BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Policy & Help >

Conflict on Barbelith (and How to Deal with It Effectively)

  
 
Shrug
19:46 / 09.11.05
I think that it would be useful to quote the conversation from which this sprung. I think it encompasses the key elements of the above question.

DoubleShrug:
Far better to say something like that in a public forum rather than a supercilious pm (that's if you feel the need to say anything like it at all).
I'm not sure which behaviour would be considered more trollish though.

Electric Monk:
No.

In fact, if one has a problem with another poster, I'm of the opinion that it's highly advisable to hash it out via PM. No interruptions/egging on from other posters. No possibility of posturing for the rest of the board. No fucking threadrot. And suchlike.

Double Shrug:
Well your certainly right about the threadrot element but I really think sometimes that it is pretty healthy for events like this to take place (people have their disagreements in real life why not Barbelith?). And because ultimately you are going/and should be judged by your actions/how you deal with things when posting in a public forum I think it's important. In anycase people end up doing little else except self defaming anyway. Generally I think it's beneficial to see people at their bitterest/worst moments aswell as their better ones. What I wanted specifically to ask (although I didn't make myself clear) was when is something considered to be other than healthy confrontation i.e. trolling?
I was more refering to a heated statement being recognised as an unsolicited attack almost an invasion of privacy when sent by pm. Almost like getting a poison-pen letter through your door I'd imagine.

Though I think it might be better to talk about it in generalities or perhaps with concealed names if drawing on personal experience from here on in.
As I've said above should we expect a certain amount of rot as these conflicts are dealt with? Can we all benefit from them? Is there a certain learning aspect to watching these conflicts being hashed out? Or are PM's the more conciliatory/sincere mode as Electric Monk suggests?

Other useful in board links for consideration.
PM Policy
Comments in the Bump Thread
Battle Threads
Criticising Colleagues
Snide Throwaway Posts
 
 
electric monk
20:30 / 09.11.05
Thanks for starting this, and for linkage. I hadn't known most of those existed.

I think I came across as pretty nasty earlier, so sorry 'bout that. Been annoyed with ***** today, and let it spill over into my dealings with others. Now that I've had a chance to think on your response and read some of the threads you've pointed to, I've softened my stance a bit. I think you're right in that it can be healthy for the community to acknowledge its conflicts and deal with them in an open fashion. We are here, in a sense, to challenge and be challenged. Conflict builds character, yes? (I keep thinking of that bit in Cerebus: Church & State - "FONFLIF!")

The reason I took the stance I took (and still feel it's a valid stance, BTW), is that I've been reassessing my interaction with Barbelith quite a lot lately. One area I considered was how I might handle conflict. Now, truth be told, I've never been beaten down in a thread and never had a nasty PM sent my way. But, if someone did have a problem with me and wanted to let me know, I think I'd rather get a PM saying "Dude, WTF" rather than an in-thread post saying "Dude, WTF". And, if I did get an in-thread response like that, I'd be very likely to send a PM to said poster trying to clarify and/or understand what I'd done to merit such a response.

I agree with Tom's comment in the PM Policy that there needn't be an overarching set of rules for their use, and I suppose what I should have said earlier in Trolling is that this is my personal policy and the way I choose to conduct myself here. Others are free to do likewise or not, of course.

Sorry this is so scattershot. It's the end of the workday, and I'm trying to fit this in before I clock out for the night. Promise I'll come back tomorrow and try to flesh this out some more.

Heh. "Battle Threads". That Jack's fucking priceless, ain't he?
 
 
Shrug
21:09 / 09.11.05
I think I came across as pretty nasty earlier, so sorry 'bout that.

Not at all! Not at all! In a sense I agree with alot of what you say but still feel more inclined to open conflict.
But more on that tomorry when less groggy and tired.
 
 
w1rebaby
22:21 / 09.11.05
If somebody has a specific issue with another poster, the chances of me caring are very small, and as far as I'm concerned they should carry out whatever argument they have over PM.

Look at the content of the exchanges concerned. Do they address the topic of the thread? Could they really, truly, be of any interest to anyone else, bearing in mind that nobody cares about how offended you might feel? If not, PM, and if that isn't enough, ignore the person. There is still an ignore link in everyone's profile as far as I remember.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
04:45 / 10.11.05
It might be an idea to enhance the public standing of good old Iggy Butt- he can be very useful and I think we could benefit from using him more.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
06:07 / 10.11.05
The ignore button has more uses than you first think, certainly. When it was introduced, I tended to use it only for the worst possible cases - known trolls, basically. Even then, since at the time I was moderating most of the fora, it was pretty much impossible not to read people's posts, as almost by definition if they were a known troll it was necessary to edit their posts. More recently, since I was not moderating so many fora, I've been whacking people on ignore if I didn't feel like encountering their prose style - some people are more or less fun to read depending on your mood. Recently I put somebody on ignore not as any negative reflection on them, but because I didn't feel that I would be able to give their posts a useful reading right at this moment, and it would be better to come to them fresh at another time. Perhaps one problem is that ignoring somebody in a conversation would be considered v.rude, and the same reluctance is carried over onto Barbelith...
 
 
electric monk
11:55 / 10.11.05
...should we expect a certain amount of rot as these conflicts are dealt with? Can we all benefit from them?

