Assume good faith?

I recently tweaked the wording and some of the features around talk-post flagging (see http://www.librarything.com/topic/65287).

One member wrote: "What about non-commercial solicitation (or the like)? More specifically, someone creating an account, not adding a single book, and posting 'I've got a great book blog here, come and visit me!'"

Members going after people for this sort of thing has long bothered me. Sure, it's... twirpy. But is it really a violation of the TOS? What if they said "Check out my great book on X"? That might be more spammy, but is it necessarily a sign of bad faith? Maybe that person would go on to become a productive member of the community.

So I wonder if we don't need to follow Wikipedia's rule: Assume good faith (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith).

The application here of AGF would be for some member to write something like "Thanks for your interest in LibraryThing. It looks like you've got an interesting blog/book there." and then clue them in to the norms of community contribution on a site like this. Ditto when someone makes some idiotic edit to CK (I've come across members who are clearly invested in the site who make some idiotic edit, presumably to see what it would do).

So, since we tend to borrow norms from Wikipedia, how about making "Assume good faith" an official community norm?

I like it.

Well done Tim! ( as always )

But wait! Don't you remember what that say? When you assume you make an ass out of you and, um, some other person. (Not me!)

Sounds like a great plan, Tim.

I like the idea and hope we can put it into practice.

I'm also rather fond of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_call_a_spade_a_spade

Not that I always follow it.

But then you are being called Spaldo, not a spade...

Honestly I'd be very happy to see a less militant attitude to the not quite spam messages. Simply because (for me at least) it gives an aggressively unfriendly impression to see a post with poor grammar, chat speak, or an authors enthusiasm that could be well intentioned thoroughly and speedily eviscerated by some members. And I don't know how many new people lurk a while before posting but that kept me from speaking for quite a long time. Simply because I didn't want to get sucked into something unpleasant by the lack of grammatical perfection. Or whatever else.

I'm quite fond of the Ravelry.com suggestion "be excellent to each other" as a community guideline for behavior. It will be nice if this makes things a bit friendlier and more forgiving around here.

Apparently that's a line from Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure.

Yes it is. Though I'm not sure if any of the head people at Ravelry are fans or not. It does work fairly well over there. And people can get just as worked up over yarn as books, which rather surprised me in the beginning.

>8 timspalding: It's part of their overall philosophy that changes the entire Universe and makes Wyld Stallyns the greatest band that ever lived.

fact!

I am fairly new here and have contributed quite a bit to common knowledge, posted new covers. But I am always worried I'll mess something up. If I do I certainly would like to know that I have done something wrong. It is nice to know that people won't think or presume I am doing it on purpose.

This is probably going to sound stupid (or make me look stupid): I would contribute more but I don't always fully understand what some areas in the CK area is for. Is there a "for dummies" section?

I leave many areas blank for that reason, I don't want to mess up.

Thanks!

>11 thebeadden:

May I suggest : http://www.librarything.com/wiki/index.php/Common_Knowledge

and the Common Knowledge group: http://www.librarything.com/groups/commonknowledge

as useful resources.

ETA: Thank for all you have already done!

I'm not sure why, but 'Assume good faith' just doesn't sound right for LibraryThing. I don't know if it's because it seems overly formal, or if it seems as if it's talking down to people. Wikipedia has to put up with such a wide variety of people that formalism seems necessary, (and I wasn't very happy with Jimbo's stewardship, which is why I departed) but LT has a much more co-operative feeling - perhaps because it is single-purpose.

I like the 'Be nice' slogan.

I love the idea. It should be site policy that we all assume that new users have good intentions and treat them accordingly.

A good thing, Tim, that you've accepted there's no escape from knitting.

v

"Assume good faith" seems reasonable to me. I think your recent tweaks to the flagging system will go far . . . and I agree that some newcomers jump in with more enthusiasm than good sense, as far as promoting their book/blog/ideology goes, but flagging and/or berating them is probably discouraging not only to them, but to others who may be lurking, but hesitant to jump in for fear of just such a reception (even if they weren't planning on hawking their wares in a similar manner). I've probably flagged such posts in the past -- so from now on, I'll adjust my behavior accordingly.

#12 Thank you sqdancer.
I did did read the links and if I am still not 100% sure about something. I guess it is better to leap out and ask a question than it is to mess it up.

1>

I'm sorry, I can't do that.

I can avoid flagging these people who are clearly just seeking hits for their blog (Just for clarity, I'm not flagging them now.) But I can't bring myself to encourage them, with the "Thanks for your interest in LT", which gives them exactly what they seek and reward jerky, spammy behavior. It's clear to me that they aren't in the least interested in LT -- if they really are, they'll show that later, but a blog-advertisement post isn't indicating interest in anything more than hits. If it's all the same to you, I'll consider to "red X" those posts, and to go to the poster's profile and proceed to ignore them.

