Vicious Hounds or "Techie Darwinism"

It is relevant.

Coco entered the thread with this comment.



Rather than comment on the thread itself, she pulled a punch at the forum community, for reasons we need not discuss other than it being waaaaaaay off-topic. This does not forgive Forseti's response. Likewise coco's further response. Forseti was brought to task. Coco must also be brought to task, for doing exactly the same thing. No exemptions.

It's a two way street. If people pile on, it's usually of their own doing, or undoing.

So what's this thread about again?

Do people really need to take someone to task for such a small thing?



By who? Cristiano and maybe a few others. Forseti was certainly not brought to task by those people who blamed Coco for making the thread about her.

[qoute]Coco must also be brought to task, for doing exactly the same thing. No exemptions.[/quote]

I'm not saying people shouldn't criticize or whatever. But at the same time, people ought to respond to what gets posted, not thru the lens of forum history.



Perhaps, but not in this case. Coco didn't make this thread about her. Others did. And wrongly so.

Coco came out swinging with an off-topic comment. And yes, Cris and a few others took Forseti to task for it. Does that deserve to be dismissed while dismissing Coco's behavior? Afterall, she accused Forseti of the same thing in a later post. Seems like bias, to me.

its all just reasonable debate.

In the absence of constraint the forums would be full of gems like: and: and: and and: and: or the classic
or this:

All of those exerpts come from people who identify themselves as SL members that post in the forums regularly. They are by no means indicative of the worst one could expect from SL members who frequent the forums, those are just a few quickly chosen samples from a few threads.

The call for freedom of speech in order to engage in spirited debate is a trick, a deliberate sham in the hopes of producing a cesspool of foul language and hatred devoid of any value to Linden Lab. This sort of of verbal psycho ward in extremely popular on the internet. People enjoy it, it's sort of a game.

This sort of speech and attitude of hostlity and disprespect has no proper place in these forums. Rational discussions of topics such as the fate of skyboxes when the new render gets done, or the desired path of the SL monorail system, or the problems caused by cluttering the landscape with prims, scripts, and avatars don't require the freedom to hold conversations that closely mimic those of a bad marriage in it's last and least productive period.

Well, the one you've quoted of mine is not from this forum.

Most forum moderators understand this. Unfortunately, it completely escapes the Lindenairs for whatever reason.

And so, if you are new or you want to propose something others disagree with, ridicule becomes an accepted form of reply.

This in turn leads to a lot of pent up hostility, and since we can't directly attack back because we will simply get banned (see Prokofy Neva for that one), we resort to other ways which are a bit more subtle but unfortunately more destructive.

This doesn't work out for anyone.

The solution really is simply for the forum moderators to do what absolutely every other mature forum moderator does - and that's explain in no uncertain terms to their forum base, play nice or don't play at all.

And to back that up with heavy moderation and extensive banning.

He didn't segregate people into sides with that statement, if anything, he lumped us all in together. You once again made it us v. them.

Also, only one part of my post was directed at you (see my use of the plural form of "folk", and that was the bit about the guidelines, because you keep bringing them up as if they are hard and fast rules. I believe them not to be, and most likely, this is why LL calls them "guidelines", and not "rules". Also, there were several people talking about debate rules and logic. Pardon me to heck and back for responding to that. Would you rather I just shut up?

I suppose from now on, I am going to have to begin my paragraphs with the name of the person(s) whose statements motivated my responses, or "this is not directed at anyone in particular."

Also, I personally wasn't "jumping all over" anyone. My god, people get offended over the slightest hint of criticism in here. No wonder threads spiral into the abyss so quickly.

I call BS. Yes, people can be easily offended, but it is clear that there are people here who are overly quick to criticize and to criticize certain people regardless of what they write.

But then again, I expect few of sharks will get it.

All right. I come back into this thread ONLY to say that for my part, yes, I could have phrased that more diplomatically. I get aggravated when I see people excusing bad forum behavior on the supposed fact that the recipients are getting it because they deserve it, because they are stupider than the ones doling it out, and thus the Darwin theory of survival of the smartest.

