BARBELITH underground
 

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


Bullying on Barbelith

 
  

Page: (1)23456... 7

 
 
Shrug
13:48 / 03.09.06
There's been call for a further thread to discuss the unhappy Flyboy, DM, Triplets menage and it's spillover unto DM's birthday thread, so I've made one. Title and/or abstract change should anyone feel the one I've chosen to be inappropriate can be discussed herein. As frankly, personally, I'm not sure if this one could ever provide a healthy foundation in which to discuss the situation.
 
 
Ganesh
15:59 / 03.09.06
While I can appreciate the motive and reasoning behind starting this thread, I'm not sure it's going to go anywhere. The word "bullying" is, I think, already too emotive and charged with assumption to frame constructive discussion. Also, the discussion itself would seem to cover old ground; the concepts of bullying/dogpiling/tag-teaming are regularly picked over in Policy, and I'm unsure whether there's anything new to be brought to discussion. If you specifically wanted to discuss the incident over Dead Megatron's birthday thread, that seems to have happened at length elsewhere.

Maybe it's worth looking at what's to be considered acceptable behaviour in terms of ad hominem/personal insult rather than casting things specifically as bullying?
 
 
*
16:22 / 03.09.06
I think the "Anger on Barbelith" thread further down in policy could be a useful addition as well.

I think Flyboy and Triplets have a personal dislike of DM, which is fine. Personal dislikes happen. There's no getting around them. I think I've noticed an occasional practice with Flyboy at least of attacking DM for stuff he's done which has irritated Flyboy in the past, at times when things are relatively quiet, and I don't think that's useful. It's like hitting a dog for pooing on the carpet once he's already whining at the door, in that the dog is only going to be confused about what you're angry at him for.

I also think that DM does a certain manipulative thing where when things are relatively quiet, he mentions people he's had disagreements with, as if to goad them to respond— maybe he's looking for approval for "doing right" now, or maybe he wants to provoke them. Either way, that's not a very useful practice either. He's also taken a situation in which many people were sympathetic to him (the birthday thread) and started what I see as a clumsy effort to turn it to his own advantage, which tends to lose him some of my sympathy.

None of this is banworthy. What I want is for people to acknowledge their personal dislikes and personal histories with other posters and the role of those feelings in creating their behavior. For instance, I might say something like (to use Ganesh as an example because I adore him and he knows it, so hopefully my intentions will not be misinterpreted) "Ganesh, whenever I see you on the b'lith all I can think of is that horrible thing you said to me about my passion for mangoes, and I really hate you for it. I certainly don't want to be asked to celebrate your birthday. That just makes me sick with anger." What I would not want to do is call into question Ganesh's right to exist by implying that he should have been aborted. Or on the other end of things I might say something like "Ganesh, I haven't heard from you in a long time, and I know you really hate me because I used to say shit about gay people that was inappropriate. I hope I haven't done that in awhile. Do you still hate me, or are we okay now, or somewhere in between?" Being straightforward like that is not commonly rewarded in real life; I'd like to see it rewarded here, if not by success at least by respectful engagement.

BUT: That's not everyone's style. And some people are more given to expressing anger with insults. I'm actually pretty okay with that, but I want that to have a space and a form that's acceptable to everyone. Some people are going to be upset by seeing someone called an abortionist's failure, and some people are going to be upset by the nonconsensual use of the word "boy" to refer to a grown man (an abbreviation of his name or not). So take it to a fucking calling-out thread, that's my suggestion and request. Someplace where b'lithers can laugh at your wit if they want, without seeing insults and potshots clutttering up other, more innocuous threads.

After all, if you hate Dead Megatron soooo much ("Flames... on the sides of my face... burning...") that you consider engaging with him on the board, or via pm, or in any fashion a total waste of your time, why would you even read a thread that was started by him solely for the purpose of celebrating his birthday?
 
 
*
16:23 / 03.09.06
Sorry, lengthy crosspost.
 