14>

Only if you extend the same courtesy to established users, as well.

I was vilified on another thread for something I didn't even do, just because I expressed sympathy with people who would prefer to keep the site a place for intelligent conversations.

Which is more important, being right and annoying at least one person, and probably more, as well as probably wasting more of your time, or being minimally courteous and resolving the issue?

20>

Are you asking me? I want to spend as little of my time as possible dealing with spammers -- so hitting the "red X", rather than the faux-naive "Thank you for your interest in LibraryThing", is the way to do that. Rewarding that doesn't "resolve the issue" -- it exacerbates it.

(I'm not talking about people who just post in the wrong thread, or something; I'm talking about people who are clearly just trying to sell their book, or drive hits to their blog, or similar behavior.) I think it's actually more likely that they "go on to become a productive member of the community" if they realize that community culture discourages spamming than if they think it's accepted. If they're actual spammers, they'll go away, or cross the line and get flagged; if they aren't, they'll read a few posts, realize what the place is like, and hop right in.

I think it's hard to know exactly what people are motivated by. If someone is driving you to a blog about kittens, you have a point, perhaps. If they're driving you to a book blog, there is a decent chance their just posting their blog about books because—this being a book site—they think that's okay. Sure, experienced members may think this irritating. But, as the Wikipedia article points out, most ducks don't think they're ducks.

Incidentally, it's widely said that LT is for book-related discussion. I don't think that accurately describes how it's used. Clay Shirky once said that when you go into an AOL sex chatroom, people are talking about sex. And when you go into a book room, people are talking about sex. The difference is that they're doing it with people who self-identify as book people. People post all kinds of "off-topic" things at LT. They do it because they're book people—a very wide universe, but not the widest—and want to relate to other book people.

> 22 I think it's hard to know exactly what people are motivated by.

Perhaps so. Maybe the book hawkers do naively think that's what the site is for.

At the same time, I completely agree with lorax. My feeling (note that I say "feeling"!) is that if anyone is going to resort to spam-like tactics, they're spammers. I don't care what the topic is. I mean, yes, we don't know what other people's exact motives are, but do spammers themselves succumb to such tactics?

I'm either going to completely ignore such people, or at the most tell them (politely) that they are mistaken about the site. I'm in the camp of "don't encourage them". But I'll agree we don't have to beat them about the head and shoulders over it either.

Ignoring is better than lashing out. I red x a lot of thread that I am not interested in looking at. Nothing wrong with that. I don't think Tim is asking you to read something you are not interested in reading. He is just asking that we assume the best of people. Old and new members..

So x. No loss for either you or the poster.. right?

I've also noticed that "Hey, check out my blog" threads, even if they're not flagged, usually don't result in a lot of posts. I have no idea how many hits they generate for the blog in question, but I can find many examples of this kind of post, occasionally by people who post regularly, and hardly any generate more than one or two comments:
http://www.librarything.com/topic/61247
http://www.librarything.com/topic/60797
http://www.librarything.com/topic/59480
http://www.librarything.com/topic/65166
http://www.librarything.com/topic/64748
http://www.librarything.com/topic/63170

Easy to ignore, and even if you don't click the "x", they're soon buried by more active threads.

#22: "Incidentally, it's widely said that LT is for book-related discussion. I don't think that accurately describes how it's used. . . . People post all kinds of "off-topic" things at LT." -- Coming from the perspective of someone who mostly reads and posts on Hogwarts Express and the Green Dragon, truer words were never spoken. ;-)

I have to agree with lorax on this one. I'm not saying it's a bad idea to "assume good faith" or what have you, but I'm not going to waste time "welcoming" someone to the site when they have done nothing (no cataloguing, nothing like that) except post about their blog or book. I won't flag them, but I certainly won't encourage them. If we "welcome" them to the site, they are going to assume that what they did is okay, and keep doing it. If no one responds, they'll be less likely to keep spamming.

If someone hasn't even entered a single book, but puts a blog link in Talk, flag their ass down. Why wouldn't you?

> 27

Why not just ignore them?

If they haven't entered any books, the current evidence says they're just here to advertise. It's good to enforce a "don't just come to LT to advertise" norm.

Or, the only books they've entered are their own, which is what they're here to advertise.

To my understanding, wikipedia's 'Assume good faith' does not mean 'against all evidence to the contrary' - if someone is clearly here to spam or shill, that's something different from an instance which could legitimately be a new user not quite understanding the ways Talk works, etc.

There's nothing in 'Assume good faith' that keeps users from flagging posts which are clearly against TOS. It just kind of emphasizes and underlines the importance of the 'clearly' part.

If I understand Tim correctly he seems to be drawing a line between spammers who are pushing non-book items/services, and those that are (perhaps inadvertently) pushing their books/book blogs.

I say 'perhaps inadvertently' because although they may very well know they are pushing their stuff, if they are new to the site (not lurkers) and/or the internet, they may not be aware of the etiquette or rules of the site.

