It has been my experience that these fights are often inspired into the cosmic realms (fueled) by the very fact of an audience.
IMO, the sparring parties and three others (one on his side, one on her side, one to witness it all just to make sure things stay private) could go to a private message forum. Then duke it out!
One rule above all others would apply: no taking the brawl to the open forums.
Or some variation of the above.
IMO, the very lack of audience would keep these things to a minimum and they would die for lack of oxygen.
I think that would work well if the combatants are friends, or have at least a little respect for each other. That would be similar to what others have recommended -- settling disputes via email (which I forgot to mention). Sometimes these arguments are nothing more than a personality clash. In which case, a mediator would probably be helpful, like you said.
But often the issue isn't the other person. It's the idea the person represents. So talking it out privately misses the point. There is no relationship to build or repair. It's a clash of ideas or opinions, in the form of two people. If we get rid of the people, the idea lingers, and (depending on the merits of the idea) can further damage those who cling to it.
Am I making sense?
I've seen writers' groups where the participants have become so intimate with one another that they no longer criticize each other's work. No one grows, or improves, or (most importantly) gets published. It's a friendly facade that's actually more harmful than helpful. In more rigorous groups, I've seen more than a few people crumble into tears after a poem or story has been harshly critiqued. But, more often than not, after the writer gets past the initial hurt, more growth takes place than in an atmosphere of warm fuzzies.
I'm not saying that GreaseSpot shouldn't be warm. But I would hope that it is authentic warmth that arises from genuine empathy.
Yea, I have helped brake up a few food fights on Grease Spot Cafe. I tell you what Laleo. If you want to start one. I will try to break it up. Of course, if any mashed potatos and gravy get flung my way I will try to duck first. However, if a whole cherry pie gets flung my way, I will try to catch it in mid flight. Then I will look for a little vanilla ice cream and a clean fork. If I can't find a clean fork then a spoon will do nicely as well. Good dining.
But often the issue isn't the other person. It's the idea the person represents. So talking it out privately misses the point. There is no relationship to build or repair. It's a clash of ideas or opinions, in the form of two people. If we get rid of the people, the idea lingers, and (depending on the merits of the idea) can further damage those who cling to it.
To me, what you're defining here is heated disagreements...which, imo, are not fights but are rather heavily laced exchanges of ideas.
For example, the way Ron and Garth go at it you'd think they were greasing shotgun barrels and getting ready for the hunt. But from what I've seen (and I may be wrong here), these men don't really dislike each other or have any particular animosity for one another. (BTW...since I'm a liberal of sorts, I would love to get in on those discussions...but I have a feeling that would end up to be a knock-down-drag-out fight. Whaddya think? I think I could really get ol' Ron's blood a pumping but good! )
Oooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhh! Another wonderful example is Satori! He gets downright personal and insulting...but he often makes such good points that I can read past that stuff...and he is just a bad boy, ya know?....and he does himself in often enough that nobody else really has to do it for him. Hehehehe.....
On a milder note...you and I have had our instances where I felt insulted/attacked a couple of times...and I think you maybe felt the same from me...and we worked that out (at least I feel that it's been worked out) right on the boards. I didn't feel it was fighting, either. I felt that we exchanged words that may or may not have been the "right" words (who could judge that, anyway?), but we got through the issues and here we are.
quote:I've seen writers' groups where the participants have become so intimate with one another that they no longer criticize each other's work. No one grows, or improves, or (most importantly) gets published. It's a friendly facade that's actually more harmful than helpful. In more rigorous groups, I've seen more than a few people crumble into tears after a poem or story has been harshly critiqued. But, more often than not, after the writer gets past the initial hurt, more growth takes place than in an atmosphere of warm fuzzies.
I'm not trying to make warm fuzzies here or anything, but I absolutely agree!
One thing that I think differentiates heated discussion from fighting is who the participants are addressing. IMO, a fight is a "he said/she said" battle for attention and group approval...the participants don't talk to each other, but rather about each other...and the point is to be right, not exchange ideas. A heated discussion, on the other hand, is often directed right to those involved...and the point is to exchange ideas, not make someone right or wrong.
Is that clear as mud?
And this is not to say that a fight should be avoided at all costs. I want to reserve the right to tell somebody where to get off. But I think that if I reserve the right to tell, I must also accept the fact that I will be told.
Actually, despite the heated Civil War battles-- uhh I mean, arguments that General Ron E. Lee and me, General Ulysses S. Garth get into, I'll bet ya 100 to one, that after all that, he and I are the kinda guys who go into a bar, get good and drunk off of a bunch of Millers, howling Lynard Skynard songs in such an off-key manner that the bartender has his bubbas throw the both of us out. But we're having such a blast about it anyway.
I agree with you on some points. I just think that some topics are up for debate and some are not. When a person shares something painful that happened to them, I don't think it is right to criticize or make fun of that incident. Even if I don't like someone, I can sympathize with them.
Sometimes I wonder if some of these fights are due to some deep resentment between the parties that may or may not be known to the rest of us. Then they drag other people in who may be ignorant of the history. I know I was played before and I felt like an idiot. Fighting the point seemed right at the time to me but then the claws came out and so did the real issue which had nothing to do with the topic or the initial fight. It was like junior high.
Then there are others like CW pointed out. I like when you Laleo and Satori debate. Not because I get a kick out of the fight, but because you two are so smart and insightful that I see things I never thought about or see it in a different way.