I should have said something like:

The comments in the posts above seem to indicate that we can actually tell who is unintelligent and thus who it is acceptable to dump on. And since when was intelligence a prerequisite to being treated decently anyway?

Hopefully that wording is less off-putting.

coco

I apologize for only reading the first thread and replying. It had such a great point that I wanted to toss in my affirmation.

In Neualtenburg, our entire community is based on the principle of fiery discussion. We have factions that compete for seats in a Representative Assembly (RA). During RA meetings folks discuss and vote on laws, finances, and covenants. In our mongo group forum I'm always pushing some sort of controversial hard-to-understand reform that has folks getting all in a huff. In short, it works and it's good.

~Ulrika~

So then you criticize me by calling my opinion "bullshit".

And you are certainly right, there are people here who criticize certain people regardless of what they write. You are a shining example in your repeated replies to my posts. Go figure, yet more double-standards from the master.

TBH half of me says "why bother" posting to this thread the other half says, "speak your mind".

Apparently "speak your mind" won out.

I would love nothing more than to discuss some of the real issues in SL as they affect everyone in SL.

Unfortunatly what I witnessed again in this thread was everyone piling on a single poster.

For what purpose? For what reason? For what excuse this time?


Unfortunatly for all of us who do want to discuss issues who have our own singular voices the odds of us being able to do so freely are slim at best.

Coco I found nothing wrong with your posts.

Mar

I think there's a not so fine line between fiery discussion and completely off-topic irrelevant interpersonal dialogue.

What? You have your knickers in a twist because I said "I call BS"?

You might not want to play the hypocrisy card when it was you who was saying that it's people who are too easily offended that cause threads to run amok.

If you think I'm being critical because it's you who posted, I suggest you read my comments again. You were, IMO, one of the people who were (again IMO, YMMV and whatever disclaimers apply) far too quick to criticize Coco.

It's for this reason, I'm critical of your last set of comments.

And if you read the rest of my comments in this thread, you will see that I was also critical of others who I think were too quick to criticize Coco. And made those comments before I responded to your post.

Feel free to make whatever claims you want about my posts, but it's clear from my posts that I'm not singling you out.

sigh

i'm sorry i was away from my computer so long i could have put this to rest long ago. Blaze is right, this could have been taken offline. I originally wrote about oversensitivity when reading and insensitivity when writing. While I may occasionally accuse cocoa of the former (that doesn't make me anti-cocoa -- I like cocoa, I just get frustrated sometimes), my own post is guilty of the latter. Not just insensitivity but laziness. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to forsee the reaction that my throw-away comment would cause, and I should have edited out the damn thing rather than cause a derailment.

So... while cocoa and I can talk amongst ourselves, I apologize to the rest of you for being cause of a major tangent.

back on track:
Buster, I agree with you too -- personal attacks are unnecessary, and it doesn't matter if they are direct or thinly veiled in generalities. Blaze knows as well as I the answer to his question. The person failed on both those counts.

But I see enab's core point as coving a third area, not direct attacks, not indirect attacks, but those situations where the reader has a choice of interpretation.

I like cocoa's goals of a more civilized forum, but we need to find a balance between freedom and restraint. If I had to err on one side or another, I would err on the side of freedom. I reiterate that I use the word "err" ... that doesn't mean I like a total free-for-all.

Nope. You're wrong. I am not offended in the least by your comments. Get it straight, no one here can hurt me. I am a big boy. I can only be hurt by critical comments from people I care about, provided I allow it.

What bothers me, and what I respond to in your postings, is your double-standards. You are one of the worst I have seen to date on the net when it comes to this. That's a long period, by the way. You seem to incapable of displaying the behavior you are trying to one-note others into adopting. When you think you or one of your co-victims have been attacked, you swing back like a madman, windmilling about, shooting off arrows by the dozen (although I must confess, you seem to have chilled out a bit in the past day or two). You're no angel, and this is why I take exception to your admonitions. You're not my mommy, and I stay within the rules here. All the belly-aching in the world by you won't change me.

