Forum Shenanigans

[imp]

A forum participant since the Missouri experience, ~ 2005, then on dial-up, really limited, slowly learned the "foibles", many, but certainly not most. Here's what I've observed and concluded, in brief.

Participation results in "clans" (used "cliques", got banned once!), perhaps 10 or so, having similar interests or similar age, or similar gripes, similar something or other. Umpteen thousand members, 10 in the group! ??

Most offer "PMs". Members speaking to a chosen one, or only few, guarded from "public" view. Opens a "fun place" to cavort about, electronically speaking.

New members heartily-welcomed, then often regarded askance, for some time, as though being "evaluated": kind of like a new employee on "probationary period". Acceptable? Or no. If no, run him/her off.

Once yer "in", and have said the "right things", folks "open up", both to the member, privately, and to the scrutinizing multitudes, publicly. This here's where ya gotta be cautious.

Forums "suck you in" making for a psychologically-loaded experience which in times past in the face-to-face world would have possibly allowed serious outcome. Forum, though, allows "vaporization", leaving a still-embattled bunch devoided of one soldier.

Aside from my usually negative observations, forums are FUN! A place to trade ideas, ideals, concerns, sales and trades, wives, husbands, ............er, oops...., well, they are very flexible devices with which to wile away the time.

Where am I gone wrong here? imp

 

[Warrigal]

:stirthepot:: You are such a stirrer imp, but I like you anyway. :grin:

 

[Warrigal]

Imp, your post got me thinking. I decided to look up my first post, which was in Introductions.
This is what I wrote

I'm not sure what I have to offer this forum but I am interested to learn from the current members.

I'm an Australian of relatively distant British ancestry. In my working life I was a high school teacher of maths, science, computing and to a lesser extent, design and technology.

Australians are great travellers and enjoy longer holidays than workers in many other countries. I, together with my husband of 50 years, have been fortunate enough to have travelled all over Australia and have also visited many other countries including England, Scotland and Wales, the USA including Hawaii, Canada, Greece, Turkey, Egypt, Kenya, New Zealand, China, Papua New Guinea and a number of Sth Pacific Islands. I will be very interested in the travel threads on this forum.

I am interested in science, the natural environment and politics. I am also a Christian whose approach to my religion is to be a voice and supporter of the poor and disadvantaged of the world so I guess I would be called a liberal in the US and a leftie in my own country. I owe no political party my allegiance because my allegiance is focussed on a higher plane.

I like to argue. Where everyone seems to be in agreement I will either move on without comment or I might just start arguing a contrary viewpoint but I always try to respect all viewpoints and especially try to respect the person expressing something with which I disagree. When I get to know people more and feel they know me I can get rather cheeky. In Australia we call this "being a stirrer". Stirring is something of a national past time so be warned. The stirrer expects the stirree to respond in kind. It is a kind of verbal tennis and it never matters who wins. It is the game that matters, not the end point.

Hoping the above information helps you all to interpret my posts. I will try to avoid Aussie colloquialisms and may have to seek translations of your local lingo.

I'll leave others to evaluate my initial post in the light of my subsequent activity.
My penultimate paragraph (in blue) still holds, I think ?

 

[Shalimar]

Imp just wants to have fun! Lol.

 

[hollydolly]

Well there's an awful lot of truth in your Post IMP...I've seen it repeat itself ad infinitum on many forums over the years!!

DW ..here in the Uk being a stirrer means that you're causing trouble behind someones' back, so not you at all...as far as I know anyway ...

 

[Warrigal]

Aussies stir face to face. It's a game that is not always understood by new chums.

 

[Shalimar]

The Canadianim use satire to playfully stir each other up. We have also been known to dabble in irony. For a courteous people we are very irreverent. We love to play!

 

[imp]

:stirthepot:: You are such a stirrer imp, but I like you anyway. :grin:

Hey, Ma'am! What the hell is a "stirrer" in down under land? We both derived from the English language, yes? I absolutely LOVED the description of early life in Australia so wonderfully-woven by the "Exiles" series! My wife and I both read, and re-read, later, the first several books in the series.

Anyhow, that anyone, least of all someone having your own background, might "like" an imp, is proof positive that the ages-old Middle-Eastern concept of the existence of "imps" paves the path of belief regarding their being. Would you risk rubbing my bottle?? imp

 

[imp]

Well there's an awful lot of truth in your Post IMP...I've seen it repeat itself ad infinitum on many forums over the years!!

DW ..here in the Uk being a stirrer means that you're causing trouble behind someones' back, so not you at all...as far as I know anyway ...

I stir only to provoke thought, Holly, lady! Thoughts are what propel forums, AFAIK. Besides, I LOVE to stir up trouble! Makes folks think and react. imp

 

[Warrigal]

Here's one definition imp.