Being welcoming and polite, or even ignoring them, which ever is right for the LT member at the time, is not a big sacrifice. This is a social site, and if you partake in the social part then there should be a minimal effort at being social. I don't understand the attitude that there should be nothing that happens on LT that you don't like ? As though once someone makes a mistake they are fair game for nasty, hateful behavior. A community means that there are many different views and the best way to get along is to allow other's their space, so you can be allowed yours.

Finally Tim's point about the book/blog spammers becoming productive members is being ignored. If you will remember he and the elves are working all the time to make the site better, to not only keep current members, but attract new ones. I believe the site has to keep moving to stay alive. If new members are routinely trashed, or lurkers see the fate of others, you are undoing all their hard work, and perhaps making the site less viable in the long term.

If the new and clueless book/blog spammer doesn't shape up or respond well to kindness and direction, there is plenty of time at that point to flag, report, remove.

I say 'perhaps inadvertently' because although they may very well know they are pushing their stuff, if they are new to the site (not lurkers) and/or the internet, they may not be aware of the etiquette or rules of the site., and the rest of 32

Oft said, but ne'er so well expressed.

they may not be aware of the etiquette or rules of the site

Whilst they may not be aware of the etiquette they should be aware of the rules of the site. If not maybe the rules ought to be more prominent in the sign-up process.

I think generally people fall in to a couple of camps - those who are just shilling, and those who don't know any better. Most times it is reasonably easy to tell, even on a first post, which camp someone falls into (especially those who are new to the internet). One type of 'user' should be encouraged and one discouraged. However there are times when it isn't possible to tell - those cases I just ignore. Generally within a few posts it becomes clear what camp they belong to.

Perfect ficus!

I have read some very sharp or mean spirited responses to newbie posts.
I have been "told off" myself for not finding a similar thread ( that had been dormant for weeks). People have to be more mindful. What harm to try to be nice?

This is a nice site.. Tim, dawg, abby and the others...nice. So who are we to step in and trounce someone who breaks a rule? And if we do try to show them say, a similar thread, do it nicely.

I'm understanding of newbies who are feeling their way around.

But I see nothing in 32 or 33 that convinces me away from 27 & 29. As Aerrin99 said, 'Assume good faith' does not mean 'against all evidence to the contrary'. Again, I'm talking about a person who has not deigned to catalog a single book. Zero, nada.

>36 Carnophile:

Everyone must catalog books before they post on talk? What if I love the site, but I want to wait until my CueCat arrives, or I've cleaned a space on my desk, etc.

Or if you are more social than bookie, and you want to make sure you like the site before you invest any time in cataloging ?

Backwards for me, but then I don't expect everyone to be be the same.

>33 timspalding: Tim, ooh Dead English. Thank you.

Thank you mckait.

> 34 Whilst they may not be aware of the etiquette they should be aware of the rules of the site. If not maybe the rules ought to be more prominent in the sign-up process.

I live on the edge, I have never read the rules.

So your thought is to set the site up with a honking software-type license on the front that you have to agree to before you can register or post ? Come to think of it, I don't read those either. Just take my life in my hands and agree.

>36 Carnophile: But I see nothing in 32 or 33 that convinces me away from 27 & 29. As Aerrin99 said, 'Assume good faith' does not mean 'against all evidence to the contrary'.

Because the site owner is asking you to give them the benefit of the doubt??

There is no reason to decide that 'All Evidence' has to be collected in their first post/few minutes on the site. Perhaps 'All Evidence' is after they have been around a while, and still don't get it ?

Re #1: "Ditto when someone makes some idiotic edit to CK (I've come across members who are clearly invested in the site who make some idiotic edit, presumably to see what it would do)"

Some CK edits that may look idiotic are an attempt to work around the disabling of CK search. Entering "foo" into a CK field and then clicking on it may (depending on the field) bring up the first 50 matches for "foo". I've found this very handy in tracking down and correcting defective CK entries. As long as we remember to clean things up afterward, I've assumed that this sort of intentionally incorrect but temporary edit (just like those done by the combining mavens) is okay.

BTW, I think restoration of CK search would be a lot better than a pony. A database without searches isn't much of a database.

Well said ficus!

(Oh, andI live on that edge myself. )

>37 timspalding: Everyone must catalog books before they post on talk?

If what they're posting is just a blog link or "I'm an author; read my book," then yes.

>38 FicusFan: Because the site owner is asking you to give them the benefit of the doubt?

If and when he changes the LT rules to say we shouldn't flag that, I'll stop. Right now he's just discussing it.

Edit: Actually, I'm not sure "I'll stop" is appropriate, because I'm not sure if I've ever actually done this. But we're discussing hypotheticals.

If the same 'look at my _______" post shows up in lots of groups it probably is spamming. If it's only in one or two places we can wait and see and even point out a better place to post their message.

