Healthy LibraryThing discussion

I want to open up discussion on what LibraryThing—its rules, its staff and its members—can do to make and keep Talk a pleasant functional discussion many participate in, and minimize dysfunction.

How do you keep dysfunctional behavior from ruining everyone's enjoyment? A lot of people are thinking about this now. Most think that dysfunction can't be avoided entirely. Flame wars, trolling and so forth are endemic to online communication, but they can be kept to a minimum. As in real life, context and community norms do most of the work of keeping a social system inline, not the police. In social software context and community mean good community norms, good community buy-in and good software.

In setting up the context, I made a few assumptions:

1. LibraryThing people were capable of intelligent conversation. Anyone who's spent time reading through YouTube comments will recognize that even the worst LibraryThing discussions are completely unlike what goes on elsewhere on the web.

2. Regulating for content is difficult. It opens you up to accusations of bias, and offends the idea of free speech. So, unlike some other sites, LibraryThing doesn't regulate what you can say. I'm pretty committed to this idea. I want LibraryThing to be the site people can go to when they're kicked off another site for discussing a touchy issue.*

3. Instead, I think conversations can kept healthy by regulating how they're conducted. Thus you have LibraryThing's rule about personal attacks and name calling—where you can say someone's argument is idiotic, but not that someone is an idiot. This idea is not a new one—it's the rule in most legislatures around the world. I regret that members aren't required to refer to each other as "my honorable colleague" or whatever, before accusing them of supporting genocide.

I also feel the rule should ignore context, that you can't call someone a pig because he called you a big.

4. Site admins should only respond to actual complaints, not try to police thousands of messages a day. And when a problem arises, other than obvious spam, they should start modestly—urging restraint and pointing people to the Terms of Use. Escalation should be slow and, like on Wikipedia, suspension and expulsion only applied in truly incurable cases.

5. Final policing shouldn't be a democratic affair—you shouldn't get tossed out for having twenty flags. Flags should prompt review by a human.

In general, I think these rules have worked. LibraryThing conversation is, overall, healthy and enjoyable. We've only suspended a few (3?) people in three years, and expelled only one. (Simple spamming is excluded.) But there's definitely some dysfunction. And, I think it's gotten worse recently.

So here's my question:

1. What do you see as the main dysfunctions?
2. What do you think the answer is? I would encourage you to think about ways of changing the context factors, not just urging more baton wielding.
3. Are there any specific changes to the TOS or to the software that you'd favor? Should groups be able to post additional rules? Should group admins be able to punish individuals? Should flags function more "automatically"? Should there be a disciplinary group, with members deciding what's over the line and what isn't? Should we hand all disciplinary questions over to Abby. (Yes? Then it's decided! Three cheers to the new chief!)

In having this discussion I beg you to keep things high-level. If you have a complaint about a member, there are many places to express it. This isn't one.

Thanks to all for their interest and support.

*At one point we got an influx of Shelfari members, after a number of members were thrown off for opposition to Mormonism, in the wake of the California ballot measure. Things got pretty hot on LibraryThing too, but I think the general level was higher, and nobody got kicked out.

Will have to give this some thought. Only thing that strikes me immediately is your Should flags function more "automatically"? Please don't. Such automatism can lead to other forms of abuse - people ganging up on another user would be able to have him / her removed from the site automatically. Not a pretty idea.

Well, I have noticed that there are pairs of personalities that mix about as well as Lithium and Water, and yet they are attracted to each others posts like moths to a flame. Quite often the hostility is palpable to all reading even if the actual statements are following (mostly) the letter of the law.

In these situations the best I can come up with (so far) is maybe having another flag or user activated thing for 'Inappropriate comment', 'hostility noted' or some other such thing. Or maybe like Slashdot, tag posts, 'funny', 'hostile', 'informative', 'useful', 'troll' etc.

If necessary have it reflected on the profile someones overall 'rating' though I wouldn't be wary of this last.

My only real thought about this is to allow group owners to have a bit more leeway in determining who can post in a group. Perhaps allowing them to suspend or ban a user from a group?

My concern is with users that are more familiar with groups that allow more belligerence and hostility, such as the Pro and Con groups, think that these behaviors are acceptable in groups such as Hogwart's or Green Dragon where the attitude is more much laid back.

Otherwise, I personally haven't seen more dysfunction lately. However, that may have more to do with my judicious use of the Ignore Group and ignore threads functions.

There is nothing that really can be done for long term users that have grating personalities. I do wish we could put certain posters on ignore. I know I skim threads so sometimes read something by a poster I dislike before I realize it. Maybe posts by "ignored users" could be hidden like something that's been flagged four times? That way if someone is confused by a disjointed thread, they could decide whether or not to open the post by the ignored poster.

Based on what I’ve seen on several threads recently, I think part of the solution is for folks to not be offended so easily. One member might have a (frank / excitable / emphatic / forthright) way of expressing him or herself; and even when no one is targeted this can rub someone the wrong way, eliciting a snarl. Then the Frank person gets offended back at the Rubbed One and we’re off. The solution it seems to me is to keep things in perspective. Count to ten; suck it up; put it in a little box and throw it over your shoulder; or as my Grandma used to say, offer it up for the poor souls in purgatory. There are enough things in the world to be angry about – LT shouldn’t be one of them. Self-policing should be the answer: flag yourself.

I've lurked on some of the threads I believe may have raised this subject although I try like heck to stay out of things, even when they touch upon things that annoy me. I've also seen where you, Tim, have stopped in, stated your position, and then stepped out again.

Honestly, I'm not sure there is any better way to do this. I certainly would not want to see LT become a "policed" site. There will always be members who feel strongly and want to argue, flag or whatever and as long as it is done within the Terms. Some people actually thrive on the adversity.

Generally I see LT as a pretty benign site. I like spending time here either posting or lurking. I feel that the way things are presently handled is fair and reasonable.

It is in my personality to usually go along with the status quo. But that aside, in this case I really, truly feel that sticking with what seems to be working is much better than implimenting stricter regulations that could, in turn, be abused by the members.

I freely admit to having gotten ticked off when someone was being beat up by the posters. It is one thing to discuss but to then start to judge and demand punishment.. seriously? It ticks me off. ( I can think of 2 times when I lashed, once when someone new, with no books was being mean to Esta, and recently when a casual remark caused another long time user to be stomped on. )

One of the main dysfunctions I've seen comes from people who are upset at what they see as misuse of a group by others. (See, for instance, recent threads in which one member berated others for creating "Reading this month" threads.)

Allowing groups to set their own rules might alleviate this. A creator could say (and I hasten to add that the scolder was not the creator of any of the groups): 'specific topics only, no "what I'm reading this month" threads', and be allowed to enforce that by kicking an offender off the group.

But I'm ambivalent about that. Groups often take on lives of their own, and creators often have minimal involvement after the initial few postings. I know that has been the case for me with the few groups I created. It might also lead to certain personality types becoming dictatorial.

So I'm not sure on this one.

I agree with BarkingMatt that flags should not operate automatically.

Perhaps there should be a "sticky" at the top of the main "Talk" page, with "Forum Etiquette" or "Rules for Gentlemanly and Ladylike Discourse".

I regret that members aren't required to refer to each other as "my honorable colleague" or whatever, before accusing them of supporting genocide.

Perhaps that could be the first rule! I've always thought that a devastating politeness is far more effective than rudeness. "I'm sure that my learned friend merely misspoke when he cited People v. Goose, which certainly he, as well as the Court, knows was overruled by the later case of People v. Gander" is much better than "He's a liar, Your Honor!"

I use the Ignore Group button a lot. I stay away from groups which I know I will find offensive or which do not interest me.

Also use the right column "x" for threads.

I too use the X ..

Yes, the "X" is a wonderful thing, and the "ignore groups" is a life saver.

I don't know that group creators should have more power over their groups, because I think that places an onus on a few people to keep everyone civil. Plus there is no reason to assume the group creator is any better/worse than anyone else, and in many places the group creator is absent and the group grows a life of its own. Like in Read YA Lit, I haven't seen the creator around much recently but the group is still functioning fine. In some groups (like the HE?) it worked to just pick a new leader, but I think that would be even harder if you were giving someone so much power, and is generally not an ideal solution in most cases. Like if the group creator suddenly comes back and finds they have been divested of power... I think it would lead to more anger, not less. Not to say this would have to occur, but I think it opens up a much bigger can of worms.

I think part of the solution would be more explicit guidelines, because I think a lot of the anger comes about debating what the site admins intend, and what is acceptable. If this were not debateable then there would be less (written) anger. Like if it were clear what crosses the line then you wouldn't need to dredge up everything everytime to derive context to see if something crosses the ever-shifting line.

I strongly agree with your number five. If clear rules are in place then it shouldn't just be up to voting to determine important stuff. Reminds me of tyranny of the majority and all those fun legal concepts... But then that leads me to think that a disciplinary group is a bad idea, for essentially the same reasons.

To address your questions:

1. I think the main problem is that the biggest dysfunctions are in effect not completely dysfunctional, so there just isn't much to be done. Like if someone is snarky to you it isn't quite a personal attack so there is no legit response you can make. But that doesn't change the fact it makes you feel badly about the site and the community and all. Essentially, the main dysfunction I see is the same with every family. You can enforce rules against violence on the children, but they will still elbow each other when nobody's watching and claim it was an accident.

2. I don't think there is a good answer, other than to more explicitly state rules. Not to enforce them more harshly, just make them more clear so there is less wiggle-room and arguments about arguments...

3. Essentially I seem to favour just handing it all to Abby :P Or otherwise just not changing the structure of LT. Giving other people power will lead to more strife and more grievances. Other chatboards with moderators I frequent lead to much worse arguments about how moderators are moderating. It's harder to dispute an actual staff member's ruling than an anonymous member's.

>4 Morphidae: ...allow group owners to have a bit more leeway in determining who can post in a group. Perhaps allowing them to suspend or ban a user from a group?

My honorable colleagues, I vote against this idea.

What we have now is, I think, as follows: If you get a large number of flags on one post, you cannot post in that group - yes, that's group, not thread - until one of the powers that be re-enable your ability to post.

This is a response based on the community's flagging, not one person's, which strikes me as preferable.

I heard this from someone it happened to before the recent changes in the flagging code, so if this is now obsolete then, er, never mind.

I guess the main issue I have noticed (going on right now in one particular thread, actually) is when some people post what they believe to be humor and others find it to be insulting or otherwise inappropriate. Threads get hijacked, and the conversation then escalates to anger very quickly. I am not sure this can be regulated. Angry comments are endemic to message boards. Fortunately, most fires are put out as quickly as they start. I don't find LibraryThing to be particularly bad in that respect.

I apologize if I have ever offended anyone here. Everyone I know says I have a strange sense of humor. Humor (and emotions in general, for that matter) doesn't always come across correctly in writing -- something I TRY to remember.

k4k

Is there really much of a difference between calling an argument idiotic and calling a person an idiot?

Because once you see the word "idiot" or "idiotic"…

Funnily enough, I got the feeling that when Tim proposed the maxim 'assume good faith' recently, it had the opposite effect to a certain extent. It sort of got turned inside out into 'assume bad faith' and I feel there's been more shoutiness recently although I most likely don't hang out where most of that takes place. There's no such thing as an Internet community without obnoxiousness - that's just human nature and would be unnatural otherwise - and I think things are far better here than in general, as Tim notes. I do think that humour is vital to everything and its suppression as something threatening, rather than the essential safety valve it represents, upsets me (as does shoutiness). Again though I don't think this is a big deal since Tim seems far from losing his own sense of humour and seems quite capable of maintaining his role as playground leader.

Anyway, I have no solutions to propose ;)

v

> 15

In theory, there is. In practice, I agree, not so much. "That's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard!" sounds an awful lot like "You're an idiot!" to the person who made the argument

1. What do you see as the main dysfunctions?

Pseudo-spam, by which I mean two things: first, self-promotion activity like authors (with no books that aren't their own, and no history of involvement in the site) promoting their books, bloggers trying to drum up hits for their blogs, and so on, in clearly unrelated groups, and second, gibberish -- by which I do not mean simple misspellings or use of non-standard grammar in a post that's trying to interact with the community, but someone who leaps into an established thread with "haha i like cheez" or something even less coherent.

The fact that while even the mildest of "personal attacks" (like saying someone is annoying) are come down on extremely harshly, the most savagely virulent attacks can be posted with impunity so long as they're directed at a group, rather than an individual, is also a sore spot, but it's one where I know I won't make any headway, so I've just had to red-X threads that I had previously found interesting when the anti-gay commenting (not on a political thread, either -- I don't go near those) got too savage. Still, it's an odd disconnect.

I'd like to repeat my request for an "ignore poster" feature -- if it makes a conversation confusing, that's my own problem, and maybe I should consider un-ignoring them, but mostly it would just mean I don't have to see the posters that keep derailing conversations, or trying to get me to visit their blog.

>15 barney67: I don't see any difference either. It's still rude as all get out.

>13 Carnophile: I don't feel strong about it. Just an idea I threw out.

The more I think about it, the more I think it would be helpful to be able to ignore posters. That puts the power back in the user's hands and those "exquisitely sensitive" users, like me, don't have to read posts of the "green meanies." I know Tim has strong feelings about threads becoming disjointed, so that's why I suggest if you have a poster on ignore, all their posts become hidden like flagged out posts do now rather than disappearing all together. I have no idea how hard that would be to code.

>17 lilithcat:
I agree. Is "That's idiotic" really all that different from "You're an idiot"?

16>

Funnily enough, I got the feeling that when Tim proposed the maxim 'assume good faith' recently, it had the opposite effect to a certain extent. It sort of got turned inside out into 'assume bad faith' and I feel there's been more shoutiness recently

I have sort of the same impression, actually.

I think how it happened is that people who were perceived as not being sufficiently gentle with the sort of gray areas that this rule was initially suggested for got jumped on more than they previously would have -- in effect, "assume good faith" was applied by some only to newbies, and established members got less slack as a result, if we were seen as not "assuming good faith".

I like #4 - to be able to ignore all posts from a user (preferably with a show option) - much as you can block profile comments from them.

There are too many absent group owners for this to an effective measure. However some power to kick a user out of a group seems vaguely sensible if they are just trolling. Not sure this is a widespread problem although I know it's happened once or twice. Maybe x %of the group's memeber would have to agree - 10% higher?

Specific dysfunction is mostly just people who have absolutly contrasting but outspoken viewpoints, and can't play nicely together.

Having a specific memeber of staff known to be playground monitor - available to be asked to view a given problem, and point/ban/kick out of group seems wise. Don't really mind who, but if Abby's willing to take it on that's fine with me.

I've not really noticed anything particularly different recently. Everything goes in cycles and this might just be a high point.

"Having a specific memeber of staff known to be playground monitor - available to be asked to view a given problem, and point/ban/kick out of group seems wise. Don't really mind who, but if Abby's willing to take it on that's fine with me."

I strongly disagree. There are already enough users who THINK they are this guy. This is an adult site. I think we need to remember that. Although I too think an ignore user button is a good idea~ I doubt I would ever use it. I had it available elsewhere and never did. I try very hard to just use the red x.

15, 17, 20 > I think it has to do if you identify strongly with your 'ideas' as a part of you, where calling the idea 'idiotic' is essentially calling 'you' an idiot or where I 'generally' stand in that I don't consider myself an idiot but will admit to bouts of idiocy from time to time where some bad ideas will sprout as well as stupid actions.

I haven't noticed any "dysfunction" in Talk as such. Certainly, there are a few people who strike me as nutters and hatemongers, but they exist in all public online places. I always figure that normal people see them for what they are and generally avoid stoking their manias.

But I think, YOU, Tim, may have a problem, personally. Yes, you're just human and an LTer like the rest of us, but you're also the bossman around here, and a host, and a provider of service etc. In view of these delicate multiple roles, I wish you'd take more care vis-a-vis your international, variegated audience/customers. Keep in mind their existence, "because they are there".

For instance, I think you shouldn't engage in political discussions in which you're likely to bash Europe (or Australia or Somalia or wherever). Perhaps you shouldn't engage in any political and religious discussion at all. Of course, I'm assuming that you and your staff are genuinely interested in running a site genuinely friendly and open to all, regardless of nationality, religion etc.

In the past, I've been appalled more than once by certain posters' racist, bigoted and xenophobic outbursts (I now ignore the groups in which these threads were appearing). These people aren't exactly trolls--they start and engage in the same discussions, airing well-known attitudes, over and over, and I think I and others can be excused if we've come to think of them, after all the ducky quacking and walking, as ducks; that is, racists, bigots and xenophobes.

However, what I and other LTers think is unimportant compared to what YOU think and how you'd like this place--which is YOURS, first of all--to appear to any person looking at it: including blacks, and Muslims, and black Muslims, and Europeans, and black Muslim Europeans, and people acutely aware of the existence of blacks, and Muslims... and so on. Yeah, I (and quite a few others) now ignore the shit, but think about someone just stumbling across this place, or beginning to use it, and coming across (if memory serves) "Are Muslims the new Nazis?", or whatever the most recent version of that is, or "XY rips Europe a new one" (the latter started by you, the site owner and host).

Personally, I don't think there is such a thing as "perfect policing"--I think LT is already overdoing it with flags, which are in my opinion horribly childish (outside the spam-alert function). I'm also against banning posters (again, spammers excepted). Micromanaging behaviour of thousands of other people is a futile and silly endeavour, and the more regulations and nuances you pile on, the worse it's likely to get.

But you and staff do need to position yourselves so that it is CLEAR that you do not approve of the abuse that ordinary LTers dole out to others. That all LT members, and potential members/humanity at large, are equal in your professional, if not private regard.

#18, "the most savagely virulent attacks can be posted with impunity so long as they're directed at a group"

I agree that this is a major problem. Change a specific person into a specific group and suddenly the same sentiment is ok. I didn't mention this above because it didn't currently seem to be one of the defining problems in creating this thread. But I definitely agree there should be some limits to group attacks if possible. On a practical level this seems harder to enforce because as Tim says, discussion and criticism is encouraged on LT, even for difficult topics. Maybe no attacks on groups could be allowed in at least the Site-related groups? Then the political groups could go their own way and could be ignored, but people who just want to interact with the site and booklovers could avoid seeing that type of hurtful commentary.

#24, I agree that people have difficulty detaching their ideas from themselves. I think that we have to maintain the ability to attack other people's ideas though because there is no point reading a board where everyone just nods and agrees: the whole point of discussion is to discuss with people of other opinions, rather than have a happy little meaningless thread (IMO). Real discussions should be able to come from diversity of opinion, if people can manage to detach their ideas/suggestions from themselves. Not to say that happy fluffy threads shouldn't exist, but criticism still has to exist on some level too.

#15, 17, 20

My problem with "That's idiotic" is that it isn't very literate. If an argument really is idiotic then a few well-chosen sentences which clearly show why it is idiotic shouldn't be a problem.

#1 I regret that members aren't required to refer to each other as "my honorable colleague"

Does that make you and other staff members of the privy council so that we have to refer to you as The Right Honourable developer ?

Seriously the main problems (in no particular order) as I see them are -
a) a lot of people say very similar things (which may well be well-founded and perfectly acceptable in isolation) which makes someone think they are being ganged up on.
b) people taking offence for others
c) repetitive behaviours. Things get stuck in a rut with people saying the same things at each other but becoming ever more vehement.
d) mission posters (and I would include the inappropriate humour posters here too).

These aren't all mutually exclusive. From what I have seen the amount of truly abusive posters have been quite low but that doesn't mean that the level of debate doesn't dip below what it should be at times. Unfortunately I don't think they can be hard and fast rules. Obviously with new posters then patiently, persistently, explaining how the group dynamic works can help (if someone bothers). For me the real problem is c) - it is a situation where the main protagonists find it hard to recognise that they are slipping into, and often find it hard to stop posting. Maybe if there was a special thread flag (which needed a large number of flags - ten or more) which would lock the thread with a "Repetitive and becoming boring" message at the end.

25: Looks like a very good thing there's so much stuff here I never look at :o :o :o

Anyway, just one more thought: in general I think that the LT policy of minimal staff intervention should be continued and I disagree strongly that a staff member should be allocated as a general moderator. People tend to act childish when treated like children and I'm glad that is not the case here. Also, on the occasions when staff intervention occurs, it gives them far more authority because we know then it is serious and we sit up and notice.

v

As one of the interested (or guilty, in some viewpoints) parties in one of the current brouhahas, I offer the following observations.

In human society, every group establishes its norms of behavior. Like any other sensible human interaction, one modifies one's (extremes of) behavior or rhetoric by the reactions of others, both in individual situations, and over time. Some propositions that get high-fives in Political Conservatives can go over like a lead balloon in Pro and Con. As with any other form of public discourse, “know your audience” is axiomatic.

Some people, quite frankly are the canaries in the coal mine. We may think, before we post, “Well, so-and-so has said a hell of a lot more nasty things than I have, or has garnered more flags cumulatively. He (or she) is still around, so what the heck?”* Some of these folks push the envelope by posting thread titles that are clearly intended as provocative (in the worst way) to the intended audience. On the other hand, as I mentioned somewhere else awhile back, some people are masochists, and seem to revel in abuse. What is the polite thing to do for them in such a case?

Over time, I think most of us (within consideration of our individual biases) know who the problem users are and what their individual idees fixes are, and it is my humble opinion that it is themselves who have put themselves in the position of being “most flagged”, etc. by choosing to ignore the norms of a particular group, or to purposely throw down a gauntlet. Fine, whatever, but be prepared for the consequences. Personally, I think there should be a scheme along the lines of 1) a formal warning, based on a certain threshold of flags/complaints, 2) brief suspension, 3) restriction of the user to cataloging functions only, and 4) expulsion, in incorrigible cases.

On a slightly different tack, there ought to be consideration, in groups that suffer problems from “interlopers”, particularly hostile ones, of the option (already available) of making themselves private, or perhaps the group as a whole could vote on “blocking“ certain members with a history of causing discord, but that might be a cumbersome process.

And to conclude (about time!), I would reiterate the previous comments on the overall wonderful experience that is Library Thing. In reality, the contentious threads that I have been involved in have been few and far between. I would be even happier if there were more thumbs up on my sad, ignored little reviews. ;)

*Not that I've ever done this...

I don't want to side-track discussion to me and other LibraryThing employees, but one possible improvement would be to have some sort of marker when someone is speaking ex-officio—when I'm acting as a member, and when I'm acting as a site administrator.

I am not minded to give up discussing regular topics, even hot button ones. (And, for what it's worth, I don't think the economics of internet startups around the world are something that people who own internet startups should avoid.) Indeed, I think the fact that I'm not a faceless, neutral nobody has helped the site enormously over time. But it *could* be useful if there we a symbol associated with LT employees accounts—a little L favicon next to our name, for example—when we are speaking in that capacity. When I was kibitzing about politics or religion, obviously, I would turn that off.

