General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAdvice to alerters:
Don't use the word "nasty" to describe the post or the person you're alerting on.
I can pretty much guarantee the jury won't support you.
pintobean
(18,101 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)jk. I don't know, just wanted to get a "nasty" in there....
Liberal_in_LA
(44,397 posts)sufrommich
(22,871 posts)Mine is any juror that writes the equivalent of "well yeah,it's a personal insult,but its true!"
trof
(54,255 posts)Just some advice to those trying to make their case.
The jury system doesn't bother me.
I'm happy to participate.
Really.
what a bunch of children!!! You won't see me alerting, trof - I don't give a f*** what people say about me as long as it isn't true!
trof
(54,255 posts)CTyankee
(63,768 posts)trof
(54,255 posts)CTyankee
(63,768 posts)socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)figure that this is a discussion board. So discuss, don't go tattling to Mama.
I've also VERY rarely voted to hide a post. A few times when it was an obvious RW troll and a couple of times when it was UNCALLED for name-calling, but that's it.
It's a discussion board. Put on your asbestos panties and discuss.
CTyankee
(63,768 posts)DUers are upset over what I think to me would be small stuff. But of course I don't walk in their shoes, so I can't judge.
I do know that I'm not smarter than everyone else and I don't know more than everyone else. And I do try to take everything with a huge grain of salt and keep my calm....
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)"meta"?
In_The_Wind
(72,300 posts)nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I don't play rigged games.
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)and by that, I mean they should be responsible for paying Elad and Skinner beer and travel money.
Skinner
(63,645 posts)Are you offering this advice because you think nastiness is not a legitimate reason to hide a post?
Or is it something about the word "nasty" itself?
trof
(54,255 posts)Here's one use: "They were doing the nasty."
I think that's a euphemism for sexual intercourse.
Nasty?
Not to many of us.
A kid drops his cookie on the floor and picks it up.
"DON'T EAT THAT. IT'S NASTY!"
What's 'nasty' to one person may be very desirable to another.
Same for 'ugly'.
One man's 'ugly' is another man's 'beautiful'.
Picasso and Pollock's painting are considered 'ugly' by some.
They're just words that are very subjective in use.
To answer your question, yes.
Give me a better reason to hide a thread besides 'nasty'.
Skinner
(63,645 posts)Rude? Uncivil? Disruptive? Inflammatory? Over-the-top?
trof
(54,255 posts)I expressed a personal opinion.
If that's a problem here, then maybe this isn't the same place I came to years ago.
We can just drop this now or you can press on.
It's up to you.
PS: I really did not expect this from you.
Skinner
(63,645 posts)I am genuinely curious. We pay close attention to how people perceive their job in the jury system. I was just trying to figure out if the subjectiveness is the issue.
Sorry about that.
FSogol
(45,355 posts)what is written. I think that's a good policy.
GreenEyedLefty
(2,073 posts)and that is fine. I like the jury system here.
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)I don't have any desire to sort out what's really going on if the alerter can't present their case in good faith.
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)trof
(54,255 posts)pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)Subjective, maybe, but isn't that what admins/hosts/juries face every day?
We also have a lot of group/forum SOP issues going to juries instead of being resolved by hosts. That's just my observation.
pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)Thanks for the tip!
trof
(54,255 posts)pinboy3niner
(53,339 posts)Yeah, that's the ticket!
petronius
(26,580 posts)disgusting, distasteful, awful, dreadful, horrible, terrible, vile, foul, abominable, frightful, loathsome, revolting, repulsive, odious, sickening, nauseating, repellent, repugnant, horrendous, appalling, atrocious, offensive, objectionable, obnoxious, churlish, spiteful, malicious, mean, ill-tempered, ill-natured, vicious, malevolent, obnoxious, hateful.
(None of those apply to trof-posts of course, as everyone knows full well...)
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)and you probably voted wrong
trof
(54,255 posts)I may have voted wrong, but I was part of the majority.
I think it was 5 to 1.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)The Alerter usually does not persuade me one way or the other
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)But it is alive here.
nas·ty
adjective \ˈnas-tē\
: very unpleasant to see, smell, taste, etc.
: indecent and offensive
: unpleasant and unkind
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)I think most people here can make up their own minds about the post, even if they don't necessarily agree with the alerter's description of it.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)I think the less likely a person is to hurl a invective at another person in real life the more likely they are to hurl that same invective over the internet. Yeah, I'm familiar with the "sticks and stones" argument but I believe that if a person hurled the same invectives he or she hurls over the internet in real life he or she would get their teeth knocked in or have to knock someone else's teeth in in self defense.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)it is fascinating reading, if you ever want to search out those articles. But they have done actual research into this.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)I learned the best response to "flamers' is the passive aggressive approach and not to get upset but to make them more upset.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)http://www.cyberpsychology.eu/view.php?cisloclanku=2012042902
Quite a bit of what you are seeing goes beyond passive aggressive behavior and enters cyber bullying and emerging field by the way, and it's not just limited to kids.
http://www.stopbullying.gov/cyberbullying/
http://cyberbullying.us/
We also have done some work on it at the paper, and I have a slew of sound from comicon, if you are so interested from experts in the field.
http://www.eastcountymagazine.org/node/13876
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,146 posts)That would be very surprising. Nadin's links do not address this at all, and I remain unconvinced. You'd need to get a good sample of the whole population, and their behaviour online and in real life, to get some evidence for it.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)I will put it in everyday parlance.
Posters talk shit on the internet that that they wouldn't dare talk in everyday life. They would get their ass beat or have to beat someone's ass in self defense for saying what they said.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,146 posts)"I think the less likely a person is to hurl a invective at another person in real life the more likely they are to hurl that same invective over the internet. "
That has to also mean that "the more likely a person is to hurl a invective at another person in real life the less likely they are to hurl that same invective over the internet."
"Posters talk shit on the internet that that they wouldn't dare talk in everyday life" is a bit different. That doesn't use the relative agressiveness of people in real life as a predictor of what they say on the internet.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,704 posts)"I think the less likely a person is to hurl a invective at another person in real life the more likely they are to hurl that same invective over the internet. "
X is much more likely to tell, say, Wlad Klitschko, to "f--k off " from the anonymity of his internet connection than he is to say it in his presence.