 
Ganesh
16:30 / 03.09.06
Hmm, okay, I stand corrected re: the usefulness of a separate thread. I think that's a very reasonable summing-up, Entity. I'm almost prepared to forgive you for the mango thing.

Almost.
 
 
petunia
17:27 / 03.09.06
Jeez, guys. I thought that whole mango thing got cleared up months ago. It's just a fruit!

But seriously(ish)...

So take it to a fucking calling-out thread, that's my suggestion and request. Someplace where b'lithers can laugh at your wit if they want, without seeing insults and potshots clutttering up other, more innocuous threads.

This was my intention with the Fight Thread. There are frequently little spats like this where an argument or amount of ill-feeling end up mucking up a prefectly healthy thread and it would be nice if we could just ask people to 'take it to the fight thread' (or just to take it to PM).

At the mo, it's just a thread for a few jokes about fighting, and I guess a few people would be unwilling to take their 'interesting and intelligent debate' to The Fight Thread, but it's there at least.
 
 
Ganesh
17:48 / 03.09.06
There have been other times, in the past, that we've attempted to confine personal spats to a generic Conversation 'fight thread', and I'm not sure it's ever really worked. One of the frustrating aspects of disputes of Barbelith, for me, is that the original bone(s) of contention has a tendency to become buried, quite quickly, by a host of secondary arguments. In that regard, I think it's probably best for individual grievances and/or personality clashes to be thrashed out in threads designed for them, so there's less sidetracking - assuming, of course, there's good reason for not doing so via PM.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
18:00 / 03.09.06
[Threadrot: I just wanted to say, I absolutely love the 'Fight Thread'. And I'm sorry, .trampetunia; I didn't really realise your more serious intentions for the thread. Indeed, to me the thread can often read as quite a funny allegorical representation of the different types of bad arguments that we sometimes have around here and elsewhere. But then, allegory is pretty much how my mind computes stuff, so... I also think that bumping the Fight Thread with a new funny post, sometimes can send out a signal to people who are presently rowing on the board, giving them a friendly, jokey knudge, and hinting to them that they might be helping to turn a discussion into a fight without maybe even realising they're doing so and/or even despite their best intentions. / Threadrot]
 
 
petunia
19:13 / 03.09.06
Ha. Don't worry about it, PW. If I had wanted a serious 'no rot' thread, I would have put it in policy. I was aware when i started it that there was quite a low chance of anybody ever actually taking a real argument there, and it's better that it be used for some entertaining purpose, rather than sink. I'm glad you like it. I like your idea of it being a subtle and silly notice to people who are getting a bit battley; maybe that's what it would be better as.
 
 
paranoidwriter waves hello
19:42 / 03.09.06
Cheers for being cool, .trampetunia. I reckon we might be right, regarding the "subtle and silly notice". However, I suppose, it all depends on the occasion. Sometimes it might come across as patronising to either of the combatants, and merely add more fuel to the fire. But it's a good tool to have in our arsenal of peace. I'm big believer in flexibility, patience, and humour.

It's like whether we should be blatant and harsh with annoying or nasty people, or patient and forgiving with them. Sometimes one or the other is needed, sometimes it's a mix of both, or maybe something else we've yet to consider. Personally, at present, I think context and perceived intent* are where I take my cues from (rightly or wrongly) when it comes to interpretation and action. Which is often why, in disputes, I'll try to say something like, "Hmm... Erm, I'm cofused, are you pissed off with me now? I feel like your angry." -- which doesn't always work, either.

*And this is why I agree with others about being honest and straight forward when possible with one's intentions, and/or trying to get them across better in one's text. I feel this is almost paramount to the development of honest and valuable discussion.
 