I like the idea more for the fact that, now and then, I reply to a bug thread and the user doesn't understand I'm not just another member. For example, I might say that I don't want to change feature X, and the person says "Why hasn't any of the 'powers that be' responded? We're so ignored!"

But I'm cautious of giving my feature and bug posts a little sign that people will interpret as "I'm right, so suck it." I often—very often—argue a case on Recommended Site Improvements, and later change my mind. I consider that, unless I say "LibraryThing will never do X" or "LibraryThing is doing X" that we're talking though an issue. I'm worried an employee badge will stifle that conversation.

I think that sometimes people forget that you can disagree without being disagreeable.

Calling someones ideas idiotic is disagreeable. Saying that you disagree with someone and here is why, is simply disagreeing.

andyl's list in #27 gets to some important points.

a) While composing a response, five other people may be composing and posting a message which says essentially the same thing. It's not ganging up, it's just the distributed nature of the 'net. The solution for this one, I think, is simply to choose to be less sensitive both on our own behalf and on the behalf of others.

b) I have seen an increase in "chiding" posts lately, and mostly these don't seem to be helpful. As a child I was always advised to "be an example of the right way to behave" rather than chastising a misbehaving peer, and I think it works quite well for adults as well. So, rather than saying 'you shouldn't be so mean,' offer a kind remark instead.

I'd also note that one does have to take a breath before responding when one's feelings are hurt. There is no doubt that if you post something on the order of "Jane Austin is my favorite author," and someone else posts that "Everything Jane Austin ever wrote is crap," it feels like a deliberate insult.

Overall, I think the site is very courteous and often manages heated discussions with quite a bit of civility.

The idea of users being able to hide specific posters might be a good one (don't know how hard to implement, though). There are certain individuals who simply don't contribute meaningfully to any discussion, but who feel compelled to try to pull every discussion onto their pet hobbyhorse.

edited for bad typing

30
One of the things I like about LT is that you do participate, rather than just sit in your mansion counting your money...

>31 Morphidae:

I agree. But can we make a rule about being disagreeable? I'd love if it members could do it, but I feel that it's easier to identify and prohibit name-calling than unpleasantness.

I don't know what would have prompted this thread, partly because the only threads I follow closely and really participate in are the ones about LT itself - FAQ, new features, common knowledge, bug collectors, etc.

That said, based on my experiences in Talk, I've almost always found LT a very civil community, compared to many other spaces on the web. Occasionally someone will get more grumpy or aggressive than is perhaps necessary (always tempting for me too when I see the umpteenth request in 2 days for some frequently-requested feature about which there are already multiple threads...). But on the whole the current rules and flagging seem to be working for the parts of Talk I read, and most people are very welcoming and helpful to other members. However, I don't follow any very contentious threads, so I'm probably missing some obvious problems.

A concrete suggestion: perhaps you could add a quick synopsis of key Talk guidelines/rules to the margins of the post area (above touchstones), e.g. "Use common sense. Be polite. Think before you post." + "No personal attacks. No spam. No advertising or promotion," plus a link to the full TOS.

It doesn't happen very often, but the most problematic behavior, in my opinion, occurs when someone gets offended and everything escalates.

So, how about, in addition to the flaggee having a "time out" as we have now, a thread that has a post flagged into hiding gets put "on hold" for 3 hours where nobody is allowed to comment during that time? Afterwards, if people really want to come back and respond, they may, but it gives people a cool-off time. If a second post in that thread gets flagged into hiding, that thread gets put on hold for 6 hours, etc.

That way, people are forced to stop and cool down before being allowed to comment.

Edited to say: I don't really like the idea that group creators can kick people out of groups, but I wouldn't be averse to the idea of a group creator having the authority to put specific threads "on hold" for a short period of time to let everyone cool down as well.

Oh--and I understand the appeal of being able to hide specific posters, but I think that would change the nature of LT discussion boards from discussion to something like a bulletin board. It's a change I don't want to see happen, but I understand why some people might.

#34

Well I was disappointed with the loss of "internal idiot". I certainly see a difference between calling someone an idiot and saying a particular idea is idiotic, although idiotic may be overused. I think in the UK that idiotic (or that an idea was lunacy) would be considered acceptable parliamentary language, calling your opponent an idiot or lunatic isn't.

After all isn't one of the definitions of idiotic "inviting ridicule"? Do I actually have to ridicule it instead of calling it idiotic?

I actually think the site has gotten better and less dysfunctional recently. There used to be this group of strident people who took it upon themselves to police the site, and bludgeon people with the rules. That seems to be less in evidence and there seems to be less stridency now.

Maybe its the groups and threads where I hang out but I don't see a lot of spam, trolling, or bad behavior. There is some, but its minor and I don't expect to live in a perfect environment.

Is there perhaps a cycle as new people arrive or start to participate in LT socially and there is a learning curve with the discord going up until they learn LTs ways?

In your post you say its OK to call an idea idiotic, but not the person an idiot. I think that is a distinction without an emotional difference; not everyone makes it intellectually either. You get strife when someone feels they are being attacked. It is just going to cause bad feelings regardless of whether your argument is right, or whether you followed the rules.

I think you might want to start talking about following the spirit of the rules, not just the letter of the law. How the rules are there so everyone can get along and enjoy themselves and hopefully learn something along the way.

I think that having a different standard in something like Pro and Con will eventually bite you in the rump. Because it is easy to take that to the rest of LT and expect it to be acceptable there too. And honestly how is someone new to know if they start there ?

I like the way you have allowed the community to regulate itself, mostly. If people behave badly they are flagged, ignored and marginalized until they shape up. I think that the users all need to be equal and if you started to give some more power than others (group leaders) you will cause more problems than you solve.

I think that the answer is more participation by you (Tim) and the other elves. I don't mean just to enforce rules or punish people, but being visible and active socially. Its partly the presence of the authority figures keeps people on their best behavior; its also that there is less ability to have someone assume they are acting for LT in your absence, and it is just good to model the type of behavior you are looking for. You are the role model here after all.

I also think that if made the ignore feature stronger you would help everyone participate while keeping confrontation down. By that I mean allowing someone to hide the messages of someone they don't get along with. It works in other forums, because you can click to see the message if something doesn't make sense.

I would hate to see more rules, because it just gets used to bludgeon people by others who take it upon themselves to police the site. I also think those who wish to ignore them, will only find more ways around them. Then the experience here becomes worrying about land mines rather than books/reading/social interaction.

Just my rambling 2 cents.

Thus you have LibraryThing's rule about personal attacks and name calling—where you can say someone's argument is idiotic, but not that someone is an idiot.

I actually wonder whether it would be helpful to make this rule a bit broader. At least in the discussions I've participated in, it seems that people tend to stop and rethink once the flags come out. So if posting mean and mostly contentless remarks about another person were forbidden, maybe some of the arguments could be stopped before they escalate into full-out attacks and name-calling.

Final policing shouldn't be a democratic affair—you shouldn't get tossed out for having twenty flags. Flags should prompt review by a human.

Agreed.

Should groups be able to post additional rules? Should group admins be able to punish individuals? Should flags function more "automatically"? Should there be a disciplinary group, with members deciding what's over the line and what isn't? Should we hand all disciplinary questions over to Abby. (Yes? Then it's decided! Three cheers to the new chief!)

I'm really not in favour of giving group admins more power, or of certain members running a disciplinary group.

Maybe posts by "ignored users" could be hidden like something that's been flagged four times? That way if someone is confused by a disjointed thread, they could decide whether or not to open the post by the ignored poster.

I like this idea; it gets around the problem of disjointedness that seemed to be the main thing standing in the way of an ignore feature.

In these situations the best I can come up with (so far) is maybe having another flag or user activated thing for 'Inappropriate comment', 'hostility noted' or some other such thing. Or maybe like Slashdot, tag posts, 'funny', 'hostile', 'informative', 'useful', 'troll' etc.

This seems reasonable. It might also be worth adding a plain old positive-feedback mechanism for posts: a thumbs-up could let people show support for a position without wading into the fray, and could also be useful for agreeing with feature suggestions etc. The general atmosphere of the site might be improved if people had a way to support good posts rather than just punish bad posts.

36>

So, how about, in addition to the flaggee having a "time out" as we have now, a thread that has a post flagged into hiding gets put "on hold" for 3 hours where nobody is allowed to comment during that time? Afterwards, if people really want to come back and respond, they may, but it gives people a cool-off time. If a second post in that thread gets flagged into hiding, that thread gets put on hold for 6 hours, etc.

I know you mean well, but I think that's an idea with a giant mountain of unintended consquences. Consider:

There's an amiable, active discussion going on. Someone comes in and crashes the party, either with outright spam or with a "You are all a bunch of idiots" attack.

As it is now, the next four people to see the offending post flag it, it goes away, and the discussion continues with nary a hiccup. Under your proposal, the provacateur has suddenly acquired the power to unilaterally stop discussion for three hours -- or ad infinitum, if they come back and repeat the offense.

I can see people use this to "hold a thread hostage", too -- "you can't flag me, or I'll stop this entire conversation!"

>34 timspalding: There really isn't a way to make a rule about that, no. It was directed at users in general.

#39

There might be a cyclical nature to things. Whether it is newbies or people just having grumpy months I don't know.

I think that there definitely should be different group dynamics between groups. I don't think that is something that can be avoided. They are different groups of people for the most part. Different group dynamics will lead to a difference in what behaviour is seen as 'bad'.

I'm also one who doesn't think that the equivalent of a kill-file (the ignore poster feature) is always a good idea. It can lead to disjointed discussion and someone sniping at a target safe in the knowledge that they will not see their replies.

>43 andyl: The way to avoid disjointed discussion and not having people feel safe is to treat them the way flagged out posts are now. Hide them, not remove them.

I guess I am fortunate that I haven't run into much of the problematic behavior described here! And that I tend to skip posts that seem like personal squabbles.

But I strongly believe that people should be allowed to say what they think (outside very clearly defined inappropriate behavior -- otherwise it becomes a personal decision). I don't like the ideas of automatic flagging responses, site administrator or group "owner" monitoring, etc. -- a little too big-brotherish.

And I agree completely with Helcura's point in #32 that people have to take a deep breath before responding. I learned a long time ago on other internet bulletin boards that just because someone is trying to provoke me doesn't mean I have to respond. If, as Helcura suggests, someone says that "everything Jane Austen wrote is crap," it says more about the poster than about the Austen-lover whose feelings might be hurt.

>41 lorax: Well you just had to bring up the unintended consequences. . . ;) True.

So, to tweak the idea, perhaps the group members (or group creator) could have a way of voting to momentarily (1 hour, 3 hours, whatever) suspend a thread? Much in the same way that we flag posts, we could "flag" a thread?

I'm pretty much in agreement with just about everything Zoe said in post 40 (except I'm not sure that adding thumbs-up is needed). On the idea of putting threads "on hold," it seems like something like this could be useful but only if it were done by a human rather than automatic. If a particular thread gets a bunch of flags in multiple posts, staff could be notified, and then they could put the thread on a time out.

I think the current system works well for most areas of the site. Having glanced at Pro and Con and a couple of other groups, I can see why those might be more heated sometimes, but I don't think any different rules or procedures would be needed for those groups. I'm also wary of giving group owners the power to kick people out or shut down discussions.

(Thought experiment that may or may not be relevant: what if someone created a private group where members could post really offensive things among like-minded people, but secretly (let's assume for the sake of the thought experiment that their "offensiveness" is something 99% of people in society would agree on). Would there be a place for such a group and such a discussion on LT? I kind of hope not, actually, but I guess my question is: is the problem being discussed in this thread primarily about public discussions?)

Please lets avoid decision by committee. By the time you get something decided and implemented, if you could even find a quorum, the thread may have moved peacefully on.

I'm getting tired of joke accounts. The newest member at Political Conservatives, behindthetomes, is one example.

These are accounts maintained solely to antagonize. There are usually few if any books entered on the account. The date the account opened will be recent. The person will post once or a few times and then disappear, sometimes reappearing. And so on. The whole account is a big joke.

—Perhaps there ought to be a minimum number of books cataloged before a person can join groups and post to threads.

#41 - Lorax I agree with all you said here and I have something to add to it.

One thread gets put on hold, people are already annoyed and want their say so another thread on the same topic gets started but starts out angry, gets put on hold because the flagging starts right away and yet another thread gets started even angrier than before.

Talk would very possibly be flooded with stalled threads on the same topic.

49
I've noticed this too. On one thread, someone who was getting fed up declared he was leaving for good. Right after that, another "brand new" member (with the same stylistic flourishes) showed up to continue the argument! Both were "free" accounts. I never checked to see if the second "user" ever added any books.

#27 - Seriously the main problems (in no particular order) as I see them are -
a) a lot of people say very similar things (which may well be well-founded and perfectly acceptable in isolation) which makes someone think they are being ganged up on.
b) people taking offence for others
c) repetitive behaviours. Things get stuck in a rut with people saying the same things at each other but becoming ever more vehement.
d) mission posters (and I would include the inappropriate humour posters here too).

I think you've summed this up well and I am sorry to say that I have been guilty of a little of this myself. Now I'm aware of it I will try to beware of doing so again.

I was very startled to realise that in trying to prevent one persons hurt feelings I had caused someone elses to be hurt, fortunately now resolved but I will be more careful in future.

It's a very easy trap to fall into though. Because of point A, I reacted as point B and we all seemed to be stuck in point C.

I'm not sure what LT can do about that but in this case some time to think, a private chat and the little red x have all worked very well, without any flags or reports to Tim or Abby.

ETA - #51 Makifat - I think I saw the thread you are referring to earlier and no the 'second' user has still not added any books, although the first user still has a free account but just more than 200 books, not sure how that happened.

I have to say that I think this site is general has some of the most civil discussions that I have seen online. Things can get a bit heated when people are debating moral, political, and religious issues, but I think that is only to be expected. It has been my observation that most of the perceived "personal attacks" among experienced users are the result of miscommunications rather than pure malice. I find some of the groups and talk personally offensive, but it is unreasonable to think that my perspective should define the limits of others' discussion, and I think the community overall is quite good at rejecting comments that are clearly hateful or bigoted.

I do think that mistreatment of new, young, or grammatically challenged users is a problem. I think that the site has done a good job of addressing this problem simply by encouraging more experienced users to be more helpful, or at very least, less snarky.

In summary: I think the current flagging system works well, I am not in favor of any kind of censorship (though I might add a disclaimer pointing out that LT does not necessarily share or endorse the opinions found in the talk section), and I think any major problems can be addressed by appealing to the LT community, which is mostly composed of rational, well-intentioned adults, rather than by making new rules or police forces.

-30 And I think an official LT seal or icon accompanying postings from LT staff acting in an official capacity is a great idea.

49, 51. Hmmm. Maybe there should be a no sockpuppets rule. In the same way you can't create multiple accounts to catalog more than 200 books without paying for membership, you shouldn't be allowed to create multiple accounts in order to post under multiple pseudonyms, whether the intent is spam, astroturfing, trolling, antagonizing, or whatever. (That would also affect the likely fake and/or marketing-company-created so-and-so-"123" accounts for authors that then spam-friend and comment-spam people...)

> 30

one possible improvement would be to have some sort of marker when someone is speaking ex-officio—when I'm acting as a member, and when I'm acting as a site administrator.

Frankly, I think that's a good idea simply because there are "official" people who post here that aren't known to all and sundry as LibraryThing employees. Shockingly, I've even seen people respond "Who's Tim?" when your name is invoked! So having such a marker (particularly on the RSI and Bug groups) would let people know that the response is from someone who, at least theoretically, knows what they're talking about when they say, "Collections are mere minutes away!"

Sticking my head up to offer a contrary point of view...

I think LibraryThing discussions are sometimes too "nice", in an "if you can't say something nice don't say anything at all" way. Blunt speaking is likely to attract a kicking from the "niceness" police (who of course, being intrinsically "nice", are allowed to say anything they like). On the other hand, prolonged self-censorship tends to lead to explosions... and less niceness than before.

Having said that, I agree with 41 and 50 that freezing threads because someone got flagged is a *very* bad idea.

I'll go go back under my rock now...

So, how about, in addition to the flaggee having a "time out" as we have now, a thread that has a post flagged into hiding gets put "on hold" for 3 hours where nobody is allowed to comment during that time?

A time-out is a very interesting idea, from the perspectie of social software. I've never heard of it being done. Wikipedia has something like it—pages can be locked, and tend to be held for short periods of time. Interesting.

I actually think the site has gotten better and less dysfunctional recently. There used to be this group of strident people who took it upon themselves to police the site, and bludgeon people with the rules. That seems to be less in evidence and there seems to be less stridency now.

"The site" a complex thing. There have been some threads in the political groups recently that veered into long and nasty meta-discussions, about debate and debators. I too haven't seen much in the way of metadata bullying recently.

I actually wonder whether it would be helpful to make this rule a bit broader. At least in the discussions I've participated in, it seems that people tend to stop and rethink once the flags come out. So if posting mean and mostly contentless remarks about another person were forbidden, maybe some of the arguments could be stopped before they escalate into full-out attacks and name-calling.

I'm open to the idea, but what's the standard proposed? So far, it's personal attacks, including name-calling. How do you tighten that up?

As it is now, the next four people to see the offending post flag it, it goes away, and the discussion continues with nary a hiccup. Under your proposal, the provacateur has suddenly acquired the power to unilaterally stop discussion for three hours -- or ad infinitum, if they come back and repeat the offense.

Yes. I think we need to think carefully about unintented consequences before any "time-out" is introduced.

This seems reasonable. It might also be worth adding a plain old positive-feedback mechanism for posts: a thumbs-up could let people show support for a position without wading into the fray, and could also be useful for agreeing with feature suggestions etc. The general atmosphere of the site might be improved if people had a way to support good posts rather than just punish bad posts.

That too is an interesting idea. What would the flag read? It can't apply to both content and style, or people would just up-vote the positions they agree with.

I'm getting tired of joke accounts. The newest member at Political Conservatives, (name omitted), is one example. (Note: Please keep actual member names out of this discussion.)

This is a new one to me. There's a rule against sock-puppet accounts. Is that what you think that account is?

Note: I did some checking. There's a serious suspected sock-puppetry problem going on there. I'll investigate.

—Perhaps there ought to be a minimum number of books cataloged before a person can join groups and post to threads.

Gonna veto that one. Next time tell me about the problem.

I've noticed this too. On one thread, someone who was getting fed up declared he was leaving for good. Right after that, another "brand new" member (with the same stylistic flourishes) showed up to continue the argument! Both were "free" accounts. I never checked to see if the second "user" ever added any books.

Guys, tell me about this. Sock Puppets are clearly against the TOS.

Maybe there should be a no sockpuppets rule

There is!

I think LibraryThing discussions are sometimes too "nice"

Oh, great opinion jerk-face!

(I hope I will be forgiven for that one.) I think you make an interesting point about self-censorship and explosions. I'm not sure you're right, but it's an interesting theory.

I think LibraryThing discussions are sometimes too "nice"

Oh, great opinion jerk-face!

Hmm. Interesting counter-example, and not exactly what I meant... ;-)

(I hope I will be forgiven for that one.)

Yep. Do I get to flag you?

wanders away to find a better rock...

Now, now. Clonking Tim on the head isn't going to solve anything.

59: It was a purely defensive rock, to hide under ;-) He broke the first one.

In most cases I think unproductive people are best ignored. I have on occasion written long responses to annoying posts, stopped and looked again before hitting submit and decided that it simply wasn't worth the trouble. I think that was usually the right call.

More problematic is when two or more unproductive people take over a thread going after each other. This is far more difficult for everyone else to ignore. One possible option would be to limit the number if posts per thread/per day for each user. Not sure if this would work or be desirable.

I feel that I'm commenting in a bit of a vacuum, though. Anyone care to post a few links to threads where "dysfunctional behavior" was on display? Or would this sort of calling out only spark more arguments?

Yes! I agree with Readafew, #3. Those labels work well on /. Perhaps we can 'book them up'.

Tim writes

now and then, I reply to a bug thread and the user doesn't understand I'm not just another member.

I suggest that you post to those threads under another ID - my suggestion is TIM_THE_KING or RightHonourableDeveloper. Then we would know that you are really serious about what you are saying as the Major power of LT. (he..he)

1. I agree that flags should not operate automatically to prevent someone from using the system.
2. I also agree with Kath in that when someone is being picked on by the posters that is easy to get ticked off at them and you feel a need to fly to the defense of the attackee.
3. I don't feel that we need to have any extra policing or to assign extra duties to Abby. We are all adults and should be able follow the basic rules that have been outlined for us.

The biggest problem that I see is that there are some people that tend to self promote themselves as experts at the site with a haughty attitude and with that self-promotion degrade others that don't have the same level of knowledge. (Not the official staff!) I believe that the vast majority of members here at LT are courteous, helpful and generally pleasant to everyone, and that if we just have some method of saying to the self-promoters ENOUGH! everything would be great!

Edit for response to 61>>

I don't think you can limit the number of postings to a thread. If it is my thread and I want to respond to each person that posts, I should be able to.

I don't wander very far into groups so maybe I have missed unpleasantness but as far as I can see jlelliot (#53) has got it right - this is a pretty civilised website. We are fortunate that LT is designed for readers and, generally speaking, I firmly believe that regular readers are more literate, better informed and more thoughtful than the average. There are, of course, a few members who have short fuses and there are bigots and there are preachers: there are posters that I know I could not abide in the real world. I also know that others may feel the same about me but as I am not very likely to meet anyone on the site face to face that doesn't matter at all. It is really pretty easy to ignore anyone you don't get on with on line.

I would be sorry to see LT become a more policed site. I think Tim et al. have a pretty good approach and their light touch is entirely appropriate. The fewer rules the better in my book.

ETA a qualifier about the numbers of members with short fuses, etc. ;-)

Ah, I guess I missed the no-sock-puppets rule. Too far down the page... Seriously, though, it's more likely that I've never seen the sock-puppet issue come up before (at least not the "stacking discussions" part of it; I have come across instances of the getting-around-200 puppets).

>63 cyderry: I don't feel that we need to have any extra policing or to assign extra duties to Abby.

Abby does some policing now. She will occasionally warn people that if they don't become more polite bad stuff will happen (e.g., account suspended). It has happened within the last 24 hours in another group.

I agree with #61. If no one replies to flames, they die down for lack for oxygen.

The red x works well.

On another site, I've seen flame war threads locked. That doesn't work well, because the flamers simply go to another thread to attack each other.

No administrator should have to police a site. If something is extremely offensive, a private message should be sent to an administrator who can deal with the offender privately.

Mostly, I think it's up to the users to control themselves and not respond to inflammatory remarks. Unfortunately, that's not something that you can regulate. In addition, I find that people here often like to bait others and think that their own nasty remarks are "cute".

Ninety-nine percent of the time, I only find pleasant discussion on Talk. I think that is because I do not revisit any threads that I find inflammatory.

