Dealing with Flamers

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Sep 01 - 02:09 PM

A fish trap?

You are all fish in a barrel.

Will you learn?

(No)

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: GUEST, A Member, being Anon.
Date: 30 Sep 01 - 01:52 PM

Right, sorry for falling into the trap

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: Joe Offer
Date: 10 Sep 01 - 08:03 PM

Well, there's some flaming in it, Norton - but it didn't start out as a flame thread. Ideally, everybody should just know not to respond to flamers, talk about them, or acknowledge them. Trouble is, how do you get that message out unless you talk about it?
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 10 Sep 01 - 05:57 PM

Is this a Flame Thread? And should I be posting to it? Choices - oh the struggle -

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Sep 01 - 03:50 PM

That happens to all of us at some point or another.

And I'd forgo the surgery if I were you. If you can't keep your tongue in your cheek, where can you keep it, eh?

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: Wyrd Sister
Date: 10 Sep 01 - 02:50 PM

Aaargh! Mea Culpa! Over-touchiness I never knew I had!

My Lord Pratchett has something about the Patrician "getting sarcastic, and might even employ irony" but can I hell as find it when I want it.

Heigh ho. One day I'll look at getting my tongue surgically removed from my cheek.

In (potential) friendship

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Sep 01 - 06:45 PM

Take a moment and imagine what it would be like to live in a metropolitan community with no stop signs, no stop lights, no sidewalks, no police, no jails or holding cells, no enforced rules and no consequences for any actions. Justa Picker up above.

Well, the thing is (at this point in history anyway - the technology advances at a frightening rate) there's no physical contact here on the Mudcat, noone gets run over or stabbed or mugged or whatever. If they are sensitive they can get their feelings hurt, and I don't underestimate that.

But, if the only damage from having nine of those things that Justa Picker mentioned in real towns and cities was hurt feelings, I personally would be happy to do without those things. (Apart from consequences for actions maybe.)

As I said earlier, the irritation when miscreants (good word) sneak up and mess things up is the price we pay for the good stuff. Fencing us in with a load of well intentioned protective apparatus would be too high a price to avoid that irritation. A bit like using a blowtorch to get rid of fleas.

And one thing that still puzzles me - the assumption that the intentions of the person who starts a thread are any more significant than those of anyone else. So far as I can see, it doesn't matter if the motive of the person starting a thread is to stir things up, we don't need to get stirred up, even if we decide that the topic raised is one where we feel we have something to say. Though in practice it's probably a better idea to leave it alone, ands start another thread later, because that way there is a better chance that people whose opinions you'd value might be likely to respond.

(And I still find it strange how you get people who make a great song and dance about how they don't like non music threads waste their time posting to non-music threads, such as this one.)

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Sep 01 - 04:57 PM

Sorry Wyrd Sister.

My post was not directed at you. It was a general post for anyone who likes to use the forum as a place to dump negative emotions.

However, re: sarcasm... by definition, sarcasm is a form of aggression. Not as overt as anger, but my dictionary defines sarcasm as being "designed to cut or give pain". Sarcasm shouldn't be confused with irony or facetiousness, which are defined differently.

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: Wyrd Sister
Date: 09 Sep 01 - 04:49 PM

Oh-oh Is this how it starts? You see, my point is that anger and sarcasm to me are two definitely distinct entities, never used in conjunction. Just the opposite in fact. And I have NEVER peed in a swimming pool!

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Sep 01 - 01:23 PM

...and one might say, "Just avoid the ones that you don't like". But I say, when anger starts to spread around here, sometimes it's impossible to avoid.

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Sep 01 - 01:15 PM

Ok. I've been thinking about this one for a bit.

This is how my posts might look if I'm feeling somewhat annoyed. (I don't get genuinely angry very often.)

Re: Anger, sarcasm, and whether or not people ought to be injecting that sort of thing into the forum...

Sometimes it feels good to pee in the pool, too. Do you like swimming in other people's pee? This forum is a bit like a public swimming pool. Maybe a lot of people don't enjoy having to contend with other peoples waste products in this public place.

Rant off.

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: Wyrd Sister
Date: 09 Sep 01 - 12:50 PM

thanks to DMcG 08-Sep-01 - 12:53 PM As a "newbie" I'm still learning what's what & was feeling embarassed (not feeling guilty tho) that I'd added to a thread which it appears is just 'not on'. You'll see I made the same suggestion regarding re-naming. Not sure who did it first cos I didn't read this thread til today, but happy about the synchronicity.(Am I allowed to say that on a Sunday?) And I sympathise with catspaw about the sarcasm. I was brought up, as my children by default have been too, having ding-dong slanging matches within a framework of great love and respect. No, I'm not suggesting we should love and respect troublemakers, just reinforcing one man's insult is another's friendly riposte...

