Polluting/spamming the forums

[Teri-K]

That's more or less what I understood from Jack's thread.

Condensed version: manners

I think he might have employed better manners in getting his message across if that the gist. The errant attacks he made on some people were uncalled for and wouldn’t be considered very polite in any setting. I’m not just talking about his comments about me, (being the only one singled out,) but the others as well.

Personally, I like Jack and enjoy it when he comes around to our session. When he does turn up there he always makes a point of telling me how great my posts are and how I should “keep em coming.” He gives me a thumbs-up and says, “good work” as he’s leaving. I’m confused now.

I didn’t view the comments as errant: unless the boundaries forbid someone’s honest opinion and feelings. In reading through most of the posts on the forums, I haven’t seen self-censorship in that regard. Eloquent? Possibly not, but the lack of some higher level of eloquence is also in abundance. Perhaps I view Jack’s post from the standpoint of knowing how he expresses himself – he doesn’t pull punches, or mince words. If he felt the need to say what he did, and has spoken with others that share the opinion, then I wouldn’t call his criticism or suggestions uncalled for. Jack and I have not had any discussion on this issue (before someone thinks I’m among those he’s spoken with). But, I have had conversations with a number of others, probably not among those he’s spoken with, that voice the same.

This exact subject comes up often. From my experience, I can safely say that this has been discussed publicly approximately every 6 months over the last 5 years. It has been approached in a very polite manner, a very charitable manner, a very hostile manner… you name it. Without exception, the same result ensues. The poster is told, in so many words, “don’t read it if you don’t like it”, “I’ll do whatever I like”, and has received as many creative ways of saying “bite me” as you can think of.

As long as more than 2 people converse there will be the “talkers” and then everyone else. The posting numbers here tend to show that. I’m not saying that’s good or bad, just a phenomenon of society. I reminds me of school when there was that handful of students whose hands shot up at every opportunity, waving madly, and grunting, “ooh, ooh, OOH, I know, I KNOW!” to get called on. Dale can explain that behavior, not I.

Some shrug it off, some find it irritating.

[jGilder]

You are confusing who the board is for, and how those who are part of the board should behave.

In Jack's opening statement he says:

• "There is alot of pollution and spam on the forums these days. No I'm not talking about actual spam but seemingly thoughtless meaningless posts. And I'm also talking about people who feel the need to start a new thread a few times a day and those that feel the need to assualt the rest of us with their religion and politics."

This statement presents a "them vs. us" stance and insults "them" and presumes there is a better behaving "us." Maybe you'd feel differently. Bloomfield, if you were singled out and criticized for something so that you could be one of "them." I guess the board isn't for "them" now because Jack has determined what the people who are "us" should be like.

Maybe I should start a thread and say:

• "There is alot of pollution and spam on the forums these days. No I'm not talking about actual spam but seemingly thoughtless meaningless posts. And I'm also talking about people who feel the need to lecture the rest of us about how we should behave.
  
  3. Jack Murphy - you know I love you man but jaysus. I read your posts and I'm pretty tired of how you feel a need to criticize everyone about what they're posting and how they're spending their time. Maybe you should spend more time practicing and learn more than three tunes. And even though I like you to contribute, (not the way you do) I would prefer if you did it a lot less; with less comments and less threads. Now that doesn't mean when someone says something stupid you can't tell them they should shut up and practice... just don't go out of your way to start a bunch of new opportunities to lecture them. You'll find that there are many other interesting things on the forums to talk about besides how people are behaving and whether you approve of it or not (like politics or religion)."

Now just imagine what kind of reaction I'd get if I posted something like that.

About Jack complaining that his personal expectations aren't met: What else should one complain about? We are all here with expectations and it is perfectly permissible and wholesome to discuss them.

But is it permissible to do it by insulting and alienating other people in the process? I have no problem defending myself and my contributions here, but I notice that a couple of others are remaining quiet even though Jack alluded to their posts. This is really healthy I suppose -- right?

I have my own issues with some of the postings here, but I'm not going to be as impolite as Jack -- I'll keep them to myself or discuss it in PM -- where things like that belong.

[Bloomfield]

Sorry you feel insulted & alienated, jGilder. I think you are reading more into Murphy's post than he put into it, particularly that us vs. them thing.

I do feel that you are leaving a mark on the 'pub with the frequency and type of your posts, and while I don't think Murphy is particularly diplomatic in addressing the issue, I think it's a fair topic for discussion here (just like comercial posts), and not just something that needs to go into PMs.

