Article on internet forum behaviour

[MrMockle]

All,

 

An important article that I think we should all read and reflect on. I list it with no malice or target in mind but as a means to improve things for all.

 

http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2800179.ece

 

Regards,

Mr Mockle

[Joe]

Bravo!

 

 

"...It's supposed to be a place for those who have nowhere else to go, but at one stage the running arguments got so bad that the moderator ended up banning one antagonist, and then banning himself."

 

 

 

" title="Applause" />

 

 

Look at this site as well, linked from Mr. M's excellent find:

 

http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article2802586.ece

 

 

ciaociao

[JGalanos]

If the internet is about anything at all, it's about having your say. Unimpeded, we can offload our thoughts, our desires and our recipes for coronation chicken for the delight or gastronomic fulfilment of others. Tragically, however, not everyone will agree with the ingredients of your chicken concoction, and they'll be only too happy to tell you where you can stick your corn-fed skinless thighs.

 

Nice article ... Loved the first paragraph! Thanks fur sharing. 8)

[Worker 11811]

The article is good... very good... but is misses one important factor.

 

People, in all facets of life, tend to overvalue themselves and undervalue others. This leads, inevitably, to escalation.

 

There was a test done at some big university. I forget which one. Probably Cal Tech or MIT or some place like that. In the study, the researchers devised a computerized machine that allowed a person to give him or herself an electric shock or to another person.

 

Each test was performed twice. First a person adjusted the machine to shock HIMSELF until he reached the threshold of pain tolerance. This value was measured and recorded. Then he was told to adjust the machine so that it would shock ANOTHER person to his or her threshold of pain.

 

Series after series of tests were performed and the average voltage of all the shocks administered was calculated.

 

The final results were that, when a person had to shock themselves, they adjusted the voltage 20% lower than average but when they shocked another person, the voltage was 20 % HIGHER.

 

So, basically, the study says that people have a natural bias TOWARD themselves and AGAINST almost everybody else.

 

This is what I think is happening here. Posters overvalue the things they say and UNDERvalue that posted by others.

 

It goes like this:

 

Person 'A' makes a statement. Person 'B' says, "I think that's stupid."

Person 'A' replies to the effect, "What do you mean by THAT?! YOU're the stupid one!" Person 'B' replies and escalates the fight one more level.

 

If you take the study I mentioned into consideration, you could probably surmise that each round of posting escalates the fight by 20% each time. By the time we have three or four rounds of posts, the whole topic has broken down into nothing but a flame war.

 

Now, add to this, the concept that Mr. M. introduced, the fact that anonymity and remoteness allows people to act in a way they normally wouldn't in person... You've got DYNAMITE!!

 

Add one final idea to the mix. This is something that I've mentioned before and haven't heard much reply to. I don't mean this as a sleight against any particular person.

 

I believe there are a lot of people on this site who are more "thin skinned" than the average person. (They are more likely to react negatively to a comment that they perceive is being made against them.)

 

Add that to the mix and you've just lit the fuse!

 

Bottom line: If we're going to ever learn to get along in this forum, we're going to have to learn how to "give and take" a little better. Then we're going to have to learn how to lay off when we see others getting upset at the things we say.

[Guest]

In agreement and I'll add one very important ingredient that is here and not so much elsewhere.

 

Many, if not most folks here arte at least initially very sensitive over "coming out" with their feelings over fur. This theme gets repeated many times by newbies.

 

To introduce hostility and anger into a mix like that is the height of insensitivity, gross and crude behavior.

 

Totally inappropriate on a Forum.dedicated to fur and beauty.

 

Is this not a tiotal contradiction???

 

 

 

OFF

[MrC1946]

An old psychology professor of mine once said, "There are two secrets to mental health. One, don't sweat the small stuff. And two, 99% of life is small stuff."

 

Gang, this fur thing is a hobby of ours -- a way to enjoy life more. Let's not make it a trail for ourselves.