I don't think there will ever be a Unifying Rule of How Things Should Be - after all, Pro and Con won't operate under the same rules as The Green Dragon.

And this will inevitably lead to issues along the way - and it all comes down to the inevitable, "I'll know it when I see it" school of identifying problems in talk.

I will say that deliberate thread hijacking isn't cool. People can dress it up as humor all they want, but it's really never appeared to be anything other than a clever way around the TOS to me. To me, it appears that the group thinks that if it's quasi-on topic and funny-ish, this group feels that they're untouchable in terms of TOS violations. After all, they haven't called anyone a name, they haven't told anyone that they can't post and anyone that actually steps out of "bounds" in the game will get called out as being mean.

But, to me, the result is the same, isn't it? The thread is killed. The OP and anyone that really wanted to stay on topic is shut out of the conversation. Finding loopholes may be creative, but the object of TOS isn't to find loopholes - it's so everyone can have a positive experience.

And in a long, roundabout way - I guess that's the bottom line. Everyone should be able to have a chance to have a positive experience in general talk groups. Even if you hate the books that they read.

The rest of the talk groups should have similar themes, but will obviously set their own standards as to what constitutes a positive experience.

I'm obviously only in the more civil groups.

The two topics that have disturbed me most recently were when new users got upset at replies that offended them, but shouldn't have. In one of these cases the new member has left LT, and I can't feel that it was a major loss.

In 'Name that Book' we were able to get the topic calmed down, and the new member stayed with the discussion and seemed to understand what had happened. I am the 'owner' of that group, because the original owner wasn't around any more, and changes to the description were needed. I certainly don't want to spend all my time moderating that group, and usually it isn't needed, but in cases like that one, where things were getting our of hand, and misunderstandings were multiplying, I would have appreciated being able to use a moderator's badge on my post.

On that group I have asked people to be particulary careful with new users, but that is really only for that group, because it is a service that is used a lot by people who are new, and a great way to give people the feeling that this is a useful site. (It did for me way back when.)

>2. What do you think the answer is? I would encourage you to think about ways of changing the context factors, not just urging more baton wielding.

A few posters in this thread have responded directly to this specific request, but they have been largely ignored. Many of the other posts are, in fact, about baton wielding. The problem is not only how to regulate, but why and when one should do so.

And it is a blind spot.

We could put it in a matrix: there are civil and acceptable messages; civil but unacceptable; uncivil but acceptable; uncivil and unacceptable.

The main reason that I have been drawn into debates is on account of an abundance of discussions - that is, thoughts and sentiments - couched in terms that are civil, but unacceptable. Meaning, the worst kinds of prejudiced and baseless statements are floated around and escape comment because they are either ignored or tacitly approved by their readers. And one who responds to them dismissively is immediately pounced on by those who defend such rubbish. In brief, it would appear LT doesn't mind whatever offensive campaign a poster undertakes, because that falls under free speech, but it does mind if someone else responds with exasperation and calls a spade a spade. In my opinion, the latter kind of statement may be unpleasant or uncivil (within bounds) but it is acceptable (at least, more often that not). As mentioned, we are largely adults here, and we don't need another "But Who Will Think of The Grown-Ups?" policy.

As for the optimistic thought that you can battle prejudice with reason, and point out "what is wrong" with an argument in a few lines, each and every time the same argument is made using different words - well, no, you can't, especially if the poster appears to be on nearly 24 hours a day, posts voluminously and verbosely, likes to bully other posters into silence, and repeats himself day in and day out, in thread after thread, and in forum after forum, despite all argumentation, intelligent or inarticulate. Members have better things to do than discourage posters who amuse themselves by provoking everyone constantly in this manner.

I recently accused a specific poster, fitting the above description, of engaging in hate speech. Rather than looking at the context in which this accusation was made (and my accusation still stands: the poster has posted the same messages a third time now - despite being conclusively shown to be in error - and that should qualify as spam, too) the latter part of the discussion devolved into whether or not I could "technically" call a certain post hate speech, when its intent remains obvious to most, and even after so-called facts in it were proven wrong.

If people depend on bureaucracy rather than common sense, and cannot differentiate between intent and statement at all, and passively allow unacceptable behaviour while swatting at occasional, excessive reactions, then no system of moderation or regulation will be worth the extra trouble. To put it less ornately, it's a case of missing the forest for the trees.

As I mentioned, other posters have already said as much above, and said it better, but I think this is worth repeating and emphasizing.

"So here's my question:

1. What do you see as the main dysfunctions?"

I don't think LT itself has the dysfunctions. I think it is fantastic, and works well. I think users have to be mindful of what they are saying. To suggest that a person has less value because they are new, and thus it is okay to offend them concerns me, for instance. Who knows how that user would develop if they were not run off? They matter too, new or not, I thought that the idea is meant to be that all users are equal?

I do not think more rules would matter, who reads them anyway for one thing..

I do believe that admin should have something to identify them. That way no one would feel ignored, and those who go stridently around the site telling others how they should be doing things, or just being haughty and arrogant would not be given undue power by simple misunderstanding. abby_admin abby_SA abby_*admin or something. Many other sites using a different format do identify admin and moderators

abby
site admin

so making it clear with the user name would in my opinion be helpful.

I do believe that Tim's idea of assuming good intentions is worthwhile and works 98% of the time.

and POI

under Touchstones it is telling me that I have The Bible Jesus Read T-stoned, when clearly I do not. very odd ...

I was thinking on that Early Reviewer discussion yesterday and today - which I'm sure is part of what lead to this discussion.

In terms of some criticism that I could offer to you, Tim, I think the frustration was that you appeared in that thread several times but never addressed the main issue at hand in a more direct way.

I think seeing you respond in a thread and then disappear as individuals suddenly get their hands around a hot-button issue can get messy. This isn't your fault, but it leaves the perception that you've got a vested interest in the topic and that individuals currently have your ear

ER, in particular, has a lot of emotional investment for users. In that thread, I think users just wanted to hear, "we agree that writing reviews saying you're too busy to review your ER book just so you can get another ER book is a problem - Abby and I'll are definitely going to look into this. We appreciate you bringing this to our attention." At that point, the message about going after the OP probably would have been a lot easier to deliver - (something like, "Now, that being said, this is a free book review program and not a high crime. No user should to be treated in talk like this at all..."

A statement like that honestly doesn't say anything, but given early on, it might have avoided a lot of the escalating discussion...

Or I could be entirely wrong - but that was my perception in that thread.

good point.

I have to agree. Despite the fact that blocking bone or two folks who always annoy has seemed very appealing to me.. I do have to agree.

And I disagree. I don't go into ANY discussions of politics, religion or sexuality and still want an ignore function. For instance, I have Site Recommendations on ignore because of one or two people that continually are negative and insulting on nearly every thread.

And mckait, wouldn't you like to be able to participate in a group that you left because of ONE person? What if you could put that person on ignore? Then you could enjoy the group again.

Tim -
I've been kicking around a couple of ideas since you mentioned that you didn't want to disrupt the flow of conversation by being able to ignore all posts from specific people.

1. What if each post had a little + next to it to allow you to 'close it up' so that you didn't have to read specific posts in a thread if you didn't want to? It won't necessarily 'ignore' everything by a specific user, but it can be handy if someone would just rather not read specific posts. I can think of a few threads where a rotten apple spoils the barrel for me and I don't read those (whole) threads anymore because of the one bad post.

2. Also, what about personal 'stickers' that we can add to posts (people?) we want to remember? Let's say we had some small coloured dots that we could add (only for each of us to see, personally) to posts -- ones that we want to remember or we want to refer to.

It could also go the other way and a person could use a personal 'sticker' for posts (or people?) they don't want to read. It's completely personal and no one else sees it. It could be used similar to the slashdot mechanism of marking posts as insightful, troll, etc. only this wouldn't be public for everyone to see.

It might deflate a bit of the fervor if you can 'do something' about the post/person that's got you peeved.

I do miss that group morphy. You are right about that. And that is indeed one of the 3 people that I have wished I could ignore. And I am so glad to see you, and a few others in different groups.

I usually red x the political and religious discussions. I have popped in a time or two, but usually avoid them because of their intensity. I am here to have a nice time. The thing is, there are many more people like you ( nice~likeable~ fun to interact with) than there are like those 3 people.

I guess I feel as if it is my fault that I can't handle that person, in that group, you know? I wish I could just think to myself well F you! and carry on. I allow them to rile me up.

You do make a good point though.

The Problem With Noobs...

I've noticed 2 problems with Noobies. The first is that they aren't allowed to make mistakes without having people scorch them fiercely. The second is that they do make mistakes.

As a possible solution, I'd like to suggest that a line be added to the TOS stating that old hands must be friendly and tolerant (or some such). As rule driven as some folks are this might help. It would at least give some of us something rule-ish to quote in the Noobs defense.

Secondly, is there a FAQ that goes out to Noobs? My memories so bad I can't remember if I rec'vd one. Perhaps there should be, if there isn't. And perhaps, if there's not, there could be a couple of bullet points added that would cover the most common annoyances (like Thou Shalt Not Spam).

My 2

I find this discussion fascinating, because I never thought about the difficulty of ignoring people whose posts annoy (or bore) others. But the problem is that it's generally so subjective: what annoys one person may be interesting to another. (I see this in some threads where there's a poster who bores me to tears, but who delights many other posters, and so I just skip his posts.)

I guess it might be good if there were some way of technologically ignoring a poster an individual doesn't want to read, on a person-by-person basis, but what about the low-tech way of just not reading that person's posts?

The low-tech way is what I do now, but sometimes it's hard, especially when reading a longer thread. While reading, I scan over the paragraphs and totally ignore the message/user line. When I get to something negative my reaction is, 'Who the hell is writing this... oh, THAT one again, figures.'

Ideas follow...

I've noticed 2 problems with Noobies. The first is that they aren't allowed to make mistakes without having people scorch them fiercely. The second is that they do make mistakes.

This is spot on. The answer to this, IMHO, would be to have a separate group for newbies (BTW, I've asked for this before). Hopefully, the veteran members following this thread would gently guide newbies through the "orientation to LT" process, while allowing for errant behavior at first.

I'd like to suggest that a line be added to the TOS stating that old hands must be friendly and tolerant (or some such).

Won't work!! Each person has a different idea of what is "friendly" or "tolerant".

ThePam's idea of an introductory letter (keep it brief, please) to newbies is great!

About posters who offend, I like the idea of each person's ability to close up the offending person's comments (individual posts) on a thread (affects only the reader and not other members). It allows the reader to feel as if he or she were doing something to shut the other peron up! :) I don't know if this would be a programming nightmare or not, though.

A few random thoughts:

The second is that they do make mistakes.

One thing that it might be useful to do (although I assume Tim must have tried this many times already) is have a systematic look through postings by new users to pinpoint features or rules of LT that are frequently problematic or counter-intuitive for newcomers, and prioritise those for correction or clarification. Things like the notorious green plus sign, character set oddities, the import queue that generally gets stuck at weekends when new members are uploading their libraries, the convention that authors shouldn't promote their own books, and the ancient but still prevalent misunderstanding that LT is a place to download ebooks from.

Do some usability testing (did you recruit that intern yet?) and find out where it would be most useful to add extra help text, and where there is already too much information. Would it make sense to display a short help text the first time the user clicks on "post a message", for instance?

Obviously, improving the experience of LT for new users won't solve all the problems we have been discussing, but it ought to remove at least some causes of frustration and irritation in talk threads. And attacking solvable problems is always a good start...

This is spot on. The answer to this, IMHO, would be to have a separate group for newbies (BTW, I've asked for this before). Hopefully, the veteran members following this thread would gently guide newbies through the "orientation to LT" process, while allowing for errant behavior at first.

Yes. I know you've suggested it before and I thought it was a fantastic idea then. I think so now as well.

I actually wonder whether it would be helpful to make this rule a bit broader. At least in the discussions I've participated in, it seems that people tend to stop and rethink once the flags come out. So if posting mean and mostly contentless remarks about another person were forbidden, maybe some of the arguments could be stopped before they escalate into full-out attacks and name-calling.

I'm open to the idea, but what's the standard proposed? So far, it's personal attacks, including name-calling. How do you tighten that up?

I guess I'm looking for some way to define personal bordering-on-attacks. I think it's usually pretty clear when posts are becoming more nasty than productive. Maybe readafew in #3 is right that it would be better to have a separate indicator for this sort of post.

a thumbs-up could let people show support for a position without wading into the fray, and could also be useful for agreeing with feature suggestions etc. The general atmosphere of the site might be improved if people had a way to support good posts rather than just punish bad posts.

That too is an interesting idea. What would the flag read? It can't apply to both content and style, or people would just up-vote the positions they agree with.

I don't see a problem with people supporting posts whose content they agree on. If a dispute arises, and someone sees that the other person (probably the one posting calmer and more fact-based arguments) is the one getting all the support, it might cause them to rethink what they're posting.

The system on boardgamegeek.com seems to work pretty well.

a separate group for newbies

Agreed.

I was thinking on that Early Reviewer discussion yesterday and today - which I'm sure is part of what lead to this discussion.

No, it was the political ones that prompted this, although it's a general concern.

On that thread I unambiguously stated:

1. Users shouldn't write fake reviews. A fake review should be logged as "not a review" by other users.

I didn't hang around because I don't really have more to say about it. If it's not a review members should flag it as not a review. We take that sort of thing into account, but we don't run around reading everyone's reviews. As for restraint, I urged it twice. I'm not going to police the conversation unless I get a specific complaint, and the complaint is warranted.

I'd like to suggest that a line be added to the TOS stating that old hands must be friendly and tolerant (or some such)

I wouldn't mind having a "introduction to community norms" area, but I'm not going to enforce something like "old hands must be friendly and tolerant."

The low-tech way is what I do now, but sometimes it's hard, especially when reading a longer thread

Would you be okay with an ignore that left the message in place—with a "message from ignored user" text or something. Removing their messages strikes me as liable to cause a lot of confusion, but doing like we do to flags might be okay.

>86 timspalding: Yes, but you didn't state that there were any consequences in terms of the ER algorithm when it comes to a review that's marked as "not a review". I agree with stephmo that the conflict there could have been stifled a lot earlier if you had just said that the fake reviews wouldn't count (which I still don't think has been stated explicitly, and which as far as I know may not even be the case).

I still think of myself as a newbie (member since June 1st). I joined this site because I love books and reading and discussion. I have posted in threads and hope I haven't caused any offence. If I ever do something inappropriate I hope someone would let me know.
I am uncomfortable with the idea of censorship. I think that being able to talk with people around the world and discuss differing viewpoints is a wonderful thing to do.
My question on this topic is specifically about the flagging of items you consider offensive. What is to stop the same person flagging 4 times and suspending a thread just because they disagree with something?

>86 timspalding: Oh sure. Like I said before, even hiding them like we do flagged posts would be cool. That way if someone really is confused about a disjointed thread, they can still read the post.

Ex:

Message from ignored user (view)

>88 calm: A person can only flag a post once, calm. If there are 4 flags, it's by four different people.

On all the newbie stuff - I think that it's really come time to get some help text directly on the site in some fashion, not just on the Wiki. Nothing against all the work that's been done there, but having to click over to the Wiki and search for terms is a lot more work than asking for help...

Interactive help ?'s should appear on every page next to a feature that can lead to more documentation (and even directly to the Wiki pages) is a huge undertaking, but something that needs to be done. A decent template should be developed as well - something that gives a help page a sort of unifying look and feel so that information flows in the same way regardless of topic.

RSI should have a list of "Top 10 Requested Improvements" in the description at the top - with links to the most current discussions...

I'm sort of on the fence about a Newbie forum. Mostly because individuals psychologically like to show that they're ready to contribute right away - so the idea of being "corralled" to an LT bunny slope may not appeal to a number of individuals. (I imagine people being told their topic is more appropriate for the newbie area and the feelings that might generate.) I just thought I'd throw that side out there.

--> 89

I agree with Morphidae.

To hide a mesage that still can be viewed is the best idea. It gives the message to would-be readers that the message was intensely disliked, but provides it for the more curious readers among us.

>86 timspalding:, My bad assumption! Well, I will say that folks were looking for something that said it was inappropriate. You do have a conversation style that comes across to me as "musing," to use a word.

To give a for instance, I think you've brought up dropping the permissions rules on photos twice in the last year. You seem serious when you say this (I believe cursing was even used once), but the actual discussion (yes we're dropping it/no, I was just frustrated that day) never actually happens. And that's just a sample. Sometimes, it's hard to tell when you're "musing" and when you're saying, "this is my position." My apologies - that appeared to be musing.

If it was the political threads...well, I don't know what to say - those always seem to be a bit more caustic. I've been on other boards where they specifically have areas of their forums where the admins say, "don't expect the normal TOS rules to apply here." I think one of those boards was actually called the Asylum - and it was a lot of political argument. I don't know that there's really a way for individuals to not get overly passionate about political discussion.

--> 91

I agree with stephmo. How many newbies actually go to the wiki? I wonder...

Mostly because individuals psychologically like to show that they're ready to contribute right away - so the idea of being "corralled" to an LT bunny slope may not appeal to a number of individuals.

No one is coralling them there. It simply provides an optional place for posting questions and introducing oneself. Nobody should send a newbie back to the Newbie Group. ("Stupid question! You now must return to the Newbie Group. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.") ;)

An ignored user feature would only affect the person doing the ignoring, just like the little red x does now. It wouldn't affect anyone else on the thread. Or did I misunderstand your post, SqueakyChu?

As an example, BookCrossing has Newbie forum that I think is very effective.

--> 95

It could be set up either way, depending on what Tim thinks would be most appropriate.

Option A: we, as a group, could flag a post into hiding

Option B: an individual would be able to hide a post (although this option does not remove the offensive post from the sight of others)

ETA: Although either of these could be done, I've honestly never seen anything on the LT fora that I thought was completely over-the-top outrageous. Had I done so, I would have immediately reported it to the administrators.

>91 stephmo: Interactive help ?'s should appear on every page next to a feature that can lead to more documentation (and even directly to the Wiki pages) is a huge undertaking, but something that needs to be done. A decent template should be developed as well - something that gives a help page a sort of unifying look and feel so that information flows in the same way regardless of topic.

I was trying to do this with HelpThing, although I've gotten sidetracked with real life, plus I sort of gave up trying to keep things updated with all of the catalog re-vamping and pending collections, so it's been mostly abandoned half-finished for months now...

But my (and cD's) idea was that there would be a "Help" tab, and that clicking it would take you to the appropriate wiki page based on which page you were coming from... so there is (supposed to be) a one-to-one match with pages on LT and pages on HelpThing. So if you're coming from a /work/ page, it takes you to the main work help page, if you're coming from a /work/edit/ address, it takes you to the work:edit help page, etc.

I still think it's a good idea, and am still trying (feebly) to rally support both for the idea, and for writing the actual help pages.

79>

The first is that {newbies} aren't allowed to make mistakes without having people scorch them fiercely. The second is that they do make mistakes.

Different groups, perhaps, but I haven't seen this -- I mostly hang out in the site-related groups, rather than topical groups, though.

What I have seen is what I alluded to in #21 -- someone with no books comes who joined today comes in and posts a pseudo-spammy post (of the "Buy my book" or "Visit my blog" flavor), and is told, in a neutral tone (no insults or flames, but no coddling or red-carpeting or "Welcome to LibraryThing, I'm sure you're a fantastic person", either) that that sort of behavior isn't generally welcome, with suggestions made for appropriate venues for promotion. Then well-meaning people will leap on the members who made those suggestions, for being Mean To Newbies -- because our Good Faith isn't Assumed. I don't think being told "It looks like you've just joined to promote your own book, and that's not appropriate; try Member Giveaways, the Writers Brag group, or adding more books to your library and becoming a participating member of the community" is being 'scorched fiercely'.

If people in the group can vote to hide a post, then a certain number of users needs to vote that way to make it happen for the group.

Maybe each vote hides it from the person voting and once a threshold is reached it hides it from the group.

I would think you should have the same options as flagging: remove your hide if you change your mind, cast an unhide to counteract the hide.

99> I don't think being told "It looks like you've just joined to promote your own book, and that's not appropriate; try Member Giveaways, the Writers Brag group, or adding more books to your library and becoming a participating member of the community" is being 'scorched fiercely'.

Mebbe yes, mebbe no.

Compare and contrast to

"It looks like you've just joined to promote your own book, and that's not appropriate in most groups' threads; try Member Giveaways or the Writers Brag group."

Clear, accurate and non-judgmental.

"...or adding more books to your library and becoming a participating member of the community." This is hardly a fierce scorch, but it could be perceived as unnecessarily snippy for a first coupla days offense. Sort of like smooshing a gnat with a 2x4.

> 101

"...or adding more books to your library and becoming a participating member of the community." This is hardly a fierce scorch, but it could be perceived as unnecessarily snippy for a first coupla days offense.

Yep. Particularly as at least some of the people who are told that probably consider that posting in the forums is "becoming a participating member". There's always something off-putting about folks defining for other folks what the nature and extent of their participation should be (barring, of course, the obvious spam, which is never welcome).

101>

First, what I posted wasn't a verbatim quote, so minor quibbles about wording are beside the point.

Second, commercial solicitation, even about books, is against the TOS, so it's entirely fair to speak generally, and then mention that there exist groups who choose not to enforce those aspects of the TOS.

Third, I feel no need to be non-judgmental toward people engaged in spammy behavior. Telling them what they've done wrong and suggesting ways they can do it right is more than enough, IMO -- I'm not going to bend over backwards to be all sweetness and light. My alternative to posting something neutral is not to post anything at all, to flag the post, red-X the thread, and put the poster on "ignore"; it's not to roll out a red carpet.

Finally, people who I've actually had this discussion with (both book-promoters and blog-promoters) have said, more or less, "Thanks, I'm new and didn't realize this was inappropriate. I won't do it again", so they clearly don't consider themselves "flamed to a crisp". What was someone saying upthread about people taking offense on other people's behalf being a big part of the problem?

Followon from #103:

Since precise wording appears to be at issue, here's the exact text of what I've posted:

The rules against spamming on LT in the Terms of Service do apply to authors promoting their books as well.

That said, there is a group (I believe it's called "Author Brag Grab Bag", or some such) where those rules are ignored, and you can plug your book to your heart's content. You may also want to consider offering copies of your books on Member Giveaways in exchange for reviews.

Or, you could enter more books in your library, participate in the community, and have people decide you're such an interesting person with such great taste in books that they want to check out what you've written. I don't think anyone has ever bought a book because an author dropped from the sky and said "Read my great book!", but lots of people, myself included, have become avid fans of authors who they got to know from communities first when the author didn't get off on the wrong foot by spamming.

This is, apparently, considered "roasting to a crisp" by some.

103: see also my comments upthread about excessive "niceness" and self-censorship.

>86 timspalding: Yes, but you didn't state that there were any consequences in terms of the ER algorithm when it comes to a review that's marked as "not a review".