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: wysiwyg
Date: 09 Sep 01 - 12:42 AM

In my little fantasy world, there are THREE clickies in every post by a member. One of course does a Usersearch. Another takes you to whatever info they have decided to make public as a profile (not necessarily everything they registered with.)

The third one takes you straight to composing a PM from you to them, with the URL of the post that caused you to click to their personal page, optional as a subject line. If there was a technical alternative that made PM's as fast as thread posting, it would make a big difference.

~Susan

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: Jeri
Date: 08 Sep 01 - 10:44 PM

Jon and Peg, yeah. The forum isn't going to be moderated - Max has said a few times. I think the only moderation that can be done is each of us moderating ourselves. Either we'll learn to do that (a new trick), or we'll just continue the same repetitive, pointless arguments.

(Is "continue the same repetitive" overly redundant?)

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: GUEST,Katspawlaughing666
Date: 08 Sep 01 - 10:34 PM

Ah, I claim the honor of message #100 in this thread.

You "members" can all vow to in this thread to ignore the flamers. For a week or so, you may even do that (although I'm sure total idiots like Clinton Hammond and Lepus Rex won't last that long). But sure as Spaw scratches his balls every morning while Susan prays for his soul, pretty soon you'll all be back to business as usual insulting the "guests" and getting into flame wars.

And sure as Big Mick will still be working on learning that D chord, Joe Offer will be tearing the last of his hair out because you Muddies can't control yourselves.

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: Peg
Date: 08 Sep 01 - 09:47 PM

good comments, Jon.

Especially your illuminating of the fact that Joe, Max and Jeff expect us to act like adults...who don't need Mommy and Daddy to tell them how to behave, or the police to arrest them when they do so...

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 08 Sep 01 - 07:16 PM

Peg, behaviour, sure we all have our different standards and some like me can't always behave as we believe we should. I'm baised of course but even though perhaps they shouldn't happen, the odd angry post is going to slip out and I don't see any long term harm in that.

Where I see things going wrong here is rather that people letting one another battle it out or perhaps a rational general call for calm, round here we tend to get the "how dare you say that to him", "well he said that...", they often involve side taking etc. and we create our own flame wars.

The other problem which IMO is the biggest round here is the troll who's sole aim is to start some form of flame war and that is where many of us bite too easily. I can't help feeling many of us could do better at recognising that type of post and ignoring it.

Of course, our judgements vary and what one person sees as a troll, another may see as a good topic and rational discussion may happen. It really is something we all have to play by ear but I think the golden rule when considering whether someone is trolling or not is "if in doubt, stay out" - protesting will do no good.

Coming back to your other point, registration is common in internet forums, that is true but the fact remains that many places do operate successfully without any registration procedures. There are other factors in this though that may not have been considered. Here are a few:

Some groups or organisations already have an existing Membership and want to keep within their established ways. An example of that is the Annexe I started. It is a facility I made for the use of members of the Mudcat forum - I couldn't hope to keep it that way if there wasn't a registration.

People starting forums may be unused to the Internet community and be too scared to try open formats as they have heard about all the nasty people (not saying they don't exist) and are too scared to try more open formats.

Some people who start forums are little more than control freaks who don't want to see opinions that differ from theirs or views expressed in ways that they don't approve of. It might lead to a nice friendly forum but it also leads to nothing but a bunch of sycophants posting. On that one, all I can say is thank God (or whatever) we have Max here.

Not everone has the ability or desire to design thier own forum and there are other aspects such as cost and what can be run where to consider. In these cases, I would presume the organisers are generally making the best of what they can find/afford. e.g The best (IMO) free ASP based forum I could find for my purposes hapened to have a member only feature but being able to code, I would have re-worked it if it hadn't - not everyone can do that.

I believe the most difficult situation for a site admin to deal with is the Mudcat type of situation where a minimuim level of censorhip is applied, e.g. where individuals are threatend but the forum is kept open, largely asking people to police themselves. Unwillingness to take this on is likely to be a big reason for forums to go other ways in spite of loss of posters and content.

There are of course inconsistencies here (and I don't agree with every descision made here) but overall, I believe Joe, Jeff and Max do a great job in trying to play this minimal role.

Much of these rounds of troubles and long debates have, I believe to do with the responses and attitudes of regulars (not to say there may not be reason for annoyance in some instances). I would suggest that Mudcat can be special and a place that really does open its arms to others (whether they join or not) if we make that special effort and try to follow Joe's suggestion.