 
Shrug
22:30 / 03.09.06
Ganesh: Thanks. I agree the term "bullying" is definitely problematic and perhaps wasn't appropriate as I really don't want to tar anyone with a term like "bully", but nevertheless the term was used, if hesitantly, and by my own admittance the thread clumsily phrased but I do find something horribly akin to schoolyard name calling in Barbelith now and again. This has been exemplified most recently in DM's birthday thread, where posts simply weren't a swift lampooning of someone's ideas, posting style or content within that thread's remit nor dog pilling on someone for off colour commentary or general inappropriateness (as is sometimes suggested to be Barbelith's reaction to same) but repeated conscious attempts to make someone feel as small as they possibly could. What struck me most was the mean-spiritedness of it all.

To me Barbelith isn't a horrible enviroment and people are generally cautious of potential upset to others. It isn't an issue of moderation whatsoever, nor banning, (which is why I wanted to take it out of the mod request thread) but I would like it dealt with as I'd find its continuance untenable and as potentially un-Barbelith like as others found Kali and DM's on-line flirting. So, perhaps beyond inevitable minor incident I'd really like to see this dynamic end.
There's equally a discussion of negative vs. positive attention to be had as regards DM (as id has pointed out). And id, your post, is very much the sort of thing that should be linked immediately when this sort of debacle arises (although with the names removed for the protection of those involved etc).

The ignore function in its simplicity isn't always alot of help, and when someone gets your proverbial goat as much as DM gets Flyboy and Triplets' I don't think it'll be useful in quelling the flames or getting anyone to put the faceknives cleanly away.
The contribution of the posters involved (though immensely tiresome for them at least potentially more productive) rather than discussion around them would also be most welcome. What really would be wonderful is some level of mediation, as exhausting as that sounds?

Secondly (although as I've mentioned not slinging the term "bully" around) isn't there a classic bullying dynamic (pratically ouroboric in it's schoolyard tedium) that arises from the baiting by one party and agressive reaction by the other?
 
 
Ganesh
22:39 / 03.09.06
Fair enough, Cat Room. I suppose I'm just a little jaded with the b-word, probably as a result of its overuse/misuse in Big Brother. From previous discussions, I'm also aware that it's easy to get sidetracked into attempting to define what, exactly, it is, and whether such-and-such behaviour is bullying.

I'm certainly with you on that specific example seeming exceptionally mean-spirited, and that particular dynamic being something I'd rather not encounter on Barbelith. I'll have a think about things, though, and hopefully return to the discussion with something more constructive.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
22:45 / 03.09.06
Secondly (although as I've mentioned not slinging the term "bully" around) isn't there a classic bullying dynamic (pratically ouroboric in it's schoolyard tedium) that arises from the baiting by one party and agressive reaction by the other?

Well, no. I mean, the thing about the Internet is precisely that it doesn't have that staple of the playground, a sound beating. If it did, life would be a lot easier, really - people could just settle their differences with some kicking and punching and all would be well.

That's the dynamic behind most playground bullying - the threat of greater violence held in reserve. We don't have that threat of greater violence, so we just go round and round and round...
 
 
Shrug
23:06 / 03.09.06
Oh dear, you've made me laugh Haus and I really shouldn't be.

Hmmm, ok, perhaps if we can regard it as workplace bullying?

And although I'd prefer to think of Barbelith of more schoolyard less workplace for other reasons, there probably is a greater level of similarity, usually being without threat of violence. This is often specific to a sort of hierarchy (please god no not accusations of Barberoyalty again) but a greater tenancy for some, pre-existing structures and comaraderies, greater knowledge of varying systems social & technical, newness and even gaps in age? (And there are definitely other factors too, dislike being one, although there are many more).

Mmmmaybe.
 
 
Shrug
23:28 / 03.09.06
Oh, and yes Ganesh, I'm with you on the b-word as a term too, although I'd struggle with a vaguer one, trying to regard bullying as many faceted dynamic rather than a one way street in this case could be useful.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
23:32 / 03.09.06
Hey, Cat Room. Why're you hitting yourself? Why're you hitting yourself, huh?
 