Hm. Okay. Sorry, I thought it was clear.

Sometimes, it's hard to tell when you're "musing" and when you're saying, "this is my position." My apologies - that appeared to be musing.

Yes. I agree. I do tend to muse or as I see it "thinking with others."

104> Not even brown around the edges by my standards. I'd even call that tone pretty neutral (except maayybee the last dozen words ;-)

As I've said on another thread, when in doubt, it helps to consider:

Is it true?

Is it necessary?

Is it kind?

If you can't meet 2 out of 3, mebbe let it go.

Mind you, on the same thread I was consigned to the Humor Police for suggesting kindness and empathy were Good Things (tm).

107: "kindness and empathy were Good Things (tm)."

Undoubtedly they are good things. And like some other good things, people's supply of them varies from day to day. Is there a minimum amount required before expressing an opinion, or is everyone allowed an off day from time to time? (I'm not directing that question just at PhaedraB, btw.)

I wouldn't want a one-size-fits-all policy at the TOS level. Too much depends on context -- groups that are intended to be light or friendly or supportive, groups that are intended to be for people with common interests or commonly held opinions, groups that by the nature of their subject matter are questioning ideological attachments, people who have been interacting for months or years and can use shorthand or humor or push the limits of what would be considered polite chit chat among strangers.

I think that the standards for civility should be higher in the standing groups, especially those discussing LT features, and also the entry points for new users who aren't yet sure where else to go for questions or conversation. I would expect Tim to have a stake in the tone of these groups because of their potential to attract or repel new members. I would expect other groups to be responsible for policing themselves -- a combination of members gauging their own comfort zone before joining, or speaking up if the tone deviates too far in a group that is otherwise of interest, or collectively discussing guidelines for acceptable behavior. One person's pleasant is another person's bland. One person's straightforward is another person's attack. One person's constructive critique is another person's whining.

(I generally don't care for flinging about insults in conversation, but I thought that "infernal idiot" in the combining/separating instructions was cute, representing a private exasperated sigh.)

Some of the people who occasionally annoy me are also people who contribute immensely to LT -- intensity can be abrasive (especially when I happen to disagree with an expressed opinion). Sometimes I get more annoyed at the people who complain about the tone of others, because the thread degenerates into declarations of righteousness.

I like the idea of allowing each member to hide messages from specified others ("Messaged from ignored user: (view)"). I doubt that I'd ever use it, but then for the most part I'm reading relatively impersonal feature-focused groups.

Re a group for newbies, I recall that Tim also thought this was a good idea and was going to create it "today". Where...? Hah! Found it: http://www.librarything.com/topic/63250#1233241. (That's "today" in LT time, which we all know can be a little warped; nearly two months ago out here in RL.)

About the only thing I find troublesome in talks is the occasional commiserating about unnamed other members who are 'bad'. It isn't that it becomes nasty as such, but it does leaves me with a bad taste in the mouth.
But then I generally do the "ignore whatever I don't care about", and never read the fierce 'discussion' threads.
So my personal experience is that there is no need for more control, or other rules/regulatory mechanisms.
I'd probably be intimidated to the point of lurking if posts could be tagged or in other ways evaluated by other users (like the slashdot way someone mentioned earlier). Though it would be nice to contribute to a discussion by agreeing with a post (by thumping it) without reiterating the point in another post.

> 86 Tim No, it was the political ones that prompted this

You don't say, if you have had complaints or if its just your reaction to it.

While civility everywhere is always good, to try to fix the problems of the hot button groups by tweaking the whole site is simply avoiding the issue.

The short answer is that it happens on those groups/threads because its allowed to.

You are there on some as a participant, if you don't like the tone of the discourse then you need to step in and say as head honcho that you don't want it to continue in that vein. Some of the posts that I have seen do violate the TOS, so your objection would not arbitrary.

Set limits, establish consequences and then follow through with them if they are violated. You talk about how few people have been banned or kicked off, and while that is good, it may also say there are no real consequences for bad behavior. Not all the rules in the world will change anything if

1) there are no consequences
2) there are seen to be no consequences - making it visible can deter others

It strikes me that you want the LT community to solve your problem {cough} for you.

The idea of a "new members" forum has been tossed around a bit for other reasons, but perhaps such a forum would help solve the problem of brand new members inadvertently posting quasi-spam, if it was monitored by *extra-nice* older members with a lot of patience for explaining the rules, over and over again. (And those who didn't want to constantly explain things to newbies could simply ignore the group.)

This conversation seems to have a few topics, corresponding to a couple basic types of unpleasantness:

1. Political, religious, cultural politics meanness.
2. New members stepping over the line somehow, or being thought to.
3. Members squabbling over shared goods (metadata, LTER books)

Any types I'm missing?

I think that ignoring posts and ignoring groups is enough. Voting on restricting users or voting to hide posts allows for cliques to form and become powerful. I'm also against "time outs" and pretty much all the additional layers of censorship and control people want to add to LT.

First of all, these added controls add programming complexity and run time complexity. Lots of us aren't on DSL and background processing already takes lots of time.

Also, this additional control goes against what I perceive to be LT's greatest strength - Tim's strong philosophical conviction to allow users to use the site as they wish (with some control over abuse, obviously).

113: I think "members squabbling over community norms," while it might be a subcategory of 2 or 3, is really its own thing as well. Consider the references recently and upthread to the niceness police. There are a lot of people on LT who want Talk to be super nicey-nice. Some of us other grumpier people aren't super nicey-nice, and some of us, dare I say, find nicey-niceness actually annoying, especially enforced nicey-niceness.

I mean, Tim, you want things to be really nice too--"assume good faith" and all. So, I mean, some people have lost out in terms of community norms and it's not surprising to find them either disgruntled or still doing their own thing. Don't think you can really do much about it though, except that those norms will perhaps push the grumps to participate less.

(Ugh, I hope that wasn't too controversial.)

Also, this additional control goes against what I perceive to be LT's greatest strength - Tim's strong philosophical conviction to allow users to use the site as they wish (with some control over abuse, obviously).

Thanks for putting that better than I do.

members squabbling over community norms

Yeah. Agreed. It's related, but a distinct category.

I mean, Tim, you want things to be really nice too--"assume good faith" and all.

I don't know. I think I've been misunderstood. I think it's a good idea, when a new member arrives and posts about their book, to take it easy on the condemnation. Hostility to new members is hardly something I dreamed up. And "assume good faith" is intended to be good advice and a community norm, not a Terms requirement.

I agree with nperrin in #115. Much of this squabbling is initially triggered by one of the three classes of issues Tim describes in #113, but I think it's common enough to be worth handling separately. I'm all for politeness and helping new people, but have a severe allergy to enforced nicey-niceness; sometimes it seems like just telling people what the community norms are is regarded as being outrageously unwelcoming (by people other than the newcomers.)

It's like the "grumpier people", in nperrin's words, react to someone standing on their foot by saying "Excuse me, you're standing on my foot", and the "niceness police" want us to say "Oh, hello! I'm sure you're a wonderful person and didn't mean to, but you probably didn't notice that you're standing on my foot. If it's not too much trouble do you think you could move, please? When you get a chance? Thanks so much!", as though that level of effusive nicey-niceness is required by basic common courtesy. Common courtesy says you don't punch someone in the face when they accidentally step on your foot, not that you have to admire their footwear.

>117 lorax:

I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. What (at least some of) the niceness people want is for people to say "Excuse me, you're standing on my foot," rather than "Get of my foot, you stupid git!"

116: I don't know. I think I've been misunderstood. I think it's a good idea, when a new member arrives and posts about their book, to take it easy on the condemnation. Hostility to new members is hardly something I dreamed up. And "assume good faith" is intended to be good advice and a community norm, not a Terms requirement.

No, I think you're right about that. I think it is legit to assume good faith rather than spam. But it's not assuming bad faith to get annoyed with people who don't RTFM...

I mean, there is just a wide variety of what people here consider "polite" enough. I don't consider it impolite to tell someone to RTFM, though I would never do it here because I know it would be jumped on. So a response that, for me, is already toned down to niceness, is still not as nice as something e.g., in lorax's post at 117. I don't want to speak for others, but I know there are times when I have felt like I (or someone else) was already being more friendly than necessary, but accused of unfriendliness.

> 118 Or the quasi-nice response:

"Excuse me, you're standing on my foot, and let me explain why what you did makes you a stupid git".

Have to get that sucker punch in for some reason.

>113 timspalding: The other type I would add is the type where people take offense for others and take offense to the extreme.

>118 Helcura: I'm seconding (thirding?) Helcura. Asking people to be polite, "Excuse me, you're stepping on my foot" isn't asking people to be "nicey-nice", it's saying don't go, "I can't believe you stepped on my foot, you jerk!"

I'm not saying specifically here because I don't know, but on most occasions in the past the people that I've known to complain about "niceness police" are the type to say the latter rather than the former.

122: Is that to me? Since I started the use of the phrase on this thread?

My perception is that sometimes it's more a case of "Why did you put your foot in the way, you ? Apologize at once!"

>123 gwernin: Nope, not at you. I don't think I've seen you post before. Nor at anyone in particular here at LT or in this thread, for that matter. I am speaking of my general Internet experience. My experience has been the people decrying the "niceness police" (only using your term because it's an effective one) or being "banned from free speech" are often the rudest people.

122>

I think we need some examples here, because I'm just not seeing the "I can't believe you stepped on my foot, you jerk" equivalents. I'm not doubting you, they're just probably in groups I don't read; in the groups I do frequent, it seems like anything short of rolling out the red carpet for people after they've started by getting off on the wrong foot is regarded as being unspeakably rude. (My post quoted in #104, for instance. I think that's an "Excuse me, you're standing on my foot", but it seems like it's not enough for some people.)

New TOS rule: No foot metaphors.

What about pony metaphors?

why to avoid foot in mouth?

(didn't say no foot jokes!)

>125 lorax:

Let's avoid posting examples. Seriously. If you haven't seen it, that's good data. But I don't want anyone to start rehashing disputes here.

:D (for Morphy)

>125 lorax: I think your example of:

It looks like you've just joined to promote your own book, and that's not appropriate; try Member Giveaways, the Writers Brag group.

...is just fine. It's an "Excuse me, you banged my head with your book."

124: I've been around quite a while. I mostly just post on the spam-hunter threads (where politeness is not required except to the like-minded) for this very reason.

(edited to cite correct post #)

> 130

Yes, you can!

I'm mostly quite happy with the status quo in terms of moderation and oversight; I don't think we need much more. I am a fan of the idea of ignoring individual users and their posts, though some nagging voice in my head insists that I'd probably read the posts anyway even though I know one user in particular rubs me the wrong way consistently.

Of course, there is a "block this member" option on other users' profile pages--I just don't know what this actually does.

I don't want to side-track discussion to me and other LibraryThing employees, but one possible improvement would be to have some sort of marker when someone is speaking ex-officio—when I'm acting as a member, and when I'm acting as a site administrator. (tim's #30 message)

I think that's a great idea. Forgot to mention it above.

>1 timspalding: I want to open up discussion on what LibraryThing...can do to make and keep Talk a pleasant functional discussion...

That sounds like something Hitler would say!

>101 PhaedraB:
"...or adding more books to your library and becoming a participating member of the community." This is hardly a fierce scorch, but it could be perceived as unnecessarily snippy...

Whoa, how is that unnecessarily snippy?! It seems perfectly polite to me.

> 134

I believe that all the "block this member" option does is prevent the person leaving you comments.

About the only thing I find troublesome in talks is the occasional commiserating about unnamed other members who are 'bad'. It isn't that it becomes nasty as such, but it does leaves me with a bad taste in the mouth.

I agree that this really doesn't help with the atmosphere on the site.

1. Political, religious, cultural politics meanness.
2. New members stepping over the line somehow, or being thought to.
3. Members squabbling over shared goods (metadata, LTER books)

Any types I'm missing?

In my own experience, the biggest problem seems to be people blurring the line between arguments about ideas/behaviours and personal dislike. This is related to 1, but it happens in groups like Site Talk too.

My rule: You can have a pony, but you have to clean the stable first.

#109 and others

RE a group for newbies, I think this should be one of the standing groups and also be mentioned in that new member newsletter.

Groups is difficult navigating and if the newbie group gets buried in the Complete Group List - a newbie will never find it and that will defeat the purpose.

On a broader topic, making Groups easier to use could also reduce the duplicate groups and help folks post to the best group which could also ease some of the irritation that I have seen in Talk.

140 -
See, here I was, about to suggest you keep the 'no pony' picture for use in future 'site wishlist' type of threads... but you have an even better idea!

;)

So I guess its safe to say we have moved on from 'pleasant functional discussions' to hate and humiliation for personal enjoyment. Good to know.

>143 FicusFan: I'm not sure what you are referring to unless is it the post 136 which I have flagged.

That and the idea that its OK to humiliate people you don't agree with. That is the whole purpose of the Pony.

Um, that might be how you interpret it. But not me. Tim brought up no more feet, so I brought up ponies. Something that was talked about when collections first came out, i.e. talk about bugs not ponies. I apologize if I hit a personal button, but as I say to my mom, "Not everything is about you."

145 -
No, it's not the purpose of the pony, or my comment further on.

It's an internet meme, like lolcats. It appears when someone gets a (usually HUGE) list of things to implement on a website/in a project/when programming/etc. "Why can't I have a pony too?"

Its meaning comes from when you *can't* say no to anyone because it is perceived as being mean/rude/unacceptable if you do, even though contradictory things and/or impossible things are, well, impossible to implement.

When you post a picture with a small child crying with the caption of No Pony, the implication is that those who want ponies are children/childish.

As you say ponies have been discussed on the site, and have a very well known meaning.

136
Whoa! Are those flags serious?!

The problem with online communications is that the subtler (and not so subtle) forms of irony, sarcasm and humor are not easily distinguished. One wishes to lightly tease, but it comes off as an atomic blast if the reader is in a bad or defensive mood.

Probably more than half my posts could have a little smiley or winky icon after them, but then that gets a little precious after awhile.

I wish you all a happy weekend. Seriously.

:)

145>

That and the idea that its OK to humiliate people you don't agree with. That is the whole purpose of the Pony.

No, really, it's not. I've been known to say "This is probably a 'while you're at it can I have a pony' request, but (feature request)'". The purpose is to indicate that a particular request is an extremely difficult or time-consuming (if not impossible) one to implement.

#150 I think the difference is when you are self-deprecating your request and when others are deprecating your request. Belittling yourself is ok, belittling others is not. Just like people can say: I must be stupid, since I can't seem to find X, can you point me to it? but nobody should respond: You're so stupid. X is right there.

> 145 If you are referring to something you want its not an attempt to humiliate. More an attempt to say see I'm not like those others who make demands and don't think of the consequences. Also Self-deprecating humor.

When used to refer to something others want, it is. There has to be deprecation in the first place to make it self-deprecation.

>136 Carnophile: Yes, mine is. With no context, no smiley, no "ha ha" and little to no familiarity with the person, as far as I know, that person is purposefully being insulting. If s/he comes back and says they were only kidding or I misinterpreted, I'll be happy to remove my flag.

148 -
as Morphy said, that might be what you're reading into it, but no.

It was an old programming world humor piece stating that it's impossible to please everyone all the time.

>152 FicusFan: There were no actual "ponies" brought up in this thread. Tim asked for ideas, we are giving ideas. No one's "ponies" are being insulted and no person or group was being pointed out. *I* brought up ponies because I thought it was a funny substitution for the "foot" metaphor, nothing else. Again, I apologize for pushing a personal button. And as the person who brought up ponies, I have never thought the request for them as being childish, only humorous.

I really doubt the Hitler comment was serious.

As for ponies, opinions may differ, but I think it's simply often just silly, not derogatory. Flickr used to list that on the "Things you get by joining Flickr."

I think what we're seeing here is an active demonstration of what we've been discussing.

Everyone, chill!

Have a nice weekend.

152>

It's humor, not deprecation of any sort.

I will acknowledge that you see it as humiliating -- but you say its purpose is an intent to humiliate, and at least when I use it -- referring to myself or others -- that's simply not true.

> 136 I didn't flag, but did comment.

I don't know if he is being serious, ironic, trying to take the temperature of the group about 'niceness' in talk, a test to see if people are flag happy, or just stirring up shit.

I any event there just is no way that the inclusion of a Hitler reference is warranted. I also felt I couldn't just say nothing - given the reference, although ignore is probably the best option.

I think ponies (as mentioned on this thread anyways) were mentioned in good faith, but because they have recently been perceived as jabs at other users or their ideas, it happened to turn into an unfortunate comment, given that this thread is all about healthy LT discussion and a number of people have seen pony comments as unhealthy in other threads. In fact, when Morphidae asked what about banning pony metaphors at first I thought she was completely serious, because it had been brought up in another thread seriously.

#70...

I disagree with you, Existanai. And I think it's pretty clear which discussion prompted this thread.

If there's a single part of your post that I disagree with, it's couched in terms that are civil, but unacceptable. Meaning, the worst kinds of prejudiced and baseless statements are floated around and escape comment because they are either ignored or tacitly approved by their readers.

And I think that in large part, "unacceptable" content should be allowed. If you find it objectionable that prejudiced and baseless comments are ignored or tacitly approved, don't ignore them. Call them out and voice your disapproval. That's on you...

While I agree with your assessment of the OP in that/those threads, I don't agree that your response was correct. I believe that the LT TOS, as it now stands, allows you to combat prejudice and ignorance as it appears.

As for the optimistic thought that you can battle prejudice with reason, and point out "what is wrong" with an argument in a few lines, each and every time the same argument is made using different words - well, no, you can't, especially if the poster appears to be on nearly 24 hours a day, posts voluminously and verbosely, likes to bully other posters into silence, and repeats himself day in and day out, in thread after thread, and in forum after forum, despite all argumentation, intelligent or inarticulate. Members have better things to do than discourage posters who amuse themselves by provoking everyone constantly in this manner.

If you truly have better things to do, then by all means do them. If not, do what you can to do your part to counteract that. Don't become what you dislike, though.

I recently accused a specific poster, fitting the above description, of engaging in hate speech. Rather than looking at the context in which this accusation was made (and my accusation still stands: the poster has posted the same messages a third time now - despite being conclusively shown to be in error - and that should qualify as spam, too) the latter part of the discussion devolved into whether or not I could "technically" call a certain post hate speech, when its intent remains obvious to most, and even after so-called facts in it were proven wrong.

You and I probably have entirely different thoughts on "hate speech," brother. While it may be viewed as unacceptable, I don't believe that that means it should be unallowable. A friend that I used to trade with on the Pacific Stock Exchange used to tell me that if people wanted to call him a nigger, he'd say that's right, I'm a nigger. To a certain extent, you are letting someone get under your skin.

All that being said, I do think that a specific poster seems to have garnered more than his fair share of warnings (this is the last warning).

All in all, though, I think that the site is largely good as is. If you look at the separate Pro and Con threads, they're largely dead. Preaching to the choir seems to get pretty boring pretty quickly. Another online discussion group that I used to participate in ended pretty abruptly. They used to have a thread called "Politics and Dissent" (which was a pretty leftish leaning thread)...

One of the posters talked about how comforting it was to be able to come in to that thread and find others that agreed with her, as she didn't have that in the conservative area that she lived. To which I could only say, if you look around and everyone is nodding their head in agreement, you're not dissenting.

And I think that a good chunk of what led that site to wither was the fact that content was overregulated.

And I think that that's a good part of the reason that Pro & Con is consistently among the 10 highest "Most Active Talk" groups. Disagreement generates discussion. If you only tell me what I already know, or what I can tell myself, then there's no need for me to talk to you.

>137 Carnophile:
>101 PhaedraB:
"...or adding more books to your library and becoming a participating member of the community." This is hardly a fierce scorch, but it could be perceived as unnecessarily snippy...

Whoa, how is that unnecessarily snippy?! It seems perfectly polite to me.

Not to belabor the point, but as someone else said in this already-long thread, posting to a group is participating in the community. Also, Tim has been quite clear that number of books entered will not be a criteria for ability to post. If a proud author enters their beloved creation first, then goes looking for people to talk to about it, the example given could be perceived as snippy.

It is frustrating that advocating civility, courtesy and giving benefit of the doubt is getting morphed into "we all must be nicey-nice." I'm not nicey-nice. Ask anybody ;-)

>160 Kira: Uh, what thread? I only read Green Dragon and the occasional Site or Book thread. Even the Collections threads I've been only skimming lately. It was totally in humor and if it was a poke at anyone it was at Tim. I had no idea that what I thought was a little joke would get people so stirred up.

#113 I think your 3 point overview of this thread is good but I am not sure that THIS thread reflects the problems that initiated your original post?

It seems that the feather ruffling that is being discussed here IMHO is fairly minor, yes there are things said that hurt someones feelings (for example, the whole pony incident above) that the majority of the people don't find upsetting. We are all human, we all have our own baggage, we all have our own norms - these things happen, perhaps more so in writing without visual clues, and hopefully with a little time and further discussion they are resolved. I do NOT mean to diminish anyone's hurt feelings, I am just saying that misunderstanding is part of social interaction.

It seems to me that most of us participating in this discussion are not involved in the threads that generated your original post. I wonder if this might be better addressed on one of the groups that has raised this concern, you need to get the buy in or cooperation or agreement (or threat?) to the right group in order to effect change. IMHO.

> 163: A perfect example of how talk that isn't meant to be offensive can create an unexpected riot - and why it's so difficult to avoid these things on the internet.

157>

I think what we're seeing here is an active demonstration of what we've been discussing.

Everyone, chill!

So do I, but in what's probably a way 180 degrees removed from how you do.

I see a discussion that's active, civil, and polite, but which contains disagreement, and an absence of fluffy bunnies. I see people pointing to the lack of fluffy bunnies as an indication of horrible rudeness.

If I'm interpreting things correctly, you see vicious flaming disagreement and horrific rudeness.

(Personally, I think "Everyone, chill!" is an intrinsically patronizing statement, and is perhaps the rudest thing that's been said on this thread yet. Just to show you how conversational patterns differ.)

>165 Nicole_VanK: I'm here mentally flailing my arms about going, "OMG! What did I DO!?!" Typically I'm the one going, "Now be nice" and flagging away!

Or putting whole groups and threads on ignore because I can't handle the conflict.

And, no, I don't think anything else on this thread comes even close to being flag worthy. People are disagreeing without being disagreeable. So, I'm not being the "nice police." Even the Hitler thing I thought about before doing. And obviously enough people know the poster to unflag it.

>134 ejj1955: I asked about the block member function a day or so ago and was told that it simply blocks the person from leaving comments on your profile. To them it looks like the comment feature is turned off.
I was actually hoping when I asked that it would hide more of a selected user's content. There are a few people who's reviews I'd love to be able to hide because they drive me up the wall every time I see them. Although they are legitimate reviews and not grounds for flagging.

The problem of communicating only in type cannot be overstated. I believe we are all much better at this in person than on line.