And while you are of course welcome to read Murphy's posts however you like, perhaps you can also take some comfort from the fact that to me at least it didn't seem like he was slamming you.

[s1m0n]

Sorry you feel insulted & alienated, jGilder. I think you are reading more into Murphy's post than he put into it, particularly that us vs. them thing.

I don't. Sometimes Jack overreacts, but Murphy's post was pretty snotty, in my opinion.

~~

Whenever anyone starts a post (or a conversation) with "I probably shouldn't be saying this, but.." they are invariably correct.

When you see this done, you can conclude three things:

1. The poster is trying to start a fight.
2. The poster knows he's behaving badly in doing so.
3. The poster wants to do 1. and 2. while pretending to be a nice guy.

The correct response to this sort of passive-aggression is a hearty "(bleep) you!"--a short sharp does of active aggression.

[jGilder]

I didn’t view the comments as errant: unless the boundaries forbid someone’s honest opinion and feelings. In reading through most of the posts on the forums, I haven’t seen self-censorship in that regard. Eloquent? Possibly not, but the lack of some higher level of eloquence is also in abundance. Perhaps I view Jack’s post from the standpoint of knowing how he expresses himself – he doesn’t pull punches, or mince words. If he felt the need to say what he did, and has spoken with others that share the opinion, then I wouldn’t call his criticism or suggestions uncalled for. Jack and I have not had any discussion on this issue (before someone thinks I’m among those he’s spoken with). But, I have had conversations with a number of others, probably not among those he’s spoken with, that voice the same.

You obviously have a relationship with Murphy in this forum as noted by his comments about you, but I also received comments. I'm fascinated how Murphy could post something so acerbic and rude and find anyone defending him. If I posted that same thread I'd be tarred and feathered and chased off the board.

I can see that Murphy has friends in here, and that's great, but go back and review the initial post again as if he wasn't your offspring. Try to imagine him singling you out or your posting habits or insulting your contributions. Try thinking about the unnamed whose feelings might be hurt by what he said -- then commence with his defense.

We all have preferences for what would be ideal in a message board, but if we were compelled to express it public ally I would think it would be done a little more thoughtfully and politely.

[Nanohedron]

That's more or less what I understood from Jack's thread.

Condensed version: manners

I think he might have employed better manners in getting his message across if that the gist. The errant attacks he made on some people were uncalled for and wouldn’t be considered very polite in any setting. I’m not just talking about his comments about me, (being the only one singled out,) but the others as well.

Personally, I like Jack and enjoy it when he comes around to our session. When he does turn up there he always makes a point of telling me how great my posts are and how I should “keep em coming.” He gives me a thumbs-up and says, “good work” as he’s leaving. I’m confused now.

I didn’t view the comments as errant: unless the boundaries forbid someone’s honest opinion and feelings. In reading through most of the posts on the forums, I haven’t seen self-censorship in that regard. Eloquent? Possibly not, but the lack of some higher level of eloquence is also in abundance. Perhaps I view Jack’s post from the standpoint of knowing how he expresses himself – he doesn’t pull punches, or mince words. If he felt the need to say what he did, and has spoken with others that share the opinion, then I wouldn’t call his criticism or suggestions uncalled for. Jack and I have not had any discussion on this issue (before someone thinks I’m among those he’s spoken with). But, I have had conversations with a number of others, probably not among those he’s spoken with, that voice the same.

This exact subject comes up often. From my experience, I can safely say that this has been discussed publicly approximately every 6 months over the last 5 years. It has been approached in a very polite manner, a very charitable manner, a very hostile manner… you name it. Without exception, the same result ensues. The poster is told, in so many words, “don’t read it if you don’t like it”, “I’ll do whatever I like”, and has received as many creative ways of saying “bite me” as you can think of.

As long as more than 2 people converse there will be the “talkers” and then everyone else. The posting numbers here tend to show that. I’m not saying that’s good or bad, just a phenomenon of society. I reminds me of school when there was that handful of students whose hands shot up at every opportunity, waving madly, and grunting, “ooh, ooh, OOH, I know, I KNOW!” to get called on. Dale can explain that behavior, not I.

Some shrug it off, some find it irritating.

Could someone point out to me what constitutes "manners" in the Pub? If I start a thread here, for example, I expect it will eventually come to an end, and I certainly hope that others will contribute humorously even if it constitutes thread drift, which is usually an indicator of the thread's impending cessation, anyway. It doesn't irritate me at all. I see that sort of thing as completely normal in human interaction whether face-to-face or here, online. Then again, I'm not a computer programmer or the like, so maybe I'm utterly clueless about accepted internet protocol. Is that what's being talked about here?