 

Sincerly

 

MrC

[Guest]

Well said MrC.

 

OFF

[Worker 11811]

Sometimes you just have to know when to punt.

 

[trebor]

bbb

Edited August 4, 2007 by Guest

[LordTheNightKnight]

OK ToS in the spirit of your post about I'll be an agitator.

 

1. I thought that you wanted to to leave the Fur Den what's keeping you from doing that?

 

2. Your remarks about the U.S. and it's anti-fur liberal attitudes infecting your country's government's policies is a bunch of crap!! May I remind you that the U.S. STILL has furs and STILL has a policy of letting its citizens be armed to defend themselves against criminals who break into their homes. The UK puts those who wound criminals in self defense in prison instead of the criminals.

 

So why don't you take your "I'm a victim" attitude and as the Australians say "get stuffed"!!

 

Plus Britain has just as old a history of animal rights groups, well before modern American liberalism took shape.

[ThoughtFox]

The UK puts those who wound criminals in self defense in prison instead of the criminals.

 

Well that's not strictly true, at least not if it genuinely is done in self defence. I would argue that our laws relating to fire arms have made the UK a far safer place.

[LordTheNightKnight]

The UK puts those who wound criminals in self defense in prison instead of the criminals.

 

Well that's not strictly true, at least not if it genuinely is done in self defence. I would argue that our laws relating to fire arms have made the UK a far safer place.

 

Basically UK has stricter burdens of proof for self defense?*

 

*Although that also varies among US states.

[Worker 11811]

*Although that also varies among US states.

 

But for California and a few other states, if somebody breaks into your home while you are inside, almost all state laws say that you have the right to assume that said intruder intends to do you harm. And you, the homeowner, have the right to use lethal force to prevent that harm from befalling you, your family or your guests.

 

Now, as to the standards as to what LEVEL of lethal force is allowed and under what CIRCUMSTANCES it is allowed to be used, this can vary widely from state to state and even from one municipality to another.

 

Generally speaking, you must give fair warning and you must show that you have tried to use an alternate method of escaping the situation. Some states say that you must show that there was no other alternative but to use lethal force. Other states say that you simply must say, "Stop! Or I'll shoot!" (or words to that effect)

 

Pennsylvania is known as a "Make My Day State".

If somebody is inside your house and you didn't invite them, you have the right to use lethal force ALMOST automatically. Once you have given fair warning you are in the clear to do whatever you deem necessary to protect the lives of yourself and your family.

 

So, the short answer is: Yes, Americans have the right to protect themselves in their own homes but it's definitely NOT like the "Wild West" some people make it out to be.

[JGalanos]

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguide/internetlife/2007-07-30-cruel-web_N.htm?csp=34

 

Link to a recent, relevant article about the all too frequent lack of civility in internet discourse. 8)

[Guest]

A couple of comments stand out for me.

 

People "forget that there are real people reading what they write," Newmark says.

 

"There is a kind of ethic on the Internet that says it's OK to be abusive, or to have to tolerate it, in the interest of free speech," O'Reilly says. "It's a mistake."

 

Being argumentative is inevitable and often desirable but it often lapses into ranting and character assasination. That's when it's gone too far.

 

 

OFF

[JGalanos]

I appreciated Miss Manners comments ...

 

"Society has gotten very abrasive," Martin says. "In the slightest altercation, people come out swinging and swearing."

 

But the online world is markedly different from the offline one, Martin says. In real life, people have learned there are rules they dare not break. For instance, racism is now considered intolerable, she says, pointing out that radio shock jock Don Imus was fired in April for a racist comment about the Rutgers women's basketball team.

 

Online, people feel free to express all sorts of otherwise socially unacceptable thoughts

[Guest]

It's not that we're grown ups and "can take it".

 

It's tiring, counterproductive and unnecessary.

 

It also demonstrates a not very creative mind and indicates that you might have been raised by animals. Though most animals wouldn't put up with such unruly behavior.

 

 

 

OFF