h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

<>

Point taken, Blatherskite. I should have said that it would feel like a cop-out to me. Which it would. Which is why I wouldn't want to use that option.

az

Usually, I would quote each of the points made in response to my posting, and respond to them. However, there simply isn't time in my day to do that, so I'm just going to address ONE thing:

Why don't I propose any solutions?

Mainly, because (like some other researchers) I don't seem to fully understand the idea.

There are other reasons, but I don't think I can discuss them without lowering my tone to something more... base.

I stick to being just a 'critic'. Listen carefully, for I shall say this only once: I. Am. Not. A. Masochist. I don't appreciate or enjoy the tone of answers I get. This isn't my way of portraying myself as a 'victim', it's me trying to stay polite. Some researchers have no control over the tone of their responses, and by refusing culpability -- by explicitly denying an active role in these proceedings, and declaring my intention to analyse rather than work for change -- I'm erecting a barrier which will allow me to carry on being reasonable. It's a mental attitude which has nothing to do with being victimised, and everything to do with staying calm.

So, back to trying to understand this 'D-Bomb'. It's a very multi-faceted little creature...


The D-Bomb was developed to help prevent the Wars from derailing threads. There are several ways in which they do this, but three in particular are:

1. by bringing up past conversations and postings, derailing the topic of the thread;

2. by filling up pages of a thread so that researchers cannot effectively find on-topic responses;

3. by being often rude and personal, which could cause distress to newbies, or those who prefer level debate.

This D-Bomb has something of a split-personality.

For one, it is meant to help stop researchers from bringing up past discussions, effectively meaning 'this has been sufficiently addressed before'. One point:

- There is a far more informative way of doing this; simply, by posting a link to the original reply to the researcher's PS, and by linking to this new thread in the conversation. That way, there's actually some evidence that it *has* been addressed already, it wouldn't derail the topic (just one link on the original thread) and there's a chance for the researcher to respond to the posting.

Another use is to keep relies short and sweet, making it easy to get around the War, or similar fiascos. This doesn't seem controversial; indeed, I would be grateful for it, since it would give ME a chance to respond to Vicky (for example) without looking hostile myself, because all the hostile posters would leave it at a 'D-Bomb'.

A D-Bomb is meant to indicate that someone violently disagrees with what someone has said, but cannoy respond to them without being rude. The D-Bomb must, therefore be perjorative. That is why Alfster's 'Deja-vu bomb' or my 'conversation bomb' idea would not work -- it would not satisfy the signaller. One point:

- Would a D-Bomb, in itself, appear hostile to a newbie to the site? If the posting it is responding to is obviously false and hateful, it won't be so upsetting, but if it is more subtle it's possible it will simply look hostile and offputting. Hoo says that they will only be used with people who have a record of making such postings, but a newbie will not be aware of such a record.


Remember that I'm just asking for clarification here, so there's no need to answer rudely.


I wonder...

Is it possible to have a reciprocal mechanism? That is, if someone decides to revive old disputes, consistantly answers someone rudely and personally or is derailing the thread, couldn't there be some sort of identical signal which says 'Right... and back to the debate'? It would effectively dismiss the posting as being unworthy of comment, because it's rude, derailing and just rehashes a dead issue.

And, as with the D-Bomb, it wouldn't simply be used whenever anyone brings up an old posting, or says something rude and personal, or tries to shift the thread onto another topic -- it would be for researchers who consistantly lower the tone of debate by behaving in this manner.

I suggest calling it a 'War Bomb' -- simply because it is precisely this sort of response which escalates an ill-conceived comment into a flame-war.

Any takers?

- Jordan

<>

Not from me. There are no wars and not always does a continued disagreement turn into a flame-war. The 'bomb' is partly to stop repeated explanations of the same point to some one who just cannot get that point into their head. All of that repetition can be done 'civily' it just gets boring hence a "dumb bomb" WITH, I stress, a link to the post that explained the point in the first place. The link is the important part as it removes the chance of 'dumb bombing' just becoming an excuse for killing discussion without having any point - a 'dumb bomb' has to be backed up otherwise it is worthy of a DB itself.

I am certainly for the whole idea and will now happily call it a dumb bomb.