-41 The point is, the owner of this site just said that there is no site rule that mandates book cataloging before posting.

I think often when people try to post a blog or book first, they are one of two things: proud of their creations and wanting to share or even trying to bolster their "credentials" as a person knowledgeable about and interested in books.

Sure it may annoy people who interpret these post as overly self-promotional, but that doesn't mean that the poster is violating the site rules, so they don't merit flagging.

The number of groups a message is posted to is an integral part of the original Usenet definition of spam. The Breidbart Index is a formula used to decide when something is cancellable spam -- and the reason I went directly from moderately polite to "die, spammer, die" mode on a recent thread in Early Reviewers was that I'd discovered that the "buy my book!" person in question had well and truly gone past a BI of 20 in his ads posted to member's profiles.

This works both ways -- if someone is posting hither and yon, they're unquestionably a spammer, but if it's a single misplaced post, it's as well to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I'm all for not jumping on people for posting in the wrong group or providing incorrect information, or innocent flagging due to misunderstanding a post; someone I won't name jumped on me last summer for that when I was new to the forums, and I stopped posting for a month. (I didn't go away because I came here to catalog, not chat.)

On the other hand, book-spamming authors annoy me because they are breaking the rules I take care to follow. If there are no consequences to that sort of behavior, why shouldn't anyone do it?

Of course there will be consequences. Your credibility will suffer, with or without flags.

Well, I know that, but some people don't care.

And if its something the person continues to do, when politely asked not to, then there will be flags, and whatever other consequences spamming accrues. Its just asking us not to jump on them the first thing we do.

I remain unconvinced by these arguments, but believe that we've reached the "going in circles" phase, so will cease posting. I will continue to lurk with interest, though.

I noticed that Tim posted a "cease and desist" comment on the profile of the author who has been spamming Book Talk the last few days. That author had been told politely, and repeatedly flagged, but continued posting.

The message clearly is not that author spamming is fine, but to try politeness first, and if that doesn't work, then go ahead and flag.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with an author making an announcement to the world that they wrote a book. But if they have to tell us over and over again, then I figure that not only are they being pushy, but the book probably isn't very good anyway.

Suppose an author offers 15 (or any number) copies as ER books. Algorithm picks recipients, author bears the cost of distribution. Would that circumvent the situation?

51: Uh, that's why Member/Author Giveaway was created? So authors could have a sanctioned way to promote their books instead of spamming Talk and profile pages.

Can I ask a minor favor for the "Assume Good Faith" on the site?

We have some minor snarkiness in the instructions for author "never-ing" -

I know an author is separate, but some infernal idiot keeps combining them. Can I take a name off the combination list?

I just want to go on the record as saying this has always rubbed me a little wrong. Not so much in the instructions themselves, but because I see it repeated when a mistake is made. Not everyone that makes a mistake is an idiot.

I just think it might be nice to remove the phrase infernal idiot. Perhaps others might follow suit when they come across mistakes and not scare folks away from at least trying to help - those that make mistakes early can actually go on to do a lot of good later. Well, provided they're not discouraged by an environment that okays them being called idiots.

> 36, 38

Just to be clear, my statement ('Assume good faith' does not mean 'against all evidence to the contrary'.) was meant in /favor/ of assuming good faith - I meant to point out that if there is clear evidence that someone is doing something against the TOS, there is nothing in 'assume good faith' that stops us from dealing with them.

What good faith does do is make us stop to ask whether or not there is /clear evidence/ that someone is doing something against the TOS, rather than suspicion, personal feeling, or personal preference.

Blog post ties it all together: http://www.librarything.com/blog/2009/05/better-statistics-other-improvements.ph...

53 - I was thinking the same thing the other day, especially because the epithet then gets propagated in Talk discussions about combining/separating.

53>

Of course not everyone who makes a mistake is an idiot.

But someone who combines the complete works of Shakespeare into a single thing, or combines two totally unrelated authors into one because they own a book with contributions from both, is not making a mistake. They're willfully disregarding the very clearly stated combination rules, which makes them either a vandal or doing something idiotic. I want to say I've never seen anyone specific referred to this way -- it's not like anyone says something like "stephmo combined J.K Rowling with J.R.R. Tolkien, the infernal idiot" -- they say "the infernal idiot combined Rowling and Tolkien, help!" It's an archetype.

Frankly if I didn't have the escape valve of referring to the Infernal Idiot I'd do a lot less work on cleaning up the site -- the presence of that statement is a reminder that LT does at least have some concern for data quality.

I'm getting discouraged that all this happy fluffy bunny stuff is really going to harm the site in the long run. If I can't even say that no, clearly, Tolkien did not write Hamlet without being accused of hurting someone's feelings, what's the point of a cataloging site?