In some cases, yes. I'm thinking of conflicts on a scale larger than interpersonal problems, mainly. I think it's to the benefit of the board that evidence of bigotry from a new poster be handled via PM with a notifying post in-thread (as I've said elsewhere). When that doesn't work, public confrontation of these misguided opinions is definitely called for. We need to be on the record as a collective in these cases, publicly stating that we will not put up with this shit. We're already doing this, and I think that's great. Rot in these cases is understandable, and any thread that gets rotted in this fashion is a necessary sacrifice to upholding the boards ideals.

Is there a certain learning aspect to watching these conflicts being hashed out?

Oh yes. See above. There may be some benefit in public hashing-out of interpersonal conflict as well, but only after PM's have not solved the problem. I'm a little uneasy about the inevitable side-choosing that happens when two posters decide to throw down in a given thread, but even here, attitudes can be confronted to the benefit of all. Battle Threads may even be viable in this context, but there's no way to guarantee no other posters jump in. Possible mod nightmare waiting to happen there. As a general rule, I'm with fridgemagnet on this. Sometimes the conflict IS on-topic, sometimes not. Let rip with the former, get a room for the latter. PM = first resort, knife fight in the middle of the barroom floor = last resort.

...are PM's the more conciliatory/sincere mode as Electric Monk suggests?

Well, yes, of course! Seriously tho, if I've got a problem with someone IRL, I'm more likely to express my displeasure in a one-on-one manner. You can't get someone to think reasonably if you're yelling at them or putting a harsh spotlight on them in a public sphere. Better to pull them aside and say, "Look, you're being unreasonable and here's why I think that. Care to explain?" Same applies here, I think.

I'm divided on the Ignore issue. On the one hand, it makes individual poster's lives easier and their board experience more pleasurable. On the other hand, attitudes that need confronting may not get it. I myself am reluctant to Ignore, except in the more extreme cases of troll-duggery.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:11 / 10.11.05
Yeah, confrontation's tricky. I think you have to have criteria for putting somebody on ignore, and be comfortable with those criteria, which may vary from person to person. For one person, believing that somebody is likely to make, say, racist comments may be a good argument for putting them on ignore, for another person a good reason not to. That kind of thing has to be a personal decision. Personally, I'll put someone on ignore if I have basically admitted that I'm not grown-up enough not to respond, or that I am but reading the posts will not contribute to my understanding of the thread or the state of my liver. The ideal candidate for the ignore button is somebody who generally posts offtopic but is not offensive with it, and who I'm confident is not going to lose it and go hatespeechapalooza...
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
14:24 / 10.11.05
Personally I've never used the ignore button- partly this is because I worry it would impair my ability to moderate (no criticism of you here, btw, Haus- it doesn't seem to have hindered you- I just think it would hinder ME) but mostly because I fear missing things. That said, I tend to stay out of fights, and there hasn't yet been a case of someone harassing ME (unless I was too dim to notice it happening... that's not implausible), so it's kind of easy for me to say.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:35 / 10.11.05
I'M COMING FOR YOU, STOAT.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
14:40 / 10.11.05
(Full disclosure; I'm not really)
 
 
rising and revolving
16:10 / 10.11.05
Rot in these cases is understandable, and any thread that gets rotted in this fashion is a necessary sacrifice to upholding the boards ideals.

I don't think it is. I'm a big fan to taking thread-rotting conflict to

A) The aforementioned PM with in-thread notice

or

B) To a new policy thread devoted to the conflict in hand, if you feel there's a need for public interaction.

I think it's very, very, easy to say no to thread-rot. We just don't do it as much as we might.
 
 
electric monk
12:32 / 11.11.05
I was talking about repeated infractions by the same poster after PMs-and-notice have failed IMHO, that needs to be challenged publicly and by the majority.

"B" is a good suggestion, but my worry with that is that whatever good that could come out of such an action would get lost on the majority, since not many people come to the Policy. (That feels like a HUGE assumption on my part, or at least an anecdotal bit of trivia that I've warped into fact. Set me straight, someone?)
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:48 / 11.11.05
Well, you could post a link to the Policy thread, and have anything else said in thread deleted. It does seem a bit like in exchange for minimising threadrot we're letting people offf easy on outbursts of fuckery. Especially if there is no real consequence beyond being discussed in the Policy...
 
 
grant
13:39 / 11.11.05
Heh. It's like being put in stocks in the public square.
 
 
Cat Chant
13:41 / 11.11.05
It's like being put in stocks in the public square.

Not so public in the Policy - wouldn't the barbelith stocks equivalent be the old 'barbefeuds' thread of infamous memory?
 
 
electric monk
13:51 / 11.11.05
Also a good point. Fuck, I'm running in circles now.