"There is a far more informative way of doing this; simply, by posting a link to the original reply to the researcher's PS"

Jordan I think this point has been sufficiently raised in the past but still...

Part of the problem people have with just ingoring the problem or doing nothing mean that it might seem to give tacit acceptance to what has been said.

Something Dirty s and others are not prepared to accept.

If you quietly bring the row to the researchers PS and say nothing about it on the thread in question then to anyone in said thread it is as if you had said nothing.

Part of the point of the DB is that it means you are voicing disaproval *on thread* but without disrupting it.

Ralph

(still slightly scepital about DBs but cannot think of anything better thus far)

'You can use the D-bomb without using it as a cop-out for avoiding the issue. In the two cases above, I found it useful to summarize my personal feelings without getting abusive, and was then able to provide concise information about why the posts were dumb bombs.'

Good point, Blathers. When I think about it, despite feeling maligned, I much prefer that you simply called my post a 'D-Bomb' than actually abusing me. If researchers don't have the self-control to answer people politely, using D-Bombs (or an equivalent) is the least they can do for those of us who choose to keep things civil.

Also, I've been thinking about what happens when a D-Bomb is misused. On inspection, anyone is free to contest the use, and hopefully researchers will have enough intelligence to spot such occasions, so ultimately people who use them poorly or unjustifiably will be left with egg on their face.

They have their attractions, though I remain skeptical.

- Jordan

'"There is a far more informative way of doing this; simply, by posting a link to the original reply to the researcher's PS"...

'If you quietly bring the row to the researchers PS and say nothing about it on the thread in question then to anyone in said thread it is as if you had said nothing.'

That would make sense if that were all I had said. Why didn't you quote the whole thing, though?

'[S]imply, by posting a link to the original reply to the researcher's PS, ***and by linking to this new thread in the conversation****.'

So you're not taking it there quietly and saying nothing in the thread at all. The entire point is that you link to the new conversation on the researcher's PS on the original thread.

I shall accept that your misinterpretation could be my fault that in trying to be concise, I became incomprehensible.

- Jordan

>> by posting a link to the original reply to the researcher's PS, and by linking to this new thread in the conversation

Sometimes there simply isn't time to do this. Example (and not one about folks in this thread for once): I wanted to track down a conversation that took place here a while ago, because I thought it was the first interaction between myself and someone who has ended up becoming a major friend. Neither of us could remember *WHAT YEAR* the conversation took place in. We did track it down, and between us we spent 6 or so hours on the quest.

The backlog is just too huge to be able to post a link to original posts.


>> A D-Bomb is meant to indicate that someone violently disagrees with what someone has said, but cannoy respond to them without being rude. The D-Bomb must, therefore be perjorative.

Not sure about this...

I tend to be irritated by Vicky / Adeleide / Della / Apple and rather patronising, and I expect to be using Dumb Bombs when my posts would simply be repetitive.

I don't buy your 'therefore be perjorative'. (It would help if I was 100% sure what perjorative means! )


>> - Would a D-Bomb, in itself, appear hostile to a newbie to the site?

To a newbie on the receiving end, or a newbie reading?

If it is a newbie reading then the answer is quite clearly "it depends on the newbie".

Newbies, by definition, would not have been here long enough to drop the sort of repetitious conversation bombs which result in 'Dumb Bomb' warnings.


>> That is, if someone decides to revive old disputes, consistantly answers someone rudely and personally or is derailing the thread, couldn't there be some sort of identical signal which says 'Right... and back to the debate'? It would effectively dismiss the posting as being unworthy of comment, because it's rude, derailing and just rehashes a dead issue.

Um...

Jordan...

That is EXACTLY what posting the words "Dumb Bomb" is aimed to do.

The words are a *label* not a weapon. They alert other people to the fact that a Dumb Bomb has *already* been placed in a thread by another researcher and that the person posting the label is not - to mix a metaphor - rising to the bait.


>> I suggest calling it a 'War Bomb'

Or was your suggestion humourous / sarcastic? Hard to tell.


However - Wisky's and Jordan's posts do raise a question. Is "Dumb Bomb" the best terminology? Perhaps we should say "Dumb Bomb Alert" instead?