Arizona is an inferno at the moment. Tens of thousands of acres have been incinerated and more by the hour.
The cause? "Fire prevention." When natural fires are quickly extinguished in favorable conditions, the forest is able to grow thick with trees and other vegetation.
Forestry experts say the ideal number of trees in a manageable forest is 50 per acre. Arizona has about 12,000 (or 1,200?) per acre. Anyway, it's way too much.
When conditions are eventually unfavorable (hot and dry) the inferno ensues. All the best efforts of fire crews are futile. Too much fuel.
People are the same way. If we attempt to contain our conflicts they will go unresolved and build. I suggest letting them burn themselves out.
Coolwaters makes a good point. The audience fuels the phenomenon. What good is an insult that nobody hears? But the phenomenon is NOT the fight. And you thought it was! Nope. Ain't so.
What is the real issue? The "fighters?" They are in the "ring" of their own volition. The real issue is the rubber-necking of others. In my experience, the fighters do not whine and snivel at Pawtucket day and night to "please dear God make it stop!!!" It's almost ludicrous, but the whiners are those who could easily go on to read something else. But they don't. They are FASCINATED, hoping to see blood I think. Like a driver who bitches about rubber-necking traffic ahead of him and then stops himself to gawk at the carnage when he has a good view.
There are two sides of ourselves at work. The "parent" and the "child." Remember "transactional analysis?" - Boy, that's going back a few decades. Still useful now and then. It divided the human personality into three alternating, interactive and competitive behavior patterns: the rule-enforcing authoritarian "parent," a.k.a. Gladys K; the emotional, impulsive "child," and the mature, self-directed, conscious "adult."
Using this paradigm, the "child" rushes into the thread with all the fireworks to watch the action ringside, while the "parent" hounds Pawtucket to enforce "something, anything, just give us law and order." Same person, parent and child. The "adult" is nowhere to be found.
In other words, the problem is not the fight or the fighters, who have good reason to be involved or they wouldn't be. It's the audience which refuses to behave responsibly. Therefore if there are rules, they should be directed to the audience.
**
Rule 1: If you don't like "fights," don't READ those threads! And don't *****-foot around them pretending to be superior, adding comments like "Hmmm, shouldn't this be in the Soap Opera forum?" You know what that is? That is being a weasel. a) You're OFF topic, and B) You know damn well YOU are adding more fuel to the conflict by adding YET a 3rd contributing factor - that of the invalidating judge/petulant smartass.
Rule 2: If you don't like "fights," and you insist on READING them anyway, don't bitch to Pawtucket about it afterward. You didn't have to read it.
And I mostly agree with Satori. Social friction is a big PART of the crucible that makes us who are.
But, I have one problem. I refrain from posting certain topics that are dear to me, simply because I know certain who disagree LOUDLY will "jump on them." I understand it is a public forum, and merely posting invites scrutiny, but isn't there room for "this thread is for those who agree with the premise and want to discuss it further."
I understand that some posters start a volatile subject simply for the purpose of enlightening and/or ugly debate. I love those too. At times, I am a "character vulture", so to speak.
My point - not every post is intended for debate and argument, but the authors' request for peace is often ignored.
Example - if i want to talk about a liberal political issue without it turning into Hatfields vs the McCoys, should I really have to go to another board?
Anyway, this lack of respect is mainly what has kept me away from this place. I don't have that kind of time. I like to post an idea or respond to an idea without having to commit to hours of standing up for myself, and explaining misconceptions that derail the whole point of my posting.
Is there some existing netiquette, maybe an icon or code that suggests "I do not want to fight," or "bring it on?"
BTW - requesting that dissenting opinions stay away, does not mean one is a coward. Just a different purpose.
quote: I've seen writers' groups where the participants have become so intimate with one another that they no longer criticize each other's work. No one grows, or improves, or (most importantly) gets published. It's a friendly facade that's actually more harmful than helpful...
That's one of the reasons I faded away from the poetry forum I was posting on. Everyone was so durn nice - no one could say anything bad about anyone else's poems! Oh, once and a while there'd be a "that's a bit off meter in line 4 of the first stanza"... but no one ever said things like "you might want to change that, it makes no sense!" There just can't be that many good poets on one forum... nice people, mind you, but not good critics (perhaps that's why - they're too nice to be critical).
As far as forum brawls go... I've always thought they should be taken to emails or, now that we have the option, a private thread.
CW and Satori are right about fueling the fire. I noticed that at the old place, whenever there was a controversy or a disagreement, there were more hits on those threads than any of the others that were posted at a similar time.
I've made up my mind that if I have something to say to another poster that might cause a problem, I will email that person first. If I don't get a response, then I may post it if I feel it really needs to be addressed.
I'm glad this isn't TWI - we can disagree - but we can also "agree to disagree" like Garth and Ron. You should see them in the chat room... you can tell they'd get along if they were around each other in real life.
We will all disagree at one point or another - this IS a discussion forum and we ARE grown-ups. But when the discussion becomes insulting to a particular individual, or there is a lot of unnecessary name calling back and forth, it tends to get out of hand and a moderator should probably intervene.
Hope R. color>size>face>
P.S. It is also nice to know when we do agree with each other. That isn't necessarily creating a "warm fuzzies" atmosphere. If it's honest appreciation, then why not tell that person?
“while the "parent" hounds Pawtucket to enforce "something, anything, just give us law and order." Same person, parent and child. The "adult" is nowhere to be found.”
