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.

please don't burn your house down. We do beat dead horses and believe me I really really get that. It just seems that there should be a middle ground between no comments when something happens that goes against community standards and pages and pages of comments.

It needs to be ok for people to say, that was out of line, even it wasn't at them.

And I hear Polgara's point. I just don't have a good answer.

Tone is impossible to argue, god knows we've tried.

This whole thing has bugged. I read Sean's post and didn't say anything. My reason, I'm ita's friend and it will be seen as ganging up. (If there is one repetitive discussion element around b.org that I loathe it is about cliques and that whole posters with influence thing). Nothing else has pinged me as out of line. Doesn't mean I agree with all of it, just not against community standards as I read them.

please don't burn your house down.

I'd totally win the argument though, wouldn't I?

It needs to be ok for people to say, that was out of line, even it wasn't at them.

I understand that. My approach has changed over the years, from the Table Talk days when this whole forum thing was new to me, to now, with this board and Livejournal and the behemoth that is fandom. Everyone's got to have their own approach.

Okay, so then why did you, Hec?

Because ita seemed interested in how she was being perceived different than how she perceived herself.

No, it helped me. I know it's not just Sean that feels hurt, and Nutty squirmy. This I hadn't realised, and is valuable information for me.

Also, since I particularly value her discussion style I wanted to note that. Though on re-read, if I were ita I might be tempted to say, "Thanks so much for your defense which included the image of me callously poking a finger into somebody's wound." I don't know - it made sense to me at the time.

I'd totally win the argument though, wouldn't I?

we aren't arguing, nice lady. What you would win is the special prize of FIREMEN!!! woohoo.

Does that help clear things up?

Actually, it does. I rarely hang out at Bureaucracy, so knowing it's often in turmoil helps immensely, as does this:

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.

Although I disagree with

Not what happened. Sean screamed obscenities at ita, ita responded admirably.

There were six whole posts and seven minutes between the Sean and ita posts, and I think that's a lot of time. But that's just my opinion, and I can accept that we don't agree on it.

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.

This also makes perfect sense to me, and I should've taken it into account. I did get kinda riled up and defensive on ita and Allyson's part, and it is easier for me to understand Allyson's voice vs. Sean's.

We need a new Bitch thread.

The consensus seems to be "A Whole Different Vibe."

Other subject entirely for a moment: may we have a new Bitches, please?