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

Indeed, though having slept on it I reckon it will be best to just ingore the issue.

Much as though my Dirt Angel badge has been flashing and calling me to the "cabal cave" for some action I think this is one row really best left to the mists of time. Spesh since I am sure there is no one here (in this thread) labouring under *any* misaprehensions about what happened in the DWars.

FB

(Hoping to avoid an this thread is pretty interesting see.

Well I think that this outbreak of the interminable war between lies and badgers is fabulous. It’s a shame that it has to be in Ben’s PS but very appropriate given the original intention of the thread in the journal (remember what that was?).

Ben wanted to know how we ought to deal with disagreeable people.

Do we ignore and take what they dish out with gritted teeth?

Do we lock horns with them at the drop of a hat?

Do we collectively send them to Coventry and thereby marginalise, thereby reinforcing negative feelings.

I really don’t know which is the better answer of the ones discussed so far in this thread. I cant remember why we abandoned it but I think that the “D-bomb” option might be worth another try. I like to think of it as a mine field bypass manoeuvre.

For those not here at the time a provocative and potentially explosive post can be followed up with a brief note saying that the previous post was in some way objectionable and a link supplied to where discussion of the objectionable thread would be rather than spoil the thread it was in the way that the last couple of pages have gone here.

<>

And just to make my day even more bizarre I have a clear image of that battlefield in my head now...

>> Well, I guess that answers my question in post 287. Apparently I should have just ignored Della's lies and false accusations, assumed everyone here would take them as such, and walked away. <<

Probably the best action all round, Az. You get to keep your dignity that way, and people *can* usually see the truth of a situation, even - or perhaps especially? - from a distance. It's only bullies that then say "look, she's scared and running away."

Personally, I choose to trust people by the content and general tenor of their posts; there are certain styles of post, and therefore individuals that consistently post that way, which I automatically distrust.

>> Seriously though. . . I wonder how many people would not feel the need to 'defend' themselves when put in such a position. To kelli, kea, Ancrene (and anyone else of the same opinion) I can only say that when it happens to you that you may find it difficult to stay up on those high horses. <<

I apologise if it seems I was on a high horse; it wasn't intended that way, and I had been on the Jack Daniels... I was mostly saddened to see this thread degenerating into a rehashing of the past - particularly since it is on B's personal space.

In the event that I do find myself in such a situation, walking away would be my preferred choice of action - and I will endeavour to do so since, by the law of averages, it is bound to happen to me at some point.

Saying that I do fully understand the burning desire to crush lies and injustice, and feel it the same way as others do. Stopping this from escalating into all-out wars and petty squabbling (apologies, but at this distance it *is* what it looks like) is about exercising self-control and trusting the people who know you to see through the tissues of untruths / half-truths / twisted truths that some choose to construct. Even those that don't know you will probably be able to do the same.

>> Ben wanted to know how we ought to deal with disagreeable people.

Do we ignore and take what they dish out with gritted teeth?

Do we lock horns with them at the drop of a hat?

Do we collectively send them to Coventry and thereby marginalise, thereby reinforcing negative feelings. <<

Perhaps a combination?

Doing my "high horse" thing again, probably, but disagreeable is a wide-reaching term.

Disagreeable because we don't hold the same opinion? That's one of the facets of debate; it doesn't work if we all think the same way.

Disagreeable because they have provided shaky evidence to support their side of the argument? Happens all the time and the best way to deal with it is to provide proof that the evidence is shaky. It's worth remembering though that there are infinite ways a piece of evidence can be interpreted - or spun - on both sides of a debate. Refuting evidence on the grounds that "it's from 'X' and everyone knows their work can't be trusted" is pointless; not everyone knows, and some people do - likely the kind of people being debated with. Doesn't necessarily make them any less valuable as a debating partner.

Disagreeable because they have posted something personally slanderous / libellous (can't remember the correct term for online situations)? This is the difficult one, isn't it.

Maybe a single post to the conversation where it happened to state that you feel the person that made the post has overstepped the boundaries by resorting to these kinds of tactics, along with an invitation to discuss the situation *privately* on either your PS or theirs, but the public forum is not the place for such a discussion to take place. Both parties may then agree to settle their personal differences away from an audience and still join sensible argument in the original debate.

Of course, this demands that both parties are willing to behave sensibly. Should this not be the case then I would suggest the injured party resist the temptation to respond to any further provocation by the attacker and report the situation to the Italics. It is perfectly clear in this situation who is the aggressor and so easier for action to be taken quickly by the Eds.

Waters get muddies when friends wade in defensively. Again fully understandable, but when this happens it makes it far easier for someone who may well be totally in the wrong to claim they are the one being sinned against, and therefore the situation becomes even more difficult to comprehend for those that need to keep the peace.

I'm probably talking complete rubbish, and invite anyone to tell me so and why; my thoughts are based on personal experience in the RW and may not translate as well to online life.

<> (Ancrene)

Well, this is the one I have most difficulty with. Yes, you're right that the term 'disagreeable' is rather wide-reaching.

I don't tend to have problems dealing with 'disagreeable' people per se. As I think I said elsewhere, it's disagreeing with people that often makes for quite good and often feisty debate.

<> (Ancrene)

An excellent suggestion! Much better than the previous 'D Bomb' idea, which could have done the same thing if the page linked to had been less, um, 'angry'. You've actually given me an idea to make my own guide entry about this, which would pretty much state what you have said, and then simply post a link to it after any post that I find has 'overstepped'. That way the comment or comments have not gone unchallenged, but it would save any disruption to the ongoing thread.



az

I like Ancrene's suggestion too. I'll probably think of those threads as 'smart bombs', and I love that they'll avoid causing collateral damage.