Ben

>> Example (and not one about folks in this thread for once): I wanted to track down a conversation that took place here a while ago,

Um. Not a Dumb Bomb, perhaps, but certainly a Dumb Broad! Sorry Jordan, I misread what you posted.

B

Oh dear, look what you end up missing when you ignore Ask for a couple of weeks.

* skips about 90% of the backlog, and returns to the original question raised in post #1 *

No.

From my perception the issue seems to have died down. Recently I've not come across any more threads where a group of researchers are giving another researcher a hard time over a, possibly inflammatory or otherwise dumb posting or opinion. Long may that continue.

Sorry Jordan my bad I just totally mis-read what you wrote.

'There are no wars...'

Then why do we have a thread called '"Della Wars" Are they an issue for the community'?

I'm possibly misreading you, and if so I apologise.


'...and not always does a continued disagreement turn into a flame-war.'

The point isn't to prevent a 'continued disagreement' (which can be conducted civilly), it is to dismiss the sort of postings (rude, derailing, rehashing) which the D-Bomb is intended to cut down on.

It has been pointed out by numerous researchers that Apple's (Apple = Vicky -- it's her current name, in case anyone is new to the situtation, or some researchers aren't up to speed) postings should be challenged. I would LOVE to challenge Apple, who has been a hootoo friend for some time, but it is difficult to do so when everything she says is being jumped on by a small group of researchers. Now, if the D-Bomb works, it will hopefully leave the field open for people like me (and other researchers who feel obliged to leave the field when the War starts up) to have decent conversations. However, if people choose not to use the D-Bomb, I don't want to have to spend time and effort responding to them as though they made an effort to stay civil, and therefore I proposed the 'W-Bomb'. The W-Bomb is not necessarily used simply to stop the War altogether (neither is the D-Bomb, I'm told) but to signal contempt without making a thread unpleasant for other researchers.


'The 'bomb' is partly to stop repeated explanations of the same point to some one who just cannot get that point into their head.

Precisely. As has been pointed out, nothing can be enforced on hootoo, so the D-Bomb is simply a device of indulgence which is used by mutual consent. (That indulgence being two-way.) The W-Bomb is precisely the same.

Basically, it would indicate to a researcher that the postings they're making are the sort of thing we use a 'D-Bomb' for.

I'd like to point out, as well, that the problem wasn't JUST with researchers boring people by conducting an old argument civilly. The problem was largely that this group of researchers consider it impractical or impossible to remain civil, in response to a particular researcher, or type of researcher. (Perhaps even 'type of posting' would be better?) So you see, proposing that the defense goes two-ways isn't unreasonable.

- Jordan

Jordan: <>

You may choose to keep things civil, but by your own admission you've done a less effective job of containing your feelings than you would like. An irritated poster will still convey their feelings even when they write with the best of intentions.

For instance, I find your implication that those of us who choose to employ the D-bomb tool lack self-restraint. I for one am on record saying that I have made a conscious choice to forego my normal restraint in dealing with Della, due to her offensive behavior. I've also made a conscious moral judgement that people who are deliberately rude and obnoxious deserve no better in return... a position reinforced by months of exercising futile restraint towards Della and her kin.

This is not a lack of self-restraint, just a different set of principles regarding when it is appropriate to use. It may be useful to your arguments to portray yourself as superior to those who are styled "Dirty Angels," but it's not a position you'll find yourself able to defend.

eh...

"For instance, I find your implication that those of us who choose to employ the D-bomb tool lack self-restraint."

I find your implication that those of us who choose to employ the D-bomb lack self-restraint to be offensive.

*War Bomb*???



Jordan, has it not ever occurred to you that Della has a personal responsibility for the way she posts on a public forum? And that many many people - not just the 'dirty s' - have said (here on this very thread) that they find her postings offensive?

And Della has replied saying that she has no idea what everone here is talking about. That she refuses to accept that she posts quite nasty stuff from time to time. Furthermore, she will not take the flak that happens after she drops a conversation bomb on a thread - she ends up pretending she either hadn't said what she did (which is a good case for not yikesing - so we are able to refer back to it) or else she does the victim thing. Oh, poor Della, always being picked on.