I think there can never be enough happy fluffy bunny stuff...maybe too many tribbles but not happy fluffy bunny stuff :)

#54 'What good faith does do is make us stop to ask whether or not there is /clear evidence/ that someone is doing something against the TOS, rather than suspicion, personal feeling, or personal preference.'

Agreed and maybe if we are all assuming good faith then we will all live up to that expectation as well?

> 57 If I can't even say that no, clearly, Tolkien did not write Hamlet without being accused of hurting someone's feelings, what's the point of a cataloging site?

I see nowhere that anyone has suggested that this is the case.

Again, good faith does not insist that we completely ignore clear violations of the TOS - or instructions regarding combining or anything else.

I know that early on after joining the site, and coming across the "infernal idiot" reference, I got a little giggle.

I also felt a sense of relief that this site cared about data quality, particularly in data that would be shared. Overseeing quality in shared data is a major part of my day job and of my volunteer job. I would never dream of publically referring to anyone else at either place as an "idiot". But thinking it--like lorax says--is a necessary safety valve.

Even though I probably qualify as one of the promoters of happy, fluffy, bunny stuff, I have to say that I am not bothered in the least by the prospect of being labelled am "Infernal Idiot". I just consider it an amusing LT quirk.

I fail to see how calling someone an idiot on the site is somehow necessary.

Call me crazy, but I was flagged in the inappropriate flagging thread for calling anonymous drive-by flaggers "common bullies" and it was pointed out that phrasing was considered a "personal attack." What, prey tell, is calling someone an idiot?

I've seen enough instances of individuals springing to calling individuals idiots (and other variants) the first time they see an instance of a mistake. I've seen it used for rather small things. It was cute at first - now, it's permission for some users to make personal attacks without fear of repercussion. After all, if it was put on the site by the developers, how can we possibly hold the users accountable, right?

This is really sad to me - that adults would really be saying they need the "right" to publicly call others "idiots." And before anyone thinks I haven't dealt with behavior that mucks up data and is frustrating to clean up - where I've posted about it - I have. I even managed to do it all without calling anyone an idiot:

http://www.librarything.com/topic/58573#1103600
http://www.librarything.com/topic/58573#1105738

(By the by, not only did I have to fix the combination issue, but I had to fix the Series information and verify the CK information that I had access to through my owned volumes as well.)

I see the phrase as being meta-humor. The site isn't saying it. It's ventriloquism for what members often think or say.

I'm glad to change it, but doesn't anyone see that about it?

>63 timspalding::

I got the joke, Tim, and I thought it was funny. I don't have any problem with it. I agree that there's a difference between referring to the generic "infernal idiot" and calling someone an idiot.

I'll repeat what I've said elsewhere - kindness encourages diversity, and diversity makes for better ideas about great books to try, which makes LT an even more wonderful place.

Tim @63: that's pretty much what I assumed when I first saw it -- and it did give me a giggle, in part because it acknowledged the frustration people feel at times.

62>

As I thought I said in #57, I've never called anyone specifically an idiot. I've referred to the archetypal Infernal Idiot who is responsible for all combining woes.

63>

Yes, I see that, and I like it very much. Please don't change it.

doesn't anyone see that about it?

I did, but I agree that it should be changed to something more neutral. It doesn't bother me when people use the phrase in an impersonal blanket manner to refer to the person who just gave them a ton of work; as I think lorax said, it's a safety valve. But having it in the instructions is more "official" sounding, and therefore more offensive.

>63 timspalding: Once upon a time, sure.

But we have members that call other users "idiot" on a regular basis when they come across errors on the site. I don't find that part funny at all. It's permissive at this point.

Or is it okay to call people idiots? And if so, where I can I get the official list of names I'm allowed to call other LT members?

63: I like it. Please don't change it.

68>

Show me.

Show me where someone called another member, by name, an idiot. I don't doubt you, but I haven't seen it.

Look, attacking groups of people, or saying negative things that aren't directed at specific users, is not against the TOS. If I can't flag someone for calling my marriage a threat to society because she didn't call me out by name, you can't flag someone for calling the anonymous person who combined Hamlet and Macbeth an idiot, either. It's not a personal attack.

>70 lorax: The thing is, "the person who combined Hamlet and Macbeth" is still an individual, even if you don't state his name. If the description is specific enough that the person can recognize himself (and can't other people find out his name by checking the combiners log?), then he shouldn't be called an idiot. I'd say if it refers to a specific person, then it's personal, regardless of whether a name is explicitly stated.

Absolutely there needs to be communication about TOS violation, and mistakes, what this thread is about is not assuming they are a) morons, b) evil, and asking or commenting politely and in a manner to help the other person, not just vent your frustration on them.

Okay, I'm changing it. And entertaining alternate suggestions that simultaneously get the message across and convey the whimsical spirit that is LibraryThing tra la la.

Anyone?

>72 FicusFan:

Can you rephrase that? I'm not sure what you're saying. We need to communicate more who is violating the TOS, or what the TOS is, or what?