Lest we forget, here is an example of your double standards:
Funny how you throw this type of statement out (which I happen to agree with), when it suits your behavior.

Coco admits her post could have been more diplomatic. So spare me the tired and trite "piling on" marginalization tactic. When people employ double-standards frequently, they will attract such replies. It's that simple. Allow us our opinions as individuals who happen to agree on some issues. Or not, and paint yourself as a busy-body who jumps to unfounded, unprovable conclusions.

And please, it's quite obvious you are nearly obsessed about what I post. Enough to have supposedly gone back and read months of it. You go out of your way. *shrugs*. I guess what I say strikes to close too home for your comfort.

IQ test:

The messages in this thread are best described by which of the following descriptions:

a) smart people outing idiots

b) verbal gladiators jockying for position by building themselves up and/or tearing others down

c) Reasoned debate

You decide.

Buster

I actually didn't see anyone trying to out idiots. As for the other two, it depends on the post and the poster. I'm not going to tar this whole thread with a single brush.

Sticks and Stones, Nolan.

I could say something nasty here, but I'll let you get in the personal digs. I'll also highlight the fact that you're the one who's overreacting here.

One tiny little "BS" comment and you've launched into yet another diatribe on that evil Dogspot.


Yeah, I can look up older posts too. And I'm sure I could find plenty of examples of posts where you exhibit alleged bad behavior too.

And here's another thing, Nolan. What I'd LIKE the forums to be and what that ARE, are two different things and they will never meet.



Basically what you're saying is that I'm not allowed to express an opinion on what people post. And yet at the same time you accuse me of hypocrisy?



Yah, Right. I went back and read "months" of your posts?

You flatter yourself needlessly. IIRC, when I said I read stuff, I was talking about forum posts, not posts by you specifically.

If I post more in response to your posts, it's because I see an unusually high level of stuff I disagree with. No more, no less.

---

Regarding the "mommy" comment, you'd be well advised to remember that you aren't my Dad and you don't get to tell
me what I can and can't say here. I'm not gonna be bullied
by someone who's guilty of the same things they say I'm
guilty of.

This was basically the thrust of my last post above. Glad to see you've come around to seeing things the way I have for the last 35 years. I will be posting this quote of yours above quite often it appears, as a rebuttal.

Yes. It's a selfish hijacking of an interesting topic. Why don't you take this to sluniverse and have at, Nolan and DogSpot?

~Ulrika~

But mom, she started it!

And I agree, which is why DogSpot has seen the last response from me. I am going to write my thoughts about the OP now.

I'd point out that this thread was derailed quite a bit earlier today, when a couple of folks started admonishing posters versus discussing the thread topic. In any event, I apologize for my part in this recent spate of OT crud, and am ending my involvment in it here.

Thanks for the reminder, and for the ninja edit of the part about "kids"

I don't see anyone doing that either. But I'm sure there are participants who think they are smart, and think that they are outing idiots.

It was a rhetorical IQ test anyway

Buster

I am of the mind that the answer lies somewhere in between.

Fiery discourse most certainly can and does beget great improvements upon existing ideas and spawns innovations. It's obviously working for Google.

Overly zealous criticism does not aid the process.

Overly sensitive reactions to criticism do not either.

Whenever someone personally criticizes me or my ideas, I do a couple of things.

I try to honestly look at how much truth there is to what they are saying. I will decide how I respond to them based upon that self assessment - and - I look at the way in which the critic(s) conducts themselve(s) and contrast that with their criticism of myself or others, if that is the case.

This is not to say that they don't have a valid point if I am really being a jerk. I am not above admitting and apologizing, if my behavior warrants it. What I am saying is that if said critic has a chronic habit of calling others out, while they display or support the same behavior they are criticizing in others, they are less likely to get a positive response from me, if any at all.

In closing, A happy medium is ideal, but very, very difficult to accomplish. The reasons are myriad as to why, with the vast array of different and strong personalities being at the forefront. I do agree with Enabran when he says erring on the side of freedom is the best route to take. Censorship is never a good thing, except in blatant cases of harrassment.