|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is "the norm" and there is what is acceptable. The correct way to deal with someone you think is an asshat is to limit your communication with them unless you can do so productively, not to start passive-aggressive fights with them. "I think someone in here's an a+!*%@&, hint hint" is not any more productive or polite or acceptable than "You're an a&%+~@@." They are exactly equivalent.
The correct way to deal with passive-aggressive insults is to ignore them or reply only if you can do so productively, not respond in kind (or with a barrage of garbage). Throwing your hands up and saying, "Well, I guess I'm justified in doing whatever I want because [he started it]/[everyone's doing it]" doesn't go anywhere productive, not only because it leads to more fights over personality rather than actual topics, but also because eventually everyone ever will have some justification to be a jerk.
Note that your example of passive-aggressiveness is not at all passive-aggressive, it's just plain aggressive.
We (the community) can either disagree with each other in a completely chaotic and abusive fashion (which, to be fair, is prohibited by messageboard rules while at the same time encouraged by the nature of the internet) or we can do so by putting a veneer of what you're calling passive-aggressive behavior and what I'd call civility over top of our underlying frustration and anger about things we're seeing posted. Hoping that everyone will simply engage politely and appropriately at all times is, with all respect, a pipe dream - and one that, as far as I am aware, exists no place else on internet.
Actually, a thought just occurred to me. Wikipedia contains (among other verbiage) this tidbit about passive-aggressive behavior:
Passive–aggressive disorder may stem from a specific childhood stimulus[5] (e.g., alcohol/drug addicted parents) in an environment where it was not safe to express frustration or anger. Families in which the honest expression of feelings is forbidden tend to teach children to repress and deny their feelings and to use other channels to express their frustration.
Now, let's rephrase:
Passive–aggressive disorder may stem from a specific internet stimulus (e.g., negativistic or uninformed messageboard posts) in an environment where it was not safe to express frustration or anger. Messageboard communities in which the honest expression of feelings is forbidden tend to teach Paizonians to repress and deny their feelings and to use other channels to express their frustration.
In short, people are not polite and nice by nature. Messageboard rules force us to be polite and nice. "Passive-Aggressive" posting is the result, and should be expected within this paradigm.
Yep, that's my hypothesis.
So, my takeaway from this thread is that threadcrapping/intentional derailment is a permitted and respected form of behaviour on these forums.
In which case, can I get a hand threadcrapping this beast?
Inflammatory, offtopic, soapbox for a handful of posters who insist on discussing religion in general in the Pathfinder RPG subforum. I'm not sure what it hasn't been locked yet.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow. Gee. A thread that really didn't have any origins in religio-political basis ... and it turns into one. And threadcrapping seems to be the only solution to eventually derail the religio-political injection because people, in their primal nature, possess pathetic will saves because the Internet must be won. And then it finally has to forces a moderator's hand that the hippy-dippy-counter-culture-free-speech-man even for the unpopular topics just can't govern themselves no matter how much of an idyllic utopia they'd like to believe in with that sliver of hope one clutches onto -- is not working. And muster the courage to shut down the thread by isolating it to a specific act that occurred within the diarrehalogue that they find agreeable to comes to terms to shutting it down -- because they psychologically willed themselves to believe it.
It's not working. Peg A is not fitting into Slot B.
I think it's time to focus upon another solution that can be a workable compromise where it doesn't denigrate from the belief that the moderators are holding onto while fulfilling the request of those who would like to believe that placing certain topics into their own niche well at least reduce some of the noise before it goes all Lord of the Flies on us.
Otherwise, continue this Sisyphean exercise in futility.
Or, you know, lock that train-wreck thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or, you know, lock that train-wreck thread.
That was, you know, train-wrecked on purpose to get it locked. Well, at least people susceptible to a little paranoia that they might be somehow persecuted or just unwelcome due to their religious beliefs, practices, or affiliations were given no fuel for fears.
Or, you know, lock that train-wreck thread.That was, you know, train-wrecked on purpose to get it locked. Well, at least people susceptible to a little paranoia that they might be somehow persecuted or just unwelcome due to their religious beliefs, practices, or affiliations were given no fuel for fears.
Guilty as charged. And I'd do it a second time. Hey, what do you know, this is all on-topic. Hmph.
So threadcrapping is merely not sticking to the topic, or doing it intentionaly?
So threadcrapping is merely not sticking to the topic, or doing it intentionaly?
I had thought the term meant the act of filling a thread with off-topic or sarcastically on-topic crap so it ends up locked or abandoned.
In this case, someone dredged up an already-wretched thread from a year ago that had rightfully been abandoned. The subject matter was contentious, so it ended up back in play.