I see this differently. I think the person who runs to Pawtucket and hounds him to do something is very much a child, an annoying child. I see this happen with siblings. Two or more may be fighting and one of them will run to Maw or Paw to put an end to it because they were trying to watch tv or something and the noise is unbearable! We are all adults and should be able to settle our own matters. If I am tired of a topic or a certain poster. I ignore the whole thread entirely. There is one poster that I just can’t stand. Anytime he/she starts a thread, I stay out of it. I know that I disagree with everything he/she says and I just plain don’t like his/her point of view. That is just me though, and I do not expect others to follow suit. Live and let live.
“Is there some existing netiquette, maybe an icon or code that suggests "I do not want to fight," or "bring it on?"
Good idea Sirguessalot! I see CW has a sign that says what her mood is. Maybe we can attach a sign next to our handle…how about a “I am always right and if you disagree with me you are wrong”
At GreaseSpot, we know each other through our words. Words can stir emotions more powerfully than a look, or a gesture, or even a touch. It sometimes affords an uncomfortable level of intimacy between people who are otherwise strangers to each other. But that friendship or intimacy is also illusory. It's similar to feeling a kinship with someone after reading her autobiography, or watching a made-for-tv movie. It's the reflection of ourselves we see in each other's stories that alternately evokes our resentment, or sympathy, depending on the skill of the storyteller coupled with our own life experience. So those "deep resentments" you mention come from within the person who feels the resentment. Same with the "sympathy."
During those times that I feel sucked into someone else's battle, I try to stay very clear on what is my own stake in the conflict. Otherwise, like you, I end up feeling used for someone else's purposes.
There. That's my feeble attempt to live up to my reputation for being "smart and insightful." How am I doing?
I'm curious whether you think there should be policies in place to determine which topics are up for debate and which aren't.
I'm not sure I completely understand the distinction you're making between "fights" and "heated disagreements." When emotional intensity is present, I think there's an issue involved that's bigger than the person making the point. In the "he said/she said" scenario you mention, even a bid for attention makes a larger point ("I deserve more than what you're offering me"). I don't know that I would give more merit (or leeway) to an argument about global warming, than an argument about whose character flaws are the more striking. During a time of high emotionality, the topic itself is often irrelevant. Or at least it seems that way to me.
“At GreaseSpot, we know each other through our words” Yes and no. Some people here really know each other, either from TWI or from meeting outside of the Caf? Some like each other and some hate each other. They carry their vendetta onto Grease Spot and try to drag others into their fights. After months of posting, I finally figured that out. I would get all hot and bothered about a particular subject only to find out I was being baited and used as a pawn for someone else’s gain. I learned my lesson. That does not mean I have been hushed, I pick my battles a little more carefully and stay away from those carrying an axe.
As far as policies, I say use common sense. Other than that I really do not like to police adults. Someone may come in here and say, Adios, you are an idiot! Well, I can’t really change that and God knows I would probably blow up at them, but I can’t control that other person and or his or her keyboard.
Yours is one of those posts I wish I could agree with wholeheartedly. In a way I do. I especially like your "audience participation rules." Nothing irks me more on those types of threads than the haughty "I'm above all this" posters, because simply by virtue of the fact that they are posting, they are clearly not above it. They've launched themselves into the middle of it, but made themselves untouchable by their (perceived) elevated status.
I've also been irked by pleas to Pawtucket. But beyond the email campaigns, I also don't like it when people use Pawtucket's rules (or lack of them) as a defense. For instance (speaking hypothetically), let's say one poster is driven mad by spelling errors. Because Pawtucket has no rules for suitable syntax and grammar, that's often used as an excuse for not making changes that might help the flow of dialogue. (Note: I couldn't care less how people spell their words, as long as I get the gist of what's being communicated.) So if the perfect speller tells the lousy speller to get a dictionary, the lousy speller hides behind Pawtucket's generosity, instead of facing the challenge. I think Pawtucket should be taken out of the equation entirely, unless he chooses to insert himself into the debate.
I agree that the less containment for these arguments the better. Too much containment only makes matters worse. Much worse. My only hesitation in the "let the fire burn" approach is some people really are very intimidated by these heated exchanges. Posters who you like, I like, we all like, no longer come here because they got tired of defending positions, rather than exploring issues. Where do they fit into the “let it burn” approach?
Sirguessalot: Do you have any suggestions to offer as a solution?
I'm disappointed that the poetry forum didn't work out for you. I hope you've found another avenue (in "real" life, maybe?) to pursue your poetry.
I just finished editing a book of poems written by a friend of mine -- a parish nurse who self-published as a fund-raiser. I really hesitated to take on the project because, first of all, the poems were truly awful -- those sing-songy trite rhyming verse thingies that I have no patience to read, much less think about long enough to critique. But she's a friend who was very helpful to me this fall when I needed a shoulder to cry on, so I took on the project. I read them through, wrote her a note telling her what I thought was working in her "poetry," then warned her that that was the last compliment she would get from me. I have to hand it to her. She stuck with the process through many, many revisions and rewritings and got her feelings hurt on many occasions. Anyway, the book has been sent off to the publisher, much improved (if I say so myself). Plus I got fifty dollars for my hours and days and weeks and months of effort, so this stuff is really paying off for me.
I think you've got some great poems, too. I hope you start sending them out to publishers soon.
