And for my money, your frivolous use of smileys in the Styx is at your own risk, and appears to me to be an attempt to divert from the substance of my response).
Frivolity is in the eye of the beholder, as is irony.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Your hostly intervention was untimely, one-sided and inconsistent.
Well that is in the court of general opinion with the admins forming the final court of appeal. I don't have anything more to add for now.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
IngoB, I was about to start in conversation with OliviaC, but as you were saying what I thought more elequently, so I stayed away.
Had I been involved I would have probably PMed a Host about what I see as Crusading, seeing as Olivia C has only posted on one topic. Or do you need to post over several threads to be a crusader?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
do you need to post over several threads to be a crusader?
As far as this Purgatory host is concerned, yes. Crusading is when you run into the same person diverting whichever thread they happen to be on to talking about their pet topic.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
As a court, Styx is decidedly kangaroo.
You seem to be misunderstanding the nature of the Styx. The Styx is closer to a tennis court than a court of law, a place for people to declare "You cannot be serious!".
You know how things work around here. We don't have a hard and fast line of what is and isn't acceptable, the hosts have considerable discretion to make the calls needed to keep their boards running as they should. If you feel justified in saying "that ball was on the line!" then clearly the hosts were justified in saying you were close to the line.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
Had I been involved I would have probably PMed a Host about what I see as Crusading, seeing as Olivia C has only posted on one topic.
Accusing someone of being a crusader, troll or other form of jerk is a personal attack. If you have genuine concerns, then do please contact someone in the Crew privately. Do not post that publicly (except in Hell).
Alan
Ship of Fools Admin
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
Had I been involved I would have probably PMed a Host about what I see as Crusading, seeing as Olivia C has only posted on one topic. Or do you need to post over several threads to be a crusader?
You think she should post about multiple topics on the same thread? that makes no sense. Or you think there is a requirement for a shipmate to post on multiple threads - no noob is allowed to just post on one thread for a time (however long that time is)? That, too, makes no sense.
Or is there some other way your post could be taken that I'm missing?
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by balaam:
Had I been involved I would have probably PMed a Host about what I see as Crusading, seeing as Olivia C has only posted on one topic.
Accusing someone of being a crusader, troll or other form of jerk is a personal attack. If you have genuine concerns, then do please contact someone in the Crew privately. Do not post that publicly (except in Hell).
Alan
Ship of Fools Admin
In view of Eutychus' reply above I withdraw the accusation.
Sorry.
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on
:
For what it's worth, OliviaCA's first posts were peppered with asterisks and scare quotes. When I commented on this and requested an explanation (because I did find the excessive & unorthodox punctuation distracting), her posting style promptly changed.
Perhaps requests, made with reasonable courtesy, work better than caustic remarks. YMMV.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
You seem to be misunderstanding the nature of the Styx. The Styx is closer to a tennis court than a court of law, a place for people to declare "You cannot be serious!".
How strange that you would claim that I misunderstand Styx, while providing such a nice analogy for what I have said. And you are doing McEnroe an injustice if you believe that he didn't expect the last five seconds of that clip, including the applause from the stands.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
The Ball was Out.
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on
:
Let me suggest that it would, in fact, be extremely negligent of Eutychus to fail to give you¹ feedback of his impression of your tone veering towards the fuzzy boundary of questionable heat/light ratio.
In much the same way, as I work on autonomous vehicle systems we have the feedback loop work primarily with "you are getting close to obstacle - avoid" rather than "you have hit obstacle - call emergency responders".
Please consider taking such gentle suggestions from the Hosts as useful feedback instead of grave philosophical insult.
¹ This being the "general you", and whole post can be addressed to everyone.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
Oh grandma what big eyes you have.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Not mentioned much in recent years, as I recall. But there is a part of normal Ship ethos, under which anyone with 50 posts or less gets cut a fair bit of slack, while they are getting used to the place. When I joined, over a decade ago, somebody also advised me NOT to start a thread myself until I had found my feet; a process which in my case took a couple of hundred or so posts. I made some mistakes through inexperience, and through misreading (misunderstanding) both the guidelines and the posts of some more experienced Shipmates. I got cut some slack. It helped.
Being just back from leave, and catching up on the thread, it didn't strike me that a lot of slack was being cut. Some of that was I think understandable because of OliviaCA's responses; some of it because of very nature of the thread. The topic represented a pretty ambitious foray into cyberdiscussions here, given the lack of "feet-finding" and "testing the water". I reckon OliviaCA took a dive off a high board. That might have been brave but I'm not sure it was all that wise.