Jon

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: John P
Date: 08 Sep 01 - 07:05 PM

Imagine the Mudcat as a local folk club in the real world. If a person who is a member, and whom we all know, starts acting like a jerk, we would tell them to stop being a jerk, but would put up with them. They are a friend or an acquaintance and we all know that normally nice people can lose control sometimes. It usually means that they are under some kind of stress and we make offers of help or support. A member who is a jerk all the time would get ignored, and, if it gets bad enough, asked to leave. But a complete stranger who shows up at the folk club, starts insulting people and refuses to give their name would be shown the door in short order. A stranger who shows up, says "hi", introduces themselves, joins the conversation, and sings a song would be welcomed and encouraged to join the club.

What I'm trying to say is that I don't mind occasional flames from regulars at Mudcat, if those people are normally not flaming. I hate the anonymous guests that only come by to stir up trouble, like the one with the racist thread and the one who castigated Joe for not deleting the racist thread. If we met these people in real life we would ignore them and maybe even cross the street to avoid them. They deserve the same respect as an obscene phone caller. I would have no problem with Joe deleting their threads immediately. I would have a problem with threads from members being deleted, even if they are flames or trolls. A member who does nothing but flame or troll could eventually be shown the door, after due consideration.

I know no one wants to hear more about stalking, but as a person who was stalked on the newsgroups for a number of years, I have acquired a strong distaste for anonymous people with strong opinions voiced in harsh language. Delete them, please.

John Peekstok

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: gnu
Date: 08 Sep 01 - 05:26 PM

Amos said ... Joe Offer and Jeff and Max are excellent people and marshals-elect and I will support their decisions because I have grown to trust them.

As I understand it, the decision has been not to interfere, for the most part (obviously, sometimes interference is not only warranted but, actually required by mannerly, rational people), and that is the worst reason to trust any interference. Of course, their interference is entirely up to them. However, if they did compromise the status quo, Mudcat, as we know it, would die a sudden death, if only philosophically.

Alternatively, I suggest that we "trust" Max et al, including the "regulars", because we adhere to the ideals that Max et al set forth... watch your own mouth.

I was just in a pub where someone didn't comply to good manners. It's a nice, small pub with a lot of regulars. This "gentleman" suddenly found himself seated beside a half dozen regulars who, more or less, ignored him and made him feel uncomfortable (read "scared shitless"). He left. Same as the 'Cat... majority rules. But, for the bouncer to start throwing people out ??? You don't really want that, do you ?

I know I don't. I'm a Bodhran player and I need a drink. Fireball Whiskey shooter, please... I feel a dirge coming on... is it OK with YOU if I sing a dirge ? OOOOhhhh, ye mourners allllll, as you pass byyyy...

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: Peg
Date: 08 Sep 01 - 03:12 PM

Jon Freeman;

yes I had thought of that. It seems to depend on everyone's assessment of the situation: i.e. whether the loss of posts is more significant than the irritation of anonymous flamers. I can see why you would regret the loss of musical content, as I would...except registration really IS an accepted part of internet usage now and maybe that is the sacrifice (of privacy and convenience) we all must acknowledge.

Of course I also agree the best solution is for everyone to just, oh, behave! Sadly we all have different definitions of that, too!

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: catspaw49
Date: 08 Sep 01 - 02:57 PM

LMAO!!!!!!!!!

If it looks as though we are descending into Troll Hell, I get off the elevator.

You really come off with some great lines 'Dough!!!

"Troll Hell"......LOL

Spaw

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: Sourdough
Date: 08 Sep 01 - 02:21 PM

Boring is the word.

As our anonymous saddle burr tells us, it is too easy to get us riled up. After all, rightous indignation does feel so good.

I no longer look at the threads that seem to be provocative, that way I avoid getting dragged into them. If I see a thread started by an anonymous poster, I read a couple of posts (if they are interesting). If it looks as though we are descending into Troll Hell, I get off the elevator. If someone I know (a non-anonymous poster whom I have come to know through his or her posts, tells me that a Troll Thread has tuned into something interesting, then I'll check it out.

Sourdough

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: catspaw49
Date: 08 Sep 01 - 01:21 PM

Jeri said:

I'm sitting here very calmly typing, and others seem to envision me in their mind's eye red-faced, raving and foaming at the mouth. I can't remember the last time I got like that, but I think it involved my mother trying to spoon feed me creamed asparagus.

Yep........And that's one of the things that I think about too. Fact is I am doing the same as Jeri and I LIKE capping on someone, playing the dozens, sarcastic humor........It may not be in good taste, but frankly, I just like it.....I grew up with it. I get messages saying, "I hope you're not too upset".......I'm hardly ever upset, I just enjoy the "style."

AND THAT is what makes it so hard not to respond. Fact is though, not responding is the only thing proven to work. The other fact is that I seriously doubt that this joint can pull it off. On THIS THREAD it proves the troll/flame point that getting a rise around here is like shooting fish in a barrel. Maybe it's time we go JP's route. Maybe it's not..........I don't care one way or the other, but the whole thing is getting boring as hell.