>71 _Zoe_: What Zoe said.

And I didn't name names when I called people bullies. Honestly, there are threads in Combiners! asking individuals to post examples of "idiocy" - and this is my favorite part - where people have to remind the "experts" that sometimes, it has nothing at all to do with a person doing anything and that it was a system combination.

Or my other favorites - where people call users idiots because they're not using LT the way that they think LT should be used. I've seen threads where individuals are concerned that some "idiot" will make the wrong collections (how this impacts the other user is beyond me).

My point is that this is some nastiness and I'm not at all thrilled with it. I think some folks are taking advantage of something that should have been nothing more than internal monologue and are running around as if they have carte blanche permission to call others names.

>74 timspalding:, I always turn to the comics in these times for inspiration.

I know an author is separate, but some !#@?@* keeps combining them! Can I take a name off the combination list?

73: I'm sorry to hear that. I thought it was funny, but some people seem to have a sense of humor bypass.

75: You called me very unpleasant names the other day for something I didn't do, and I haven't seen you apologizing.

I think I'll stop reading talk for a while, I'm losing my patience with the ultra-PC crowd.

>74 timspalding: Tim,

Sorry my message in 72 was in reference to

Lorax in 57:

I'm getting discouraged that all this happy fluffy bunny stuff is really going to harm the site in the long run. If I can't even say that no, clearly, Tolkien did not write Hamlet without being accused of hurting someone's feelings, what's the point of a cataloging site?

I started and then went to lunch, and when I came back and posted the topic had moved on, and I didn't note what I was replying to. Sorry.

My point is that being nice and fluffy bunny-ish doesn't mean you can't talk to others about problems (mistakes, TOS violations). It just means do it politely and to be helpful, rather than vengeful.

It's a pity that established, long-time users aren't considered as worthwhile as new users are.

If LT is going to become the Happy Land of Nicey-Nice, can we also add "racist, sexist, and other bigoted statements" to things that violate the TOS? I think it's ludicrous that people can spew all kinds of offensive garbage and be in the clear, but vent about someone creating hours and hours of work for combiners and you're a horrible person.

>73 timspalding: I'm sorry to hear that too.

From >60 Suncat: and >63 timspalding:, apparently the phrase had exactly the desired effect on me when I joined.

#72

I would say that someone who keeps combining two completely separate works is either a a) moron or b) evil.

For me when I read the original wording I seem to put far more emphasis on the keeps than others have expressed. Getting it wrong once or twice is no problem - it may cause a fair bit of work but hey, we all make mistakes (even me). If someone keeps on combining the works despite others separating (and probably using disambiguation notices) then they are an infernal idiot.

>80 lorax:

No.

All we are asking is that members not crucify someone for posting about books you think are beneath you, for using lower case letters, for posting innocently about their blog, or any other action which, though possibly annoying, is not proof the user is irredeemably malign.

> 79, I think its unnecessary as certain long time established users think way too much of themselves without LT enshrining it. Something about confusing themselves with LT in terms of dictating what is OK and how it has to be done.

>82 andyl:
I would suspect that someone who keeps re-doing what has been undone is doing so because no one has mentioned anything to them (politely) about the problem, and just removes their work.

I myownself like "Assume Good Faith" as a life rule; I also like to be given the benefit of the doubt; and from what I have seen around here, most others seem to be like me.

As to infernal idiots, the presence of those words in an official, instructional place could be considered licence to call someone an idiot by what reasonable person? "He did it, so I can too?" I sincerely believe most, not all but most, people are adults and persons of good intention. That sort of lets out the use of such a puerile excuse for bad behavior, and I really don't think the site should have this humorous little touch removed in the name of "setting a tone." That's really the job of those using the site, come down to it, since we are the site, not Tim and company.

YMMV, of course.

#82

A disambiguation notice would tell them. Also we are talking about 'repeatedly' not just once or twice. I am firmly of the opinion that someone who fits that profile is either acting in bad faith or is completely clueless.

Infernal idiot has a strong literary tradition going back to Thackeray and other respected Victorian writers. Also it is probably my idiolect but idiot isn't that forceful a word - after all many people refer to the idiot box in conjunction to themselves.

#87 Some one who repeatedly redoes what you undo is sending you a message. They are not going to put up with their work being wiped out. Its a pissing contest.

They are not in the right, but if you want it fixed rather than moaning about it you probably need to chat with them about why they think they are in the right. That person is probably thinking the same about the person that keeps undoing it.

You know that saying about repeating the same actions and expecting a different outcome ?

A disambiguation notice is the appropriate communication.

Anyway I have said nothing that would preclude a polite note to their profile assuming one is capable of wording something appropriately polite - Tim has already come out against rude private messages.