Regarding brawls, I'm still not convinced that the email/private forum route is the way to go. That almost suggests that reconciliation among the fighting parties is the only "right" outcome. Sometimes the insults and name-calling (as unpleasant as it may be to read) might be necessary to make a point. Or at least justified, considering how manipulative people can be.
At what point do you think a moderator should intervene? When someone first strikes a match? When people begin to get their feelings hurt? When the thread topic has been burned in the blaze?
quote: These forums are meant to be a place of discussion, where ideas and debates are encouraged. We welcome your opinion.
In that light, please be courteous to fellow posters. Disagree all you want, but respect the fact that someone else may feel as strongly about their ideas as you do about your own. Please don't make it personal. A lively discussions of ideas is both more polite and more relevant.
Our forums cover many topics from religious to political. While we are not a religious site, we do embrace discussions in this area.
All are welcome here. However, harassing behavior will result in being banned from the forums. There is no need for personal attacks. If you have a specific problem with a poster, settle it outside of the forum. Threads of that nature will be deleted or sent to the Soap Opera Forum.
I didn't write the book!!! But I agree if people feel harassed by someone else or feel as if they're being attacked by a group of posters, or if there are unwelcome personal comments directed to a specific person on a thread, that's when intervention should be used. However the moderator feels that should be done is up to him. Sometimes the poster has been contacted and asked to delete the insults, other times it's been done for them. IMO, if it gets that ugly, I still think that settling it outside the forum is the best way to go.
Hope R. color>size>face>
P.S. Laleo - all my poems are rhyming poems! One of the reasons I liked that forum is because it was for rhymed and metered poems only - no free verse allowed! Most of us were laughed at by the "real" poetry world who told many of us we should go to work for Hallmark!
Coolwaters, Garth, Rocky, Hillsbro and a few others can tell you what a forum is like with no rules and no moderation. It was called "Trancechat". For a while, it was the only exWay game in town.
I think you can still go to the site and read some of the threads - they get reaalllllly nasty and hateful at times.
There were also threads where perfectly good discussions would get de-railed by people's personal vendettas with each other.
I was THRILLED with Waydale after TC closed down. No more "Donnybrook" threads! It was organized and posters, anonymous or not, were accountable for their words. (on TC - I could log in as "laleo" if I wanted to and no one would know it. I could also choose to have NO log-in name - it was a mess!)
So - yeah - I like what Paw put on that page about basic common courtesy. I don't think I'd call anyone some of the names that I've seen people called on some of the threads if I were face to face with them. I try to hear myself talking aloud when I'm writing my posts for that reason.
Laleo, I wish I did. In fact, I usually hesitate to point out problems without also offering a solution or two as well (habits of business etiquette, I suppose.)
As I'm not one to vote for more rules and policies, I guess my post was an attempt to appeal to the GSC masses from the point of view of one who appreciates this forum and the collective wisdom that hangs here, but has chosen to avoid it due to the massive energy wasted trying to engage in certain subjects.
To sum up my position, heerz a cheap shot at profundity, abeit with a narrow application:
In a world of lovers and fighters, the fighters win now, and the lovers win later.
I guess it's all a matter of how much time you think you have.
Re: writers forums and such - I can relate.
In that arena, I rarely show my work to anyone but paying editors and other pros with a bone to pick, paragon that I try to be. Last thing i need is a group of unpublished writers patting each other on the back for how wonderful their unpublished writing is.
Whip me, beat me, just publish my words and then pay me.
someone made a big impact on me and i went back to that old cafe to read (and now copy and paste) the posts by gingertea. i think there are 7. this is the first one; then i'm going to put the other ones here (editing a tiny bit on paragraph breaks )
#1
quote:Maybe we are both the good guy and the bad. Leaving the supernatural aside, and that includes evil and purity and lightness and darkness, beliefs and morality too, I'd like to suggest something. The average, healthy person has an emotional range that encompasses every known emotion to man, right? I don't want to kill someone or myself, but, in an extreme circumstance, might I? I don't want to lie, cheat or steal, but, if my livelihood couldn't provide for me or I lost hope it could, and a family would starve over the lack of sustanance, would I?
If I was angered and frustrated, feeling out of control and someone jumped in my face, and I wanted to slap them to release the violent emotion, could I? What I mean is, even though rationa! lly I wouldn't act on these feelings, it doesn't mean I wouldn't have them. How I confront others, their words, actions, and intentions, really is about my emotions and how I know this is because of stimuli, I respond. Or I don't. It is my intimate feelings that are perhaps my most hidden, even to me - someone else's own intimate feelings may be their most understood. Everyone is always at a different place, and that's part of the reason we are very comforted when we have people in our life who are near to where we are on an emotional level.
We get upset when an intimate relationship changes, or strains, because we are acutely aware of it. Deeper, stronger responses. The lighter, less intense or available, perhaps even infrequent stimuli to my emotional make-up (or wake- up) occurs to me to be more elusive, I think. Criticism, for one. How I judge another, I judge myself. Consideration or lack of, rejection - deliberate or unaware, etc., all work the same way, I reject you, I ! reject that part of me - because I want to put aside something wit hin, that 'catches' that 'something' inside I have decided not to see, so, I reject it in me, and the outward is I reject you, or your words, or what you are giving, or taking, whatever it is.
