Tolerance

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by socaldmax

Using one's real name has no correlation to civility for most people. Using one's real name has no correlation to civility for most people.

I appreciate what you're saying socaldmax (who ever you really are ), but one of the things I try fairly hard to do is not make unfounded assertions. As I've said before, we don't have to speculate about stuff like this. There is ample evidence based on actual research. One of the more foundational papers is called The online disinhibition effect. But there have been many more.

There is a very clear correlation between online civility and the use of actual names. It's not the the only solution or approach that works, but it has clearly been shown to produce measurable improvements.

BTW, there are also measurable downsides to demanding actual identities. As with all things in life, it's a tradeoff.

[Andrew Troup]

One form of intolerance which flares up here from time to time has done so again recently.

I'm talking about a small minority within the forum's population of strongly opinionated 'crusaders', a subset whose innate disrespect reflex, notably "everyone who doesn't think like me is an idiot", habitually boils over.

The key behaviour is joining a certain type of discussion in order to belittle it and hose it down. By belittle, I'm talking about starting from a strong value judgement that "This is not a thing worth doing" or "this is not a thing worth discussing", in a case where a fairer judgment would be "this is not a thing which appeals to me".

An early warning sign is when opinions are delivered in the packaging normally reserved for facts.

This almost invariably morphs into ad hominem attacks, where people rather than ideas are belittled, and this quickly degenerates further to mischaracterisation of statements and agendas, belligerence and posturing on both sides.

In the recent cases I'm thinking about, the belittled "things" have had a common thread: they have involved self-reliant, grass-roots alternatives to a (some would say, 'prevailing') consumption-based, cheque-book oriented, "leave everything to the experts", "modernity is the one true faith" mindset.

But other people here may have other issues of interest to them, which may get hosed down by one or more crusaders, in a similarly intolerant way.

- - - -

I have two suggestions:

1) If you encounter such a crusader, please consider the excellent "Ignore" function.

You may resist using this, perhaps because this person is worth reading on other topics. A quick way to read particular posts on non-hot-button topics without taking that person back off "Ignore" : it's called "View Post".
It's a small text string concealed (at least, that's my not very convincing excuse for having only just discovered it !) on the right hand side within the green stripe across the top of an ignored post.

If you think other people may be ignoring a habitual "crusader", please try not to quote the crusader hosing you down, for their sake.

Please think instead about factors like oxygen, toxicity, and the greater good, and consider action 2)

Attention and conflict seem to act like oxygen for crusaders.

I've belonged to two very fine forums which collapsed completely, in one case due entirely to one person, and in the other to a lone pair of mutual antagonists. Their crusades started modestly, but received lots of oxygen.

If you resist using "Ignore" because it gives that person a licence to belittle you behind your back, I think you'll find that other concerned people would report this to the mods. I would encourage them to do so.

2) If a crusader is attacking you, rather than your ideas, I reckon that's what the mods are for. It can quickly get toxic when the antagonists try to sort it out in the public arena.

A PM to one of the mods (in my experience) is generally effective and welcomed by them: the earlier they hear, the less work it is for them.

The moderation policies on this forum are the best I've struck, and if they don't work in a particular case, I venture to suggest it's more likely to be our fault than the fault of the policies, or of the moderator(s) concerned.

- - - -

PLEASE NOTE: It's not my intention to berate those whose crusades involve being against something which affects them adversely, either directly, or by changing the shape or prospects of society, now or in the future. Crusade away, muchachos!

However even in these cases, I don't think it's OK to personalise the argument or to infer agendas: I would hope it's possible to stick to attacking the ideas.

[socaldmax]

Originally Posted by atoll

thank you for your very eloquent and well thought out post.

and yes i did treat the one post member horrendously,but only because he was a media hack,aimed at fabricating a malicious story to discredit another member,who is currently in the focus of the worlds media.

and i will do the same thing again,any time i see unfair attention against a member who cannot defend themselves.

While I still have a lot of respect for your knowledge and your offer to salvage the RH, I really did not see Charlie Weber as being a troll at all. A troll joins a website for the express purpose of riling up the natives with inflammatory posts (usually over the top nonsense) and doesn't engage others in thoughtful replies.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim that he's a hack? Any links to previous hack jobs? I have no doubt you feel it's true, I just didn't smell the same thing you smelled and I'm asking for help in sniffing it out.

He had actually read RH's and Charlotte's blogs (much more than I had) and was using those, in addition to the media released video to form some fairly well thought out opinions of what had happened. It honestly looked to me that since he was openly critical of someone you care strongly for, you attacked with an extremely intolerant war cry of "troll" and in fact a number of other members took up that chant.

I've seen this happen on other websites, and I call it "the lynch mob." The guy who got lynched looks like he doesn't post here any more. Nobody wanted to agree with him because human nature is to not get involved, especially not on the noose end of a rope. In total honesty, I came to a lot of the same conclusions that he did, independently, but in order to stay out of it, I said nothing.