 
The Falcon
23:33 / 03.09.06
To me Barbelith isn't a horrible enviroment and people are generally cautious of potential upset to others. It isn't an issue of moderation whatsoever, nor banning, (which is why I wanted to take it out of the mod request thread) but I would like it dealt with as I'd find its continuance untenable and as potentially un-Barbelith like as others found Kali and DM's on-line flirting.

I think it's a much worse thing, but less - ah - sustained than the flirting issue of recent. Also, I do think it's highly irregular for this to occur. 'It' being fairly cut-and-dried, garden variety verbal abuse - to quote from recent examples, I don't think it will do to casually refer to another poster matter-of-factly as a 'wankstain', 'piece of shit' or 'abortionist's failure'. I'm fairly sure everyone can see this as blatant and crass ad hominem, but I've been surprised before. By way of contrast, Alex too has had some fairly unpleasant things to say in DM's birthday thread, but they are at least heavily veiled in irony and, to my mind, quite funny.

Anyway, using these most obvious examples, Shrug - you say you find their "continuance untenable", but also that they are "[not] an issue [for] moderation"; I don't think the two positions square, particularly. Either posters can, in fluff threads (as such a thing would be almost inevitably deleted for offtopicness in 'serious' fora) exchange and offer personal abuse, as and when they please, or they cannot.

I'm of the mind that they cannot and should not do so, and actually do consider it an ongoing issue for moderation. Any continual personal attacks (which is not the stage we have thus far to my mind reached) would and have, I believe in the past, lead to bannination.
 
 
Shrug
23:54 / 03.09.06
Mordant: I'm totally going to chinese burn you for that!

Falconer: Hmmm, I think even though these things inevitably arise, it is much better if they can be resolved at their source (some kind of fair mutual agreement) and I also kind of feel that the very issue of their moderation is so mired in bureaucracy (given the current moderatorial distribution and not necessarily ever being a bad thing) that it can be a bit of a struggle in vain. And the DM/Flyboy/Tripletts thing has obviously been building for a while, removing those specific offending posts works as a real solution how exactly? Surely everyone is aware of them by now? Surely their removal will only cause serious animosity on one side and splendid whoops of victory from the other?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
00:05 / 04.09.06
I'm fairly sure everyone can see this as blatant and crass ad hominem, but I've been surprised before.

Point of info: ad hominem is a debating tactic where somebody's point is dismissed on the grounds of a personal quality of theirs. This is more just abuse.

_However_, if you are planning to start trying to delete posts from the Conversation as a matter of course based on not liking their content, please alert me, because we need to talk to Tom about what moderators should and should not be doing. At the very least, standard practice is to copy and paste the posts and PM them to their originators - I assume that was done with our last little slash-and-burn?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
00:08 / 04.09.06
No.
 
 
The Falcon
00:14 / 04.09.06
No, you're right, it doesn't work to resolve the issue, but I don't see any resolution close at hand. In any case, the posts are on record and will remain, I believe; I've certainly made no further attempt to boot them myself. That's not the issue.

I don't think it need be about 'sides' or winning and losing, either; if a(ny) poster's articulacy and decorum has failed them to the point that they are reduced to the sort of behaviour I've described above, I don't see they've earned any right to a 'mutual agreement', so much as a black mark. (Again, I'm open to other interpretations.) In future therefore, I will note in this thread, seeing it evidently is purposed for such cases of spiteful invective, and I will attempt to have them deleted again, because I see no reason for them to remain and spoil other threads. The alternative is, as I've stated, you or I or anyone can simply enter conversation threads, deliver some abuse and expect it to be left, and to receive no recrimination. I don't think that's really feasible or liable to happen.
 
 
The Falcon
00:16 / 04.09.06
standard practice is to copy and paste the posts and PM them to their originators

It is? I have never before now been made conscious of this; can you show me where this is stated?
 