Stirrer

Australian Slang

someone who causes trouble

1. trouble-maker, especially one who is only stirring in jest;
2. activist, especially in a political context

As with many Australian terms, it is the adjective that makes the difference.

e.g. "You're a bit of a stirrer, aren't you mate?" is not actually intended to offend.
On the other hand "You are a proper shit stirrer, Sunshine!" might be the start of a fight.

 

[SifuPhil]

I think there is a very fine line between stirring and churning.

Sometimes stirring is taken the wrong way on a forum and the resulting firestorm has to be dealt with by mods/admins.

Participation results in "clans" (used "cliques", got banned once!), perhaps 10 or so, having similar interests or similar age, or similar gripes, similar something or other. Umpteen thousand members, 10 in the group! ??

Not much different in the real world.

Most offer "PMs". Members speaking to a chosen one, or only few, guarded from "public" view. Opens a "fun place" to cavort about, electronically speaking.

But don't think for a minute that NO ONE ELSE will see them ...

New members heartily-welcomed, then often regarded askance, for some time, as though being "evaluated": kind of like a new employee on "probationary period". Acceptable? Or no. If no, run him/her off.

Again, reflected in the real world.

Once yer "in", and have said the "right things", folks "open up", both to the member, privately, and to the scrutinizing multitudes, publicly. This here's where ya gotta be cautious.

Why do you have to be cautious at that point?

Forums "suck you in" making for a psychologically-loaded experience which in times past in the face-to-face world would have possibly allowed serious outcome. Forum, though, allows "vaporization", leaving a still-embattled bunch devoided of one soldier.

Not sure I quite understand this one ...

 

[AprilT]

I think there is a very fine line between stirring and churning.

Sometimes stirring is taken the wrong way on a forum and the resulting firestorm has to be dealt with by mods/admins.



Not much different in the real world.



But don't think for a minute that NO ONE ELSE will see them ...



Again, reflected in the real world.



Why do you have to be cautious at that point?



Not sure I quite understand this one ...

That last part I'm taking to mean it all adds up to nothing but time filling head space but nothing of a real connection so to speak. Or just nobody wins. :dunno: Thus, back at square one. BTW very much agree with much of your responses.

 

[SifuPhil]

That last part I'm taking to mean it all adds up to nothing but time filling head space but nothing of a real connection so to speak. Or just nobody wins. :dunno: Thus, back at square one. BTW very much agree with much of your responses.

Ah, okay - I hadn't considered that possibility.

I don't know, though - I've made what I think are "real connections" over the years through forums. At least, as real as any I've made in the real world, and sometimes better.

"Nobody wins" - that's for damn sure. layful: It always seems to be a zero-sum game, but sometimes an enjoyable one nonetheless.

 

[Cookie]

Sometimes I find the forum will tell me something I didn't realize or confirms something about myself, e.g. what kind of people I like and dislike, what I really care about, how I react to certain things and how to better handle certain types of interactions. It might not be 'real' and its easy to make a quick exit or slip away, but I find it pretty educational.

 

[NancyNGA]

Sometimes I find the forum will tell me something I didn't realize or confirms something about myself, e.g. what kind of people I like and dislike, what I really care about, how I react to certain things and how to better handle certain types of interactions. It might not be 'real' and its easy to make a quick exit or slip away, but I find it pretty educational.

:iagree:

 

[imp]

IMP:

noun

1. a little devil or demon; an evil spirit. 2. a mischievous child.
3. Archaic. a scion or offshoot of a plant or tree.
4. Archaic. an offspring.

We know definitions are listed in order of their importance, like "Truth in Nutrition" lists ingredients in descending order of quantity contained, right? So, I try my best to live up to number 1. Although as old as I am, I likely qualify also as "Archaic"! imp

 

[applecruncher]

Bravo, imp. :clap:

I don’t think your observations are negative at all. You’ve actually posted a few similar threads which are right on target (such as your comments about “friends” lists. :laugh: )

But, allow me if I may, to point out that you forgot about GCF (Goodbye Cruel Forum) threads. We’ve had a few of those, although I haven’t seen any lately. I don’t read every thread/post (yeah, shocking!!) so I may have missed something. Anyway, GCFs are melodramatic, tiresome, and pathetic – the person goes on and on and on announcing they are leaving. (sheesh – just go already ) Then some people beg them to stay. Sometimes they go anyway, although most of the time they keep lurking and reading.

Just as bad are the people who PM others and say they are “leaving” because of so-and-so. This is totally idiotic – especially when the ignore feature is available. Of course, they never “leave” – they just lay low for awhile…lurking…coming out of the shadows to post every now and then.

The cliques/clans... Kinda sad but amusing at the same time.

When you were talking about PMs I was reminded of someone who incessantly sends PMs to people, then gets antsy/mad if they don’t get an immediate answer. So the person sends more PMs, bombarding people with 3, 4, 5 or more PMs over the course of a half hour or even less. (Someone who does this has nothing else going on in their life. ) Amazes me that people put up with such nonsense. Apparently they’re afraid (or don’t know how) to use the ignore feature or maybe they enjoy being bossed around. Nobody has to read every PM – you can delete it without reading it. Quick and easy.