LT is the only site I have ever joined and I have not been active long.

It's true that I see people being over-sensitive to comments and getting snippier as the discussion progresses.

Tim's suggestion that we should assume good will needs to be kept in mind more, I believe.

Edited for typos--low blood sugar, I think.

First, I should admit that I started skimming near message 72.

I stopped using Talk for anything other than keeping up on LT development long ago. I was active for a little bit when it looked like OSC was gonna become active again, but that died quickly.

Part of why I don't use Talk is technological. I already have an RSS reader and an email client and I would much rather use one of them to see new threads I might be interested in.

More importantly, however, I often can't find that many conversations that interest me. I think that this could be improved if the "Your Books" section was actually made useful by allowing me to filter out discussions about Harry Potter and other books I read in high school and an easier way to filter out all the new 50 Book Challenge threads that pop up. If this function was more useful, it would probably increase the number of interesting book conversations taking place on LT which would significantly impact the signal-to-noise ratio on LT.

As far as ways to keep the discussions functional, I think it is important to remember one of the most important rules of the Internet, "Don't Feed the Trolls."

Aside from that, I think that lorax's suggestion of a "ignore user" function would be useful. Or an easier way to ignore groups. There is really no need to reinvent the wheel in this case. A number of methods are effective in keeping the troll at bay, group moderation beting one of them.

Personally, and perhaps because of the "for pay" aspect of membership, the community policing here on LT is far more extensive than what I have seen in other communities I am a part of. And that includes communities in which most members sign an explicit Code of Conduct that is far more normative than the TOS here. Sometimes this gets a bit out of control (and is personally the one of the reasons I stopped contributing to some areas of LT). Perhaps the membership fee should also provide everyone with a Chill Pill.

I'm not sure how ignoring groups could be easier. Just go to the group page and click on "Ignore This Group".

It would be nice if you didn't have to go all the way down to the bottom of the page, though (yes I'm lazy).

I see that there were a ton of posts since I started typing this. The "Chill Pill" reference was not meant to refer to any previous comments in this thread or to this conversation at all. I haven't seen anything objectionable in this thread.

I'm not sure how ignoring groups could be easier. Just go to the group page and click on "Ignore This Group".

Well, if I'm in "All Topics" I actually have to click on the post to get to the page for that thread, and then click on the group to go to the group and then ignore it, and then I have to go back to the "All topic" page if I haven't been using tabs properly.

>174 ssd7: Ah, okay.

Also, (I wanted to confirm this before posting) ignoring a group doesn't even affect the "Your Books" view, which I think should be the most interesting view but is completely useless for me. The "Hot Topics" view is pretty useful and may even get me re-involved with Talk. :-)

>166 lorax:, I know you weren't talking to me but I am more 90 degrees from you...I see people taking offense to things that weren't meant to be offensive...I see people assuming that posters are bringing up 'hot buttons' from other threads that I haven't read and perhaps the poster has not read either...I see people taking things more seriously then this site or my blood pressure deserves (everyone else is responsible for their own blood pressure).

:)

It's this stamping on humour thing I was on about earlier. Very unfortunate for LT but at least the staff have yet to be infected.

v

Well, for what it's worth, I had someone contact me privately and let me know that the issue with ponies is from the Recommended Site Improvements group. That's why I didn't have a clue I was throwing manure into a fan.

The irony is, I stopped looking at RSI over a year ago because I found it too negative with various people trashing every idea.

> 161

And I think it's pretty clear which discussion prompted this thread.

To you, maybe. But I'm not the only one who thought it was a thread that Tim has now explicitly said was not the impetus. So I haven't a clue. My guess is that I don't visit whatever group it was.

It's this stamping on humour thing I was on about earlier. Very unfortunate for LT but at least the staff have yet to be infected.

I completely agree. I've actually just come to accept that humor will be misunderstood here. This actually caused a problem for me because I was caught off guard by somebody who actually got my joke and attempted to continue it.

I think, however, that misunderstanding jokes is a pretty common experience with text-based communication and not that isolated to LT.

I think it's more about cultural politics, as alluded to by Tim.

v

179> Part of the pony over-reaction has to do with the picture you posted. It's the exact same picture that someone has posted repeatedly in RSI to ridicule people into silence when they get annoyed by the requests (and what do they expect in a group dedicated to new feature requests?).

I don't think we need more oversight. I think it is quite satisfactory and LT is not that inflammatory. Of course, I haven't read the political groups recently, but I figure those posters should know what they are in for and can take it.

I also think, as adults, we should be capable of ignoring posts/posters we don't like without sophisticated technology. The best defense against anger is to say nothing and allow the fires to die down, unless the person is being abusive. Then a letter to the PTB is appropriate. I also think there is a place for gentle humor, even in the "serious" groups. Life is too short...

My opinion only...k4k

183 -
I posted the picture.
It's a very common joke/theme/meme/piece of humour that has an entire history of usage outside of LT. I used it here exactly as I have used it elsewhere and have seen it used on other very popular sites.

I have no responsibility/knowledge for how other people (ab-)use it in other threads, other groups, etc. that I don't read.

I agree with those supporting an ignore user function. Along the same lines, I would suggest that the threads list on Talk show the name of the user who started the thread. It'd make the ignore thread 'x' on the list more useful.

>170 ssd7: (ssd7)
More importantly, however, I often can't find that many conversations that interest me. I think that this could be improved if the "Your Books" section was actually made useful by allowing me to filter out discussions about Harry Potter and other books I read in high school and an easier way to filter out all the new 50 Book Challenge threads that pop up.

It wouldn't help with the various challenge threads but the first complaint might be addressed by adding another check box to collections - include / exclude in Your Book threads.

Yes, the Hitler thing in post 136 was a joke (a la Godwin's Law).

>187 Carnophile: Alrightie, I removed my flag. Sorry for not getting it.

No worries!

162:
“...posting to a group is participating in the community.”

PhaedraB, I don’t see posting a “read my book” post as participating in the community. Not in any real sense. It’s advertising.
You say a person might write such a post, then go on to talk about other things, and indeed, that’s exactly what the language you objected to councils them to do.

190 >

As we are speaking hypothetically anyway, it's probably not useful to think of any of these examples in a "real" sense.
*sigh*

In my original post (who knows which one -- a hundred or so posts ago) I analyzed how a particular set of words could be perceived. I suggested a more neutral edit. I singled out a dozen words that might have triggered the objections that the poster of the original set of words said had been received. The OP then said those weren't the original words anyway, just a paraphrase. So my "objections," such as they were, were moot.

But for the record, in my poor muddled mind, I wasn't objecting. I was analyzing. I do that a lot. Maybe too much.

In response to some of the general discussions in this thread, I consider myself a new member (even though I have been here almost a year!) because I read these discussions about site policies and people quote things about policy and I have NO IDEA where they are coming from/getting that information from. That being said, someone said maybe a welcome to LT email with a few points on how to navigate the site would be helpful. I would find this extremely helpful.
Also, I had a little tiff a little while back about a discussion of Twilight. I'm going to say right now I should have known better posting in a thread with mostly teens who know each other ( no offense intended, but they are very cliquey). I got told that I shouldn't post on the thread topic because everyone was "over" it. I very much disagree with how this particular person handled telling me I shouldn't talk about the thread title because quite frankly, that doesn't make any sense. I'm not going to waste my time getting upset about it but in the end, I think if those girls have certain norms or posting etiquette they follow, it would be nice to know that before I posted in the group. I find that silly myself, so I wouldn't have wasted my time posting.

I post to "what are you reading now on X week" threads almost exclusively because most of the other interaction I've had has been negative. I think it is mostly a problem with me, and I think I need to be less sensitive to others thoughts and opinions.

I hope this was helpful, and I'm not meaning to be offensive by any means, just sharing my experience and trying to make it relevant/helpful to the discussion.

I may think of some more relevant info later. . sorry I was wanting to be more helpful. . . :/

led that site to wither

Readerville?

I had no idea that what I thought was a little joke would get people so stirred up.

Oh, get off your high, um, pony. ;)

A perfect example of how talk that isn't meant to be offensive can create an unexpected riot - and why it's so difficult to avoid these things on the internet.

That's definitely one reason internet discussion so often goes awry. People are bad at understanding others' intent when the data is copious. Take everything away but the letters on the page and people are just terrible at it.

That effect, plus the instantaneity of online communication, plus anonymity (actual or effective) and you have the root causes of most online problems, I think.

easier way to filter out all the new 50 Book Challenge threads that pop up

Yeah, I don't want to get into that here—it's too far afield. But that's been discussed before, and is a good thing to tackle someday.

Personally, and perhaps because of the "for pay" aspect of membership, the community policing here on LT is far more extensive than what I have seen in other communities I am a part of.

Really? How so?

But I'm not the only one who thought it was a thread that Tim has now explicitly said was not the impetus.

So, the impetus is the sum-total of my experience, but I definitely didn't have that thread in mind. Mostly because I hadn't read it in a few days.

I agree with those supporting an ignore user function...

Okay, can I get an answer on this. I am not and never going to omit users' contributions from a thread "invisibly." It'd create too much weirdness. But if you want ignored users' posts to appear like flagged post—there, but hidden, with a "view it" link, THAT I could get behind.

Deal?

Yes, the Hitler thing in post 136 was a joke (a la Godwin's Law).

Oh, so Hitler is a joke to you, is he?

but in the end, I think if those girls have certain norms or posting etiquette they follow, it would be nice to know that before I posted in the group

Right. This goes to the question, should groups have posted rules or norms. Maybe you can't bottle this situation, though.

193: But if you want ignored users' posts to appear like flagged post—there, but hidden, with a "view it" link, THAT I could get behind. Deal?

If individual members can decide for themselves who to hide in their own personal views of threads. Not if they can decide for others as with flagging.

>194 qebo:

No question. One worry would be that members would ignore the worst members, not flag them. So they wouldn't be stopping them.

Q: Are We Not Men? A: We Are Devo!

Personally I think this site is full of interesting people with distinct personalities, just like my family. We don't always get along, sometimes we hate each other and a lot of time we disagree. Some get offended easily, some intentionally offend others. More than likely Uncle Vito will on occasion get rip-roaring drunk and tell Aunt Betty that her last face lift was a disaster, her butt is hanging below the hemline of her skirt and she is too old to dress like an 18 year old stripper.

I find it hilarious that he says these things, but my aunt never does. The point is she can't flag his comments, I wouldn't flag his comments, and the rest of the family ignores him. That has worked my entire life, it isn't broken, I don't intend to try and fix it. I take all of you as you are, if I don't agree with you or if you offend me, I don't pay attention to you, if I think you are funny I laugh at you, and if you attack me personally I tell Tim about you.

It all boils down to the fact that there are enough choices already in place and we are all adult enough to use what we have been given. Just like my family I wouldn't wiggle my nose and make them disappear, I wouldn't do that to any of you either.

After pondering your the question and reading 196 posts (more or less), I actually tend to agree with angelikat. The bottom line is that I can ignore outrageous content without a specific button to do so.

>195 timspalding:

Well, one (wo)man's meat is another's poison. I think people would still flag/report the spammers or those who make ad hominem attacks. I see the ability to hide the posts (similar to those that have been flagged, yes) as something I would do for posts that hit my particular tender spots but might not be offensive to others.

Okay, disclaimer: I don't participate in political groups or threads. I occasionally read (but rarely post on) site talk, book talk, RSI, etc. So, my response here will not be informed by conversations in most groups on this site.

I am, however, one of the co-"owners" of the Hogwarts Express group, so I thought I'd throw in my two cents.

1. What do you see as the main dysfunctions?
Well, as others have said, I don't see any seriously debilitating dysfunction. (I'm not sure what that makes the rest of this post worth, though.) Thanks to the "Hot Topics" feature, I'm seeing a lot more of what goes on outside of my own little world, so I've seen some threads that have gotten, well, heated, but I don't see anything burning out of control, to carry on with that metaphor.

2. What do you think the answer is? I would
encourage you to think about ways of changing the context factors, not just urging more baton wielding.
Well, it's hard to find a solution when you're fairly ignorant of the problem, so I'll go on to point #3:

3. Are there any specific changes to the TOS or to the software that you'd favor?
From the ideas on this thread, I'd favor LT employees having some sort of badge by their posts when they are speaking ex officio -- nothing in the usernames of, for example, conceptDawg or felius implies that they are staff. I don't think they need new usernames -- just a little box that says "Admin" or something of the sort would do nicely.
I originally liked the idea of a new members group (as long as participation in it was completely voluntary), but the more I think about it, the more I think it would become an excuse for "post that in the Newbies group" comments when some new member asks a basic question in one of the other groups . . . and the resulting flame wars from that.
I also like the idea (post 35) of having a very brief synopsis of the Talk guidelines in the message box -- perhaps just under the "submit" button.

Should groups be able to post additional rules?
Well, many groups kind of do this already, in a strictly unofficial, "they're more like guidelines" sort of way. For example, you won't find political discussion in Hogwarts Express or The Green Dragon (both of which get a variety of off-topic threads and posts, so it wouldn't be unreasonable to expect to see the occasional political thread). This isn't written in, for example, the group description for either group -- but it's just not done. I don't think making it more official would help anything, though. Groups enforce their own norms: as stated above, what's accepted as lively exchange of ideas in, say, Pro & Con might come over as abrasive or rude in groups where heated discourse is not the norm. In my (admittedly limited) experience, this works.

Should group admins be able to punish individuals?
Speaking as a group "owner," I would not want that kind of responsibility. I'm fine with taking severe problems to Tim or Abby.

Should flags function more "automatically"?
No -- the more human involvement the better, as far as I'm concerned.

Should there be a disciplinary group, with members deciding what's over the line and what isn't?
That idea leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Should we hand all disciplinary questions over to Abby. (Yes? Then it's decided! Three cheers to the new chief!)
Maybe there should be a designated staffer to handle disciplinary problems -- not to police the threads, but to be the go-to person when there's an issue. (Poor Abby!)

Okay, can I get an answer on this. I am not and never going to omit users' contributions from a thread "invisibly." It'd create too much weirdness. But if you want ignored users' posts to appear like flagged post—there, but hidden, with a "view it" link, THAT I could get behind.

Deal?

Deal.

One worry would be that members would ignore the worst members, not flag them. So they wouldn't be stopping them.

Don't worry, if they're flaggable I'd flag them and then ignore them.

Right. This goes to the question, should groups have posted rules or norms. Maybe you can't bottle this situation, though.

Groups can already post rules in their group descriptions but if you follow a link to a group you're always placed with the thread header right at the top of the page. Unless you're eyes happen to wander to the scroll bar you'd never know that there was more info above. So my suggestion for a really super easy way to improve things is to change the group links to put you at the top of the group page where the group description will be staring you in the face.

>193 timspalding: (timspalding)
Okay, can I get an answer on this. I am not and never going to omit users' contributions from a thread "invisibly." It'd create too much weirdness. But if you want ignored users' posts to appear like flagged post—there, but hidden, with a "view it" link, THAT I could get behind.

I think that would serve the purpose just fine.

One thing that was mentioned earlier that didn't seem to get a lot of traction was the issue of group attacks. I don't flag a lot of posts but there have been a few statements where I was appalled and immediately thought to flag the post but checked myself because there was no personal attack only a group one. Those unchecked statements have pretty much turned me off some groups and posters.

The problem is I see how tough an issue it is to boil down to a clear and concise item for the TOS. Some 'groups' are repugnant. No one's going to come down on users too hard for dumping on Nazis or pedophiles but I'd like to think we could limit the generalizations about people based on their religion, their sexual preference, or what they thought about Twilight.

>193 timspalding: (timspalding)
Okay, can I get an answer on this. I am not and never going to omit users' contributions from a thread "invisibly." It'd create too much weirdness. But if you want ignored users' posts to appear like flagged post—there, but hidden, with a "view it" link, THAT I could get behind.

Yes, please! Thank you.

Query: Is it oversimplification to ask "Why not just quit reading anything you find not to your sensibility?" There are many groups, many threads. Read/join in where you are comfortable, ignore/move on from where you are not. Can't this idea serve all members?

Esta1923 at #205: "Why not just quit reading anything you find not to your sensibility?"

The problem is that bad speech chases out good speech. Before you know it, the trolls will have taken over - first the thread, then the entire group, and before you know it, all of Talk will have been debased.

There are internet communities that have been destroyed by this process. Allow trolls to have free run of the place, and soon only other trolls will want to hang out here.

Eventually, you run out of places where you're comfortable.

Okay, can I get an answer on this. I am not and never going to omit users' contributions from a thread "invisibly." It'd create too much weirdness. But if you want ignored users' posts to appear like flagged post—there, but hidden, with a "view it" link, THAT I could get behind.

Deal?

Just so I'm understanding you clearly, this suggested "ignore" feature would work like flagging, only (unlike flagging) other users wouldn't be bothered by whatever I'd choose to ignore, correct? I think that's what you're saying in 195, but I want to be sure before throwing my two cents into the well.

196, 199: Excellent posts.

As so well expressed in 196, I'm ambivalent about an ignore feature. While on the one hand it could be attractive, on the other, wherever people are grouped together, there are those who cause extreme annoyance, whether in families as per the example given, the work environment, the social environment etc. In these situations we all develop strategies to deal with the problem - an ignore button is not an option.

v

Can I say that I like this site. I just try to remember, when reading threads, that the written word is subject to personal interpretation. Unlike face to face interaction you don't have the intonation to give you a clue as to whether someone is serious or joking or where the emphasis in a sentence should be placed. These things make a big difference in understanding how something is meant from the speaker's (writers) point of view. Also the use of shorthand, e.g. pony references, or abbreviations can be confusing to the uninitiated. Also that Librarything is international and what might be seen as acceptable in one culture is seen as rude by another. Context is key. You probably talk differently to work colleagues, your best friend or your mother.
On the whole I think, (IMO), that most people are polite and well meaning, that a comment to explain that you've interpreted what they say to mean "XYZ" and to ask if they intended it that way might go some way in preventing a need for stringent policing.

#195 - maybe an option would be to give the ignore option when flagging, a choice to either just flag, flag and ignore, or just ignore.

If you chose either of the ignore options you then ignore that persons posts on the rest of the thread.

#190

I agree 100% with you. There is a big difference between someone who comes into a group saying "Hey why not go and buy my book ..." and someone who joins in with two-way discussion, even if in that discussion that mention their own book. I still wouldn't like to see a "Hey, buy my book post" by even a regular - but a mention that they have a new book that deals with a topic under discussion is fine.

#193 Tim said:

Okay, can I get an answer on this. I am not and never going to omit users' contributions from a thread "invisibly." It'd create too much weirdness. But if you want ignored users' posts to appear like flagged post—there, but hidden, with a "view it" link, THAT I could get behind.

Deal?

This works for me. However, I would only be interested in this if I could say "ignore carolo" and have it happen automatically in all threads, I would not find it useful to have this option on a message by message basis as flags are now.

#210, 212

It seems that the only disagreement is whether it just occurs on one thread or one group or globally.

Personally I am of the opinion that the least intervention is likely to be the best so would go with Jody's "ignore on this thread". Usually it is just one or two threads that go below the quality threshold. I would be against a global ignore facility - very often people can be a pain on one group but perfectly nice and reasonable on another. If a user is being a pain on multiple groups it might be better for someone to have a quiet word (with or without baseball bats). So if the "ignore for the rest of this thread" isn't good enough a "ignore in this group" would be my favoured solution.

I would like to inject some common sense into this very weird thread.

- We have a terms of service.

- The terms of service should be unambiguous and clear to everyone.

- No 'interpretations' about the 'spirit of the law'. Unambiguous and clear.

- Everyone who uses Talk does so on the understanding in good faith that they will stick to the terms of service, or suffer the penalties therefrom.

- In cases of ambiguity of tone, irony, humour and individual styles of discourse, apply good faith and assume the best of people, and the best of the message until the misunderstanding has been resolved. Do not jump at the gun, and never post while outraged.

- This applies to all users of Talk: members, visitors, aliases, alternative selves, staff and their prodigal brothers and their uncles and their cousins and their aunts, regardless of their political views, religious views, dietary requirements sexual orientation colour shape or size gender familial status size of bank account or other assets level of stupidity or degree of articulacy.

- Any inmate sorry member who find another member's identity, or profile page, or disagrees with another member's views or finds them offensive may refer to the terms of service. As long as those terms have not been broken, the outraged or offended member has to get over him/herself and deal with it like an adult.

-Dealing with it like an adult includes the following options
-going for a walk
-kicking the dog
-beating the spouse
-masturba...
-reading a good book
-avoiding arguments or groups that are likely to be offensive to ones delicate sensibility, and recognising the fact that your sensibility is yours, that others' may be different, and that no one has the right to impose on anyone else's - or indeed censor anyone else's - views or beliefs or lifestyles.

Stick to the terms of service, and as Lola said in #25 stop trying to micro manage or police everything. There's enough of this crap going on in the real world as it is.

(and if I may add my further two pennorth, on the argument summarized above in > 27 about 'That's idiotic!' and 'You're an idiot', if there are some people who can't see that the former refers to what someone has said, and the latter refers to what someone is, and is therefore within the current terms of service then it would be better for everyone if those people stayed out of situations where their opinion might have some weight or effect on the outcome of what's decided)

The freedom of conscience and convictions is the first and foremost freedom in the world.
Dostoevsky

Hooray tomcatMurr.

Okay, can I get an answer on this. I am not and never going to omit users' contributions from a thread "invisibly." It'd create too much weirdness. But if you want ignored users' posts to appear like flagged post—there, but hidden, with a "view it" link, THAT I could get behind.

Yes, please.

Ignore post would be no use to me. I want ignore user. If I have a relative I don't get along with, I don't have to spend all day with him or her and can walk into another room. Here, I'm just stuck. There are parties (groups) I can't even go to because some people dominate them with their negativity.

I'm sure there are plenty other people who will read a person's posts, as can be told just by those in this thread, that can flag someone if it's needed.

And if I ignore someone, it doesn't affect anyone but me, so it's no skin off anyone else's nose. Don't like the function? Don't use it, simple.

And what do I find on another site I read today?

http://consumerist.com/5294157/justice-department-takes-aim-at-mean-commenters

The DOJ is subpoenaing 'mean commenters' that made threatening comments on a newspaper site that were interpreted as threats in a tax evasion case! Although now they want the identities of everyone that commented...

Now I'm suddenly thinking we have it pretty good here. :)

>214 QuentinTom:
-kicking the dog
-beating the spouse

I consider these not funny, regardless of how they were intended. But I wouldn't flag or ignore you for it.

> 203

Some 'groups' are repugnant.

All groups are repugnant to someone. That's the problem. Where do you draw the line? If it's not okay to generalize about people based on their religion, why is it okay to do so based on their politics ("dumping on Nazis")?