 
Char Aina
00:19 / 04.09.06
it is much better if they can be resolved at their source (some kind of fair mutual agreement)

have you asked the posters concerned if they are willing to do that? last time i checked flyboy was unwilling to talk to DM via PM, suggesting that talking to him was like talking to chris moyles.
based on that i'm assuming he isnt interested in conflict resolution that requires dialogue.
triplets and DM i am less sure about.

perhaps you should ask the three of them how they feel about chatting amicably together to make sure your suggestion is workable?


Surely their removal will only cause serious animosity on one side and splendid whoops of victory from the other?

i dont think your model is accurate.
i dont think we should consider who is relived or angered by their removal even if it were; surely if they were removed those who would feel most animosity would be those who had been found to have posted in an unacceptable manner, and those who would whoop would be those who had been slighted in an unacceptable manner?
why should it be a problem if folks abusing other folks are upset, or their victims relieved, by the removal of said abuse?

as i said, though, i dont think the model is accurate.

i think at least a few of us would like the posts to stay up. i would prefer it if they did, and i think haus and DM both said they thought they should as well.




removing those specific offending posts works as a real solution how exactly?

while i can understand the desire to remove the offending posts, i dont agree that removing them was the best solution.
i think it rarely is.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
00:19 / 04.09.06
Ah. Right. OK. That really was a pretty hopeless bit of moderation, people. Not only do I remain convinced that deleting on grounds of personal taste is deeply dodgy, no matter how noble you believe your motives to be, destroying any immediately available record of those posts suggests that a lack of thought went into this process, and argues that the process itself by at least ameliorated and at worst halted. Given the stuff that _hasn't_ been deleted from the Conversation, I'm somewhat concerned that moderation here is being applied in an arbitrary fashion.
 
 
The Falcon
00:21 / 04.09.06
I didn't get Latin at school, sorry.

Yes, I will continue to attempt to delete outright personal abuse; if I ever feel the need to post some myself, I will expect to see it deleted (albeit henceforth with a pm) and discussed herein. Feel free to contact Tom about this.
 
 
Ganesh
00:27 / 04.09.06
At the very least, standard practice is to copy and paste the posts and PM them to their originators - I assume that was done with our last little slash-and-burn?

I agree that that's a valid point, Haus, and if I had been rather soberer last night, it might have occurred to me, as the mod agreeing Falconator's request, to do this. So yes, I'll put my hand up to having made a dodgy moderator decision on this one.

I think it's about more than simply disliking a post's content, however: to me, actually making highly personalised comments directed at the individual, along the lines of the examples quoted above, would fall within the remit of ad hominem as it's broadly defined in message board etiquette (even if not strictly correct as the meaning of the term) and, as such, should've been addressed somehow. As I stated in one of the other threads, in retrospect I think that would've been better taken to a Policy thread before mooting deletion. All I can say is that, at the time, speed seemed of the essence to me, as I felt somewhat embarrassed and sorry for someone on the eve of his 30th birthday celebration encountering that sort of directed nastiness. If DEDI had posted his "Mordant, your mother's a whore" stuff in a thread celebrating her birthday or some other enjoyable occasion, I think I'd have had the same reaction.

But that's by the by. I may be being overly sentimental here.

I think it's worth considering whether there ought to be some sort of line drawn in terms of such focussed ad hominems, particularly when they include generalisations about how "everyone" or "the rest of us" hates Poster X, as various of Flyboy's comments to DM have done.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
00:32 / 04.09.06
Well, possibly. For example, somebody has been banned from the board repeatedly for targeting individuals with repeated ad hominem in the looser sense) abuse. What I'm slightly surprised by is that when I attempted to tidy up posts by that repeatedly banned member in the Conversation, Falconator consistently vetoed my moderation proposals. Still, if we're going to have rogue moderation, it makes sense to have that rogue moderation in the Conversation.
 
 
Ganesh
00:35 / 04.09.06
All the more reason, then, to open up the subject of ad hominem and consider when it is and isn't acceptable behaviour - with one eye to some sort of semi-standardised moderator policy.
 