If I could redirect us for a mo', I'd like try a new tack and (hopefully) come back round to this from a different angle:

What are we hoping to accomplish with our conflicts? There's opportunity for growth in conflict and maybe if we look at it in this way, we'll have a clearer idea of what we're trying to do and how we can go about it. I need to think about my answer to this for a bit, but am interested in where this might go.

Haus, I am particularly interested in your answer to this. I get the feeling that you see opportunity in these situations as well, and that you try to maximize the effect your words will have across a spectrum of possibilities. (The same applies to a few other posters here.) TRUTH?
 
 
electric monk
13:52 / 11.11.05
Sorry to put you on the spot like that, BTW, but I am curious.
 
 
Axolotl
14:42 / 11.11.05
It really depends on the type of conflict, doesn't it?
Two poster with conflicting political viewpoints arguing with cogent points and intelligence - Fine, keep it in thread, no action required.
A previously on-topic and enjoyable thread de-railed as two posters get into a slanging match for some perceived slight or due to a personality clash - take it to PMs and let everyone else get on with the thread.
A thread with little value started by a poster to spread the truth about teh FASC1ST Lizards who are taking over the world and is filled with racist slurs - Rot the bastard, make it clear to the individual, and any observers that that behaviour won't be tolerated.
Basically I'd say if the thread is redeemable it's always worth trying a pm first, it can't hurt, and might help.
 
 
rising and revolving
15:57 / 11.11.05
Especially if there is no real consequence beyond being discussed in the Policy...

I don't quite understand why linking a thread to a new policy (or conversation - policy isn't always the right place for such things) makes less of a statement than rotting a thread.

Why is fucking up a thread more consequential for the guilty parties? It doesn't seem to me to have more consequence for anyone but the people who are using Barbelith in a reasonable fashion.

I don't know. There's obviously an opinion in this thread that the only way to provide consequence is in the thread - and I'm having a great deal of difficulty seeing why. The option I've discussed would always include a link inside the originating thread to a new thread (in the appropriate location) to discuss the off-topic issue.

Obviously, this is primarily important for conflict, because it's during conflict that people feel entirely justified rotting threads - but it's actually generally the right behaviour when an in-thread discussion forks off topic. It happens all the time with non-emotional topics.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:41 / 11.11.05
Well, R&R, essentially because people don't read the Policy much - especially people who are more likely too come out with, for example, hate speech. So if you move all discussion of their behaviour to the Policy, you effectively move it out of their worldview, unless there is some actual sanction attached to that discussion - censuring of some kind, banning etc.

Also, as has been demonstrated a number of times, people in a particular forum will often by definition be more interested in the subject of that forum than in keeping Barbelith generally free of shitweasels. So, people discussing Marvel trivia are more likely to be more interested in talking about Marvel Trivia than about one person making a racist comment on page 18 of a thread about Marvel triva. This issue came to a bit of a head when people started complaining, effectively, that a perfectly serious discussion about the international Jewish conspiracy was getting derailed by people complaining about anti-Semitism.

So, taking it to the Policy is fine, as long as:

a) it is signified in the thread (at which point somebody will start complaining in-thread anyway, but there you go)
b) the Policy discussion has some result.
 
 
w1rebaby
18:19 / 11.11.05
On the one hand we have a situation where it's very difficult to bring a post up for arbitration or consideration, and so people might feel that the only sanction they have against offensive posts is to challenge/harass the poster on the thread concerned and on others, spreading the word as publicly as possible, i.e. not in the Policy and not via PMs.

(Although, as a side note, if people have Policy threads started about them they do mostly seem to respond on those - a proper troll wouldn't, or would at least postpone it as long as possible or attempt to disrupt said thread and move it away from the subject of themselves to extend their lifespan, but we don't have that many proper trolls, rather, people who think they're right and everybody else is just being PC / an unenlightened sheep / a lizard.)

On the other hand we also have a situation where the only possibility of having someone banned is to start a thread in the Policy, because Tom is the only person who can do that and he doesn't have every post downloaded into his brain every morning, not since that nasty accident with the Javascript anyway.

So really, I'd say both; challenging someone on a thread, and then, if it looks like carrying on for more than, say, four exchanged posts, starting a thread in the Policy or taking it to PMs so as not to derail. If somebody is a real problem and other people agree, a Policy thread can still have an effect whether they contribute to it or not.

Sometimes, though, people should really just forget things. There's nothing more irritating than posters carrying on petty arguments across threads that nobody gives a shit about, simply because they feel slighted or somebody's not answered a question to their satisfaction (we've not had much of that recently thankfully but I see it elsewhere and it makes me want to pull teeth out). I'd still say, as I did earlier, that one of the prime criteria to consider should be balancing the relevance of your objections to poster X against annoyance to everyone else who wants to use the board. "He called me a cunt" isn't enough.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
09:07 / 12.11.05
one of the prime criteria to consider should be balancing the relevance of your objections to poster X against annoyance to everyone else who wants to use the board.

That's true, unfortunatly. It's reasonable to defend yourself against accusations, and say "look, this just isn't true and you can't substantiate it," but eventually you end up doing yourself more harm than good if you keep at it too long.
 
  
Add Your Reply