Do you see? In this way, where is there a bad guy or a good guy? If what's bad is good - and what's good is bad ~ to see it from a different perspective for a sec' ~ than what confronts us is the best thing -to signal- what we need to learn or resolve. We don't always do this. We are human and err. We hear, but, what do we hear? What we want to or what they want you to? This is a problem for every one of us. Listening is key to this particular group because here, no one will recruit you without your permission. No one has to swallow anything one doesn't want to. Everyone is safe to process ANY information, no matter the source, because you are safe and free and can use your sensabilities and new self-knowledge to decide to absorb for yourself what you choose. That's the beauty of being c! ult-less!!!imho...
I'm sorry satori's thread is closed. I'm glad Paw decided the way he feels comfortable with. It's all good if we choose to see what's good, I think. Then again, it works the other way around too. ...I'm free to be me...I would never give that up again, period. How do I know? I listen to my 'inner' self by what my experiences teach me, and that was through the 'bad' mostly. I learned from what appeared to be 'bad'. I didn't need to learn what I already knew felt good...my mini-me take...thanks satori, for introducing me to the topic of 'silence the outside, there's stirrings within" ~ Could it be another turning point, the next 'bad' time I have? I hope so...
quote:My 'de-fences' only allow me to see part of a problem when I experience conflict. I feel uncomfortable, therefore, I tighten up and until I recognize this, or someone points it out to me and I can accept it...my mis-understanding remains exactly that. When I am secure again and look at my responses, or feelings toward others actually, I can see clearer...because I am not threatened ...the best thing a person can do involved in conflict is to keep her/his head until things cool down...it's hard to do always, when we are engaged in a conflict, but to understand that our feelings change, that's a constant, and our perceptions are usually clouded by emotions, just realizing this can help.
Adding - not to be attatched to the outcome, let's us detatch more easily than if we want instant results...what was that song...'fools rush in where wise men never go' ~ yea, I know it's about love, now that's a good idea!!!! ...Just some thougts...Ginger (ps. I know we know these things, just sometimes we need a gentle reminder, than again, it applies within reason)
This thread is helping me to slow down when I experience strong emotions, and check out when I'm clinging to something unpleasant, writing out my rationale or feelings helps me to see more clearly...Anyone else finding this besides me? I want to take time formulating my judgements as I want to grow and stretch from what is comfortable ~ to what can be reasonably safe, yet daring...I want to be better tomorrow than I am today...
quote:I had to learn to let others fight their own battles, which was very hard for me having been taught to look over my sibling when I was young. As adults, we all carry baggage if we've lived at all. I now realize what is my lesson and what is another's. I'd wished I'd know it sooner in this life, since that could have saved my taking on others causes. I just wanted to contribute. If it applies, good, if not just open the window
Recommended Posts
AdiosMiCorazon
I have not yet begun to fight!
sorry laleo, I am up late and need to go sleep.
I think the world of you and I am glad you are here. I will fight with you later
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
It has been my experience that these fights are often inspired into the cosmic realms (fueled) by the very fact of an audience.
IMO, the sparring parties and three others (one on his side, one on her side, one to witness it all just to make sure things stay private) could go to a private message forum. Then duke it out!
One rule above all others would apply: no taking the brawl to the open forums.
Or some variation of the above.
IMO, the very lack of audience would keep these things to a minimum and they would die for lack of oxygen.
Or not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
I think that would work well if the combatants are friends, or have at least a little respect for each other. That would be similar to what others have recommended -- settling disputes via email (which I forgot to mention). Sometimes these arguments are nothing more than a personality clash. In which case, a mediator would probably be helpful, like you said.
But often the issue isn't the other person. It's the idea the person represents. So talking it out privately misses the point. There is no relationship to build or repair. It's a clash of ideas or opinions, in the form of two people. If we get rid of the people, the idea lingers, and (depending on the merits of the idea) can further damage those who cling to it.
Am I making sense?
I've seen writers' groups where the participants have become so intimate with one another that they no longer criticize each other's work. No one grows, or improves, or (most importantly) gets published. It's a friendly facade that's actually more harmful than helpful. In more rigorous groups, I've seen more than a few people crumble into tears after a poem or story has been harshly critiqued. But, more often than not, after the writer gets past the initial hurt, more growth takes place than in an atmosphere of warm fuzzies.
I'm not saying that GreaseSpot shouldn't be warm. But I would hope that it is authentic warmth that arises from genuine empathy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
Good to see that you are the same feisty self I remember. Thank you. I'll be ready for that first swing . . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Yea, I have helped brake up a few food fights on Grease Spot Cafe. I tell you what Laleo. If you want to start one. I will try to break it up. Of course, if any mashed potatos and gravy get flung my way I will try to duck first. However, if a whole cherry pie gets flung my way, I will try to catch it in mid flight. Then I will look for a little vanilla ice cream and a clean fork. If I can't find a clean fork then a spoon will do nicely as well. Good dining.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
To me, what you're defining here is heated disagreements...which, imo, are not fights but are rather heavily laced exchanges of ideas.
For example, the way Ron and Garth go at it you'd think they were greasing shotgun barrels and getting ready for the hunt. But from what I've seen (and I may be wrong here), these men don't really dislike each other or have any particular animosity for one another. (BTW...since I'm a liberal of sorts, I would love to get in on those discussions...but I have a feeling that would end up to be a knock-down-drag-out fight. Whaddya think? I think I could really get ol' Ron's blood a pumping but good! )
Oooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhh! Another wonderful example is Satori! He gets downright personal and insulting...but he often makes such good points that I can read past that stuff...and he is just a bad boy, ya know?....and he does himself in often enough that nobody else really has to do it for him. Hehehehe.....