Very cool!

Well, how's this?

Any suggestions on improvement will be happily accepted.

A6206069


az

Part of the difficulty is that every case is different, depending on the degree of offensiveness, the past histories of the researchers involved, the immediate context of the post(s) in question, and so on, and every response (including the decision to ignore something) involves a judgement call.

Noggin

Az, that looks great; just the kind of thing I was thinking.

Noggin - you're right about personalities and histories, which is why I said it depends on the people involved deciding to behave in a responsible manner for the suggested resolution activities to work.

Recourse to the Italics is suggested if the aggrieved party continues to be flamed or stalked after trying reasonable methods to end the hostilities. Think of them as the UN peacekeeping force (or not... )

Excellent Az.

I have stopped going to places like Ask h2g2 because the tone of so many conversations becomes confrontational. And frankly, I use h2g2 for recreation. I'm not here to get into a pissing contest with anyone. I have enough RL stress without deliberately inviting it here.

I wish our outspoken researchers would learn the art of disagreeing without becoming disagreeable. And would stop with the snide, cutting remarks. They also need to understand that our reactions are formed by multiple factors such as age, ethnicity, education, social status, etc. What is funny to one may very well be offensive to someone else. What makes perfect sense to me may, because of cultural factors, seem ridiculous to you. We need to have a little respect for one another. Few things are absolute.

And I will admit that I sometimes don't know if a post is deliberately offensive or not. Some clearly are, but others are harder to judge. In a personal conversation we have body language and inflection to guide us as to the intent of the speaker.

I realize that a lot of researchers consider it a game. Let's see how many sentences we can highlight here and point out that they're wrong. I have wondered if there is a contest I'm not aware of to see who can score the most points.

Two other things bother me. The first is the notion that anyone who has different standards has something wrong with them. I'm thinking of the Foul Language conversation and the way Novo was treated for expressing his dislike for gratituous swearing - almost like he doesn't have the right to be offended.

The second is to read a post that rips into someone in a harsh, uncalled for manner and then to have it end with a little smiley of some kind, as if that makes it all right to be rude and disagreeable. "I'm calling you a cretin because you disagree with me, which is stupid for you to do since I'm always right, but I'm really a sweet, caring person - have a piece of cake."

I'll stop preaching now. Sorry.

The reply will be on your PS.

Some of the stuff on this thread has made me think, and as a result I'm being a lot more civil to LW (as he was the target for most of my naughtiness), and have actually just been defending the guy against another Researcher who went off on one an started screaming 'spammer' and suchlike for no other reason than the fact that LW had posted.

This is a reply to http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/F1599166?thread=1172944&latest=1 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Backlog! >> Yes... I posted a few 'Please don't feed it' posts (two or three within a few hours, trying to get other researchers to stop replying to it. It = the troll). But that was all. (Az, 271) While accepting that your intentions were good, (or at least, neutral), like it or lump it, in English the use of gender denotes a living creature with a degree of individuality, and the use of 'it' denotes a thing. As I said, I am willing to take on trust that you did not intend to isolate and depersonalise tig. However from the evidence in this thread, other people (myself included) find the use of the word 'it' in reference to a person, *even a person in a gender-neutral role*, to be offensive and depersonalising. There's a saying that the message resides not in what is said, but in what is heard. In other words it is our responsibility as communicators to transmit in terms that our audience understand. On that basis, if on no other, what was communicated was depersonalising. When Blues called me on referring to the Italics as Its I stopped, *even though* I had not intended it offensively, or thought it was offensive. It offended. That was enough.

I hope someone at the BBC tips off the top brass!

Watch out Oprah. What a brill show you'd compere, B!



Encore!

Some excellent comments in your catch-up post, B.

The results of the postings from today make me glad to be here, which I was definitely not feeling when I posted here after I returned home from seeing Fish and being on the lash last night!

az, excellent page!

I had been thinking of a page where people could take the actual conversation (instead of to someone's personal space). For instance if you posted that link and the other person continued to post say untruths in the original thread (possibly because other researchers couldn't stop themselves from poking the stick), would you want to start a convo on your PS, or the PS of the annoying researcher? Would it be better to have a general page where disagreeable convos could be continued? I had originally thought of doing this for the D wars, but it could be a more generic 'disagreeable page'

I think the reason the dumb bomb didn't work was because Blathers (and Hoo) set it up without any real consultation with the community, and it was way too controntational to not cause more conflict. I really like what you have written az

*

>>
The second is to read a post that rips into someone in a harsh, uncalled for manner and then to have it end with a little smiley of some kind, as if that makes it all right to be rude and disagreeable. "I'm calling you a cretin because you disagree with me, which is stupid for you to do since I'm always right, but I'm really a sweet, caring person - have a piece of cake."
<<

I've never been able to figure that out - is the smiley an attempt at genuine friendliness or is it uber-sarcasm

*

Mr D. I've been having a similar rethink, especially about LW

In more general terms I think also that I will be calling people on their pariah making behaviour. I still do think it's natural for people to collectively object to a researcher's disruptive behaviour and I can't see much chance of that reaction being prevented. However I do know where my personal limit lies in terms of how people should be respected and I feel clearer now that I can in fact call people on their meanness or overreaction even at the same time sharing their frustration and need to take some action. It's a both/and response (that's my inner buddhist Ben ) rather than taking or ending up on one 'side'.

*sidles up to kea*
*whispers*

I think your browser may be storing your cache in a mysterious off-shore account again kea.

*sidles out, pretending that she hadn't sidled in in the first place*