 

[Shirley]

A forum participant since the Missouri experience, ~ 2005, then on dial-up, really limited, slowly learned the "foibles", many, but certainly not most. Here's what I've observed and concluded, in brief.

Participation results in "clans" (used "cliques", got banned once!), perhaps 10 or so, having similar interests or similar age, or similar gripes, similar something or other. Umpteen thousand members, 10 in the group! ??

Most offer "PMs". Members speaking to a chosen one, or only few, guarded from "public" view. Opens a "fun place" to cavort about, electronically speaking.

New members heartily-welcomed, then often regarded askance, for some time, as though being "evaluated": kind of like a new employee on "probationary period". Acceptable? Or no. If no, run him/her off.

Once yer "in", and have said the "right things", folks "open up", both to the member, privately, and to the scrutinizing multitudes, publicly. This here's where ya gotta be cautious.

Forums "suck you in" making for a psychologically-loaded experience which in times past in the face-to-face world would have possibly allowed serious outcome. Forum, though, allows "vaporization", leaving a still-embattled bunch devoided of one soldier.

Aside from my usually negative observations, forums are FUN! A place to trade ideas, ideals, concerns, sales and trades, wives, husbands, ............er, oops...., well, they are very flexible devices with which to wile away the time.

Where am I gone wrong here? imp

I was once told by someone I trust that Admins and Mods can read PMs. I asked Mod who I was friendly with if that was true. Her answer, "If we could read them, they wouldn't be private." Not yes or no but an evasive answer. I don't know for sure. However, I wouldn't put anything in a PM that I wouldn't want other people to read.

 

[AZ Jim]

I wonder about the term "clique". Do two or more people who identify with each other because their beliefs are the same automatically become a clique? Is supporting another member in a thought or post a sign of clique membership? I think not but I am open to other ideas. I came here alone, knew no one. I haven't brought others here to support me. I am as a matter of fact not a member of other forums. Those I have met here and identify with are not my clique, I have no clique. Someone who is more articulate than I needs to define a clique. Oh! BTW I do not like the idea of deliberately baiting a confrontation here or elsewhere.

 

[Shalimar]

Inevitably virtual reality mimics the offline world. Wherever people gather in community misunderstandings and hurt feelings are inevitable. Due to the lack of visual and auditory cues available in this format, communication can be difficult. People react to these difficulties in various ways, not all of them intentionally negative or attention seeking. Sometimes a sincere desire to

work things through and build positive connections is the intent. Bravo, to these brave and conscientious individuals. I applaud their efforts. That said, the Internet abounds with maladapted persons who bring a plethora of toxic behaviours with them into

forum life. These chaos junkies thrive on power dynamics, often attempting to pit a manufactured elite against so called pariahs, spewing vitriol whenever challenged. Fortunately admin, and other members soon catch on, and their high chair tyranny implodes.

 

[imp]

"I wouldn't put anything in a PM that I wouldn't want other people to read"

Quoted from a lady possessed of wisdom......imp

 

[applecruncher]

It's my understanding that PM's are the property of the site, not the user/member.

Similar to when people use the company/work email. It belongs to the company. And even if yo use yahoo, gmail, etc. on their computer the IT people can access it, even if you think you deleted it.

 

[Warrigal]

Decided to look up actual meaning of clique.
I don't believe that I am part of any cliques online or in real life.
It's the "who do not readily allow others to join them" that seems to be lacking.
I was never part of the in crowd.

clique
kliːk/
noun
noun: clique; plural noun: cliques

• a small close-knit group of people who do not readily allow others to join them.
  "his flat became a haven for a clique of young men of similar tastes"
  

  synonyms:

  coterie, circle, inner circle, crowd, in-crowd, set, group;

  
  
  
  
  

 

[Mrs. Robinson]

IMP:

noun

1. a little devil or demon; an evil spirit. 2. a mischievous child.
3. Archaic. a scion or offshoot of a plant or tree.
4. Archaic. an offspring.

We know definitions are listed in order of their importance, like "Truth in Nutrition" lists ingredients in descending order of quantity contained, right? So, I try my best to live up to number 1. Although as old as I am, I likely qualify also as "Archaic"! imp

Off topic here,but this was interesting to me as a few years ago,when my (now) ten year old granddaughter Joey was 7 or 8,her teacher referred to her as a bit of an "imp" on her report card. My daughter had no idea what an imp was,and flipped out when she saw the "preferred" definition. I told her to take it as the second definition,as her report card was all A s and this teacher,who had Joey for both second and third grade,adored her. My daughter had never cared for the teacher as she felt that she was too "gruff" with the children (she was a retired Army Sargent) but Joey really liked her so my daughter left her in her class. She did talk with the teacher though,and let her know how she felt about her calling Joey an "imp" lol.

 

[Warrigal]

I regard imp, scamp and scallywag as synonyms.
I would call children any of these with affection.