Spaw

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: wysiwyg
Date: 08 Sep 01 - 01:10 PM

IMO, FWIW, YMMV, usual disclaimers....

Another set of guidelines proven over time is this-- simplified-- if you have an issue with a brother, you go to the brother privately and try to resolve the problem. If the brother will not help resolve the issue, you go again, privately, with someone wiser along to help resolve it. If the brother will still not resolve it, you take it to the wider group.

These work well with what CarolC has described. They work especially well over time with a group that has an intention of BEING a group. (Not all Mudcatters would agree that there is a group, I am sure.)

The Mudcat application would be, PM first, and if that does not work, e-mail with someone else now in on the dialog, and if that does not work, then maybe take it to the group and say your piece in a thread.

It's partly due to Max's fast design that we fall into these problems-- our threads are SO EASY to use, we often go to them FIRST when we get riled up. (I just did, above, with my post to Amos. It IS hard to remember.)

Does it follow logically that if someone is NOT a member, we go to the public route? No... we can offer e-mail. I have, and have had good discussions. (*G* You know who you are!)

But it means that if one cannot PM or e-mail, it is possible that one will NOT be able to resolve the issue, and that the public attempt to do it will cause unanticipated upsets that then need resolution... cascading upsets like open Windows screens gone cattywampus on auto-open! It is possible that the best course is to not attempt to do so if the public means is the only means available. If you try it in a thread and it only creates more upset-- then that's a signal that the open forum may not be the best place to have what might actually have worked in a private conversation.

~Susan

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Sep 01 - 12:59 PM

I don't know whether or not anyone is construing my input in my post about non-inflamatory communication as being PC. But in case anyone is, the things I mentioned are hardly that.

They are just some considerations that have been found to be effective in helping communication take place somewhat more harmoniously than what might otherwise be the case. I offer them as only that... things to consider. Or not.

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Sep 01 - 12:53 PM

One more suggestion on dealing with flamers. The 'racist and Gay Morris' thread has altered into a more interesting discussion. This gave me a minor dilemma on whether to continue the new discussion while not wanting to encourage the flame.

It would be useful to preserve this part of the thread, even if the rest were to be wiped. Is that possible? Renaming the thread without altering the contents might also be useful in this case, even though a new reader might find the starting entries a bit surprising!

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: Jeri
Date: 08 Sep 01 - 12:41 PM

A problem for me is sometimes I like a good argument. It's when it becomes pointless (often circular), illogical or abusive (and it's just my definition of these things) that I bugger off. Sometimes I bugger off because other people get upset at the fact the argument is taking place at all, but I don't know that I should. I'm sitting here very calmly typing, and others seem to envision me in their mind's eye red-faced, raving and foaming at the mouth. I can't remember the last time I got like that, but I think it involved my mother trying to spoon feed me creamed asparagus.

As far as wanting people to tone down their anger into something bland and PC, sorry, but I'd rather have some clue as to if they actually are foaming at the mouth! The only thing we have to communicate with here is words.

I also don't trust people who feel like they have to hide their anger with me or mince words. I don't like the disruption that a display of passion will cause, but it's not the same thing as wanting the passion to go away. We wouldn't get so angry if we didn't care, and we care intensly about a lot of things both good and bad. We express that passion. Maybe that's one big reason why we sing.

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: wysiwyg
Date: 08 Sep 01 - 12:33 PM

if they get out of hand, well, we can flame THEM!

Amos, I hope you were kidding. While you were out of town, that is exactly what happened, but not via open, name-attached posts. Anonymous mess.

~S~

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: Amos
Date: 08 Sep 01 - 12:08 PM

I must say I admire the altruistic frankness from gargoyle, considering that at one time he was the entire embodiment of the "Flames on the Cat" problem.

For my part, I aspire to learning better ways of handling these things and agree wholly with the general principle of not encouraging assholes. But I do need to add that as a human being I wish to completely reserve my right to say what I thinkl when and where I wish so to do, and that I will of course exercise my very best communication skills in so doing.

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. I am more than willing to accept Jeff and Joe and Max as vigilantes, and if they get out of hand, well, we can flame THEM!! Better than deciding to constrain and filter all our communications through the problematic mesh of political and psychological correctitude. I do not want standards of correct communication enforced on me not because I wish to flame, but because I wish to reserve the right to do so when in my own judgement I have something to say in that mode. But I will always sign what I write and make it real clear where it is coming from.

Joe Offer and Jeff and Max are excellent people and marshals-elect and I will support their decisions because I have grown to trust them. I think it unwise, however, to agree to any permanent constraints on the right to communicate.

Of course, some kinds of shit are not really communication, as garg so adroitly points out!

