I didn't read it as a Sean piling, either. That's not why I posted. The rest of the post just seemed to contradict the introduction, that's all. And none of this conversation seems to live up to the method people seemingly agree is best--namely, if/when someone posts something that itches, call them on that post, specifically, in a timely fashion. The general criticisms are unfair, and the general praise (which is a good thing in general), is in response to the general criticisms, and I'm just getting dizzy.

I'm with you on the butterflies Nora, and think I need to go do something else.

Someone please help me out here. I realize I'm mostly just a lurker, but I read some of the threads here pretty religiously, including Natter, and yet I still can't figure this place out.

SeanK posts the internet equivalent of screaming obscenities in a crowded room, and everyone looks away and talks about the weather, then congratulates themselves on "look how we didn't make a big kerfuffle over it."

Allyson's post is civil in tone, but controversial and pointed in content, and everyone leaps on her.

I need help with the rules here. Is one behavior worse than the other, or is it just some people need the help of the community while others are assumed to be able to defend themselves? Or perhaps it's not about the victims? Is it that some people can get away with stuff that others can't? Normally I wouldn't even have noticed, I'd just see drama and go away 'til it was over. But these two incidents happened right on top of each other, and the difference in the community reaction was almost startling. What's the deal?

Allyson's post is civil in tone, but controversial and pointed in content, and everyone leaps on her.

a) I have a very hard time reading Allyson's tone as civil. I know she says that it's intended to be, and I know that many people do read it that way. I have difficulties with it, and I generally don't respond to things she says because I don't trust myself to read them correctly.

b) The thing was *over*. 90% of the reasons kerfuffles go on forever here is that someone stirs the pot just when everything was settling down. bon bon did it, Allyson did it, and Bureaucracy seems dedicated to it.

c) I hardly saw everyone leaping on Allyson. When bon bon brought up the issue in Natter, many more people in total said that they found Sean's behavior unacceptable, and of course, when Sean returned, he felt piled-on, which was the thing we'd been trying to avoid.

d) I guess that yes, I do cut Sean more slack in this istance because his post obviously came out of frustration and a crappy day. No, he shouldn't have done it. Yes, there are obviously many issues at play which were probably not handled in the best way. But it reads differently to me than Allyson's post, which was obviously something she considered and deliberately posted. She said it was important to her, which I totally respect, but that then leaves other people free to respond to it as they choose.

I saw the Allyson smackdown as people wanting to stop talking about the issue. However, the part about what qualifies as working in Hollywood was a bit distracting, though I finally figured out (I think) Allyson's point in bringing that up.

God, I just cannot shut up. I never post in B'cacy. Why am I doing so today?

b) The thing was *over*. 90% of the reasons kerfuffles go on forever here is that someone stirs the pot just when everything was settling down. bon bon did it, Allyson did it, and Bureaucracy seems dedicated to it.

This I disagree with. No response from anyone saying it was out of line to begin with does not equal over. I do not think bon bon was stirring the pot, she made one statement. Everyone could have easily enough chosen to ignore it just as they had Sean's.

No response from anyone saying it was out of line to begin with does not equal over.

My opinion is sort of that it was up to ita to make an issue of it if she wished. Obviously, ita was having a bad day yesterday, and off having a life at some point, but part of the reason things never die is that people take it upon themselves to be offended on behalf of someone else. And I know we don't want to condone attacks, but... and I'm repeating myself at this point, and almost managed to set my kitchen on fire by paying too much attention to my post instead of my lunch.

I generally don't respond to things she says because I don't trust myself to read them correctly

I'm saddened by that, Dana. I hope I've not hurt you in some way. Genuinely like you.

Someone please help me out here. I realize I'm mostly just a lurker, but I read some of the threads here pretty religiously, including Natter, and yet I still can't figure this place out.

Well I may not be Someone but I'm still someone.

SeanK posts the internet equivalent of screaming obscenities in a crowded room, and everyone looks away and talks about the weather, then congratulates themselves on "look how we didn't make a big kerfuffle over it."

Not what happened. Sean screamed obscenities at ita, ita responded admirably. Others hesitated to step in after ita responded and Sean had apparently left the scene. Bon Bon spoke up later that day about the behavior. Many others followed to post support and expressed embarassment that they hadn't posted to begin with. Then Sean came back, apologized and then claimed ita picks on him. Folks called him on the half-assed apology, and he responded by apologizing sincerely to ita and to everyone for his inappropriate behavior. And things moved on.

Allyson's post is civil in tone, but controversial and pointed in content, and everyone leaps on her.

Allyson decided to post her feelings in this thread post Sean's apology. This thread, whether by design or accident, has become the place where you can expect to get leaped on for your opinions. Especially if your post is "controversial and pointed in content" despite its civil tone. And Allyson is well aware of this. And the fact that the kerfuffle was over contributed as well.

I need help with the rules here. Is one behavior worse than the other, or is it just some people need the help of the community while others are assumed to be able to defend themselves? Or perhaps it's not about the victims? Is it that some people can get away with stuff that others can't? Normally I wouldn't even have noticed, I'd just see drama and go away 'til it was over. But these two incidents happened right on top of each other, and the difference in the community reaction was almost startling. What's the deal?

Nobody gets a pass. Sean may have gotten a temporary pass yesterday because of the time of day and the fact that his target was ita, who exudes a certain kicks-good-enough-ass-herself attitude that keeps others from jumping in to comment. And when Bon Bon pointed out the inconsistency there was little hesitancy for people to pile on support for ita and criticism for Sean.

Also, Polgara, I think your point gets lost in the facts. Lots of people jumped down Sean's throat in Natter and demanded he apologize. All people did to Allyson was disagree with her. Nobody's demanding she apologize. So the behaviors are not even remotely similar, and neither were the responses. Does that help clear things up?

I'm saddened by that, Dana. I hope I've not hurt you in some way. Genuinely like you.

You haven't hurt me. I find myself taken aback by some of the things you say, because I think we have very different conversational styles, but your actions speak for themselves, and your kindness to ita speaks, and the high regard that people have for you personally speaks. I just honestly don't trust myself to get into it with you over something you post because I'm pretty sure I won't interpret it correctly.

Polgara, I also think maybe who is being seen as being piled on depends on the reader's perspective, and how close they are to each of the people involved. Obviously, you are closer to ita and Allyson than to Sean, so you feel more strongly about posts directed to them, which is how it should be.

Other people are closer to Sean, and while I don't think anyone thinks his initial post was in any way appropriate, they did try to view it through what they know about him, and what he is going through. For some of those people, I am guessing (and I could be wrong) that Allyson's post was upsetting because while it was aimed at defending ita, it also unnecessarily poked at Sean's sore spots, namely his employment situation.

For myself, I wish I had said something about Sean's initiial post, even though there were a number of reasons I did not do so that seemed valid at the time. For much of what happened after that, I agree with most of what Jessica said here : Jessica "Bureaucracy 3: Oh, so now you want to be part of the SOLUTION?" Aug 31, 2004 7:14:02 am PDT, except that I fall into the liking how ita's responses frequently make me think/post better camp.