Are you going to say, Jordan, that you have never noticed Della appearing on threads that Hoo and blicky are on and saying something stupid and annoying about abortion or gay rights? Knowing full well what sort of response she will get.

Have you not ever noticed her goading Blatherskite with her anti-American cr*p, knowing full well he is American and will probably take umbrage?

Yeah, poor ickle Della.

I don't think so.

az

This post has been removed.

'Sometimes there simply isn't time to do this.'

I know! And sometimes names get changed, and it takes ages. This is what happened when I tried to locate a posting in Blatherskite's journal, because I could only remember him as 'Colonel Sellers'. It took me ages! (And it wasn't related to the War at all.)

I simply proposed it as a more informative alternative. Often, by 'rehash' they're referring to something earlier in the thread, or which they remember pretty well. If it's practical to track it down, it is only proper to do so; otherwise, we have no evidence that they are simply making it up.


'I tend to be irritated by Vicky / Adeleide / Della / Apple and rather patronising, and I expect to be using Dumb Bombs when my posts would simply be repetitive.

'I don't buy your 'therefore be perjorative'. (It would help if I was 100% sure what perjorative means! )'

Pejorative = insulting, usually personally insulting. I can't blame you, because I've just realised I misspelled it!

That requirement isn't something I manufactured, it's something which came from other researchers. If we look at the history of the thread:

Blatherskite: 'Isn't shaming Della the point of the exercise?'

Blatherskite: 'If not "Della bomb," and not "conversation bomb," there should be an alternative which does not refer to an individual, but still carries a pejoritive connotation. I'm open to suggestions.'

Hoovooloo: 'Kind of like the opposite of "smart bomb", just destroys the credibility of the person who posted it?'

Hoovooloo: 'I'd be appalled and ashamed that I had said something that someone could consider so cretinous.'

Alfster: 'I do not think a dumb bomb solves anything. It's abit like some one going back at you in an argument with the reply 'You are stupid', 'That's rubbish', 'well, duh'.'


Also, from the 'What can I say' ( F2044675?thread=609093 ) thread:

Hoovooloo: 'I LOVE the idea. The name is easily changed, and needs to be catchy. I favour "Dumb Bomb". It's short, to the point, and begins with the letter D. It's the opposite of a smart bomb, in that if you've posted a Dumb Bomb (as Della did in post 1 of this thread) the only thing you've destroyed is your own credibility.'

Blatherskite: 'I like the term "Dumb Bomb" as an alternative phrase. It definitely fits my requirement that it be pejoritive. I also like the idea of having a few guidelines for its use.'


Most of the comments come from Hoo or Blathers. I believe they are the main proponents for the idea that a 'D-Bomb' should be pejorative, though Hoo does indicate that this is because of the accusation rather than the actual wording. But either way, the requirement isn't mine.


'>> That is, if someone decides to revive old disputes, consistantly answers someone rudely and personally or is derailing the thread, couldn't there be some sort of identical signal which says 'Right... and back to the debate'? It would effectively dismiss the posting as being unworthy of comment, because it's rude, derailing and just rehashes a dead issue. [<<]

'Um... Jordan... That is EXACTLY what posting the words "Dumb Bomb" is aimed to do. '


Um... No, I don't think so.

There are two sides from which you could be coming. If you mean that a D-Bomb could be used to RESPOND to such comments, the entry (A3771443) doesn't say that at all. It says that they're to be used when further discussion can only be 'conducted in a hostile and vicious manner', and it specifically cites the following behaviours:

* Threats of death or violence
* Racist abuse
* Homophobia, explicit or implicit
* Idiotic generalisations
* Posting as fact something easily proven to be untrue
* "Poor baby" victim behaviour, perhaps following being Dumb Bombed for any of the above.
* Deliberate misrepresentations of another's previous statement for the purpose of winding them up.

It doesn't say this list is exhaustive, but I think it would take some stretch to say that 'D-Bombs' are to be used in RESPONSE to insulting replies. If so, I'd like to see this made explicit, because it's not at all clear.

If you mean that the D-Bomb is meant to PREVENT such comments, that's totally true, but it's also why I'd like to see something else for people who don't bother to use it.