A

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: Jon Freeman
Date: 08 Sep 01 - 11:26 AM

Peg, membership only options have been mentioned here and elsewhere. The question that remains unanswered is what the loss would be in terms of useful music related guest posts (and there are many) if such a system was adopted here.

My feeling remains that the losses would far outweigh the annoyances we get with an open system and that most, if not all of these annoyances can be dealt with (and are elsewhere) simply by ignoring posts and threads we don't like.

Jon

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: Peg
Date: 08 Sep 01 - 11:13 AM

Many message boards require "registration" before you can post; that is, you must choose a screenname and add a bit of information (usually your email address, full name, and city of origin at minimum). Having that sort of requirement here would at least remove the guessing game of which and how many "GUESTS" are causing trouble...and force Mudcatter regulars to be more forthcoming and upfront with their opinions instead of using the GUEST handle to hide behind. This would not help those who post as "GUEST" to get help with a sensitive issue like infidelity or incontinence, but such posts probably do not belong on this forum, anyway.

Oh, and while i don;t know as i would want to sit down and discuss politics with him, I think Jack the sailor has made some excellent points re: what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Sep 01 - 05:42 AM

hahahaha...

Sure gnu. Send 'em on over. ;-)

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: gnu
Date: 08 Sep 01 - 05:27 AM

CarolC... can I send you my posts for editing prior to posting ? Those examples show true tact and wisdom which I could never achieve. I sometimes lapse into my more coarse side and exhibit foul behaviour and language, regretting it a milisecond after hitting submit. Then again, I yam what I yam and I make no apologies for that. Just don't take me seriously, unless I'm serious, of course.

Flamers ? Some of them are fun, like the Eminem thread. Some of them could be flushed, but I wouldn't want to have the responsibilty of deciding... I didn't think Eminem was a flame, just someone who wandered into the wrong pub and ordered the wrong drink.

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 08 Sep 01 - 12:28 AM

OK...Mr. JOE.....

You have got it...By Jove...You've really got it!!!

Spinning through the past week...some...WRETCHEDLY HORID POSTS post appeared....each more reprehensible than the next.

Cut it!

BKill It !!!

Let its "life" be short!!!

The ONLY one that knows it "DIED" is the poster

You are learning....there are some pieces of "sh----t" that ONLY deserve to be "flushed down the toilet" FOREVER!!!!......don't live them "live" on the site for even a "Google-Go-Bot" to "cache" them.

The world has changed sooner than even I expected!

Awaken Brave New World!

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Sep 01 - 11:57 PM

While a member here at the Mudcat, I've been in an unusual situation of recieving training in psychotherapy and counseling at the same time. So, along with being a participant, I've also been an observer. I've been watching the behavioral dynamics at play here, and I see a lot of areas where (in my opinion) commonly accepted dynamics of relationship and family counseling apply and could be used with success.

One of the important goals of relationship and family counseling is to promote harmony between members of the family, couple, or group.

In order to do this, one of the things that needs to be looked at is what behaviors being engaged in are contributing to disharmony. I look at flaming as being a form of behavior that contributes to disharmony.

I can see that there isn't much consensus on what constitutes 'flaming'. To me, flaming is any behavior that generates, contributes to, increases, or escalates tension, bad feelings, or anger, and that stimulates responses that are not harmonious in nature. By harmonious, I don't mean that people should agree all the time, but that it is possible to disagree without escalating tension and disharmony.

I think it is possible to communicate with others here, and to state opinions here in a way that is not inflamatory (in a way that doesn't increase tension and disharmony).

Some very important guidelines for increasing harmony and decreasing disharmony that are commonly found in relationship and group counseling contexts are:

Use "I" messages, rather than "You" messages...

"I appreciate it when people show consideration for others in the forum."

--rather than--

"You're rude and obnoxious."

The use of adjectives can often have the effect of escalating bad feelings...

"Trolls are people who use the internet to satisfy emotional needs at the expense of others who use the internet."

--as opposed to--

"Trolls are assholes."

Making value judgements rather than looking at behaviors from the perspective of what works and what doesn't seems to have the effect of escalating tension and bad feelings...

"Trolling and flaming behavior creates problems for the people who are responsible for this forum. We can contribute to the smooth functioning of this forum if we avoid engaging in it."

--rather than--

"Trolls and flamers are bad people."

These points are generic in nature, and are not directed at any particular indivuals or their behavior. They are accepted practices used in many contexts in which the goal is the promotion of harmony, and creating a more effective social dynamic within and between individuals and groups of people.

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: wysiwyg
Date: 07 Sep 01 - 11:23 PM

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 07 Sep 01 - 11:11 PM

Flippin "A" Susan....M.H.I.P....give me a break!!!!

The only reason TROLLS ..... MUST be allowed "membership" is so the "battles and flames" take place in PRIVATE...and NOT...within a public discussion board....