But I think this might be a good time to suggest that the "50 post rule" had value as an means of getting folks used to the community; also to reiterate the advice I got as a noob. Basically, avoid the deep end until you've paddled around a bit.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
It seems now from her last posts on the thread that she came here looking for a likeminded group to socialize with, and had no intention of talking about anything else, and wasn't interested in defending her position against argument. It looks for all the world as if she's flounced. I wonder if perhaps that thread oughtn't be closed now.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
The usage of the word "flounced" suggests a judgement of her. I disagree with MT, and there's no need to make such hurried judgements in any case. People who find the going a little difficult may pull back for a short spell. Further, she might be from one of those countries with a holiday weekend just now.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Have you read the posts, No Prophet? I appreciate not wanting to judge someone, and I will gladly retract the word "flounce." But her words weren't the words of someone taking the holiday weekend off:
quote:
I had really hoped to find some people here with whom I could explore the parallels that I have been drawing, and find so fascinating, ( because among other things they suggest that the thinkers responsible for Genesis and the Gospels understood what psychologists and neuroscientists have only just begun to in the last couple of decades ), but unless they are hiding out/on holiday or whatever it appears that there really isn't anyone else here who ... etc.
So, one last time thank you all very much, everyone who has participated in this thread, for your time and energy.
I really appreciated the discussion, but I am off now back to the Naturalists, [Smile] who, among other things, already no longer believe in free will, which I have been realising is probably a rather fundamental step in my thesis.
....
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I'm sorry you only came here to discuss one thing, and only with people who agree with you. There are so many interesting people here and we discuss so many interesting things.
Yes, I'm sure there are, but I'm only interested in discussing this one thing at the moment, ( current "special interest"/obsession ) and I wasn't looking for an argument ( more for a club/association for people into the same things, a bit like a church perhaps ). .
I would say she's not intending to return.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Oh, I think it's fine to allow others to discuss the thread topic until they get fed up with it. Even if that wasn't the real intention behind starting the thread. Or even joining the Ship.
It often seems to be part of the 'new entrant' experience that people don't really 'get' immediately what this place is about. Looking for agreement and support about a bright and shiny 'metanarrative' which happens to have taken our fancy is not a wrong thing. Seeing others dissect the 'bright shiny thing' which has attracted us is not a very comfortable learning experience. Quite unrestful, really, unless you appreciate the value of that aspect of learning.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
mousethief, note OliviaCA said "at the moment".
I think it's always good to give people an opportunity to come back, assuming they haven't been asked not to return. Otherwise our welcome is slipping.
Posted by OliviaCA (# 18399) on
:
Ref. posting my thread in Purgatory despite the proviso in the header that should be able to "stand being challenged":
I simply couldn't see anywhere else more appropriate to post it. My thread seemed to fit the majority of the sub-board's requirements, and almost none of the others. And I did stand it for quite a while.
Ref. joining Ship of Fools to "socialise with like-minds" I really don't understand what would be wrong with doing that. :? :? :? O_O
But it does seem that I completely misjudged the probable number of like-minds/people with certain similar fundamental beliefs/world-views. eg. no longer believing in free will.
And I suspect that it is that rather than my posting behaviour which is the main problem here. eg. If I had posted something that most people here agreed with, and nothing but that thread ... ...
I imagined ( I thought realistically ) finding a couple of people with similar ideas, but have found none at all, which has been rather a shock.
Even on St Pixels ( Early 2010 pre-website-upheaval and move to FB ) there was one other person who no longer believed in free will either. As a result discussions of related subjects didn't feel so much like being one lone prey set upon by a pack. Whenever one of us burned-out the other was able take up the baton.
I didn't join with "no intention of talking about anything else", I simply joined hoping that I would find someone who understood what I was on about, at least to some extent, and then, having posted my thread ...
... found myself overwhelmed by the number and length of comments to reply to, ( which took a lot of time and energy, both of which I have finite amounts of ), and ...
... on scanning other threads for relaxation ( between the effort involved in that ), I realised that any comments I posted on almost all the threads I saw would be so much waffle, filler, posting for the sake of posting. ...
I did post on the "Shoes" thread though ( as well as this one of course ). It was the only one which I connected with personally and which didn't seem likely to prevent me from dealing properly with the responses on the "Neuroscience etc" thread.
.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
OliviaCA
When all else fails, read the instructions?
Here are the Purgatory Guidelines. And here is the introduction.
quote:
Welcome to Purgatory – our serious debate and discussion space. Below are the "rules of engagement" for debating with other posters here. Follow these simple guidelines and you'll get the most out of your time in Purgatory.
The key words are debate and engagement. Getting your ideas, or the ideas of others which have convinced you, challenged - and responding to the challenge is just a normal part of the process of engagement in serious discussion. You might not find many, or any, people who agree with you on a particular topic, but you'll find they will agree with you on others.
Ship of Fools describes itself as the magazine of unrest, and so we allow, indeed we expect, serious discussion to be unrestful, challenging, disconcerting. Which is why most of our rules of engagement are about keeping that challenge and unrest within reasonable bounds. So while there is nothing wrong in starting out a discussion hoping to find some like minds, there is never a guarantee that you will find them. Most Shipmates like to argue. It's why many of us are here.
Most of us here have also had the experience of being in a very small minority in a serious discussion. That's happened to me. It's not a comfortable place. But it can be a learning place. The majority is not always right. Neither is the minority. Personally, I do my best to stand my corner, until it becomes obvious, even to me, that in fact I have painted myself into one! Then it's best to say "you got me there. I wuz wrong, I see that now".
[ 25. May 2015, 08:53: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
FWIW, and IMHO, you did nothing out of the ordinary, and have been a perfectly well-behaved n00b.