[anniemcu]

When I go into a pub, a coffe shop, a church or a restaurant, and join a conversation or sit at a table with acquaintences, new or old, I either enjoy listening to the conversation, contribute where I feel I have something to add, serious or not, or I move on to another conversation, another table, or a different place. If I find that after repeated visits I don't find acceptable or fulfilling discourse, I don't go back.

This is much like that. If I have no interest in a thread, I simply don't enter it. If I have something I feel is pertinent or important, I say it, and if I am feeling playful I may just stick a quick jibe or joke in. If you feel I've offended you, I expect you to tell me so, privately if necessary. If you have offended me, I will offer you the same courtesy.

I *am* responsible for what I say, in person or online.
I do not care for anyone else deciding where and when, or whether, I get to open my mouth... even if it is just to put my foot in.

Conversation is a live process... sometimes it is constructive, sometimes even destructive, but it is only viable if it is free to move. If someone expresses a wish to have a thread stay exactly on topic, and some topics are clearly so, I try to abide by that. If not, I don't put excess effort into it. If something in the topic or a reply triggers an offshoot, so be it... Particularly in the Pub.

[lyrick]

I don't think I've ever posted in the Pub, but when I saw a thread started by MurphyStout this morning that had 8 pages (going on 9) by late afternoon, I couldn't resist.

I sympathize with everything Jack said. Not that anyone should have the power to limit people's posts to only intelligent ones, or make people actually play an instrument, or make them listen to good traditional music. Or that the people whose thousand posts have about 10 music-related ones aren't good people. He's not saying that, I think he's just venting about how C&F has changed, and suggesting that people look in the mirror. But Jack, it's just the Pub that's like this, and it was the reason the Pub was created, so that people could choose.

Yeah, it's weird that on a site called Chiff & Fipple that started as a whistle site, the most popular forum is full of stuff having nothing to do with music, but it was even weirder when all that stuff was on the Whistle Forum. I think it's a huge improvement that the riff-raff and undesirables hang out here instead of the Whistle Forum like they used to (just kidding, most of you seem like decent people, and I'm glad you've got a place like this that keeps you off the streets).

I'm one of those shy posters who spends time every day playing my whistles and listening to good recordings of traditionally played Irish music. I don't post much because I'm still a beginner on whistle (less than 2 years) and don't think I have much to add. My favorite whistles and my favorite CD's were recommended by a few long-time posters who seem grumpy and opinionated at times and who get raked over the coals by some of the newcomers when they make critical comments about a beginner's whistle playing. But they've also been very helpful to me when I've asked intelligent questions.

If there are any newcomers here who want to learn something about a totally cool type of music, I've found that If you can look past the seeming grumpiness of certain C&F'ers, you can learn a lot about Irish traditional music from them. That's why I come here, not to learn manners or how to be super polite or communications skills. I can go other places for that.

Anyways, I'm very, very grateful that Peter, Jack, Bloomfield, the Montreal cartel and a few others keep posting on the Whistle, Flute, and ITM Forums, I've learned a lot from all of you. Please keep posting, there are people like me out here who don't contribute much but who are paying attention, and don't mind when you get a little cantankerous.

[jGilder]

I do feel that you are leaving a mark on the 'pub with the frequency and type of your posts, and while I don't think Murphy is particularly diplomatic in addressing the issue, I think it's a fair topic for discussion here (just like comercial posts), and not just something that needs to go into PMs.

I'm certainly not the only one posting political topics; there are others as well so why am I singled out? When I'm not practicing or playing gigs etc., I’m thinking a lot about politics. This is who I am and my posts would naturally reflect that. Other people's interests outside of music are reflected in their posts -- why not mine? I contribute on other people's political threads as well as some of the fun threads or whatever they happen to be. I've even contributed to some of yours if I recall, Bloomfield. The bottom line is that if you're going to take issue with me for contributing to political threads or starting them -- you should include everyone else as well to be fair. And it's not even the liberal leanings of my posts that are unique because there are others of like mind who are just as prolific. What makes mine so special for you that you think it’s a “fair topic for discussion”?

[anniemcu]

I have talked with one person who does now wonder if they were one of the intended targets of the original post. Very uncomfortable, and, IMHO, not justified, but this sort of attack does leave people feeling nervous... not a good feeling for folks on a friendly board.

[Teri-K]

You obviously have a relationship with Murphy in this forum as noted by his comments about you, but I also received comments. I'm fascinated how Murphy could post something so acerbic and rude and find anyone defending him. If I posted that same thread I'd be tarred and feathered and chased off the board.

