News0 min ago
Personal Attacks
25 Answers
I understand that the role of the Editor is not to arbitrate in disputes between users. However there have been a couple of cases where users have been insulted and attacked with little or no provocation. I know acw was upset about posts directed at her not long ago.
Personally I had a number of highly offensive posts directed at me after telling a poster I believed his views were racist and offensive. (He had stated that to keep our daughters safe all we had to do was not let them near black men) These posts have been removed. However I do not know if this user has been banned / suspended. I do not want you to personally respond to every answer reporting that you get. But might it be worth considering that if you take action against a user for attacking another user you could let the person they attacked know what happened. It would help reassure those who are singled out for such treatment that you take this seriously. Similarly when you remove an imposter let the 'real' user know that this has been done. What do others think?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Lillabet. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Ok, I agree I did say that I thought you were being too harsh on acw and just posting 'laughing at acw' wasn't actually an answer. I know from things she posted in that thread and elsewhere that you really did upset her MargeB.
The attacks on me criticised my gender, intelligence, percieved sexual preferences and politics. They were attacks not a disagreement. Other posters in the thread commented on the harshness of the attacks saying that they were, amongst other things, 'outrageous.'
You may disagree but I felt that my post to you was fair. A number of other posters than actually posted to agree with what I had said and my post was not removed as offensive. As such I don't think it was offensive. I have actually only had one post removed - and that was for accidentally posting twice. I think I am able to engage in debate without going out of my way to be offensive.
I was also one of the people impersonated. The imposter's user name looked absolutely identical to mine and I understand s/he managed to upset a lot of people who thought I was for no reason at all insulting them. Thankfully someone spotted the impersonation and undertook damage limitation.
It's just that each of these things were personal. As such I feel I have a personal interest in knowing the outcome, if any...
Wow, that is completely insane, someone makes a post disagreeing with a poster and pointing out a different point of view, and it gets wiped immediately. Wow! I've seen other posts go astray in a similar way. We should really call this site 'The way the Answerbank Editor views the world: conform or be banned'.
I agree with you Lillabet. I also do realise that what I experienced was nothing compared to the abuse others have received. In order to keep this forum open (open in the more metaphorical sense!) however, I do think people should be encouraged to show some respect for other peoples' views. Disagreeing is fine: it's what makes this site interesting. But belittling, humiliating, stereotyping, assuming, criticising and insulting are not attractive traits, and the less seen of that sort of behaviour the better. I think, Marge B, the editor has a similar view. It's not about disagreeing, it's about the WAY people disagree and the way they treat other users of this site.
I agree that more feedback from the Ed would be useful. I asked for feedback on something, and didn't hear a thing.
1) lol@acw means I take issue with your post, it doesn't mean 'I am laughing at you'.
2) I made an exception and posted in that way on that thread because I saw that the original questioner was being treated poorly. It's a two way street.
LOL stands for "laugh out loud". If you had meant anything else by it, you'd have said so at the time. Too little too late. Mate. Any the original poster was NOT being treated poorly. Everyone spoke with much respect for the guy and said how we realised HE had good intentions just that the rules were there for a reason.
Anyway - perhaps you could see your way clear to letting this one go and apologising faster if you accidentally offend someone in the future. Quick apologies on this site would stop a lot of the problems. I will drop it now - so you can have the last word if you like.
-- answer removed --
I think we're in danger of getting off topic here. MargeB lol is short for laughing out loud and @ means at. I'm sure you are therefore able to see why lol@acw was read as laughing out loud at acw.
I haven't posted this question to get into a debate about a single difference of opinion and don't intend to end up in such a debate. The question you refer to was not one I found the need to report - your comments are all still there.
What led me to post this question was firstly the recent impersonations and secondly an individuals attacks on me that were removed - presumably on the grounds of their obscenity.
My question really is 'if someone attacks you in such a way that their answers are deemed offensive and in need of removal, or if someone clones / imitates or other wise impersonates you and the AB Ed takes action should you, as the target, be informed of the action that has been taken'
it's the auto formatting. Now if you put a word / string of letters or numbers either side of the @ sign it formats it to look like an email. nonsense@rubbish for example.
Thanks, I had no idea auto formatting worked on AB MargeB & Lillabet acw sorry@rod
Lillabet it's sad when we have personal attacks I think this is a good time to remind those that are making personal attacks to look at the Site Rules.
strange@hhhhh got it!