'The words are a *label* not a weapon. They alert other people to the fact that a Dumb Bomb has *already* been placed in a thread by another researcher and that the person posting the label is not - to mix a metaphor - rising to the bait.'

Wait -- to label the offending posting, or the attitude of the 'signaller'? I'd just like to clarify that.

- Jordan

azahar,

I'm not saying she has no responsibility. I'm saying that she's not the only one responsible.

I have occasionally been dismayed by certain comments (like the one about the Simpsons), and I did think 'Gods, this won't be pretty'. Just as I was dismayed when Insight said that there could easily have been no rainbows before the Flood. I know that Insight isn't just trolling, he's posting an opinion. It's possible that's just what Vicky is doing.

So it has nothing to do with absolving someone from responsibility and everything to do with sharing it.

- Jordan

Jordan:

"Why don't I propose any solutions? Mainly, because (like some other researchers) I don't seem to fully understand the idea."

Tell you what then: why don't you shut up until you DO understand, then come back? So far all I see is uncomprehending whining.

"I stick to being just a 'critic'."

Yeah. And we know how much respect people like that deserve.

Those who can, do. Those who cannot, teach. Those who can do neither - become critics.

"There is a far more informative way of doing this; simply, by posting a link to the original reply to the researcher's PS"

Three points:

1. Unnecessarily time consuming.
2. Doesn't register disapproval in the relevant place, i.e. on the thread.
3. Pointless. By definition we're dealing with people whose behaviour is NOT going to be changed, people so pig-ignorant they don't even see that they've done anything wrong. The ONLY thing we're doing is registering disapproval. Taking "proof" to their PS is just giving them the chance to feel like victims. No thanks.

"if someone decides to revive old disputes, consistantly answers someone rudely and personally or is derailing the thread, couldn't there be some sort of identical signal which says 'Right... and back to the debate'? It would effectively dismiss the posting as being unworthy of comment, because it's rude, derailing and just rehashes a dead issue.... it would be for researchers who consistantly lower the tone of debate by behaving in this manner."

Hey! Good idea! Let's see... what could we call the signal... hmm... how about... "Dumb Bomb". Jesus H., have you been taking Della lessons or something?

"I much prefer that you simply called my post a 'D-Bomb' than actually abusing me."

If you're not uncomfortable about having one of your postings referred to as a Dumb Bomb, Jordan, you really, truly, have completely missed the point.

"They have their attractions, though I remain skeptical."

I think it would be fairer to say that you remain more or less completely uncomprehending.

" (Apple = Vicky -- it's her current name, in case anyone is new to the situtation, or some researchers aren't up to speed) "

And Vicky = Della. And Adele. And Adelaide. And Debbie. And ".". And "?". And "Winged Victory". But as the title of this thread attests, whether she likes it or not, as far as this community is concerned, she's Della, regardless of what her screenname says this week. It's the name she's used longest, it's the name most closely associated with her best known actions on this site - it's her name, where name means "what other people say when they mean you".

" As has been pointed out, nothing can be enforced on hootoo, so the D-Bomb is simply a device of indulgence which is used by mutual consent. (That indulgence being two-way.)"

Nonsense. There is NOTHING two-way going on here. "Mutual consent" is non-existent.

ONE side in what are called the "Della Wars" has been told, and accepted, that they are party to interactions which other users find offputting.

The other side in that conflict does not acknowledge ANY responsibility.

ONE side has developed a protocol to register dissent concisely in a way considerate of other h2g2 users, and has made efforts to stick to using it.

The other side has noted that this makes her feel like Hitler, Stalin and Osama bin Laden.

What "two-way" indulgence do you see here?

H.

<>

Has anyone proposed this?

<>

That would be great. The participants have all accepted their share, with one notable exception.

Sorry to disagree with you, Jordan, but your postings have been ALL ABOUT backing up poor ickle Della.

You are not reading the postings here with an open mind, you have your own personal agenda going on - to back up and protect Della.

You have not once called Della on her own responsibility here - which should be obvious to anyone.

If you want to share responsibility with someone they first have to acknowledge having any to share - don't you think?


az