On a milder note...you and I have had our instances where I felt insulted/attacked a couple of times...and I think you maybe felt the same from me...and we worked that out (at least I feel that it's been worked out) right on the boards. I didn't feel it was fighting, either. I felt that we exchanged words that may or may not have been the "right" words (who could judge that, anyway?), but we got through the issues and here we are.
I'm not trying to make warm fuzzies here or anything, but I absolutely agree!
One thing that I think differentiates heated discussion from fighting is who the participants are addressing. IMO, a fight is a "he said/she said" battle for attention and group approval...the participants don't talk to each other, but rather about each other...and the point is to be right, not exchange ideas. A heated discussion, on the other hand, is often directed right to those involved...and the point is to exchange ideas, not make someone right or wrong.
Is that clear as mud?
And this is not to say that a fight should be avoided at all costs. I want to reserve the right to tell somebody where to get off. But I think that if I reserve the right to tell, I must also accept the fact that I will be told.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Actually, despite the heated Civil War battles-- uhh I mean, arguments that General Ron E. Lee and me, General Ulysses S. Garth get into, I'll bet ya 100 to one, that after all that, he and I are the kinda guys who go into a bar, get good and drunk off of a bunch of Millers, howling Lynard Skynard songs in such an off-key manner that the bartender has his bubbas throw the both of us out. But we're having such a blast about it anyway.
Life's wierd like that, ain't it?
Prophet Emeritus of THE,
and Wandering CyberUU Hippie,
Garth P.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
AdiosMiCorazon
Laleo
I agree with you on some points. I just think that some topics are up for debate and some are not. When a person shares something painful that happened to them, I don't think it is right to criticize or make fun of that incident. Even if I don't like someone, I can sympathize with them.
Sometimes I wonder if some of these fights are due to some deep resentment between the parties that may or may not be known to the rest of us. Then they drag other people in who may be ignorant of the history. I know I was played before and I felt like an idiot. Fighting the point seemed right at the time to me but then the claws came out and so did the real issue which had nothing to do with the topic or the initial fight. It was like junior high.
Then there are others like CW pointed out. I like when you Laleo and Satori debate. Not because I get a kick out of the fight, but because you two are so smart and insightful that I see things I never thought about or see it in a different way.
I hope I am making sense here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori
Arizona is an inferno at the moment. Tens of thousands of acres have been incinerated and more by the hour.
The cause? "Fire prevention." When natural fires are quickly extinguished in favorable conditions, the forest is able to grow thick with trees and other vegetation.
Forestry experts say the ideal number of trees in a manageable forest is 50 per acre. Arizona has about 12,000 (or 1,200?) per acre. Anyway, it's way too much.
When conditions are eventually unfavorable (hot and dry) the inferno ensues. All the best efforts of fire crews are futile. Too much fuel.
People are the same way. If we attempt to contain our conflicts they will go unresolved and build. I suggest letting them burn themselves out.
Coolwaters makes a good point. The audience fuels the phenomenon. What good is an insult that nobody hears? But the phenomenon is NOT the fight. And you thought it was! Nope. Ain't so.
What is the real issue? The "fighters?" They are in the "ring" of their own volition. The real issue is the rubber-necking of others. In my experience, the fighters do not whine and snivel at Pawtucket day and night to "please dear God make it stop!!!" It's almost ludicrous, but the whiners are those who could easily go on to read something else. But they don't. They are FASCINATED, hoping to see blood I think. Like a driver who bitches about rubber-necking traffic ahead of him and then stops himself to gawk at the carnage when he has a good view.
There are two sides of ourselves at work. The "parent" and the "child." Remember "transactional analysis?" - Boy, that's going back a few decades. Still useful now and then. It divided the human personality into three alternating, interactive and competitive behavior patterns: the rule-enforcing authoritarian "parent," a.k.a. Gladys K; the emotional, impulsive "child," and the mature, self-directed, conscious "adult."
Using this paradigm, the "child" rushes into the thread with all the fireworks to watch the action ringside, while the "parent" hounds Pawtucket to enforce "something, anything, just give us law and order." Same person, parent and child. The "adult" is nowhere to be found.
In other words, the problem is not the fight or the fighters, who have good reason to be involved or they wouldn't be. It's the audience which refuses to behave responsibly. Therefore if there are rules, they should be directed to the audience.
**
Rule 1: If you don't like "fights," don't READ those threads! And don't *****-foot around them pretending to be superior, adding comments like "Hmmm, shouldn't this be in the Soap Opera forum?" You know what that is? That is being a weasel. a) You're OFF topic, and B) You know damn well YOU are adding more fuel to the conflict by adding YET a 3rd contributing factor - that of the invalidating judge/petulant smartass.
Rule 2: If you don't like "fights," and you insist on READING them anyway, don't bitch to Pawtucket about it afterward. You didn't have to read it.
Rule 3: Three rules is one too many.
**
Great topic laleo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
Adios - you nailed it for me.
And I mostly agree with Satori. Social friction is a big PART of the crucible that makes us who are.
But, I have one problem. I refrain from posting certain topics that are dear to me, simply because I know certain who disagree LOUDLY will "jump on them." I understand it is a public forum, and merely posting invites scrutiny, but isn't there room for "this thread is for those who agree with the premise and want to discuss it further."
I understand that some posters start a volatile subject simply for the purpose of enlightening and/or ugly debate. I love those too. At times, I am a "character vulture", so to speak.