Since the OP had about 200 answers to his question, people neglected the question and used it as a forum for religious debate. Screw that. At the very least, it needed to be shipped down to OTD, but if it's going to be in the forums I frequent, I'm at least going to make it amusing.
So yeah, I crapped all over that thread, and I'd do it again. And it is the very same kind of threadcrapping that has some people in this thread upset. If my actions offend anyone, I apologize. I happen to think that forcing that conversation into irrelevance was better than letting people occasionally stoke it back up again and get riled up ad infinitum.
And that's what's on trial here, right? Some of us think that's a good thing, a natural process for threads. The repetitive threads sink to the archives. The inflammatory threads get locked. The silly threads go to play in OTD. Aberrant, isolated posts of jerkiness get pruned by the mods. In all, I'd say it's a pretty good ecology, as forums go.
EDIT: I'll add this... since the offenders change every week, what good would an ignore function do me? None, I think.
LOL ok EL...was just lookin for a definition...
LOL ok EL...was just lookin for a definition...
My job... is very slow.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I removed some name calling.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I removed some name calling.
Thanks Mr Myers!!
|
I love focus... It's just I go into a section of the boards and well it is turned off. So I turn it back on, and the threads I don't want to look at or look at anymore, are still there. I just can't click on the numbers any more. Is this intentional. Previously they vanished. That was great now I still have to see them.
|
I've been wanting to correct this mistake in terminology since I first noticed it.My fault. I didn't even care to look up the definition of this terminus as I knew what was meant by it in your specific case. At least as I am concerned I didn't mean to convey any negative implications by using it.
Naah, it's all good. Your post just reminded me that I wanted to correct a blatant falsehood, and I quoted you as convenience.
Although, if you're really feeling guilty, I sure am hungry. Brainnnnssss....?
... diarrehalogue...
I highly resemble that!
|
Or, you know, lock that train-wreck thread.
Why would you go in somone elese's thread just to post crap. Here you are complaining about that very thing. The poster made the thread in good faith (giving him the benifit of the doubt). People who go in there just to stop discussion on it are breaking the universal role of don't be a dick. That means you too.
Or, you know, lock that train-wreck thread.Why would you go in somone elese's thread just to post crap. Here you are complaining about that very thing. The poster made the thread in good faith (giving him the benifit of the doubt). People who go in there just to stop discussion on it are breaking the universal role of don't be a dick. That means you too.
Um.
I never complained about...
huh?
Or, you know, lock that train-wreck thread.Why would you go in somone elese's thread just to post crap. Here you are complaining about that very thing. The poster made the thread in good faith (giving him the benifit of the doubt). People who go in there just to stop discussion on it are breaking the universal role of don't be a dick. That means you too.
He's not complaining about it, Noretoc, he's saying it's sometimes necessary, and used his efforts in that thread as an example.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hope to clarify, not argue:
Why would you go in somone elese's thread just to post crap.
To shut it down, because it has become vitriolic, inflammatory, unproductive, and off-topic anyway. What matter if I add a few comical off-topic posts to the stream of bull*(^@? Actually, I don't do it to shut the thread down, that's for the mods to decide. I do it to make a horrible thread palatable and fun until it gets shut down, and I think many others have the same reasons.
Here you are complaining about that very thing.
This I don't get. Did you see me complaining? I like to think all of my posts on the issue have been a spirited defense of the status quo. Don't get me wrong, I *am* a total hypocrite, just not in this instance.
The poster made the thread in good faith (giving him the benifit of the doubt).
The poster made the thread in good faith. A year ago. And he received good-faith answers. 200 times. A year ago. Then somebody rezz'd the thread, and since there's no OP around anymore to provide direction or cause for the thread, it was becoming a swarm of generic arguments against strawmen. Athiests who want to drop in for one post and hate on religion for how D&D was treated in the 80s. Religious folks who want to present a better take on their faith. Nothing having anything to do with the OP's problem, and the kind of conversation that pisses off even the OTD crew when it spills out of Civil Religious Discussion.
My issue with the thread is not idealogical. I happen to be an atheist, but I think the atheists were embarrassing themselves (as they often do). One thing is for certain, it did not belong in the general PFRPG forums.
People who go in there just to stop discussion on it are breaking the universal role of don't be a dick. That means you too.
I did it because it seemed like the right thing to do.
Sorry for the polemic, I have a lot of time on my hands at the moment, and I wanted to fully explain myself. I could be wrong. I don't think that I was, though.
|
|
I hope to clarify, not argue:
Why would you go in somone elese's thread just to post crap.To shut it down, because it has become vitriolic, inflammatory, unproductive, and off-topic anyway. What matter if I add a few comical off-topic posts to the stream of bull*(^@? Actually, I don't do it to shut the thread down, that's for the mods to decide. I do it to make a horrible thread palatable and fun until it gets shut down, and I think many others have the same reasons.
