Is The Forum Getting More Antagonistic?

[payn]

Well qualifying language is often necessary in the era of easily offended people.

I often wonder what the catalyst was for this "easily offended" mindset.

Oh, im guessing folks are just sick and tired of being sick and tried of receiving discrimination, bigotry, etc..

 

[beancounter]

Oh, im guessing folks are just sick and tired of being sick and tried of receiving discrimination, bigotry, etc..

The real issue is when people intentionally interpret a person's post in the most extreme way, or intentionally take it out of context so that they can justify being offended.

It's as if some people are actively looking for reasons to be offended.

 

[Retreater]

It's as if some people are actively looking for reasons to be offended.

What do you mean by "some" people?

 

[beancounter]

What do you mean by "some" people?

Not everyone, just some. Substantially less than 100%

 

[AnotherGuy]

The real issue is when people intentionally interpret a person's post in the most extreme way, or intentionally take it out of context so that they can justify being offended.
It's as if some people are actively looking for reasons to be offended.

Ah humanity. It happens in sport with fouls, I'm specifically thinking of football (soccer for the Americans), where the "fouled" players are looking for a penalty. With the internet, posters are looking to get other posters moderated/banned.

 

[AnotherGuy]

What do you mean by "some" people?

Took me a second.

 

[Umbran]

I truly hope you realize that when you respond to a poster, which you do just like any other poster, that is unsolicited (much like me here and now replying to your post) people can be acutely aware that you really aren't just any other poster.

Yep. I realize that.

Suggesting that these people can just "not engage" comes across as flippant. You replied to them. But you have the power to sanction them if they tell you something you don't like literally as easy as switching text color.

In theory, yes. But there is a point where fears in theory should be checked against what actually happens. There is only so far we should go to protect people from fears that are not founded in our actual behavior.

Rather contrary to your suggestion, I will generally take abuse upon myself that I would slap with red text if I saw it applied to someone else.

I'm not saying you're abusing your powers. I am saying that in a confrontational landscape, this idea, that you can walk among ordinary men just like an equal among equals comes off as slightly naive.

With respect, I have no such idea. Quite the opposite - we have been known to use our presence in a thread strategically. Metaphorically poking our heads into discussions to demonstrate that we are, in fact, paying attention, is a reasonably effective way to mitigate rising tension so that no red text is never needed, using passive moderation, rather than requiring active intervention.

When I say folks are free to not engage with us - I mean that in the most basic (and, in my observation, most effective) sense of simply not responding to a post we make. You can search he entire archives of the site, and see exactly zero examples of one of us saying, "Dude, you didn't reply to my last post. I am waiting."

Simple and silent failure to respond (with no announcement) is the most effective mode of disengagement we've seen. I recommend it frequently, in public, in PM, in mod voice and not. I have probably said as much to several of you here in this thread. I, personally, chose to not respond to people every single day - being able to choose whento respond or not is an important skill for all web-denizens to develop.

And, if we have to speak of naivete, do remember that the site's been around for over twenty years, with all the accumulated experience that brings. We are not perfect, and feedback does potentially bring useful new ideas, so we are open to hearing it. But we are not new at this, and don't go about it without thought and reflection. We are about as seasoned as you'll find in volunteer support.

We may be many things, but naïve, we are not.

 

[payn]

The real issue is when people intentionally interpret a person's post in the most extreme way, or intentionally take it out of context so that they can justify being offended.

It's as if some people are actively looking for reasons to be offended.

While your intent may be honest, when someone tells me they are offended I listen to them. That's just me.

 

[Umbran]

I agree with the @Olrox17, @CapnZapp and @Lanefan however there is one I'd say technical/pragmatic issue in their request.

So say we have a handful of people who place moderator X's public account on ignore, the moderator would literally have to have reports on their other mod account to police the hidden posts otherwise they wouldn't necessarily see them if they are browsing on their general member account.
I'm thinking the mod and poster account should indeed be one to have dual functionality where it's possible to see ignored posts (and they'd know they're being ignored), otherwise it would very much be a chore for the mods switching between the two accounts.

Yes, there is an element of that. Most of our moderation is based on reports, but some of the most effective and least intrusive moderation is the stuff we can catch before it gets to the point that someone has to lodge a complaint with us, and for that we'd have to see it.

 

[Umbran]

Did anyone suggest it's an all-encompassing solution?

No. But I think noting that it isn't practical still has value.