As it is.....I can ONLY contact the "giggling-kitty" through the forum...and its the only way she can contact ME...."denial of service" demands that TROLLS make public postings.

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: Oversoul
Date: 07 Sep 01 - 10:27 PM

I used to "flame" here quite a bit. I know now that I was transposing my hatred for the local "folkies" in my community, to this site. I never used a "guest" identity, however. I don't care if my posts are ignored either. Taking good advice, I stay out of threads which will piss me off.

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Sep 01 - 07:37 PM

I know of one chat room where you can read all day, but you can't post without choosing a name...then when you DO, there is a box beside the name which allows other posters to check it and no longer see posts from that name. ....of course, Mudcat is really a 'forum', not a running chat room like the other place...(in a chat room, you see all posts on any subject in order, much like the 'messages since last visit' feature here), so that technology might be trickier here...but wow, what a wish!...Imagine trolls & flamers busily typing away and no one even seeing them!

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: Justa Picker
Date: 07 Sep 01 - 07:03 PM

Anyone ever had the misfortune of driving in a downtown core of a major city, when there was a massive power failure due to a power grid overloading, and all the traffic lights were out?

If not...well take a moment and imagine what it would be like to live in a metropolitan community with no stop signs, no stop lights, no sidewalks, no police, no jails or holding cells, no enforced rules and no consequences for any actions.

Nuff said.

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: Morticia
Date: 07 Sep 01 - 06:46 PM

Shenandoah, may I state for the record that I was not the person that asked to have that thread pulled, but I was relieved.
You didn't see anything offensive in it, well, okay but how about if that was your sister, mother, daughter that was being discussed in those terms?Would you find it offensive then?
Having a swipe at me for opinions held or views aired is legitimate in my book, this is a public forum, I expect as much... but making salacious comments based purely on my or anyone else's physical appearance isn't appropriate or flattering,just creepy.

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: GUEST, Dan
Date: 07 Sep 01 - 06:06 PM

Even though I am a Guest, I will contribute two cents instead of working. I will do this because you have an excellent site here and I hate to see the HARD work of the site maintainers be so frustrating with these growing pains.

I am an "insider" in a different internet community, and we do much the same as the insiders here do. (The lamest crap is praised, only because of its origin; outside provocateurs stir up our primitive tribalistic instincts.) Because the layout for the interactions is entirely different, though, there is a different dynamic. A guest who gets "the treatment" (not guaranteed, but often enough; more than here) has two obvious choices: sink or swim (flight or fight.) Vandals flame out in short order. Then it's done. Gang mentality for internet nerds? Pathetically, yes, I think that's what it is.

Without being too long-winded (I couldn't state it as well as Shenandoah), my bottom line advice to Joe Offer is: step back and objectively apply chaos theory to the management. You cannot control people's behavior. There will be vandal flamers, and there will be knee jerk responses, just as there will be all those other interesting social phenomona. There will be people who stir up the pot with admirable intentions. This thread provides vivid proof that people are offended by different things and could never agree on applying the definition of a flame to any one item.

I don't know the technology, but if I were you, and could do it: I would change it so that the top threads don't consist of the most recent posts, but with the threads that have had the most posts in the past x hours. I think that would go a long way in solving your problems here.

Dan

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: Big Mick
Date: 07 Sep 01 - 04:32 PM

First off, I am not at crossed swords with Jack the Sailor.

If you want to know where I was coming from, SharonA and Jeri hit it on the head. The posting came from two places. The first was that I was pissed off to see people for whom I have respect fall into the trap laid by these miscreants. Name calling??? Nope. "Miscreant" is defined in the Funk & Wagnall's Standard Dictionary as " n. An unscrupulous wretch, evildoer. --adj. Villainous; vile." I think my description is spot on. These folks are even worse than earlier incarnations of flamers, such as Gargoyle. At least Greg/Gargoyle and others had as their intent to improve the Mudcat. While I disagreed then and now with trying to make this place over, I respect that their intent was to improve or save Mudcat. But these people, with racist and inflammatory postings, could care less about this place. Their motive is selfish and sick. They do it because they can. They do it for perverse pleasure. Or they do it because they have issues with any structure. Whatever the reason, they could care less if this place survives in any form. As long as they can get their "kicks" by getting a response they go about their twisted way. This truly does "disgust" me and I don't apologize for that. And most Mudcatters know this, and yet post anyway. That "disgusts" me as well, and I don't apologize for that either. One of Funk & Wagnall's definitions for "fool" is "a person lacking understanding, judgement, or common sense". An "ass" is defined as "a stupid person, fool". Both appropriate here.