The users are revolting ;-)

220: In what sense? Are they disgusting, or are they in revolt? ;-)

220 & 221: I think the correct response to that is something like: "That's right -- they stink on ice!" (Not sure of the exact quote, but that's from a Mel Brooks movie, History of the World).

Rest -- Although I've seen some heat in the discussions forums, I really haven't seen anything that would offend my sensitive soul. Seems like mostly fun to me, even the ones that are a little over-the-top. I have more problems with the forum police than the actual posts.

Hmmmm - posted long message then lost it in the ether! It was probably too long anyway - I'll try and condense it a bit. I do agree with all the other people who have said they feel there is more arguing lately on LT, though maybe I just happen to have fallen into the wrong threads. Apologies for having had to skim the latter half of the thread. If I've missed something important mea culpa. I don't really have any solutions, just a few observations:

1 The one that upsets me the most is when newbies make a mistake and get ganged up on for something they didn't even know was wrong. I'm thinking of a recent one where it was pretty obvious to me that the newbie in question thought they were starting up a silly, light-hearted chat with like-minded people. Yes, they'd possibly picked the wrong group, but how were they to know that? The next person made a slightly crass, though - I believe - generally good-natured reply but then a whole bunch on other people joined in making fun of the OP. Wouldn't it have been much nicer if everyone who looked at the OP's question had just thought 'Okay, not one for me' and gone off and minded their own business, leaving the thread either to die on the vine or be taken up by other people who did want to continue? I think it's all too easy to forget that it can take a while for newbies (especially ones who don't spend their entire lives here) to find their way around the site and learn the rules. Many of them have come here from sites where the conversation is a little less, shall we say, mature, than most of us have come to expect from LT and they may well think that rudeness and general crassness is the rule here too. It may even be a case of hitting out before someone hits them first. I really do hate it when a newbie pops up, says something that another person takes offence at (or simply posts a question on the 'wrong' thread) and is yelled at so firmly and loudly that they never return. Let's give them a bit more of a chance than that. I wonder if it might be possible to have something like that 'first post' icon, but saying something like 'I'm a newbie - please be nice' that automatically appears for . . .. what? . . . maybe the first six months? . . .of membership, just so that others are warned - a bit like a 'new driver' sign on a car?

2 I really do abhor the notion of any kind of censorship and that includes giving certain individuals the right to ban someone from a particular conversation or group. As someone wisely said quite a while back, that rather assumes that these people are better than the rest of us and do not come with their own prejudices and personal views of what should or should not be posted.

4 Jody, re your post about no longer intervening in other people's squabbles - it's a fine thing you do and I hope you will carry on. Whether it's just a question of lots of people sharing the same view or genuine ganging up, it does start to look like the work of a cabal when you check out some of these people's profiles and discover they are all close friends or, as if often the case, actually married to each other. Others will say that only proves that people who hang out together will probably share similar views on a subject and I can't deny that but I do think it would be a very good idea if the rest of us (including me) would try to stay out of a scrap that is obviously between two people (better yet, those two people take their problems of to PM-ing). I don't say I get it right all the time but I do try to only leap in on an argument to 'take sides' when it appears to be very unfairly weighted against one person. There really is no need for grown-ups to call in their own private army every time they feel slightly miffed at what someone else has said. If we really are all grown-ups then we need to learn to fight our own battles. Or, better yet, make our own peace.

5 And as for needing some complicated gizmo to enable us to ignore certain posts or posters, I really don't see what the problem is here - I've never found it difficult to ignore things simply by . . . well, ignoring them, but I accept other people don't feel the same way. I do just wonder a little, though, whether that would only serve to highlight those people or messages in our own minds? I guess we could all do a private watch on people we have fallen out with in the past, but isn't it really just healthier to forget the whole thing and move on?

Just a few thoughts. And, believe it or not, that really was the condensed version.

Edited to get rid of a coupla typos

Since I'd have to look at a post to see if I wanted to "ignore" it, I can't see any point to the option. Ignoring all later posts in that thread by that poster would render the conversation pretty disjointed. That happens already, where posts are edited or deleted.

Btw, could people "ignore" posts from admin?

I have no answer to the questions raised in this thread, I'm afraid. I have made it my policy to stay out of non-LT-related discussions because I know my own weaknesses (some of them, anyway), but I do read them when the topic or the interaction interests me. So I see some unpleasantness, but I'm not sure I even know how that "works", let alone how best to deal with it.

I enjoy the lightness of LT, and I seem to see a lot more meta-communication here than on other sites - clarifications requested and given, thanks and sorry's, etc. And while behaviour-based humour dressed up in text can cause confusion, I'm glad there's a lot of it here. (I instantly knew that the Hitler/Godwin's Law thing in this thread was a joke, and I thought it was funny, but I don't know if it was meant as the kind of joke that is characterised by a "point" or by the absence of one.)

An "admin hat" signifier for Tim &co. is a good idea, I think, especially when LT staff reply to newbies or bug reports. (Not in posts that begin with "I want a feature that ...")

>203 lucien:

Yes: this pretty much gets to the core of my particular issue. It's not attacks on me personally that are an issue, it's the sport of America-bashing. Some posters think it's perfectly acceptable to insinuate or outright state that Americans are all religious fundamentalist, gun-toting idiots who can't spell.

Someone who is wont to post this sort of thing is not going to be swayed by my reasoned argument that it's a big, varied country, and along with the gun-toting religious nuts there are plenty of secular humanists who believe in strict gun control. As for the spelling issue--seriously? What do you say to people who just don't accept that English language spelling and usage vary around the world, or they accept it with the assumption that one version is superior to another?

And this is the sort of thing that is likely to pop up in the midst of an otherwise interesting and civil discussion, which is why it doesn't work just to ignore certain groups or threads.

I'm thinking of putting a little disclaimer at the end of all my posts, in lieu of the precious "smiley face":

This post represents a crude or weak attempt at humor, satire, or irony. The opinion(s) expressed therein are not to be construed as a personal attack to any poster on this or any other thread (with the exception of __________). This post does not necessarily reflect the true opinion of the poster, his family, or the staff of LibraryThing, including "Mr. Moneybags", aka Tim Spalding. The poster is a good person from a decent family, a doting father who cooks most of the meals and tolerates cats.

Right now, I'm just itching to use this on a thread over in Political Conservatives, but the angel of my better nature just blew into town, so I will resist the urge.

Oh, but it was a good one.

214
Oh, get off yer high horse, Murr....

This post represents a crude or weak attempt at humor, satire, or irony. The opinion(s) expressed therein are not to be construed as a personal attack to any poster on this or any other thread (with the exception of __________). This post does not necessarily reflect the true opinion of the poster, his family, or the staff of LibraryThing, including "Mr. Moneybags", aka Tim Spalding. The poster is a good person from a decent family, a doting father who cooks most of the meals and tolerates cats.

(Hey! It works!)

> 227 Thanks for sharing- this made me laugh. Does this mean emoticons are controversial too? :D I'm a rebel- what can I say?

229
Thanks.

Re: Emoticons. It is in the eye of the beholder. To me, a "smiley face" says "I'm just kidding, you hopelessly humor-impaired moron."

:( :) :-) :-P @#$% you! burp.

This post represents a crude or weak attempt at humor, satire, or irony. The opinion(s) expressed therein are not to be construed as a personal attack to any poster on this or any other thread (with the exception of __________). This post does not necessarily reflect the true opinion of the poster, his family, or the staff of LibraryThing, including "Mr. Moneybags", aka Tim Spalding. The poster is a good person from a decent family, a doting homemaker who does most of the laundry and tolerates humans.

It worked for me too!!!!! Maki you are brilliant!

By the way. In the spirit of the discussion, I would like to report the following thread to the site administrator:

http://www.librarything.com/topic/66232

I haven't actually read the thread, but from the title, it would appear that they are up to no good.

This post represents a crude or weak attempt at humor, satire, or irony. The opinion(s) expressed therein are not to be construed as a personal attack to any poster on this or any other thread (with the exception of __________). This post does not necessarily reflect the true opinion of the poster, his family, or the staff of LibraryThing, including "Mr. Moneybags", aka Tim Spalding. The poster is a good person from a decent family, a doting father who cooks most of the meals and tolerates cats.

(Oh! I am loving this!!)

>232 Makifat: I'm offended. You didn't say anything about dogs in your disclaimer. Plus I find the word crude to be crude. Consider yourself flagged.

The ;-) smiley can give the impression that you "say" something with a wink or a smile, which is annoying if you actually "say" it with a stone-faced expression. Following a humorous post with "j/k" ("just kidding") can seem like a nasty-ish cop-out (bullies use it a lot). How to convey the slight quiver of the upper lip, the looking away to keep from laughing, the almost-raising of an eyebrow?

(This post represents a serious attempt to speak about humour.)

heh heh

Don't laugh!

(this is a joke)

I was serious!

(true, but irrelevant)

>208 vaneska: While on the one hand it could be attractive, on the other, wherever people are grouped together, there are those who cause extreme annoyance, whether in families as per the example given, the work environment, the social environment etc. In these situations we all develop strategies to deal with the problem - an ignore button is not an option.

Actually, it is. It just takes a different form in the real-life physical environments than in the virtual online environments. I have one for the place I need it, at work. In that environment, it operates in exactly the same way as Tim's suggested ignore button for posters here at LT. I can happily, comfortably, ignore those people who annoy me, but if I do need to deal with them for work, I can easily take down the "shield". Just like Tim's approach of hiding the problematic poster's messages but making them viewable if you so wish.

So I absolutely would love to have the "ignore user" function of #193. As I voluntarily stay out of the non-LT-related groups, I don't know that I'll ever want to use it. But I like the idea of being able to do here exactly what I've found useful in real life.

>225 235711: I instantly knew that the Hitler/Godwin's Law thing in this thread was a joke, and I thought it was funny, but I don't know if it was meant as the kind of joke that is characterised by a "point" or by the absence of one.

No point. I just thought a thread about civility was a good place for a Godwin joke.

224 myshelves: Since I'd have to look at a post to see if I wanted to "ignore" it, I can't see any point to the option. Ignoring all later posts in that thread by that poster would render the conversation pretty disjointed. That happens already, where posts are edited or deleted.

Ignoring specific users might make a thread disjointed, but the people who are requesting the feature are aware of the consequences and want it anyway. I'm not actually sure that it would be so disjointed -- as threads grow, people cease to read every post anyway, and resort to skimming for familiar "faces".

I've been assuming that ignored users would be ignored on all threads, not on a thread by thread basis. It'd be awfully tedious, once you've decided that a user gets on your nerves, to have to say so each time s/he makes an appearance on a thread you're reading. Though conceivably there could be an option to ignore the user on this thread only or on all threads. Or maybe, just to add to the complexity, in this group only. A user might, for example, be perfectly pleasant in LT feature discussions, but unbearable in political discussions.

Btw, could people "ignore" posts from admin?
Why not? People can ignore talk altogether now. There is no requirement that people read all or any administrator posts.

#239,

Even people who annoy me sometimes say something worth hearing. :-)

Why not? ... There is no requirement that people read all or any administrator posts.

If people can "ignore" admin posts, they can avoid seeing any warnings posted in a topic related to their TOS violations. As it is, some already ignore (no quote marks) or rant against such warnings.

Edited to clarify (I hope) that I'm not talking about THIS topic.

> 226

it's the sport of America-bashing

Interesting. I've seen none of that.

> 240 -- But, if Tim implemented a flag that specified if an LT admin was acting as an Admin or as a normal user, maybe the ignore flag would only ignore messages where the Admin was acting as a normal user... So you could ignore, for example, Tim's political commentary, but not his TOS warnings.

#226 & 241

I've actually seen, sort of the reverse, not bashing, but the assumption that this is a US site rather then an international site. I hope it is not intended to come across as...not sure the right word, maybe a little high-handed?

But then, again, I don't seem to frequent the groups that a lot of these issues are coming from.

240: Even people who annoy me sometimes say something worth hearing. :-)

Oh, I completely agree, as I noted in #109. I am not interested in the ignore users feature. But I pay attention mostly to LT feature groups. I can completely imagine being in a group for pleasant socialization and not wanting to deal with someone who is a frequently present irritation. Or being in a group for deep discussion and not wanting to read yet again the tediously expounded opinions of someone who never budges.

If people can "ignore" admin posts, they can avoid seeing any warnings posted in a topic related to their TOS violations. As it is, some already ignore (no quote marks) or rant against such warnings.

Hmm. I haven't seen such rants. But I'd think that administrative warnings about TOS violations are best done in private profile comments.

49...behindthetomes was my creation.

I had a dear friend, back in the '80s, whom before he died, was both gay and Republican. Strange, odd, enigmatic, but true. He'd be at the midnight showing of the Rocky Horror Picture Show one night, and the Republican National Convention the next. He thought Reagan was God. He was also extremely flamboyant, especially in how he dressed - very similar to how behindthetomes looked in his cool logo. It pained me back in the day to see him get so vehemently ostracized by both the gay community (for his radically conservative beliefs) and also by conservative communities too who took one look at him and automatically assumed - which I probably would too -that he was there to antagonize or make fun or whatever, which is obviously understandable at first blush. But he wasn't. He just showed up to support the political causes he was deeply committed to. Inevitably, when this "strange looking" person walked in, he'd receive the usual reactions to be expected: derision, ridicule, and would inevitably get run out of whatever political venue it was for the way he dressed/looked - for being himself.

I'm an odd duck myself, with conflicting, contradictory lifestyle/beliefs across the sociopolitical spectrum. I love the opportunity LT affords me to be creative - to be myself(s) - and to "experiment" at times.

My "experiment" with behindthetomes was to have him join several groups - but never post in them (except in one dead group where I knew no one would care) and see if he would be accepted or rejected. Again, behindthetomes merely joined the Political Conservatives group; not once, in the two or three weeks after his joining, before his account was suspended, did he post a word.

I'm amused, of course, that the PC group was the one which took offense. Just as similarl political groups had with my friend in real life. Happy Housewives Who Drink Wine (granted, there was only one other member in that group; probably not a statistically relevant example) however, & some Twilight group or another took no notice of him. I deeply regret not having placed him in a liberal group, besides the dead one, to see what a liberal reaction might (or might not) have been to his appearance.

>219 lilithcat: (lilithcat)
All groups are repugnant to someone. That's the problem. Where do you draw the line? If it's not okay to generalize about people based on their religion, why is it okay to do so based on their politics ("dumping on Nazis")?

I understand and agree completely. 'Group' covers so much. A blanket ban on group attacks or criticism seems to be too limiting and I don't think there will ever be enough consensus on what constitutes a bigoted attack for a no bigoted attacks policy to be fair or effective. It's definitely something that's gotten under my skin on the site but I don't think it's something that can be addressed with a TOS change.

That's not to say I'm o.k. with attacks on people just because of their political affiliations. Some of the most venomous stuff I've seen has been directed toward U.S. Republicans as a whole.

If you chose either of the ignore options you then ignore that persons posts on the rest of the thread.

If "ignore poster" is only going to be a thread-by-thread operation, it's hardly worth the effort to code. I've been assuming it would be site-wide.

Dealing with it like an adult includes the following options
{...}
-beating the spouse

Not even remotely funny. If anyone made a "joke" like this in real life I would not associate with them again.

>247 lorax: Agreed, if it's thread by thread, why bother coding it? I'd have to scan every thread I read to see if a person posted then again have to put them on ignore. I wouldn't put people on ignore because I disagree with their ideas (that's what ignore groups is for) but because of a personality I find too abrasive.

>248 lorax: You mean you'd put them on ignore? :)

#244

Yeah. I have no position on whether the "ignore" button is created. I was just thinking aloud about some of the possible ---you should excuse the expression :-) --- pros & cons of having it.

>243 CarolO:

The fact that LT is open to and used by people around the world is one of the things I love about it. I've learned a lot; in a small way, it's a substitute for not being able to travel more. But I don't care for sweeping generalizations, and I would never consciously say that all British, French, Australian, Iranian, etc. people were prone to any given behavior or characteristic, any more than I would about Jews, Muslims, children, old people, city people, athletes, fat people . . . individuals are just a lot more complex than that, IMHO.

Yes: this pretty much gets to the core of my particular issue. It's not attacks on me personally that are an issue, it's the sport of America-bashing. Some posters think it's perfectly acceptable to insinuate or outright state that Americans are all religious fundamentalist, gun-toting idiots who can't spell.

Someone who is wont to post this sort of thing is not going to be swayed by my reasoned argument that it's a big, varied country, and along with the gun-toting religious nuts there are plenty of secular humanists who believe in strict gun control. As for the spelling issue--seriously? What do you say to people who just don't accept that English language spelling and usage vary around the world, or they accept it with the assumption that one version is superior to another?

One might wish that your argument would sway some of those currently ranting about islamo-fascism.

>253 Jesse_wiedinmyer: Exactly.

So you could ignore, for example, Tim's political commentary

I'm NOT making a feature for that! :)

need to read from message 223, after dinner

> 256 -- Heh, it seemed like a natural outgrowth of the two features under discussion to me (ignore all messages from user, and no, I'm not wearing an admin hat right now) :-)

That being said, ignoring messages isn't a feature I'D ever use -- I like reading things a bit contrary, and I always have to unhide the flagged messages, because I just HAVE to know what someone said that has caused all of the uproar :-)

Ditto. I'm always curious about whether it was a spamming offense or an offensive content offense.

I want to clarify that my desire for an "ignore user" feature isn't about disagreement; it's about me having somewhat stricter standards for what I consider to be spam, and about attempts (less common lately) by people to turn the main site groups into their own private chatrooms. So people patting themselves on the back about how they can handle disagreement and contrariness are arguing against a total strawman.

> 259 -- I wasn't even thinking about spam accounts. Those are definitely a good use for an ignore. And, I wasn't arguing against an ignore feature anyway -- it just isn't something I think I'd have much use for. However, spammers are definitely an exception. Those are just annoying.

I would plead for everyone to report spam and spammers here

http://www.librarything.com/topic/65026

instead of ignoring them. This will help the community to deal with them.
For those who don't care to, no problem; this is just a notice for any who might be interested.

Edit: Anticipating the question "If I can ignore them, why should I care?":
(1) They post spam "books" ("Have Hot Sexxx Tonite!"), spam reviews, etc, thus affecting LT data, and
(2) They take up LT hardware resources.

261>

Oh, I do, and I flag them, too. And that won't stop.

But I also want to be able to ignore things that I consider spam, but not everyone does. You know, the "Hi, I'm the author of $BOOK. Here's my website." type, posted in unrelated groups by people with no books in their library (or only their books, rated five stars of course). Rather than get into a flag/counterflag issue with people who want to assume everyone who isn't actually advertising porn sites is an innocent who means well, I'd love to be able to ignore these sorts of posters.

No wonder the United Nations has such a difficult job...

Well, I've made one change. From now on, if it's got an L, it's me qua LibraryThing employee. If not, it's me, just me.

265>

Cool. Will Abby et al. have a similar icon when they're being official?

Yeah. We get it by default. We can click the icon to turn it off. (When off it turns into .)

With regard to the religious/political/cultural politics issue, I might add that the policy favoring censorship of everything that might offend anyone (including any group) as "hate speech" is in fact an expression of a certain political bent. People don't agree on what constitutes an attack. Worse still is the "more equal than others" problem where criticizing certain viewpoints or groups is taboo but it's perfectly accepted to slam the opposition. I'm neither progressive nor conservative--I'm libertarian--but I've seen the former group do a lot more silencing of the opposition than the reverse in the groups I've followed, which don't include places like Pro vs Con. Despite this, I hope that we'll keep the current flag system, which seems to be working fairly well. I don't want a "solution" that's far worse than the problem ever was.

I agree with you. I abhor some of the conversations that go on here, but "hate speech" is not a category I want to try enforcing. Whether a member calls another member a pig is fairly easy to establish. Whether the member's comments about (hot-button-topic) steps over the line from oppositional and confrontational to hate speech is much harder. Anyway, I wish people would avoid the term entirely. Terms like "racist," "bigoted," anti-semitic" and so forth are good, honest English words. I don't want to define or police them, but they've got substance and punch. "Hate speech" is a brown-paper bag term. You're never sure what's in it.

269>

Whether a member calls another member a pig is fairly easy to establish. Whether the member's comments about (hot-button-topic) steps over the line from oppositional and confrontational to hate speech is much harder.

So:

"lorax is a pig" is flaggable.

"Gay people are all pigs" is not.

"lorax is gay, and therefore a pig" -- flaggable?

Seriously. I'm not trying to squelch political discussion here, I'm saying that it's silly that people can get away with anything just by swapping in a group for a person's handle.

"lorax is gay, and therefore a pig" — flaggable
"gay people like lorax are liars" — flaggable

I would add that gratuitous or left-field references to sexual preference, race, etc. of members are probably also attacks, depending on context.

Other examples:

1. Lorax is an idiot — flaggable
2. You are an idiot — flaggable
3. The members who say X are idiots — flaggable
4. Your argument is idiotic — not flaggable
5. Lorax's opinions on X are idiotic — not flaggable

I agree that it's silly. This silliness is, however, hardly LT's alone. Most parliaments around the world have similar rules. (See Wikipedia, Unparliamentary Language.) Our rules are the same, but they are of the same type.

In my experience, while some people learn how to abuse others without abusing them directly, most of the worst cases slip, and slip often.

Tim, there's an error with the code for your "LT employee" badge in the non-English versions of the site.
See for instance this thread on LT.fr:
http://www.librarything.fr/topic/67126#1341599

270, 271>

Tim, are you saying that lorax's second example is flaggable, or not?

ETA improve phrasing.

I have read through this thread rather late in the discussion. I only have a few comments to bring to the table:

1) timspalding - Love the Librarything icon when you are in 'official' mode. That is a very visible identifier and shouldn't cause any confusions. That being said, who knows, it may still cause confusion.

2) I have read through all the arguments presented regarding amendments to the TOS and possibly flagging and turning 'invisible' posts that are considered abusive or contrary to Librarything's TOS (which, by the way, I read as being similar to a TOR)..... I am still a believer in line with posts #184 and #196 above that, as human beings, we have the capacity to ignore, or avoid, what we consider to be offensive. It is part of human nature. It is also part of human nature to politely step in to try and diffuse the perceived situation. Yes, I am aware that this is not always the best way to approach something (visions of hungry bears ripping apart my camp site in search of food is the first realist visual that comes to my mind) but I would prefer that 'rules' don't kick in until something has escalated beyond the scope of basic interaction between members.

I haven't encountered any posts on LT that I would consider offensive, but then, I have a very open mind and understand that while a poster might not imply a negative tone, or even tone at all in their post when posting, a reader may have a very different take on the same post.

>273 Suncat: -
(NOTE: the following is just my opinion - I could be way off base...)

Suncat, I think that tim is probably trying to use clear-cut examples that are generalizable. Tim, in all likelihood, does not want to put himself in a position of being the arbiter of every sentence written on LT - so he has to limit his "official" rulings to generalizable ones. Or you run into the problems where someone says - "Tim said this and this was ok, so THIS and THAT must be OK."