As reasoned as his posts were, he could have been another valuable sailing asset to this site. I went and looked at his profile and saw nothing inflammatory there, despite what you posted. He had a short blurb about his sailing background, it jibed with what he posted. He also freely admitted to being a journalist. That doesn't automatically make him an enemy.

I dunno. I realize you're close with Eric and Charlotte. I'm not, haven't been here that long to really know anyone, and I don't feel I know anyone unless I've met them in person. Even then, I've been severely mislead. I think your strong emotions for them clouded your view of anything said in regards to them, even if it wasn't that critical. I'm not so subjective. Good/bad decisions, good/bad behavior, my opinion of events, all are objective. My determination of the success of the voyage is based on the outcome. It's a wide spectrum. At one end - complete success, the other end - a total pooch screw. Who they are or how close we are as friends doesn't change any of the facts.

[atoll]

Originally Posted by socaldmax

While I still have a lot of respect for your knowledge and your offer to salvage the RH, I really did not see Charlie Weber as being a troll at all. A troll joins a website for the express purpose of riling up the natives with inflammatory posts (usually over the top nonsense) and doesn't engage others in thoughtful replies.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim that he's a hack? Any links to previous hack jobs? I have no doubt you feel it's true, I just didn't smell the same thing you smelled and I'm asking for help in sniffing it out.

He had actually read RH's and Charlotte's blogs (much more than I had) and was using those, in addition to the media released video to form some fairly well thought out opinions of what had happened. It honestly looked to me that since he was openly critical of someone you care strongly for, you attacked with an extremely intolerant war cry of "troll" and in fact a number of other members took up that chant.

I've seen this happen on other websites, and I call it "the lynch mob." The guy who got lynched looks like he doesn't post here any more. Nobody wanted to agree with him because human nature is to not get involved, especially not on the noose end of a rope. In total honesty, I came to a lot of the same conclusions that he did, independently, but in order to stay out of it, I said nothing.

As reasoned as his posts were, he could have been another valuable sailing asset to this site. I went and looked at his profile and saw nothing inflammatory there, despite what you posted. He had a short blurb about his sailing background, it jibed with what he posted. He also freely admitted to being a journalist. That doesn't automatically make him an enemy.

I dunno. I realize you're close with Eric and Charlotte. I'm not, haven't been here that long to really know anyone, and I don't feel I know anyone unless I've met them in person. Even then, I've been severely mislead. I think your strong emotions for them clouded your view of anything said in regards to them, even if it wasn't that critical. I'm not so subjective. Good/bad decisions, good/bad behavior, my opinion of events, all are objective. My determination of the success of the voyage is based on the outcome. It's a wide spectrum. At one end - complete success, the other end - a total pooch screw. Who they are or how close we are as friends doesn't change any of the facts.

thank you i think i explained my actions quite well here. if you care to check,and the mods agreed with my take on it.
Forum Member's Boat and Daughter in Trouble off of Mexico - Page 95 - Cruisers & Sailing Forums

[BandB]

Originally Posted by socaldmax

He had actually read RH's and Charlotte's blogs (much more than I had) and was using those, in addition to the media released video to form some fairly well thought out opinions of what had happened. It honestly looked to me that since he was openly critical of someone you care strongly for, you attacked with an extremely intolerant war cry of "troll" and in fact a number of other members took up that chant.

I've seen this happen on other websites, and I call it "the lynch mob." The guy who got lynched looks like he doesn't post here any more. Nobody wanted to agree with him because human nature is to not get involved, especially not on the noose end of a rope. In total honesty, I came to a lot of the same conclusions that he did, independently, but in order to stay out of it, I said nothing.

As reasoned as his posts were, he could have been another valuable sailing asset to this site. I went and looked at his profile and saw nothing inflammatory there, despite what you posted. He had a short blurb about his sailing background, it jibed with what he posted. He also freely admitted to being a journalist. That doesn't automatically make him an enemy.

I dunno. I realize you're close with Eric and Charlotte. I'm not, haven't been here that long to really know anyone, and I don't feel I know anyone unless I've met them in person. Even then, I've been severely mislead. I think your strong emotions for them clouded your view of anything said in regards to them, even if it wasn't that critical. I'm not so subjective. Good/bad decisions, good/bad behavior, my opinion of events, all are objective. My determination of the success of the voyage is based on the outcome. It's a wide spectrum. At one end - complete success, the other end - a total pooch screw. Who they are or how close we are as friends doesn't change any of the facts.

I'd ask this question. Was that the time and place? I was disappointed that a thread started over their crisis and concern over their child became anything other than following their situation plus learning their daughter was in better condition and being taken for further medical care.