I remember when the debate was whether or not there should be any discussion that wasn't strictly about music. My opinion then and now, is that this isn't strictly a music site. It is about music, AND the issues that spawn it, AND the people who make it. It is a community of performers, fans, devotees, just plain folks with music as the glue. I didn't mind the debate over that. But to waste space debating about miscreants whose purpose has nothing to do with the direction of The Mudcat, and everything to do with selfserving posts designed to help them get their jollies is IMHO disgusting. And I don't care who knows it.

And Jack..............as far as me being "amusing and interesting".........I think you are cute, too......................LOL.

Mick

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: MMario
Date: 07 Sep 01 - 04:18 PM

Part of the problem is the volume - many forums if you display 100 messages you are back several MONTHS. At the mudcat - that could easily be a few hours.

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Sep 01 - 03:48 PM

I agree Jack the Sailor, and I'm a guest who has been on the receiving end of the abuse, simply because I choose to post anonymously, and sometimes contribute in controversial threads.

The double standard (one for member/regulars another for guests) is a problem which, as Shenandoah points out, is resulting in problem members's abuse and vitriol being tolerated and often rewarded (especially when so many mindlessly follow the lead).

Abusive language towards anonymous guests in particular is sanctioned not just by the Mudcat membership, but by Joe Clones and Joe Offer too. So what do we do? How can those of us who would really like to see the abuse stop, do any self-policing when it is officially and unofficially sanctioned behavior for members?

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Sep 01 - 03:25 PM

Disclaimer: Big Mick is simply being used as an example because of his post on this thread. Nothing personal is intended and my points are being made about certain behaviors. not about any individuals.

Insults are still insults even when they are not aimed at us. But if insult is not the proper word here how about "derogatory language"? If we insult, we are giving tacit approval to others to do the same. A LOT of the problem is registered users insulting unregistered GUESTs. I assume that they have feelings to hurt even though they are hiding. They are probably more sensitive than most. Hence the hiding.

So are you saying it is good manners in MudCat to call others, "miscreants", "fools", "asses", to call their opinions "This shit" to say that people are so bad that they "disgust" him? I don't think so. Such talk is inflammatory. Are you saying it is OK for Big Mick to do it because as a "MudCatter in good Standing" he has earned his curmudgeon licence? I think not. If you tolerate it for one then that is the standard of behavior that you set.

I agree with what Mick has said. In that I do not believe in encouraging childish behavior. But calling people names isn't the best example to set. It is just rising to the same bait. GUEST's have spoken about double standards here. Am I to understand that rude behavior is OK on MudCat as long as it is someone you know. Or is it just OK to be rude to GUESTs?

I am not so sure that solution is so much whether we respond to Trolls but how. God bless you Joe, I don't envy you your job at all. But I promise that when the trolling is obvious, I'll ignore it. And I don't plan to egg people on with insults.

SharonA, thanks for the definition. I don't know about flamers. I know that if someone is rude to me and I am rude in return, Whether I am justified or not, trouble will ensue!

Jeri: I agree with Mick 100% as well. And on the whole he seems like an amusing and interesting man. But his behavior, when he starts name calling, tends to aggravate the problem rather than alleviate it. I can't imagine calling someone a "smart ass" or a "fool" with out insulting them. Can you?

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: GUEST,Shenandoah
Date: 07 Sep 01 - 02:34 PM

To me, the problem isn't with the few troll/flamer anonymous guests. As Jon Freeman pointed out, a number of Usenet folk music (and other) newsgroups, have learned to largely ignore those messages. As some of us have pointed out before, other forums which are unmoderated, open discussion groups are self-policing in this regard, and usually do just fine.

But that means regulars come down on one another (the only ones you can hope to have any influence over on-line) for showing poor judgment or lack of restraint re: responding to trolls/escalating vitriol/flaming those they disagree with. What is happening here is the members regularly flame anonymous guests for entertainment. Which gets the ball rolling every time. As long as you have members flaming guests with impunity, it ain't gonna get better folks. Because flaming is flaming, no matter who is doing it. And a lot of regulars admit to doing this and enjoying doing this in this thread.

It seems to me, the real issue is a whole lot of Mudcat regulars (both guest and member users)have problems with self-control, AND problems accepting they have no control over what others say about them.

And please, can someone explain to me why so many people posting in an unmoderated discussion forum on the Internet believe that some big daddy should come to their rescue when they are personally attacked/flamed, and make that mean man go away and leave them alone?

Bizarre stalking claims are increasingly being made by some obviously very paranoid individuals whenever someone makes a rude or insulting remark about them, or some one of their Mudcat buddies.

Pardon my blasphemy but, deleting that Morticia thread--what the hell was that all about anyway?