My point - not every post is intended for debate and argument, but the authors' request for peace is often ignored.
Example - if i want to talk about a liberal political issue without it turning into Hatfields vs the McCoys, should I really have to go to another board?
Anyway, this lack of respect is mainly what has kept me away from this place. I don't have that kind of time. I like to post an idea or respond to an idea without having to commit to hours of standing up for myself, and explaining misconceptions that derail the whole point of my posting.
Is there some existing netiquette, maybe an icon or code that suggests "I do not want to fight," or "bring it on?"
BTW - requesting that dissenting opinions stay away, does not mean one is a coward. Just a different purpose.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
and you have been very missed sir guess
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hope R.
That's one of the reasons I faded away from the poetry forum I was posting on. Everyone was so durn nice - no one could say anything bad about anyone else's poems! Oh, once and a while there'd be a "that's a bit off meter in line 4 of the first stanza"... but no one ever said things like "you might want to change that, it makes no sense!" There just can't be that many good poets on one forum... nice people, mind you, but not good critics (perhaps that's why - they're too nice to be critical).
As far as forum brawls go... I've always thought they should be taken to emails or, now that we have the option, a private thread.
CW and Satori are right about fueling the fire. I noticed that at the old place, whenever there was a controversy or a disagreement, there were more hits on those threads than any of the others that were posted at a similar time.
I've made up my mind that if I have something to say to another poster that might cause a problem, I will email that person first. If I don't get a response, then I may post it if I feel it really needs to be addressed.
I'm glad this isn't TWI - we can disagree - but we can also "agree to disagree" like Garth and Ron. You should see them in the chat room... you can tell they'd get along if they were around each other in real life.
We will all disagree at one point or another - this IS a discussion forum and we ARE grown-ups. But when the discussion becomes insulting to a particular individual, or there is a lot of unnecessary name calling back and forth, it tends to get out of hand and a moderator should probably intervene.
Hope R. color>size>face>
P.S. It is also nice to know when we do agree with each other. That isn't necessarily creating a "warm fuzzies" atmosphere. If it's honest appreciation, then why not tell that person?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
AdiosMiCorazon
“while the "parent" hounds Pawtucket to enforce "something, anything, just give us law and order." Same person, parent and child. The "adult" is nowhere to be found.”
I see this differently. I think the person who runs to Pawtucket and hounds him to do something is very much a child, an annoying child. I see this happen with siblings. Two or more may be fighting and one of them will run to Maw or Paw to put an end to it because they were trying to watch tv or something and the noise is unbearable! We are all adults and should be able to settle our own matters. If I am tired of a topic or a certain poster. I ignore the whole thread entirely. There is one poster that I just can’t stand. Anytime he/she starts a thread, I stay out of it. I know that I disagree with everything he/she says and I just plain don’t like his/her point of view. That is just me though, and I do not expect others to follow suit. Live and let live.
“Is there some existing netiquette, maybe an icon or code that suggests "I do not want to fight," or "bring it on?"
Good idea Sirguessalot! I see CW has a sign that says what her mood is. Maybe we can attach a sign next to our handle…how about a “I am always right and if you disagree with me you are wrong”
Link to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
At GreaseSpot, we know each other through our words. Words can stir emotions more powerfully than a look, or a gesture, or even a touch. It sometimes affords an uncomfortable level of intimacy between people who are otherwise strangers to each other. But that friendship or intimacy is also illusory. It's similar to feeling a kinship with someone after reading her autobiography, or watching a made-for-tv movie. It's the reflection of ourselves we see in each other's stories that alternately evokes our resentment, or sympathy, depending on the skill of the storyteller coupled with our own life experience. So those "deep resentments" you mention come from within the person who feels the resentment. Same with the "sympathy."
During those times that I feel sucked into someone else's battle, I try to stay very clear on what is my own stake in the conflict. Otherwise, like you, I end up feeling used for someone else's purposes.
There. That's my feeble attempt to live up to my reputation for being "smart and insightful." How am I doing?
I'm curious whether you think there should be policies in place to determine which topics are up for debate and which aren't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
Thanks for your contributions.
I'm not sure I completely understand the distinction you're making between "fights" and "heated disagreements." When emotional intensity is present, I think there's an issue involved that's bigger than the person making the point. In the "he said/she said" scenario you mention, even a bid for attention makes a larger point ("I deserve more than what you're offering me"). I don't know that I would give more merit (or leeway) to an argument about global warming, than an argument about whose character flaws are the more striking. During a time of high emotionality, the topic itself is often irrelevant. Or at least it seems that way to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
AdiosMiCorazon
“At GreaseSpot, we know each other through our words” Yes and no. Some people here really know each other, either from TWI or from meeting outside of the Caf? Some like each other and some hate each other. They carry their vendetta onto Grease Spot and try to drag others into their fights. After months of posting, I finally figured that out. I would get all hot and bothered about a particular subject only to find out I was being baited and used as a pawn for someone else’s gain. I learned my lesson. That does not mean I have been hushed, I pick my battles a little more carefully and stay away from those carrying an axe.
As far as policies, I say use common sense. Other than that I really do not like to police adults. Someone may come in here and say, Adios, you are an idiot! Well, I can’t really change that and God knows I would probably blow up at them, but I can’t control that other person and or his or her keyboard.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
satori,
Yours is one of those posts I wish I could agree with wholeheartedly. In a way I do. I especially like your "audience participation rules." Nothing irks me more on those types of threads than the haughty "I'm above all this" posters, because simply by virtue of the fact that they are posting, they are clearly not above it. They've launched themselves into the middle of it, but made themselves untouchable by their (perceived) elevated status.