Also I'm not sure how many revert wars there have been on combines/splits but I would guess not very many. As an experienced combiner I would always flag the issue to the Combiners group when I start to see repeated behaviour just to check I'm not wrong.

>73 timspalding:

I know an author is separate, but some (well-meaning but) deplorably uninformed person keeps combining them! Can I take a name off the combination list?

I know an author is separate, but someone who's been using airplane glue in an enclosed area keeps combining them! Can I take a name off the combination list?
(Just kidding. But following Dave Barry, "Airplane Glue in an Enclosed Area" would be a great name for a rock band.)

Oh, I like deplorably uninformed.

>84 timspalding: All we are asking is that members not crucify someone for...posting innocently about their blog....

I disagree Tim, but it is your web site, obviously. Two points of clarification:
Is this intended to discourage flagging of people with no books catalogued who post blog trolling messages?
If yes, even the blog is not remotely book-related?

What about the member to whom you recently gave a warning? (I would have been less patient with him if I had known what he was up to on other threads.)

I like deplorably uninformed.

I suspect it won't pass muster, though, since it is after all critical.

>93 lorax:

Um, did you read >91 timspalding:

>What about the member to whom you recently gave a warning? (I would have been less patient with him if I had known what he was up to on other threads.)

He did it repeatedly, heedlessly. Just because I don't want people to lose a hand for sampling a grape at Whole Foods doesn't mean I can't support prison times for jewel thieves.

94>

I didn't mean with you -- after all "infernal idiot" was fine with you until someone complained. I suspect stephmo, for instance, will consider it to be too harsh.

I also think you're engaging in a wee bit of hyperbole here; saying that the anonymous person who combined all of Terry Pratchett's works into one was an idiot is hardly cutting off their hand. Kicking them off the site forever for that level of offense would be overreacting, but saying "oh, geez, the infernal idiot has been at it again" hardly rises to that level.

Edited to fix reference number

#84 Tim.. you seem so young to be so wise. I do like the way you think, and I am pleased and relieved that you have a sense of humor.. and have never shown any arrogance or foot stomping that I have seen. Thank you for all of that

Ficus.. You are very well "spoken " and logical.. and I agree with your thoughts. All of them I think.. Not niceness is what I have come to expect from certain users.. and they rarely let me down. By this I mean not name calling, but condescending responses. Very not nice. Whats the point? And who do they think they are to talk down to someone who asks a simple question or makes a simple point?

#86 rd said "I myownself like "Assume Good Faith" as a life rule; I also like to be given the benefit of the doubt; and from what I have seen around here, most others seem to be like me."

I could not agree more. The not nice users I mentioned are very much the minority.

I have nothing more to add, it looks as if it has all been said, and with more clarity than I might have said it.

>94 timspalding:
Got it.

I do find it amusing that the folks that are sternly lecturing us to be adults are shepherding us back into nursery school at the same time. Oh noes! I just read something vaguely negative! How ever will I cope?? {faints}

cool you guys have to add comments on my profile! make them private please!!!

cool you guys have to add comments on my profile! make them private please!!!

LOL @ 98

>95 lorax: Lorax, why, I'm too new a member to have an opinion! Your post #79 made that quite clear.

It's your site, clearly I've overstepped my bounds. At least that's the way you've made me feel today for not liking the fact that you want to call people idiots for making mistakes.

Unfortunately, I can't ever be anything but "new" to you, so I'll stop. Clearly, I don't have a horse in this race unless you say so.

>73 timspalding: I know an author is separate, but overnight the gnomes keep combining them. Can I take a name off the combination list?

ETA: As a child, the gnomes always were the ones who cleaned up my toys overnight :-)

102>

I certainly don't think of you as "new" -- you're in my mental "has been here forever" bin. Nor did I think disagreeing with you was attacking you; I'm sorry that our senses of "attack" are so woefully miscalibrated. At any rate I certainly didn't intend to attack you, but I can't promise to refrain from disagreeing with you in the future.

In #79 what I was actually talking about was the developing tendency to require established users to walk on eggshells, to grit our teeth and put up with spam, and to avoid publicly venting about the actions of the "deplorably uninformed" (if that phrase is too strong for you please substitute a gentler one) so that we don't frighten off even one potential new user -- better a hundred longtime users like yourself get so frustrated that they abandon Talk than even one newbie get scared off, right?

>103 ianreads:

"Gnomes" is a well-known slur against Swiss people.

Words can have different meanings or connotations depending on your age or your location. We are a global site and want to attract everyone so I'm OK with a little kid glove treatment of the wording in order not to offend any of my LT mates.

I don't think it was the gnomes...I think it was the roombas. I'm suggesting "deplorably uninformed roombas"

> 103, if we are going with a northern feel how about The Groke (from Moomintroll)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moomin

it's always the roombas........

I still say someone has been tampering with all the LT water coolers. Adding some concoction that thins the skin, perhaps...

I think roombas are a good plan.