I can see that Murphy has friends in here, and that's great, but go back and review the initial post again as if he wasn't your offspring. Try to imagine him singling you out or your posting habits or insulting your contributions. Try thinking about the unnamed whose feelings might be hurt by what he said -- then commence with his defense.

We all have preferences for what would be ideal in a message board, but if we were compelled to express it public ally I would think it would be done a little more thoughtfully and politely.

I can’t say why Jack mentioned me in his post, other than we’ve both been around the forum for a number of years and that I left for about a year and one half. Four to five years ago the membership was probably in the 3-digit range, so the poster numbers were even smaller. That affords everyone the environment to know each other a bit better, regardless of actually having one-to-one interaction. The private conversations I’ve had with Jack can be counted on one hand, actually. Your reference to some sort of maternal feelings is so incorrect that I can only imagine they must be coming from your need to lash out. By your statement, I can tell you that you obviously do not know me.

In reference to imagining how it would feel if… please re-read page 5 of this thread. I did consider myself as one of the posters he described…and then commenced with my view of his thread.

[Bloomfield]

I didn’t view the comments as errant: unless the boundaries forbid someone’s honest opinion and feelings. In reading through most of the posts on the forums, I haven’t seen self-censorship in that regard. Eloquent? Possibly not, but the lack of some higher level of eloquence is also in abundance. Perhaps I view Jack’s post from the standpoint of knowing how he expresses himself – he doesn’t pull punches, or mince words. If he felt the need to say what he did, and has spoken with others that share the opinion, then I wouldn’t call his criticism or suggestions uncalled for. Jack and I have not had any discussion on this issue (before someone thinks I’m among those he’s spoken with). But, I have had conversations with a number of others, probably not among those he’s spoken with, that voice the same.

You obviously have a relationship with Murphy in this forum as noted by his comments about you, but I also received comments. I'm fascinated how Murphy could post something so acerbic and rude and find anyone defending him. If I posted that same thread I'd be tarred and feathered and chased off the board.

I think you have posted stuff as acerbic and rude, and you haven't been tarred & feathered and chased off the board.

I can see that Murphy has friends in here, and that's great, but go back and review the initial post again as if he wasn't your offspring. Try to imagine him singling you out or your posting habits or insulting your contributions. Try thinking about the unnamed whose feelings might be hurt by what he said -- then commence with his defense.

We all have preferences for what would be ideal in a message board, but if we were compelled to express it public ally I would think it would be done a little more thoughtfully and politely.

I agree that Murphy should be more polite; thoughtful, too, if you mean "considerate." As for being singled out and insulted, well, I've been there. I remember once someone called my posts unfunny. I thought I would die, and it took me days before I dared show my face on the board again. If I hadn't later discovered that the guy who said that was (a) stark raving mad, (b) a Communist, (c) a neo-Conservative hatemonger, (d) an ABBA fan, and (e) drunk when he posted, I think I would have ended it all. Let's just say: it was a dark hour.

[Nanohedron]

Bloomfield, I am categorically NOT an ABBA fan. How could you?

[Bloomfield]

I do feel that you are leaving a mark on the 'pub with the frequency and type of your posts, and while I don't think Murphy is particularly diplomatic in addressing the issue, I think it's a fair topic for discussion here (just like comercial posts), and not just something that needs to go into PMs.

I'm certainly not the only one posting political topics; there are others as well so why am I singled out? When I'm not practicing or playing gigs etc., I’m thinking a lot about politics. This is who I am and my posts would naturally reflect that. Other people's interests outside of music are reflected in their posts -- why not mine? I contribute on other people's political threads as well as some of the fun threads or whatever they happen to be. I've even contributed to some of yours if I recall, Bloomfield. The bottom line is that if you're going to take issue with me for contributing to political threads or starting them -- you should include everyone else as well to be fair. And it's not even the liberal leanings of my posts that are unique because there are others of like mind who are just as prolific. What makes mine so special for you that you think it’s a “fair topic for discussion”?

I am not singling you out: I am explaining why it doesn't seem mean or strange to me that Murphy singled you out. I completely agree that everyone else should be included. You might as well ask if we haven't had enought MiniCoopers already. And just to make that clear: I haven't expressed a view of your posts one way or another. BTW, there was a time when practically every other post on the chiffboard was by Bloomfield. (A bit like Cran, really, only funnier.)

[dubhlinn]

... BTW, there was a time when practically every other post on the chiffboard was by Bloomfield. (A bit like Cran, really, only funnier.)

That's Wicked and Cruel.

Slan,
D.