 
The Falcon
00:37 / 04.09.06
That really was a pretty hopeless bit of moderation, people. Not only do I remain unconvinced that deleting on grounds of personal taste is deeply dodgy, no matter how noble you believe your motives to be, destroying any immediately available record of those posts suggests that a lack of thought went into this process, and argues that the process itself by=is?? at least ameliorated and at worst halted. Given the stuff that _hasn't_ been deleted from the Conversation, I'm somewhat concerned that moderation here is being applied in an arbitrary fashion.

Well, clearly it wasn't to your standard. And evidently moderators can disagree, which is not really a surprise to me.

I can't recall seeing such a thing in the fields in which I moderate beforehand (apart from the time Flyboy called DM a 'piece of shit', iirc, which I'd thought/hoped was a one-off) so it was really quite an extraordinary, and sustained bit of nastiness. Therefore extraordinary measures were employed, however hamfistedly. Because I saw no reason for a poster to be subject to that; there are conceivable, and justifiable, exceptions if someone contravenes our loose code of conduct, by posting homophobic, sexist or racist material; even then it's hardly liable to increase the amount of reason going on.

I've suggested that on such an occurrence in the future, this thread can be utilised for a cut'n'paste text record - which can be retrieved in original form, later - and censure issued. The alternative is detailed above, if you prefer.
 
 
The Falcon
00:40 / 04.09.06
What I'm slightly surprised by is that when I attempted to tidy up posts by that repeatedly banned member in the Conversation, Falconator consistently vetoed my moderation proposals.

I very much doubt it. I think I've vetoed fully three proposed moderations in my time here, and pm'd the proposee each time. So, no, I don't think so. Feel free to send me the text of any such I've given you, which would presumably be the only way you would know it was I who did so.
 
 
The Falcon
00:42 / 04.09.06
Or, failing that, rescind the suggestion that I did so.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
00:50 / 04.09.06
I can't recall seeing such a thing in the fields in which I moderate beforehand (apart from the time Flyboy called DM a 'piece of shit', iirc, which I'd thought/hoped was a one-off)

Actually, I think that was me, wasn't it? Calling Mistoffeles a racist piece of shit, when he posted an amusing quote about AC/DC which involved a particularly nasty word for people of South Asian origin. I conceded almost immediately that he might not be aware of how offensive that particular word is (and let's not even get back into that one), and we sorted it out from there.

None of which alters the fact that your moderator requests were passed by one person who thought that they had been requested by the poster hirself and one person who was apparently tipsy and now believes that this was a mistake. Given that, do you intend to continue to move to delete or alter posts because you personally have decided that you do not like the language that one person has adopted towards another person? Only, I already feel that I have not been protected by this policy so far. Has it only just been instituted?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
00:56 / 04.09.06
Oh, and PM sent.
 
 
Shrug
00:57 / 04.09.06
I'm nearly sure that this thread was started with deliberate intent to steer people away from general discussion of the where and wherefores of post deletion due to ad hominem insult. If it is entirely necessary there is both the moderation request thread and now potentially the deleting posts thread, sure there'll be crossover but let's not get too entangled in that particular debate here. Please.
 
 
Ganesh
00:58 / 04.09.06
None of which alters the fact that your moderator requests were passed by one person who thought that they had been requested by the poster hirself and one person who was apparently tipsy and now believes that this was a mistake.

I don't think I'd go so far as to dismiss the moderation request as a "mistake" in quite that broad a sense. I agree with Falconator that the degree and positioning of the ad hominem comments in terms of time and place meant they had to be addressed somehow, ideally before DM read them. I think the principle error lay in not saving the content somewhere first - but, since the general drive was to curtail the extreme nastiness before it hit its target, that particular procedural element fell by the wayside.

And "tipsy" be damned. I'd agree to the same request again, sober. I'd just make sure I copied the content first.
 
  

Page: (1)23456... 7

 
  
Add Your Reply