After reading 84:

I know an author is separate, but some irredeemably malign person keeps combining them...

"I know an author is separate, but somebody keeps combining them! Can I take a name off the combination list?"

Alright, already!

Spoilsport!
:)

#110 - That's why I'm sticking with mojitos!

> 115, I have never understood them. It tastes like liquid toothpaste. Ick.

I am still a Mojito virgin. This Summer, as dawg is my witness, I will have my way with one. (Or maybe it will have its way with me.)

ditto clam

I keep meaning to try one but Guinness gets in the way~

117 >

Does that mean you assume good taste?

>117 clamairy: clamairy, try a mint julep first. A little less twee and silly than mojitos.

Dan Jenkins had a great recipe for mint juleps in You Gotta Play Hurt. I'm paraphrasing, but he said to combine sugar and water into a thick gummy syrup, add a lethal amount of bourbon and a sprig of mint. What you get is a taste that is a unique blend of cough syrup and jockey piss. "No wonder people like it."

Oh, I didn't know they were sweet. I don't usually like sweet drinks, unless there is some sour in there, like a Margarita or a Mai Tai.

A good mojito shouldn't be overly sweet - it should be more mint and lime than sugar. Unfortunately, most mojitos made at your average gin joint use a pre-fab mix that's this neon green color and of questionable content. Avoid those at all costs!

Agreed...if you can't watch the bartender muddle the mint, it is to be avoided.

#123 - I'll dredge up your actual recipe, then. Or ask you for it a third time. Heh heh.

(as an aside I'd suggest using "eejit" instead of "idiot"
I know it's the same word really, but it seems to be more associated with judgement than intellect)

Anyway, for me Andyl in #82 hits the nail on the head. "Keeps" is the vital word here.
Is it still out-of-bounds to write a nice note on people's profiles explaining why you're undoing their combination/CK edits etc.?

I'm all for idiot. Too high-falutin a phrase will be lost on those for whom it is intended. Idiots understand idiot.

I know an author is separate, but my nemesis keeps combining them! Can I take a name off the combination list?

I know an author is separate, but my evil twin keeps combining them! Can I take a name off the combination list?

I know an author is separate, but some raving loony keeps combining them! Can I take a name off the combination list?

I know an author is separate, but some flamin' galah keeps combining them! Can I take a name off the combination list?

I know an author is separate, but some diabolical fiend keeps combining them! Can I take a name off the combination list?

I know an author is separate, but some infernal idiot keeps combining them (bless his heart). Can I take a name off the combination list?

I know an author is separate, but some ill-favoured knave keeps combining them! Can I take a name off the combination list?

I know an author is separate, but some ham-fisted do-gooder keeps combining them! Can I take a name off the combination list?

I know an author is separate, but Darth Sidious keeps combining them! Can I take a name off the combination list?

I know an author is separate, but Poochy keeps combining them! Can I take a name off the combination list?

128:Somebody has combined an author, worst combining ever.... Thank you.

I definitely like 'ill-favored knave'

I'm partial to (bless his heart).

I know two authors are separate, but...

>128 MrAndrew:
MrAndrew, don't blame it on your "evil twin." We know you're the evil one.

I know two authors are separate, but some miscreant, whose high-spirited japery will land him in no end of trouble, keeps combining them!

"flamin' galah" has a certain ring to it ...

I've made my choice(s).

Poor elves. No matter how many shoes they make, or christmas presents the manufacture, they always get blamed for mishaps. No "assume good faith" for fictional creatures, huh?

You sure it's elves?

and now they've disappeared. Typical elves.

oh! nemesis! :-D

If i keep refreshing it, will my name eventually appear there?

Good choice Tim - has the right flavor.
(although a "Bless their heart" version would have made me chuckle each time... and "flamin' galah" has such panache)

Oh, you made it cycle at random each time it's refreshed! That's cool! Also, I enjoy imagining the reaction as people who weren't following this thread gradually discover the change. "What the...? Gremlins? Miscreants?"

Bwaa haa haa!
I love it.
Well done, Tim.

Great. Now there are a few hundreds of us who add to the server load by sitting and refreshing an Author page over and over... ;)

You might want to finish the thought on the author page - add the "Can I take their name off the combination list?" to finish it off.

The A: Yes you can? doesn't make as much sense now...it's got a great build-up, it's just sort of incomplete. :)

I love it!

This no longer matches up:

"Q: I am the infernal idiot and I'm right!"

>146 myshelves: fixed

Tim, re #145: that's true for the "miscreant, whose high-spirited japery" one. The others read Ok.

Much good this thread has done. There are today 3 different threads where the OP is being made to feel somehow in the wrong (the term 'harassed' is perhaps a bit strong although the recipient of such criticism may well feel so) for writing in a manner which doesn't fit with the author's perception of correct English. Sigh.

v

Link to them if you have them handy next time. I'm sure people will go to help.