I've also been irked by pleas to Pawtucket. But beyond the email campaigns, I also don't like it when people use Pawtucket's rules (or lack of them) as a defense. For instance (speaking hypothetically), let's say one poster is driven mad by spelling errors. Because Pawtucket has no rules for suitable syntax and grammar, that's often used as an excuse for not making changes that might help the flow of dialogue. (Note: I couldn't care less how people spell their words, as long as I get the gist of what's being communicated.) So if the perfect speller tells the lousy speller to get a dictionary, the lousy speller hides behind Pawtucket's generosity, instead of facing the challenge. I think Pawtucket should be taken out of the equation entirely, unless he chooses to insert himself into the debate.
I agree that the less containment for these arguments the better. Too much containment only makes matters worse. Much worse. My only hesitation in the "let the fire burn" approach is some people really are very intimidated by these heated exchanges. Posters who you like, I like, we all like, no longer come here because they got tired of defending positions, rather than exploring issues. Where do they fit into the “let it burn” approach?
Sirguessalot: Do you have any suggestions to offer as a solution?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
I'm disappointed that the poetry forum didn't work out for you. I hope you've found another avenue (in "real" life, maybe?) to pursue your poetry.
I just finished editing a book of poems written by a friend of mine -- a parish nurse who self-published as a fund-raiser. I really hesitated to take on the project because, first of all, the poems were truly awful -- those sing-songy trite rhyming verse thingies that I have no patience to read, much less think about long enough to critique. But she's a friend who was very helpful to me this fall when I needed a shoulder to cry on, so I took on the project. I read them through, wrote her a note telling her what I thought was working in her "poetry," then warned her that that was the last compliment she would get from me. I have to hand it to her. She stuck with the process through many, many revisions and rewritings and got her feelings hurt on many occasions. Anyway, the book has been sent off to the publisher, much improved (if I say so myself). Plus I got fifty dollars for my hours and days and weeks and months of effort, so this stuff is really paying off for me.
I think you've got some great poems, too. I hope you start sending them out to publishers soon.
Regarding brawls, I'm still not convinced that the email/private forum route is the way to go. That almost suggests that reconciliation among the fighting parties is the only "right" outcome. Sometimes the insults and name-calling (as unpleasant as it may be to read) might be necessary to make a point. Or at least justified, considering how manipulative people can be.
At what point do you think a moderator should intervene? When someone first strikes a match? When people begin to get their feelings hurt? When the thread topic has been burned in the blaze?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hope R.
I didn't write the book!!! But I agree if people feel harassed by someone else or feel as if they're being attacked by a group of posters, or if there are unwelcome personal comments directed to a specific person on a thread, that's when intervention should be used. However the moderator feels that should be done is up to him. Sometimes the poster has been contacted and asked to delete the insults, other times it's been done for them. IMO, if it gets that ugly, I still think that settling it outside the forum is the best way to go.
Hope R. color>size>face>
P.S. Laleo - all my poems are rhyming poems! One of the reasons I liked that forum is because it was for rhymed and metered poems only - no free verse allowed! Most of us were laughed at by the "real" poetry world who told many of us we should go to work for Hallmark!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hope R.
Don't want to edit again...
Coolwaters, Garth, Rocky, Hillsbro and a few others can tell you what a forum is like with no rules and no moderation. It was called "Trancechat". For a while, it was the only exWay game in town.
I think you can still go to the site and read some of the threads - they get reaalllllly nasty and hateful at times.
There were also threads where perfectly good discussions would get de-railed by people's personal vendettas with each other.
I was THRILLED with Waydale after TC closed down. No more "Donnybrook" threads! It was organized and posters, anonymous or not, were accountable for their words. (on TC - I could log in as "laleo" if I wanted to and no one would know it. I could also choose to have NO log-in name - it was a mess!)
So - yeah - I like what Paw put on that page about basic common courtesy. I don't think I'd call anyone some of the names that I've seen people called on some of the threads if I were face to face with them. I try to hear myself talking aloud when I'm writing my posts for that reason.
Yada, yada, yada...
Hope R. color>size>face>
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sirguessalot
Laleo, I wish I did. In fact, I usually hesitate to point out problems without also offering a solution or two as well (habits of business etiquette, I suppose.)
As I'm not one to vote for more rules and policies, I guess my post was an attempt to appeal to the GSC masses from the point of view of one who appreciates this forum and the collective wisdom that hangs here, but has chosen to avoid it due to the massive energy wasted trying to engage in certain subjects.
To sum up my position, heerz a cheap shot at profundity, abeit with a narrow application:
In a world of lovers and fighters, the fighters win now, and the lovers win later.
I guess it's all a matter of how much time you think you have.
Re: writers forums and such - I can relate.
In that arena, I rarely show my work to anyone but paying editors and other pros with a bone to pick, paragon that I try to be. Last thing i need is a group of unpublished writers patting each other on the back for how wonderful their unpublished writing is.
Whip me, beat me, just publish my words and then pay me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
someone made a big impact on me and i went back to that old cafe to read (and now copy and paste) the posts by gingertea. i think there are 7. this is the first one; then i'm going to put the other ones here (editing a tiny bit on paragraph breaks )
#1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.