I had a problem with those on both sides who chose to turn that thread into a debate of lifestyles or a debate of their preparation or the wisdom of their cruise. I think there is a discussion for some time and there are probably lessons to be learned. It just seemed to me that the only immediate issue should have been their safety and health.

I don't see it as unreasonable to either support all their actions and their experience or to criticize certain parts of the preparation and decisions. It's just that when there are real serious human issues, getting into discussions where multiple sides are trying to argue and prove their cases is somewhat inappropriate. I certainly have opinions on the subject but did not for one moment think of posting them at that time. There was only one thing on my mind, my hopes for the health of their child.

I see people sometimes so determined to press agendas that they seem to lose sight of the issue being discussed.

[socaldmax]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I appreciate what you're saying socaldmax (who ever you really are ), but one of the things I try fairly hard to do is not make unfounded assertions. As I've said before, we don't have to speculate about stuff like this. There is ample evidence based on actual research. One of the more foundational papers is called The online disinhibition effect. But there have been many more.

There is a very clear correlation between online civility and the use of actual names. It's not the the only solution or approach that works, but it has clearly been shown to produce measurable improvements.

BTW, there are also measurable downsides to demanding actual identities. As with all things in life, it's a tradeoff.

Okay Mike, (I'm Steve, BTW) - I went and read that study.

It doesn't really support using real names on websites to cut down on rude behavior. It says there are SOME people who exhibit online disinhibition, not a majority, or any specific percentage.

They list 6 different reasons for this disinhibition, only one of which is dissociative anonymity, the only one dealing with using an online persona. The author is very careful not to associate any numbers to any of the 6 possible causes.

In summary, I do feel they mention it as one out of 6 possible causes, but they don't say how many people are disinhibited and they make no mention of how many of that percentage act rudely, and how many of them would not act rudely if forced to use their real names.

I do think that a very small % of people would change their writing style if forced to use their real name. I think a much larger % are either polite or rude just because that's who they are, or how the website is run.

How do you explain the overwhelming majority of polite posters on here who use board names? What about those who post politely here, yet fit right in on SA under the same board name?

[socaldmax]

Originally Posted by BandB

I use to talk to businessmen about their corporate culture and they would say they didn't have one. I'd explain that they definitely had one, even if they hadn't defined it. Every group has a culture, an environment that has been created. It's also not just based on the rules posted on a rules page, but based on the actual behavior of the site and how the members and moderators control it.

It's a dilemma for forum operators. Their income is dependent on hits and clicks, on visitors to their pages, not directly on quality of posts. Now the quality of posts and behavior may influence the activity. If they are not diligent enough in controlling behavior they can lose members. However, if they're too diligent they can as well. But their income in the large part is not influenced by the "quality" of their members or even the demographics. A very active thread, even if it's deteriorated, can get clicks.

On a large international site there's even the fact that the various moderators may interpret things differently and respond in different ways. This isn't criticism, just a comment on how things naturally are. Then there are the cultures from which the members come, influenced by nationality, type of lifestyle, previous professions, and every other imaginable factor. But that can lead to different styles of posting and different feelings of what is opinion versus fact, what is discussion versus personal attack.

I agree completely! (That's pretty rare!) LOL

[Andrew Troup]

Steve, socaldmax:

I don't think it needs to be a majority; it seems to me that even a small minority of disinhibited people behaving badly has a disproportionately toxic effect on an online community, if they let it.

[Doodles]

Originally Posted by BandB

I'd ask this question. Was that the time and place? I was disappointed that a thread started over their crisis and concern over their child became anything other than following their situation plus learning their daughter was in better condition and being taken for further medical care.

I had a problem with those on both sides who chose to turn that thread into a debate of lifestyles or a debate of their preparation or the wisdom of their cruise. I think there is a discussion for some time and there are probably lessons to be learned. It just seemed to me that the only immediate issue should have been their safety and health.

I don't see it as unreasonable to either support all their actions and their experience or to criticize certain parts of the preparation and decisions. It's just that when there are real serious human issues, getting into discussions where multiple sides are trying to argue and prove their cases is somewhat inappropriate. I certainly have opinions on the subject but did not for one moment think of posting them at that time. There was only one thing on my mind, my hopes for the health of their child.

I see people sometimes so determined to press agendas that they seem to lose sight of the issue being discussed.

I don't know, it's an open internet forum and that's what they do .. discuss, critique, etc. ad nauseam. Did you expect people to just chime in a say "I support them" and just leave it at that?

[MarkJ]

Originally Posted by BandB

I had a problem with those on both sides who chose to turn that thread into a debate of lifestyles or a debate of their preparation or the wisdom of their cruise. I think there is a discussion for some time and there are probably lessons to be learned. It just seemed to me that the only immediate issue should have been their safety and health.

But the forum has been running a lot longer than the 4 or 5 months you have been a part of it. Its a bit unreal to think you can lob in and change the way lots of other forum members think or what they write.