While reasonable people would agree that the statement "Gay people are all pigs." is reprehensible (and often should be flagged) the problem is that it is NOT a good example of a clear cut rule because there are clear examples of " X are all Y." that should probably NOT be flagged.

For instance on the way other end of the generalization severity-spectrum -

Politicians are all liars.
Women are all shop-a-holics.
Asians are all smart.

While these are clearly not true, and reflect more on the poster than the subject, I don't know that we all agree that they are FLAGGABLE statements. So you would have to drawn the line somewhere for "X are all Y" statements and there would be endless debates about where exactly that line should be drawn.

Best to leave the official stance as ambiguous and use context and other content to determine flaggability. (In my experience, most flagrant cases of abuse don't limit themselves to one statement that is in bad taste or offensive, they tend to pile them on.)

275>

However, remember there are some protected classes on LT, where a group insult is flaggable -- they just aren't actual minorities who face discrimination in real life.

"Newbies are all idiots" -- flaggable.
"People who read Twilight are all idiots" -- flaggable.

(But: "Women are all idiots" -- not flaggable.)

Edit: I guess part of the reason I find this so mystifying is that it's impossible for me not to read the non-flaggable "All Xes are Y" as, when applicable, "User Z is an X, and therefore Y". So it's saying exactly the same thing; it's just that the emphasis is slightly different, and the connection is made explicit in one version where it's implicit in the other.

Best to leave the official stance as ambiguous and use context and other content to determine flaggability.

This is known as "constructive ambiguity."
(I don't know if Alan Greenspan coined this term, but I'm inclined to attribute it to him.)

>277 Carnophile: - Is that anything like "plausible deniability"? :-)

Reminds me about a conversation I had to have with my younger sister. She asked Dad if should could cut school and do something or other - since she asked he had to say "no" since she was asking him in his official capacity as "parent." If she had just done it he wouldn't have had to make an "official" ruling and it would have been fine.

(The story probably makes more sense if you knew that my sister was a straight-A student and an inveterate rule-follower.)

I see that Tim has edited #271, and I think it has become more clear. Let me re-phrase my question in that light.

Tim: would you allow, given proper context, that statements against groups, not just statements against individuals, can be flaggable?

I"m simply trying to understand if, as has been suggested by others, that those making statements against groups cannot be held to account in the same way that those making statements against individuals can be, at LT.

Tim, are you saying that lorax's second example ("Gay people are all pigs") is flaggable, or not?

At present, at least, I'm saying it's not, unless there's a strong implication one or more LibraryThing members is the intended actual target of the remark. Basically, you can't insult members. If you do so under the cover of a general statement—all people whose user names are Seuss characters are idiots—it's flaggable.

It wouldn't be hard to add a straightforward "no direct insults on the basis of X, Y, Z." The problem is that, in the history of LT, I don't think anyone—at least not someone otherwise spamming—has said something so blunt and offensive. Forbidding it would have no effect whatsoever. So the question would become "if saying gays are pigs is forbidden, what else is?" So begins a long, sloping, rocky hillside of content policing. What groups get protection? What insults a group and what doesn't?

I might also add that there are non-official ways to respond to offensive posts. You are perfectly free to say that a post is racist, homophobic, anti-semitic, biggoted, irrational and etc. Without my L logo, I'll say it too.

However, remember there are some protected classes on LT, where a group insult is flaggable -- they just aren't actual minorities who face discrimination in real life.

"Newbies are all idiots" -- flaggable.
"People who read Twilight are all idiots" -- flaggable.

(But: "Women are all idiots" -- not flaggable.)

Right. The protected class is composed of LibraryThing members. The rule is not "you can't insult people," but "you can't insult LibraryThing members." In a similar way, a member of the British Parliament can call Obama an idiot, but not even the least member of the Parliament. That is because the rule is about the appropriate boundaries of the conversation not of thought.

>279 Suncat:

Yes, I think we need to make it clear that attacks on a group of LibraryThing members is also flaggable. That was why, in a recent thread, a poster was flagged by Abby. (Abby was asked to decide the issue—and the punishment—after a number of members questioned my impartiality.) I think the severity of the attack declines as the group increases in size. For example, saying that Lorax and PortiaLong are idiots is very bad, but saying that members who aren't librarians (ie., 99% of members) are idiots is less severe a TOS violation.

Incidentally, the ban on attacks on members has a deeper motive—money. As it is now, you can insult Obama, Ahmadinejad, the Pope and Hitler with impunity. Once they pony up $10, they're members and can't be directly insulted. Cha-ching!

True story. A prominent anti-semitic author may have signed up for LibraryThing in 2005. I was pretty panicked for a while, but he didn't catalog many books, I think he was imprisoned in Austria shortly afterward. That would have presented a real problem. If it ever happens, or Ahmadinejad joins, I think we'll make some sort of no-insults exception for famous people.

I might also add that there are non-official ways to respond to offensive posts. You are perfectly free to say that a post is racist, homophobic, anti-semitic, biggoted, irrational and etc.

I'm pretty sure that the ones that I would be considering for flagging know exactly what they're doing. Which is (part of) why an "ignore" option would be so nice.

Okay, but if people like you don't speak up, nobody will say it.

Not sure that this really adds anything to the discussion but perhaps it will add another perspective for the folks that don't understand ignoring all posts by a certain poster.

I am really thick skinned and I have never been offended by anything on LT. I have to know you well enough to care about your opinion before you can offend me.

However, I have found certain threads, certain groups, certain posters to just not be worth wasting my time over.

I wanted to participate in some of the more hot topics but I found that there was just a lot of rhetoric spewing, the same people saying the same thing everytime, and no real conversation. A total waste of my time.

That is why I would like to ignore certain posters on all threads. I do appreciate the idea of being able to unhide a specific comment should I choose to read it in order to maintain continuity.

If there is an ignore feature then something needs to be said about the ignorer. They shouldn't taunt the ignoree by posting things like, I'm putting you on ignore! Or post in other messages, I've got X on ignore. Or neener neener, I can't see what you posted because you're on ignore. Or start threads asking, who do you have on ignore?

Examples of things seen on sites with an ignore option. Every solution brings forth a new set of problems to deal with.

>286 VisibleGhost: - Good grief, do people really do that?

I haven't commented yet but I have followed the entire thread with interest. Generally I find LT to be remarkably civil, and I am against overt policing.

I have no problem with an "ignore poster" feature, although I would probably not use it. The advantage of it is that it doesn't affect anyone else. If I choose to ignore poster X, it has no effect on poster X or anyone else. Similarly, if someone else chooses to ignore poster Y (or me), it has no effect on me or poster Y or anyone else. I think that type of feature fits the ethos of LT - it gives choices to the individual user which do not impinge on anyone else.

Ignoring a poster is not punitive - that is already taken care of under flagging for TOS violations, which in my view does not need to be strengthened.

Some of the discussion above has been a bit exaggerated and even defensive, I feel, especially about "nicey nicey" (an emotive and value-laden term if ever I saw one). "Assume good faith" and "be nice" may be open to interpretation in practice, but are hardly new ideas. While I have seen occasional posts by newcomers or self-advertising authors or people using ungrammatical text-speak which are perhaps out of place in the group in which they are posted and which I have even found irritating, for me it hardly warrants the amount of angst which it seems to have generated. Skip it and read the next post. If the errant poster continues to irritate you (which is different from offending against the TOS) in the same thread, the new "ignore" feature will handle it. Problem solved. Or maybe I read the wrong groups?

At the risk of generalising and putting people's backs up, I also see a clear division in this and similar discussions between those who have a tendency to control and want everything to be precise, neat and well-organised, and those who are laid back and laissez faire and have no problem with loose ends - apologies if those are the wrong terms and are emotive and value-laden for some. Maybe the Myers Briggs group is already discussing some of these dynamics?! Different types of people exist in the world and therefore exist on LT, so there will always be disagreement about how much we need to control the behaviour of others.

Tim, for me you've got it about right. Add features which give the individual more choices without impinging on others, but don't give us the right to impose our choices on everybody.

#287

Yes people do all of what VisibleGhost says in #286. Many places forbid talk of who you put on ignore deliberately for that reason.

#280

So hypothetically speaking if on a thread it is poster X mentions that they are gay and someone on that thread then says "Gay people are all pigs" that would move it over into flaggable territory as it can be seen as an attack on X?

Am I being a bit thick here? {No personal attacks now, remember;-)} What on earth is acceptable about saying that all gay people are pigs? Or that all black/white/straight people are pigs? Or that all women/men are pigs? To stick with the example we are using right now, my son happens to be gay and I would certainly take it as a very personal insult if anyone - on or off LT - said all gay people are pigs. That is, in effect, saying my son is a pig. In fact, I do believe I would find that more offensive than somebody saying 'Sloth's son is a pig'. At least that would suggest they knew him and had some reason to believe that he, personally, was a pig. (I've checked; he isn't. Though there were times, back in his teens, when I looked in his bedroom and wondered . . . ) To assume he is a pig just because he doesn't happen to share your sexual preference, when you have never even met him, is much more offensive.

I just don't undertand the reasoning behind the idea that it's wrong to insult one person (who, after all, you may have some knowledge of, and some reason to think they are a pig, whether that is the case or not) but okay to insult a whole section of society, most of whom you know nothing about. Can Tim explain that one to me a bit more slowly please?

And I love the icon too, Tim. Makes me want to raise the point again as to whether it would be possible to have some kind of 'new driver' icon for the first few months of membership - just so people know they are talking to someone who may not know all the rules yet (see post #223)? But I'm digressing again, as I invariably do.

Maybe the "new driver" icon could be tied to a certain number of posts from a new member. One possible positive effect this might have is that older members will generally make a point of welcoming new members, not just cutting them some slack.

> 282

If it ever happens, or Ahmadinejad joins, I think we'll make some sort of no-insults exception for famous people.

</i>All ...(insert skin colour of choice).... people smell and are stupid.

The ...(insert oppressed ethnic group of choice) ... deserved everything they got.

Anyone who doesn't follow the teachings of ...(insert religious leader of choice)...should burn in Hell for all eternity.

These statements might very well be illegal (in the UK, anyway). Surely they are flaggable, or am I missing the point of #280?

edited to fix italics

290>

my son happens to be gay and I would certainly take it as a very personal insult if anyone - on or off LT - said all gay people are pigs. That is, in effect, saying my son is a pig.

That's exactly where the disconnect is for me, too -- that I can't not see it as a personal attack. It seems from above that the course of action is to respond and say "So, since I'm gay, you're saying I'm a pig?" Then they'll either back down or say yes, and if they do the latter then it becomes flaggable. Silly hoops to jump through, but it's what Tim wants.

293>

No, you're not missing the point. Those statements are very much legal in the US, and Tim's decided generally to not restrict what's said (other than in a few idiosyncratic ways.)

Does the new TPTB symbol show up (for the latest post) in lists of topics, or only inside the topic itself?

just to the left of the MESSAGE 282 & 284 markers.

eta: very subtle, but it is there...

I think it is possible to make a distinction between comments that claim to be a statement of fact.

Blue skinned people are all ****

Which is a statement of fact that does not stand up to any burden of proof and is patently untrue.

and

I think all Blue skinned people are ****

An opinion that while it may be personally reprehensible to some comes under freedom of expression

and

(I think) all blue skinned people are **** and should be castrated (insert act of violence of choice etc etc)

A comment that has gone past opinion and is now an incitement that promotes and encourages acts of hatred and/or violence.

I may disagree with all three remarks in the case of the gay example earlier in the thread I think the person expressing it is wrong but I'm not offended. Booksloth took it personally because it is an insult to someone he loves.

However much I disagree with an opinion unless it falls in to the third category I would not be inclined to flag it. I may dismiss the person who holds the opinion, although in some ways is making a sweeping judgement on the basis of the one comment any different in principle to the way the poster has made a sweeping judgement based on sexuality?

I believe there remains a difference between an offensive idea and a personal attack. Although if you or someone you love is the subject of an offensive idea it will often be perceived as a personal attack.

Overall so far from what I have seen so far conversation here is either quite friendly or falls under what my old boss would call the 'Free and frank exchange of ideas' category.

> 290,293,294

Thank you! You, together, have expressed exactly what I was trying to get at, albeit in a much more stumbling way.

Maybe I picked on the wrong slant there by bringing my son into it, because it really isn't only because it's personal. I am equally offended by remarks that all black people are pigs, and none of my immediate family are black. Isn't it just about common human decency? Re the earlier comments about laws in the US, I'm interested and a little surprised at that because it's the generalisation that would get you into the deepest water here in the UK, I had no idea our laws on the subject were so different! Stiill, rules is rules and I'm happy to go along with them. I guess it would be nicest if nobody insulted either groups or individuals but maybe that's asking too much.

BTW littlemiss - I'se a girl!!!! (Not offended though!)

I am equally offended by remarks that all black people are pigs, and none of my immediate family are black.

And I find such statements equally offensive. However, I believe the distinction is that we should flag things that are personal insults directed at another member, not which are simply offensive.

Re the earlier comments about laws in the US, I'm interested and a little surprised at that because it's the generalisation that would get you into the deepest water here in the UK, I had no idea our laws on the subject were so different!

Yes, here in the Netherlands too. Insult a person and (s)he might sue, but start insulting whole groups (ethnic, religious, gender, whatever) and you might end up with public prosecution. Remarkable difference.

BTW littlemiss - I'se a girl!!!! (Not offended though!)

I'm sorry anyway - And I hadn't even realised I was making that assumption or now I think of it why I did!!

Doh!

>303 Littlemissbashful: Maybe it's because women are never slothful.

Ah! These gender stereotypes again!

I'd have put a smiley after this, but since a post up there somewhere I have worried that that could be seen as patronising: how difficult life is sometimes!

>300 Booksloth:, 302 Yeah, here in the USA you can say anything you like about any group you like, even condone violence. I'll refrain from stating my opinion on the subject.

304: Well I have to say I probably blow that theory out of the water - and I can hear Nina Simone singing 'Laziest Gal In Town' even as I'm typing...

305:

I'm not sure how clear cut the law is in the UK - there was a recent brouhaha over proposed 'Hate Speech' laws with Stand Up Comedians demonstrating all sort of comments and jokes that would inadvertently fall foul of the proposed new laws.

I think some groups are more protected than others - I can remember an Irish joke book that we used to sell in a bookshop where I worked that caused a lot of local complaints amongst the Irish community and I have to say its contents would almost certainly never have made it in to print had they been swapped with certain other groups.

Although of course there is always, Litigation, Litigation, Litigation.

I didn't get which number message it was but somewhere up above Tim asked:

Okay, can I get an answer on this. I am not and never going to omit users' contributions from a thread "invisibly." It'd create too much weirdness. But if you want ignored users' posts to appear like flagged post—there, but hidden, with a "view it" link, THAT I could get behind.

Deal?

This strikes me as a GOOD IDEA and I am IN FAVOR OF IT.

By the way, I just checked and it was #193 where Tim made that particular italicized statement. I hope at #308, my thoughts did not become irrelevant...

Seconded or however many people have already agreeded

Isn't it interesting that some of these disagreements are because of different cultural ideas of what is acceptable and unacceptable.

#297, re #296

Yes, I see it on the posts within this topic.

But what I asked was if it shows in the talk topics list if an admin person was the most recent poster.

You know, on your home page ... Talk (Forums) All topics | Hot topics | etc.

Thanks Tim for lifting the suspension on behindthetomes! I was not expecting that! Happy Father's Day indeed!

behindthetomes is a good decent person, always has been as long as I've known him, and he's never said a bad word about a person (or an LTer) or an LTers socio-religioso-economico-politico beliefs, unlike some people here, sounds like, sheeesh, nor does he ever plan on doing so in the future. He doesn't believe all cats are pigs, either. However - full disclosure - I should make it clear that he does believe all tomcats are pigs. Is that okay to say in LibraryThing - that all tomcats are pigs - or could that be construed as offensive? I bet it's illegal to say that in Lichtenstein, isn't it?

Happy Father's Day, Tim! You and your staff rock!

Sounds good to me.

#309 I'm still pretty much hoping we're not actually disagreeing - just pooling a few different opinions - aren't we?

311: If this is an oblique insult to the people who want to catalogue stuffed tomcats...

ETA: The above is not meant as an insult to people with stuffed bobcats, tom or otherwise. I will fight for their right to catalogue them, so long as they (the bobcats) are part of their libraries.

The same goes for ponies, naturally.

309: As a fellow newbie I just wanted to generally concur with Calm's points earlier on in the thread.

I also agree that a Newbie area would be good where we have a query and are hesitant to post and possibly irritate 'lifers' with things that are old hat or previously covered.

Sometimes I am aware the topic will have been covered but find it hard to trace the info or would like to ask advice - my only fear is that a newbie area might be ignored by more experienced hands and leave the blind leading the blind.

I guess what I am clumsily trying to say is that I'd personally rather see an 'Ask an old pro' area (as it were) rather than a newbie cul-de-sac (if that makes sense)

#312 re: the use of the word disagreement- I was not refering to this discussion in any way but to why this discussion seems to be necessary.

Sorry for not being clearer. It just goes to show that what you mean when you write something isn't always as clear as you think.

>314 Littlemissbashful:

MissBashful, I think that makes a lot of sense. Plenty of old pros would be happy to check in and answer queries from newbies and it would be great to have a thread where that is encouraged.

The problem with "ask an old pro" is that too frequently, the ones who should be asking won't be the ones who do...

That said, I too would be willing to help in crafting responses in such a forum.

I have a question and my brain is hurting from the reasons I am asking it, too complicated to even get into. And this is a long thread so forgive me if it has already been answered and I missed it.

But if you are flagged in a comment, are there a certain amount of flags you can receive overall before you are invited to leave LT or somesuch?

I mean, if almost every discussion you are involved in becomes a DISCUSSION and you receive many, many flags, how many is too many and what might be done about it?

And also, if someone is flagged can the LT admin tell who flagged who if the flagged person says "no, they just don't like me and they'd flag me for anything."? I know you can check what's been posted, even if it has been edited or deleted, but can you check who did the flagging?

Sorry, that's two questions.

298>

(I think) all blue skinned people are **** and should be castrated (insert act of violence of choice etc etc)

A comment that has gone past opinion and is now an incitement that promotes and encourages acts of hatred and/or violence.

What about "(I think) all blue-skinned people are unfit parents and should have their children taken away?" Since something like that is pretty close to the actual, concrete example I've been thinking of all along. It's really, really murky. It's not a threat per se, but it goes well beyond "I don't like blue-skinned people".

318:

I'm not really in the know on this and I don't think I've ever seen a flagged post but I found this in Wiki Thing if it helps any...

What does "flag abuse" on a topic mean?
"Flag abuse" is a way for users to monitor the Talk discussions. If you see something wildly innappropriate (such as spam) in a post, you can click the "flag abuse" link, and a little red flag will appear. After four different users have flagged a post, it will be deleted. Definitions of abuse and more guidelines are on the Terms of Use page. Please do not flag posts simply because you disagree with what is said, or if someone criticizes your favorite book, author, or idea - that's not abuse, it's a difference of opinion.

As for being kicked off LT I'm not sure what extremes of behaviour would provoke such action.

But this is one of the many kinds of questions where an 'Ask an old pro area' would come in handy.

Tim (in OP): We've only suspended a few (3?) people in three years, and expelled only one. (Simple spamming is excluded.)

So I guess it would have to be pretty wild. Also, since it's so rare, I don't think even "old pros" could enlighten us.

319: Interesting point.

If you removed the All Blue skinned people and just went with

I think all unfit parents should have their children removed

most would probably argue it fell under opinion and many might think it a laudable one (although again not neccessarily, some may just promote intervention of another kind I guess or sadly think it no one's elses damn business how people raise their kids)

The all blue skinned people aspect is a back to not standing up to any burden of proof as it is not likely that is demonstrably true that all blue skinned people make unfit parents and far more likely that unfit parents come in skins of many and varied hues.

In my view although one half of the argument at first glance would appear to have more popular support it does not mitigate the blatantly rascist assumption at the begining of the example?

I'm just a basically nosey person, but I'd LOVE to know what those 3/4 people did!

> 323: Maybe they were blue skinned and bad for their kids. ;-)

Every now and then I really wish there was a canned laughter audio link, an 'audiocon' as it were.

#324 lol!

> 320

After four different users have flagged a post, it will be deleted.

Actually, that's not quite accurate. The message will be hidden, but it will have "(show)" after it, so that those who want to see it, can.

#99,

{Different groups, perhaps, but I haven't seen this}

Haven't seen it?!? Yikes, Lorax! What about the little girl with the horrible spelling! A big long thread spun off from her little post that involved jokes and humiliating what-not at her expense. I believe she ran off never to appear again. And there have been a number of attacks on noobs that squeal enthusiastic about Twilight.

=============================

edited 'cause I used the wrong brackets

328>

Well, I haven't seen any "little girls", other than a few I've pointed out to Abby as being much too young for LT. There was a teenager fitting most of the rest of the description, but I saw some gentle joking following an entirely random and misplaced post, not humiliation. (And from what I remember of being a teenager, it was a heck of a log milder than what your average teenager sees every day at school!) I'm still going back and forth on whether the vast gulf about overall tone at LT is in which groups people read, or in people's interpretations and sensitivity; some people see "You'll get more responses if you write reasonably grammatically correctly in the language of your choice" as helpful advice, others see it as vicious mockery.

Can't help thinking it might be time for us all to kick back for a minute and watch this - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAGJpISVERg - especially the bit from 3.24mins to 5.45. Sorry I can't be a bit more helpful and edit it to size but I don't think anyone will suffer terminal damage from enjoying the rest of it too, if they so choose.

LOL - Never seen the guy before (but can I take him home please!)

Or here is the spliced version, courtesy of Stephmo, who may well be the nearest thing to a genius I will ever meet!

http://splicd.com/TAGJpISVERg/204/345

I'm ambling off with this quote from an article on 'Covert Abuse' as food for thought with regards to some of the instances debated...

"When someone hits you or yells at you, you know that you've been abused. It is obvious and easily identified. Covert abuse is subtle and veiled or disguised by actions that appear to be normal, at times loving and caring. The passive aggressive person is a master at covert abuse"

hooray for Steve Hughes. A sensible human. And damn funny.

>332 Booksloth: Not even close - well, okay, my google-fu is strong...

But I take it this is from the aforementioned comedy special demonstrating the impact of trying to legislate hate speech?

I've been reading along - and this was my concern waaaay back in post 68. We have people trying to get down to some clarifying Unified Rule of How All Things Should Be in an effort to make sure no one is offended.

Again, it's the old community standards problem - it's difficult to say what will be offensive outside of saying, "I'll know it when I see it."

>335 stephmo: We have people trying to get down to some clarifying Unified Rule of How All Things Should Be in an effort to make sure no one is offended.

Absolutely not. That would be impossible, completely impractical at best.