I read it, wasn't offended--there were no really abusive obscentities, nada. Totally a non-issue. Yet, the minute it appeared, we had the usual suspects and their Joe Clones tripping over each other, screaming "sexist stalking"--same things as virtually yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. The stampede to censorship took on a life of it's own.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I see this sort of "defending members against personal attacks" forms of censorship to be incredibly insidious, and increasing at a frightening rate, while the worst sort of offensive, hateful stuff is tolerated, condoned, and rewarded by the Mudcat community and the site maintainers. Its a damn slippery slope. And as the recent racist trolling shows, if you don't stand for something, you'll end up standing for anything. Mudcat is a really poisonous environment this week. Really poisonous.

I'm afraid I don't hold out much hope for Mudcat at this point. Too many regulars lack the necessary self-control, self-awareness, and personal maturity it takes to maintain a good on-line forum.

Which does make it something of a magnet for Usenet kooks masquerading as members and guests. How else can you explain the way so many problem members get away with behaving badly with impunity from both the community and the site maintainers? If you are a member, well, one of the privleges apparently is to be able to engage in troll/flamewar behavior and suffer no repercussions for it because Mudcat membership has it's privleges, after all...

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: Jeri
Date: 07 Sep 01 - 02:00 PM

Unc, as far as people who don't respond appearing to support or condone someone else's words, guilt is one of the things a troll can rely upon here to guarantee people bite.

It doesn't happen often in the groups Jon mentioned, and if it does it usually gets only a small handful of replies before everyone realises the poster is a plonker, then the plonker comes on over to Mudcat. At least If someone asked why no one was stand up and be counted in the fight against an offensive post, I think the reply might be "because it's a troll/flame-bait/windup" or "if you'd like to, feel free."

Having said that, flame wars do frequently happen in newsgroups, but they typically involve an actual subject and not how/why/why not people post. Folks either join in or stay out of the discussions.

Before someone thinks I want to see Mudcat be the same as any newsgroup - I don't. I used to think we had far less anger around this place, and far more respect for others. It doesn't seem like it these days. There is at least as much anger in Mudcat as in newsgroups, and a lot less attempted self control. The flaming is far worse in here, and it hurts a lot more to see someone I think of as a friend doing it than someone I don't know. It hurts a lot worse to hear my friends here calling someone an asshole, no matter who is on the receiving end.

Jack the Sailor, I agree 100% with Mick. The attitude I imagine is that he was pissed off. I don't see any insults, but then, we're different people with different imaginations.

I apologise for the "same shit/different day" nature of this post. I'm not sure anyone read this opinion the first time I posted it, nor the tenth. I'm also not sure how many of the people I think of as friends understand or ever care about what I have to say.

I don't want daddy to make the bad people go away. I don't want to hear "post here" or "don't post there." I'd love it if we could just ignore the things we don't like and lavish our time and attention on the things we do. I'd love it if we learned the simple thing almost all children learn, and quit playing with the bad influences and bullies.

A final thought, from Babylon 5 (and quoted there from someone who's name I can't remember): the first rule of fanaticism is, when you're obsessed with something, you eventually become that thing. Many of us seem obsessed with flamers.

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: SharonA
Date: 07 Sep 01 - 01:57 PM

Jack the Sailor (re Big Mick's post): The Jargon Dictionary's definition of "flame" (linked from the Mudcat FAQ) is as follows. 1. vi. To post [a] message intended to insult and provoke. 2. vi. To speak incessantly and/or rabidly on some relatively uninteresting subject or with a patently ridiculous attitude. 3. vt. Either of senses 1 or 2, directed with hostility at a particular person or people. 4. n. An instance of flaming.

Definition 1: The only insults I see in Big Mick's post are directed toward the flamers (who will ignore them anyway, no doubt). His reference to those of us who have responded to flamers as "fools" is, alas, all too true and is descriptive rather than insulting.

Definition 2: The subject of his post is obviously relevant. I think his attitude, rather than "patently ridiculous", is as he put it "cranky", and angry and disgusted.

Definition 3: I did not think he displayed hostility toward Mudcat members, just anger and disgust as I've said.

Definition 4: Is Big Mick's post an instance of flaming? I don't think so.

Some final thoughts for this post: To refer to the content of a flame-post within one's own post, or to quote the flamer's words directly, is in my opinion a form of responding to that flamer. It demonstrates not only that he has captured your attention but that you are considering what he has to say. Please, everyone, follow Joe's advice and don't respond to flamers IN ANY WAY on the Forum.

If you're not sure that a post is a flame, send a PM to Joe or Pene and ask. Wait for an answer before you respond to the post. If the post is a flame that Joe, Pene and Max feel should be deleted, then it won't be there to respond to! (...and you will have done us all a favor by pointing it out to them!)

Sharon (who's learned the hard way)

Subject: RE: Dealing with Flamers
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Sep 01 - 01:24 PM

Problem is, U.J, that we don't know how many different GUESTS we are dealing with here. Could be one, could be several. So I guess we just have to respond, or not respond, to each GUEST post according to what is contained within that particular post.