This forum is a total waste of space if we can not discuss safety issues.

A waste of time and space.

Mark

[Neo]

Even if the overall level of intolerance has not increased in my lifetime (although it seems to me that it has), that doesn't mean it's at an acceptable level. There are more of us every day, the world is getting smaller, maybe it would be best for everyone if we all increased our levels of tolerance.

Have we really given up on the future of mankind? Do most people think that this is as good as it gets? That the forces of nature and human instinct have sealed our fate? It seems so me that many feel that way.

We are unique creatures in that we really do get to decide, as individuals and as a society, what life should be. No other creature has that ability. Communism? What a really great idea. Too bad it didn't work, at least not yet. The definition of marriage? We get to decide. Instant replay in baseball? Who would have thunk? (I wish more people had hope for a better future or at least a different future.)

Tolerance has improved my life immeasurably. Road rage is not fun and it is not the secret to a long satisfying life. However, I don't think tolerance is the key word, there are many actions and maybe even a few ideas that I will not tolerate. I believe that it is compassion that is in short supply.

When we judge someone, and we have to judge each other every day, we should do it with a healthy dose of compassion. There but for the grace of god, go I. One chromosome short, one dollar short, one nautical mile short and my life would be completely different. I hope I will be judged with compassion.

[Andrew Troup]

Originally Posted by socaldmax

....
I do think that a very small % of people would change their writing style if forced to use their real name. ...

How do you explain the overwhelming majority of polite posters on here who use board names? ....

Forgive me if you do not consider the two sentences above to be logically linked.

Neither do I

(I seem to recall the technical term for the fallacy of connecting them is "Denying the Antecedent" which IIRC applies to any argument of the form: If A then B, Not A, thus Not B )

[BandB]

Originally Posted by MarkJ

But the forum has been running a lot longer than the 4 or 5 months you have been a part of it. Its a bit unreal to think you can lob in and change the way lots of other forum members think or what they write.

This forum is a total waste of space if we can not discuss safety issues.

A waste of time and space.

Mark

I didn't think about jumping in and changing anything because I'd never seen a forum response to a member's family being in danger before.

As to discussing safety issues, I very much think that's appropriate and never said otherwise. I simply was referring to the immediate situation. If I had a friend whose child was having a serious health issue, I would never take that time to start debating whether they had done good or bad parenting or judging them either positively or negatively in other ways. I'm just always found people to rally together in such situation and all other issues out the window. Political opponents forget their differences in those situations even.

As to my length of time here, does that mean to you I'm not entitled to an opinion or that mine doesn't count as much as someone who has been here longer?

[goboatingnow]

I several posters are overly defining intolerance. To me the debate is about issues. Once the debate remains focused on the issues I view it as simple debate.

However once it descends into personal attack , then it becomes intolerance.

Yes there are posters that engage in my opinion in long winded pomposity, or merely engage in intellectual debate without any real purpose. Equally there are those that appear, fire a few questions and leave.

But personally. I never use the " ignore" feature. But I do report adhominen attacks. To use the ignore feature in my opinion is like walking into a room with a megaphone, saying your piece and leaving. It's just like wanting to listen to your own voice.

Tolerance does not require you to sublimate your views, nor conform to any " herd" mentality, I don't agree with the tendency to persecute people who present opposing views in threads that have a majority view. Yet often these posters are hounded.

Robust, argumentative debate is a healthy sign, some people don't like their ideas challenged , you can see that, particularly when the challenges expose logic or fact errors. Personally, I like to tease out arguments, to understand why someone thinks the way they do.

So let's not define intolerance as just against what we don't like to hear, in fact tolerance is the forbearance to allow such views, even if you find them distasteful. But as always, no decent into personal attacks. That's the way forums get destroyed.

I moderated another sailing forum for a smaller group, we know the posters by real name. It doesn't stop the a%#eholes being a&€eholes at all. I fail to see how a difference of a moniker of Mick Jones and say MickyJ or whatever makes any difference.

Good robust, argumentative debate makes great forums

Dave


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Cuttyhunk]

Originally Posted by socaldmax

Unfortunately, due to databases on the net, if someone really wanted to, they could find out virtually everything about you and any relatives in a matter of 10 minutes or so. Right now, data mining companies are selling and reselling every little bit of information they've gathered about you, including highly personal medical info, products you've searched for and/or bought and shopping habits.



We're all in these huge databases, and the amount of info gathered is staggering. There's no use wiping your browser history, it's all being collected at the other end as well.

While that is quite true, I don't feel that I should make it even easier. I am more interested in keeping stalkers away than in gnashing my teeth at what Equifax and the NSA have collected. This is a concern most men I encounter don't seem to get. I believe that is because they aren't worried about being bothered by men just because of being a woman. I don't go into bars alone and I don't use my full name on CF.