There is a convention here that 'apprentices' (those with a post-count less than 50) are cut extra slack, especially by those regulars with 4 or even 5-figure post-counts. Sometimes this is less honoured than it ought to be.
(to OliviaCA - xposted with Barnabas)
[ 25. May 2015, 08:53: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
Posted by passer (# 13329) on
:
The "fewer than 50 posts" tradition does seem to have gone, but perhaps that's because in 2015 people are far more conversant with and less afraid of, or intimidated by, doing something on the internet.
On the contrary, with the growth in awareness of what is generally known as internet trollery (with no aspersions cast or fingers being pointed or anything - just a generality) newcomers can sometimes be viewed not as noobs, but as potential troublemakers. The subheading on the directory page of "Currently ringing alarm bells" may nowadays be viewed less in jest than it was once intended.
Posted by OliviaCA (# 18399) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
When all else fails, read the instructions?
I read them, before I posted my thread.
And, as I said above, Purgatory was the board which seemed to suit my thread most; non of the other boards matched at all.
And I did stand up to quite a bit of challenging, "unrestful" stuff, until it became clear that no one ( posting on the thread, anyway, or addressing my posts as opposed to others' ), had similar starting points to me, as far as fundamental things went ( eg. no such thing as free will ).
I hadn't realised how v crucial that starting position was ( for my ideas ) until this discussion, which has been useful in that sense. Now I might start off a thread asking if there are any Naturalists on the site instead, so as to filter in just those people with that minimum of common ground.
.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaCA:
I hadn't realised how v crucial that starting position was ( for my ideas ) until this discussion, which has been useful in that sense.
You are so right, it is a good idea to work out our various starting points as many misunderstandings can come from debating with people of a totally different world view.
I have really enjoyed the thread and hope you will start others which are just as challenging and interesting.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
FWIW, I had no intentions to call OliviaCA to Styx by proxy. This thread was about me doing something sufficiently wrong (or not...) to be called on it by a Host. My own actions, which were under scrutiny, may have been motivated by OliviaCA's behaviour. But if I thought that her behaviour required "special attention" here, then I would have started a thread about that.
I do not think that OliviaCA needs to be under the microscope for posting behaviour now. I did grumble at her about smileys and not acknowledging disagreement properly. There is, I think, a space between topical posting and junior hosting wherein one is more explicit about the ropes so that the other might learn them. Whether I hit the right tone for that is a different matter (and obviously at least Eutychus thought that I didn't...). But I do not mistake the ropes for the rules, and I do not think that we have enough of a track record to talk about problematic posting patterns.
Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on
:
FWIW, I'm glad you've posted here to discuss things. I don't think anyone would disagree that Purgatory was the right place to post your thread. Like Barnabas, I've been on the receiving end of being the lone voice in a discussion. The most recent time was on Facebook. It isn't a nice place to be sometimes. However, what can feel like being ganged up on, is often in reality individuals who happen (on that particular topic), to be expressing similar arguments or ideas.
We all like to win arguments and debates - partly due to our egos, and partly because having cherished ideas and world views being undermined can be very difficult.
When I see people gracefully acknowledging or conceding a point - irrespective of who its been made by, my respect for that person always goes up.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
The "fewer than 50 posts" tradition does seem to have gone, but perhaps that's because in 2015 people are far more conversant with and less afraid of, or intimidated by, doing something on the internet.
On the contrary, with the growth in awareness of what is generally known as internet trollery (with no aspersions cast or fingers being pointed or anything - just a generality) newcomers can sometimes be viewed not as noobs, but as potential troublemakers. The subheading on the directory page of "Currently ringing alarm bells" may nowadays be viewed less in jest than it was once intended.
The fewer than 50 posts line may have been gone in 2010, I'd suggest. Which was my year to join. The ship is sometimes welcoming and sometimes not.
I think the differences between this forum and generally doing things in the 'net are that there is serious debate and the forum is open. Most open forums are not for serious discussion.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
mousethief, note OliviaCA said "at the moment".
I think it's always good to give people an opportunity to come back, assuming they haven't been asked not to return. Otherwise our welcome is slipping.
I'm not sure how you could NOT give someone an opportunity to come back. Ban them and prevent their re-registering? Seems awfully harsh for someone who hasn't broken any rules. What are you talking about, exactly? When have I or anybody else on this thread suggested that we don't give OliviaCA or anybody else the opportunity to come back?
And it looks like she hasn't left us yet, and I was wrong about that. For which I am glad. I will point out, if I may, that it was I who asked her to stick around and talk about other stuff as well. It should go without saying (and does, for all but the most obtuse, you know who you are) that I would like to see this happen.
As for myself, I would like to disbelieve in free will, but I don't feel I have a choice in the matter.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
If it was me, reading quote:
I would say she's not intending to return
would not encorage me to do so, except if particularly thrawn.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
If it was me, reading quote:
I would say she's not intending to return
would not encorage me to do so, except if particularly thrawn.
Would not encourage is not the same as not give an opportunity. Way to move the goalposts.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
The second part of the original post you objected to on my part was not directed at you personally. Pax.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0