Here you are complaining about that very thing.This I don't get. Did you see me complaining? I like to think all of my posts on the issue have been a spirited defense of the status quo. Don't get me wrong, I *am* a total hypocrite, just not in this instance.
The poster made the thread in good faith (giving him the benifit of the doubt).The poster made the thread in good faith. A year ago. And he received good-faith answers. 200 times. A year ago. Then somebody rezz'd the thread, and since there's no OP around anymore to provide direction or cause for the thread, it was becoming a swarm of generic arguments against strawmen. Athiests who want to drop in for one post and hate on religion for how D&D was treated in the 80s. Religious folks who want to present a better take on their faith. Nothing having anything to do with the OP's problem, and the kind of conversation that pisses off even the OTD crew when it spills out of Civil Religious Discussion.
My issue with the thread is not idealogical. I happen to be an atheist, but I think the atheists were embarrassing themselves (as they often do). One thing is for certain, it did not belong in the general PFRPG forums.
People who go in there just to stop discussion on it are breaking the universal role of don't be a dick. That means you too.I did it because it seemed like the right thing to do.
Sorry for the polemic, I have a lot of time on my hands at the...
Doh! Sorry Evil Lincoln. I though you were Man in black! Now I feel silly. I know, I know, Bad Nor!! I really am sorry for that mistake. I didn't look close enough at the name. I still do';t agree with you 100%. I agree tha there is a point where a thread becomes useless or people really start going at eachother and then the appearance of humourous posts, and the little blue guy does move it into the dead zone, but one thing to keep in mind, is that your opinion of when that point is reached and others are not the same. I have started threads, where I ask something I am interested in. I get some good answer, and then the crappers come. Now I hang around the thread, (usually not posting though) and watching, ignoring the BS Spewers, because I know once in a while I will see a real reply to the original post that has value. But if someone decides that the fecal throwers are getting out of hand, and come in and bring the blue guys, etc, I may lose out on that oppurtunity. Also, I can't start a new thread about the same topic because as soon as I do it invites both the crapper and the vigilantes, so I end up losing out. Sometime people are too quick to jump into a thread and start posting to get it closed.
In fact, it almost becomes a game sometimes.. where some posters are trying to get the first comic post in before others. That takes away from the conversation. (Although some thread are posted JUST to cause issues, and deserve to be ransacked right away like this very one IMO). I think when you feel a thread has gone too far, you need to really think about what you are doing. You could be ruining it for the original poster.
Your response seems fair, and I agree in principle.
There's no magic bullet solution I don't think. I am sorry that people get undeservingly threadcrapped, but I would hate to lose that tool for the situations that do deserve it. You're correct, it is my own opinion which ones deserve it, and I am not always right.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not that anyone asked me, but if it wasn't for posters like the Evil President, TOZ and Gorbachev, I probably wouldn't read any of the posts on this board. Well, okay, I like some of the posts about optimization, testing the limits of legal character generation, and legitimate rules clarifications, but I like me some witty sarcasm, too. But asside from that, I would call humorous, irreverant, but irrelevant additions to threads that would have better been left stillborn... I would call that threadpotpouri, not threadcrapping. If you dump flower petals into an outhouse, you are indeed not using the outhouse for it's intended function, but does not the outhouse and all those persons not allergic to flowers benefit from the application?
But what do I know, I'm a witless Christian who plays fantasy role-playing games and occasionally mispells the word 'misspell' and 'potpourri'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I'm pretty sure everyone I just referenced is probably now wishing that I weren't on their side. C'est la vie.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I *am* a total hypocrite
I knew it!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not that anyone asked me, but if it wasn't for posters like the Evil President, TOZ and Gorbachev, I probably wouldn't read any of the posts on this board. Well, okay, I like some of the posts about optimization, testing the limits of legal character generation, and legitimate rules clarifications, but I like me some witty sarcasm, too. But asside from that, I would call humorous, irreverant, but irrelevant additions to threads that would have better been left stillborn... I would call that threadpotpouri, not threadcrapping. If you dump flower petals into an outhouse, you are indeed not using the outhouse for it's intended function, but does not the outhouse and all those persons not allergic to flowers benefit from the application?
But what do I know, I'm a witless Christian who plays fantasy role-playing games and occasionally mispells the word 'misspell' and 'potpourri'.
This post was fantastic. You did, however, also misspell the word "aside".
Threadcrapping report option? Yes, please.
