Thanks for speaking up, Denise. And it isn't just this one poster we're discussing here, but similar situations in the future. This one may not be worth the time and effort, but maintaining the community against multiple assaults certainly is worth it.
There's another important point here too, of course, and that is that we know we have a wider audience for this particular drama than just the main players. As indicated above, I think everyone here does want this place to be a welcoming one. We promise in the etiquette guide that "newbie mistakes are usually corrected gently and informally". People acting in good faith can still step over the line just because they're not familiar with where it's drawn in this place.
I'd like to think that the IMO moderate action of the moderators here helps to emphasise that. The stompy feet, and the rest of the community I'm sure, would prefer to err in giving the benefit of the doubt, where it exists to be given.
RL--if he changes his behaviour I don't think he should be held to what he said.
But I was asking, if he doesn't change his behaviour and it comes to the Stompy Feet taking the next course of action against him, and he makes a fuss against that, would they feel alright using that against him. Because he said he didnt' care if stepped on toes, and he's stepped on toes left and right.
Oh, the poster put it up with a note like, "this is something joss said... somewhere, I don't know where."
I'll let it go, I guess.
That said, Joss' last post just showed up on a mailing list I'm on. It's attributed to Joss but the poster doesn't know where it came from. This list is pretty savvy, articulate, and courteous (it's a Jossiverse-focused list sprouted off of Dunnetwork, the grande dame of Dunnett communities). Do I enlighten them, or just let it go?
This *is* something I'd wondered about, when some of Tim's stuff was quoted on Watcher Girls and attributed to a blog on Whedoneque.
I, umm, let it go.
Back when we had the "idiots" discussion and several members objected to his liberal use of the term, his response was that he didn't care if he had stepped on anyone's toes.
That's what is so very clear, to me, and I don't understand why the boot wasn't given.
CLEARLY, everyone who regularly posts at this site feels a sense of community (to differing degrees), and a founding block of the community is mutual respect.
SEVERAL times, this person has said, "I don't care if I've offended anyone." Also, "...too many hyper-sensitive people here"
Never apologizes, or takes responsibility for words. Not ever. "We" are the problem, "we" are hypocrites.
This person does NOT respect anyone else, here. That's key. That's a building block. He clearly thinks himself above us, and has insulted the board, and cares not for the feelings of others.
I don't understand why there's any argument.
It's done. Ignore. Stop posting. This person will likely not learn life lessons about playing well and sharing the toys in the sandbox. This person entered our house, and pissed on the drapes, and called us party poopers for telling him to clean it up.
If we're hypocrites, and hyper-sensitive, and idiots...why is he still posting here? We don't answer to him. If he were never born, there would be Buffistas. This is an established community with social norms. We've explained that picking his nose and eating it during dinner is not part of our social norm, but instead of apologizing and moving on, he flicked the booger in our watercress.
And what do we do? Continue having polite conversation with him and eating around the booger.
I think that it is admirable to discuss this with fervor, now. I do. But pretty soon, we'll spend more time discussing when it's appropriate to show booger flingers the door, and less time eating dinner. Then we'll all starve.
Signed,
Chick with Sandwich Board Ringing Bell Screaming THE END IS NEAR!!!!
I think that it is admirable to discuss this with fervor, now. I do. But pretty soon, we'll spend more time discussing when it's appropriate to show booger flingers the door, and less time eating dinner. Then we'll all starve.
It was our first real instance of this.
Took us a while to actually say anything, but when we did, it took the length of my commute for action to happen.
Which, really, isn't too bad, considering our track record on action in the past. Let this be a lessoncakes.
Didn't mean to Chicken Little on ya.
Didn't mean to Chicken Little on ya.
Eh, don't think I hadn't thought it. I was thinking it the whole way home.
Which is why I was relieved as hell to see it basically out in the open and resolved (partially) when I got back here.
I was surprised that he didn't get more of a negative reaction from you guys when he first began posting.
That's because our first reaction is, correctly I believe, Do Not Feed the Energy Creature (DNFtEC).
Also, even though I've read Usenet humorfiles about trolls, I was all "Troll? What troll? Was that the troll?" for like 1000 posts. (Read New takes me to Bureaucracy before Firefly, I guess to forearm me.) I was expecting more like averagejoe, because I'm inexperienced.
Actually, I think these are good test cases for us to learn how to patrol our beat.
For one, you can dissect the behavior at length and offer booger/watercress metaphors, because there's only one. For another, it's not like there's three voting for and three against. It's more like three against and three feeling angst over being against. So no deep divisions.