What I want are means such that when a person here is bothered by something, they can do something about it without being maligned as being "overly sensitive". I'm not about to judge what the next person should or should not be upset over.

So, yes, I'd like as clear a possible a definition of what posts, say, are flaggable. If a LT member is upset over something that is not flaggable, I want them to be able to cleanly and completely get away from it without feeling they have to leave the site to escape (i.e. the Ignore User button).

I'm not interested in declaring rules of behavior over all. I'm interested in allowing each LT user to control their own LT experience without denying that same ability to the next LT user. Kind of like what I demand for myself in real life (not saying that I get it, of course). I like the Free Speech example: "Of course you have the right to say whatever you want, but that doesn't obligate me to listen to you."

>336 Suncat:

Exactly. Completely agree.

Tim, I would like the "personal ignore this user" button (with a "view this message" option) not just for me, but so that others can use the button on me if ever the moon is full & I'm (silly) enough to post.

284 > la Tim sayeth: Okay, but if people like you don't speak up, nobody will say it.

I think this is really important. It's how a community sets standards for itself.

Imagine you are in conversation with a group of people. Someone makes a remark, maybe phrased as a joke, that you find offensive. But you say nothing, because it appears to you that no one else found it offensive. Well, maybe other people are uncomfortable or offended, too, but you'll never know unless someone speaks up. Plus, the person who makes the remark thinks everyone is ok with what was said, which will only encourage that person, or someone else, to say the same darn thing again.

So, if I am uncomfortable or offended, I say something. I rarely flag, but I do speak up.

I hope this doesn't sound pompous. I just think that fairness doesn't happen by itself, somebody's gotta open their mouth.

>339 PhaedraB: I agree in principle, but once one has spoken up, one sometimes finds that one is simply waving a red flag and the person sees it as an invitation to escalation. That's when I'd welcome the LT version of a mute button.

When the "mute button" is engaged, does the offending person know that he or she is being ignored?

>339 PhaedraB: You're quite correct. This is an important mechanism for community self-regulation.

Please consider also the converse:

Imagine you are in conversation with a group of people. Someone makes a remark, maybe phrased as a joke, that you find offensive. And you politely speak up and express your concern. Everybody else in the conversation just laughs and says "oh you're just too sensitive" and "get over it" and "can't you tell it was a joke".

I think all of us have seen these scenarios played out either in real life, or perhaps only in training so they don't have to play out in real life. But I think for the social mechanism that Phaedra describes is important and will work, but only if the person speaking up is ultimately supported (even if they may be mistaken or misunderstanding).

I've seen enough cases in real life where the offended person did speak up appropriately, but the community wasn't ready to hear it, and it was the offended person who ended up being ostracized. I don't want that to start happening here.

If the community isn't ready to hear it, I want the person to be able to stay, if they wish, of course, without the stress of being poked and prodded at as the "overly-sensitive one".

340> And therein lies the dilemma. Don't speak and silence can be interpreted as consent. Speak up, and you risk being branded a humor-hating, PC-obsessed, party pooper.

Personally, I've decided I'd rather risk the latter. I can, however, choose to ignore escalation. I can say my piece, then walk away and let the other guy/gal flap all they want (and with luck, be hoisted upon their own petard).

At least, I can do that on my better days. Sometimes I'm my better self, and sometimes I'm just ornery ol' me.

342> I've seen enough cases in real life where the offended person did speak up appropriately, but the community wasn't ready to hear it, and it was the offended person who ended up being ostracized.

As I said, it's a risk I am willing to take, but I don't wish it on anyone else. If you're on the front lines, it helps if you have a thick skin and an sense of humor, even if you are being told you have neither. It helps even more when other folks are willing to say, "me, too!"

340> Best practices among the internet community is to not "feed the Trolls." Often when someone speaks up about some offensive remark it just leads to more offensive remarks and more rebuttals and you have a flame war. But if the offender is ignored by everyone he eventually just goes away.

339>

Someone makes a remark, maybe phrased as a joke, that you find offensive. But you say nothing, because it appears to you that no one else found it offensive.

Look, if someone says "All women are stupid", they know it's sexist and offensive. I'm not going to waste my time pointing that out.

Edge cases, sure. But the dyed-in-the-wool bigots aren't reachable, and I'm not going to waste my time on them.

345> Of course that's the same Usenet culture that expects everyone to have read a group for a month before posting anything, which I don't agree with.

ETA: (and for which following up your own post is a formidable sin).

280 & 281>

Tim, I think TOS should be re-written to make these distinctions clearer. Something along the lines of "Do not attack LT members, directly or indirectly, individually or as a group." I was once involved in an argument where the opposition defended themselves by saying that their statements weren't "personal" attacks because they weren't singling out any individual (merely insulting anyone who liked X in a thread with many people discussing why they liked X). It was classic trolling behavior, but the letter of the law doesn't actually address it.

>348 The_Kat_Cache:

I like your wording of "individually or as a group." But "directly or indirectly" bothers me. It could be taken very widely. One might say that I was attacking you indirectly by attacking your ideas. That's not what I mean anyway.

> 345 Best practices among the internet community is to not "feed the Trolls." . . . But if the offender is ignored by everyone he eventually just goes away.

Yep, that works for a troll. But when the words come out of the keyboard of a regular (and regularly), I'm gonna say something. That does not mean I feel it necessary to enter into prolonged (and pointless) debate over the issue. That will only feed unpleasantness.

I have advised on other threads that when a conversation becomes unpleasant and unproductive, the best thing to do is stop posting to the thread. Darned if that doesn't work every time.:-)

I just want to say, I love the idea of the ignore option that hides every Talk post by the ignored user (with the "view" or "show" option to unfold them, of course). It's something - since everyone has been speaking of offense and flagging and so on - that I would use on several users whose posts consistently irritated the heck out of me but are not offensive in a flaggable sense.

>342 Suncat:

Imagine you are in conversation with a group of people. Someone makes a remark, maybe phrased as a joke, that you find offensive. And you politely speak up and express your concern. Everybody else in the conversation just laughs and says "oh you're just too sensitive" and "get over it" and "can't you tell it was a joke".

Depending on where a person works and what kind of "Anti Harassment Policy" is in place, it's the people saying "you're too sensitive" that can find themselves in trouble if the "offended" should make an issue of the matter.

>352 rastaphrog:

Which is why I said "but only if the person speaking up is ultimately supported". An effective, enforced anti-harassment policy is one form of support.

>352 rastaphrog:, 353

This happened to me a few months ago--unfortunately, I was not at work, I was in the bosom of my family. I left the room, but pretty much got the kinds of comments mentioned. It was a tough vacation in that respect.

That's the issue of 'community norms' though - the community gets to decide what they find too offensive or not, with the downside that there will always be people are offended and left with no choice but to leave at least that part of the community: side effect, the average tolerance goes up and the community gets more offensive all round.

Without overly catering for sensitive souls I don't quite know how to solve the problem. I think the ignore user option will work a bit. And if more people can rememebr not to take offense on someone else's behalf.

>355 reading_fox: And if more people can rememebr not to take offense on someone else's behalf.

I really, really am not trying to be sarcastic here. I get the above point, truly. But how does that mesh with standing up/speaking up against offensive behavior?

E.g. I happen to be white. If I encounter offensive statements about blacks, or Asians, or any other racial group, or perhaps about a person because they are a member of such a group, by speaking out my distaste am I "taking offense on someone else's behalf"?

E.g. I witness another person of my own socio-economic-ethnic grouping being put down and bullied. For whatever reason, that person doesn't appear to be defending themselves. If I attempt to stand with that person and speak up on his/her behalf, am I "taking offense on someone else's behalf"?

I've seen the declaration many times in this discussion that we should not do so in this LT community, that it just harms the community and the flow of communication. At the same time, it's a behavior that, in real life, I hope I find the courage to exhibit when the need arises. Is this community really so different from the real world? Or am I missing something really significant in this discussion? What have I misunderstood?

356>

I think that's speaking about taking offense on behalf of specific individuals, not groups.

I've seen cases where the person who was allegedly the 'victim' (of things like being told "no, the blue-flaggers were right to blue-flag that review of yours) had left the thread, and said as much. The thread then moved on to a general discussion of placeholder 'reviews' for Early Reviewer books, without mention of the OP, but well-meaning defenders of the OP kept saying "Be nice to the OP!".

It's getting upset when the person on whose behalf you're upset *genuinely isn't offended* that this statement comes into play.

Besides, the whole bigotry thing -- I think a private message of support to the wronged party would go a lot farther than engaging with the bigots. Nobody's going to change their minds, and there are no consequences to them, so why give them the attention? I continue to maintain that they and everyone else know that what they're saying is offensive.

>357 lorax:

It's getting upset when the person on whose behalf you're upset *genuinely isn't offended* that this statement comes into play.

Thank you! That's exactly the kind of clarification I was looking for.

I completely agree about the bigotry thing. That's just what I've seen as well. But given specifically what had been said in this particular discussion, the questions were still in my mind.

Thanks for bringing that one up, Suncat! I too, now understand the point a lot more clearly. I'm afraid I can't promise never to intervene again when it's clear to me that ganging up or bullying is going on, but I imagine we're mostly agreed on the specifics of Lorax's point. I'd even suggest that a simple apology from one or both sides should be considered an end to the matter. I've seen it happen far too often that an innocent remark is misinterpreted and complained about, the OP has apologised, then a whole bunch of other people fall into the squabble like a bunch of piranhas and nobody comes out well in the end.

Yeah, like in this thread, I misinterpreted something Carnophile said and flagged it. Once it was explained to me that Godwin's law was trying to be invoked, then I understand, apologized and removed the flag. At that point, if people had been carrying on about how wrong I was, then that would have been inappropriate. It's hard to always understand someone's intentions when you can't hear tone of voice or see body language and not everyone is comfortable with smileys, etc.

I am a little late to this party... probably because I don't follow the discussions as often as I used to (and *that* probably for some of the reasons that Tim would like to get at).

I personally don't like admins getting in the way of discussion any more than necessary. However, I do appreciate tools and structure that help me find the type of discussion that I feel like participating in.

As a social networking site, LT is a creature of its users almost as much as it is a creation of Tim & Co. I participated in Pro and Con for a while. It is a similar format to other political groups that I enjoy on other sites; however, here the light-to-heat ratio wasn't what I wanted to see. Is there anything Tim could do to change that. Probably not. I think that group dynamics often dictate the culture of that kind of group more than administration and technology.

I am not sure that a single standard for flagging is best. Common interest groups often have a different sense of what they want to be than say Pro and Con. A group discussing Vegan Cooking, for instance, should have to deal with a hunter posting descriptions of skinning and cooking a deer, even if that description would be appropriate elsewhere. Some people hate controversy, others live for flame wars. I prefer intelligent civil discussion. If groups could be specified as being in say a 3 tier model for what is "flaggable," that might help.

I also wonder whether a higher level classification of groups would help usability and enjoyability. The number of groups on LT means that few groups actually get the traffic to develop their own culture. Other sites that I participate in tend to zone groups into higher level categories. While the smaller groups don't necessarily develop an independent culture, the category (say "Religion and Politics") can develop social norms.

A technical feature that I really like on other sites, but miss on LT is the ability to hover over a thread title and see the first post. Often that helps me sort things that I am interested in from those that I am not.

Yeah, like in this thread, I misinterpreted something Carnophile said and flagged it. Once it was explained to me that Godwin's law was trying to be invoked, then I understand, apologized and removed the flag. At that point, if people had been carrying on about how wrong I was, then that would have been inappropriate. It's hard to always understand someone's intentions when you can't hear tone of voice or see body language and not everyone is comfortable with smileys, etc.

It may help to bear in mind that Carnophile and I are something like Statler and Waldorf and most of what we say can be disregarded entirely.

#362: but why should we?

It may help to bear in mind that Carnophile and I are something like Statler and Waldorf...

...but prettier.

By chance, do you remember a young person from your past whose name WAS
Bette Stevens Carpisassi?

You had dinner with my husband and I at our house in Mountaintop, PA. This took place about 40 years ago...

)

Not I.

It may help to bear in mind that Carnophile and I are something like Statler and Waldorf...

...but prettier.

... and younger too?

and slightly less spongy.

I'm younger. Jesse looks younger, but he's an old soul.

Whereas Waldorf and Statler both had the souls of 9-year-olds if I remember :D

Oddly enough, neither Carnophile nor I are wearing pants in this picture...

@370 ...which they kept in jars on their fireplace mantles. (bad paraphrase of Oscar Wilde?)

Although it's been attributed to many others (including Stephen King), the quote is from Robert Bloch, author of some of the scariest stories I ever read, including Psycho: "Despite my ghoulish reputation, I really have the heart of a small boy. I keep it in a jar on my desk."

#373 Just beat me to it. Lovely, but nowhere near subtle enough for Oscar.

Pants, psht. People and their bourgeois affectations!

Interesting discussion. Have to confess that I've been offended and then embarrassed at my offense a couple of times in this thread. Which I guess is the point of the discussion in the first place.

One thing that did become apparent was that it's often a case of having trouble meshing with a particular sense of humour, or manner of expression, or any one of a dozen similar things. Which could definitely be helped by having the “ignore user” button available. It's much easier to not be offended if you can skip over the comments of someone who you habitually misread. And it's not about refusing to take a moral stand (which is important). But it's easier to keep your cool and not overreact if you can selectively tune out the things which will almost certainly get your irritation gland overworking. As things stand, the only option is to ignore the thread completely if someone you clash with (whether that clash is a misunderstanding or a fundamental difference in belief or somewhere in between) is taking part. Since ignoring people who bait you is an adult response in RL, it'd be nice to have it here too.

Just my two cents.

376 > if you go to a users profile, you CAN block them. The block is hiding down in the lower right corner.

377> But that only blocks their comments on your profile, doesn't it? Not their comments in talk generally, or in a particular thread/group?

It does both - profile comments and Talk generally.

378 > the new functionality in talk was added a few months ago.

(blushes) ah, yes, now I look at the top this thread started quite a while ago. My apologies. I checked the date of the messages immediately before my post, but not the header.

On the other hand, I learned about a feature I didn't know about.

(shuffles off to crawl back under her rock … )

No crawling needed; lots of old threads resurface without warning.

Some additional info about this feature:

In Talk, Instead of the blocked member's message, you will see Message hidden because you blocked the member (show).

You can just scroll past the hidden message with your serenity intact.

It is similar to a flagged message; if you click (show) it will stay while you are on the page. If you return to the thread later, the message will be hidden again.

I have found that I *had* to look at a message after all (nosy is my middle name), but the annoying effect was much muted by the extra step.

>>376 joannasephine: Since ignoring people who bait you is an adult response in RL, it'd be nice to have it here too.

Without wishing to bait anyone and at the risk of being blocked I have to say I'm not sure blocking really is the equivalent of ignoring people in RL

Ignoring people doesn't literally render them invisible - it's more the equivalent of not reading (or listening) to their posts.

Blocking people - IMHO - is more equivalent to sticking ones fingers in ones ears and singing 'nanannanana...' - which is not enormously adult

But each to their own and I certainly do understand the feeling of wishing certain people didn't exist - I just hope that people resort to blocking in extreme circumstance and not as a result of being merely irked.

I suspect in RL that it is the people who 'feel invisible and unheard' (and as if their opinion doesn't count) who become that disenfranchised underclass that end up joining extremist groups or picking up an AK47 and taking everyone out over an 'egg Mcmuffin' at the local burger joint.

Just a thought...

>383 Littlemissbashful:

I wouldn't block someone merely because I disagree with them--how boring it would be to talk only to those with whom one is in complete agreement! However, I have blocked two members: one because I found that she made repeated and what I considered condescending and provocative anti-US statements, and the other because he/she posted something that was outright disgusting. I would avoid either of these people in RL by leaving the room or not joining in outings of which they were to be a part.

> 384

Fair enough, atleast you have the courage of your convictions although that's more avoiding than ignoring in RL

Just out of interest - have you ever been stuck in a situation with someone you were violently apposed to or offended by and where you couldn't leave the room (without creating a scene) - say at work or in a meeting or some such?

#383 -- "Blocking people - IMHO - is more equivalent to sticking ones fingers in ones ears and singing 'nanannanana...' - which is not enormously adult"

As I see it, one is only doing the fingers-in-ears thing if one posts that one has blocked a person. Otherwise, that person has no knowledge that they have been blocked. I've blocked a couple of people who habitually posted disgusting and offensive stuff, but I didn't go around posting, "I've blocked you, so I can't see your post." The ability to block really is for my benefit and has nothing to do with the block-ee. I'm like Littleshell (#382) -- I find that I usually click through to see what's been posted, but having that extra step helps me know what I might be dealing with.

> 386 Kind of like screening phone calls?

#387 -- Yeah, in a way. Good analogy.

ETA: In fact, like screening your calls if you've been getting obscene phone calls. I mean, I don't block everyone who gets on my nerves occasionally.

>385 Littlemissbashful:

Sure; RL being what it is, I have worked with some fairly horrid people and been related by blood or marriage to some, also. But when given the choice, why not take advantage of the option to miss things I want to miss? I'm here on LT for pleasant, amusing, enlightening, challenging, friendly, etc. talk, not for demeaning, insulting, obscene, or disgusting comments being thrust on me when I have a choice about reading them.

You make the talk forums sound like an exercise in libertine excess - are there really that many disgusting and obscene posters on the site - I may be reading different threads to you!

I understand the desire to avoid rather than endure, it's just in RL we rarely ignore people to their face. We may avoid close proximity and close conversation but if the relative from hell asks you to pass the beans you are probably going to pass them and look them in the eye.

As foggidawn says the blocked person doesn't know they are being blocked - which kind of makes me uncomfortable, at least in RL you can confront an accuser etc...

Probably 'baiters and haters' should expect no better and I get why anyone would want to screen out the on-screen version of an obscene phone call - But I've seen many people flagged and flogged for fairly minor unpleasantness (if at all) - I guess I just think ignoring people is inherently rude in itself and find it depressing.

I keep hearing that guy in 'Homicide' drawling - "Can't we all just get along" - and knowing the answer is a resounding NO!

>390 Littlemissbashful: Umm, huh? LT has hundreds of thousands of members, right? And, as I said, I've blocked ONE for disgusting/obscene comments. Another member very politely told the person the language used wasn't considered appropriate for a group that had young members, among other things.

I used to pass my obnoxious (now former) nephew-in-law the turkey at Thanksgiving, but I would walk out of the room when he began extended and graphic discussion of his bathroom habits. What would you suggest? Asking him not to talk about it did no good.

I think LT has over 1,000,000 users now (although some are doubtless dormant) - so there's bound to be someone out there who is the antithesis of everything you hold dear (If only the people we took to like a house on fire were as easy to find!).

I just misread your post and inferred that you found a lot of debauched material being posted.

Charming as your ex-nephew in law sounds - maybe you should have gone for fitting casters to his chair and wheeling 'him' out of the room when he started on in with the whole potty training thing!

I gather families are a tricky one, I haven't really seen any of mine in years so I hold up my hands up and admit I've no real experience of the whole family gathering thing, let alone in-laws. Never understood what passes for acceptable once family is involved, a complete mystery to me.

and I agree that blocking one person is hardly excessive

#390 -- Yes, I generally find the quality of LibraryThing discussion to be pretty high. I use the "block" function very sparingly, and only on (as you say) the 'baiters and haters' who are trying to get a reaction.

I also think that an online forum is so very different from real life that it's hard to make a comparison between blocking a person and ignoring them face to face. I mean, how many people might be reading this discussion but not adding anything because they don't have time to think of a post, or don't feel that they have anything pertinent to add, or whatever? A dozen? A hundred? At least a handful. I have no idea what their reactions are. In real life, if there were people standing around not talking but listening to this conversation a few of us are having, I would know if they were feeling antagonistic, if they were generally in agreement, if they were pointedly ignoring me, etc., by body language and physical cues. Online, I have no idea who is even reading what I post. For all I know, half of the people who read this thread have me blocked! (I don't think it's likely, but hey, anything's possible.)

I think you, I, and ejj1955 are pretty much in agreement, and where we differ is a question of degree. I have seen people flagged for things that are not TOS violations (and I agree that's not a good thing), but flagging (since it is a response that the poster can see) is a completely different issue from blocking. I also agree that it's good to engage in discussion with people who hold opposite points of view, rather than just pretending that they don't exist, and that it's good to politely state when someone is saying things that you find inappropriate. I don't have a problem with heated discussion or honest mistakes -- just with that very, very small percentage of people who come here to intentionally harass and disrupt.

I also block people who post constant complaints either about LT or life in general. I don't want to hear it. Enough already. I'm not talking about someone who is struggling but people who have complained for years and that's all they post.

I have four or five people blocked. A few for complaints, one for being gross and one or two for general rudeness.

I don't block people for disagreeing with me else I would be blocking half the posters! :)

As foggidawn says the blocked person doesn't know they are being blocked - which kind of makes me uncomfortable, at least in RL you can confront an accuser etc...

Actually, the fact that post-blocking in Talk is linked with comment-blocking on the profile means that you do know when you're being blocked. If you go to the profile page of a user who's active on the site and in Talk, and find that you can't post comments, chances are very high that you're being blocked. (If you really want to be 100% sure you can sign in with another account, but I don't think that's necessary.) I'm quite sure that I'm being blocked by two users, and there was a third (who did go the na-na-na-na route of proclaiming the block) who has since unblocked me.

I think I'd actually prefer general silence about blocking. I find it pretty distasteful when the blocking is known and then people continue to talk about it. If you don't want to give me a chance to respond, then stop saying things about me. Making it an open secret doesn't really help.

For example, apparently I post nothing but complaints. I would argue that this is false, given the chance. But of course, the user has no interest in listening. In that case, I would encourage them to say nothing at all. Blocking should be about ending all interaction with another user, not about continuing to express your negative views about them without the inconvenience of seeing the response.

For example, apparently I post nothing but complaints. I would argue that this is false, given the chance.

Of course it's false. You also post requests pertaining to the date fields! ;)

(Joking, joking.)

Blocking should be about ending all interaction with another user, not about continuing to express your negative views about them without the inconvenience of seeing the response.

Obviously. Or, for me, in some cases, about being able to continue to participate in particular groups or threads; the choice isn't to see the poison or not, it's about whether I can avoid just the poison or need to avoid entire groups because of the presence of one hateful person.

My personal rule of thumb on a different online community is to block those users whose posts I cannot resist negatively responding to.

>395 _Zoe_: I agree about not discussing blocking specific people in public which in my view is wholly inappropriate. My comments were more about being blocked without knowing it and being unable to address the issue if you had inadvertently caused offense.

I also sometimes wish there was a self blocking button that set off an alarm every time I started typing hideously tactless comments...

>398 Littlemissbashful: I've wished for one of these a few times :

http://xkcd.com/481/

#399

Isn't that what families are for?

But if none of your family members are at LT, you're still out of luck. Here, at least.