The female troll squad in love & dating

Post Reply New Topic

I've posted in L&D before with mixed results; in the past the problem was whiny guys repeatedly asking for advice and then dismissing everything that was suggested, but the current forum has become a contested DMZ between the sexes. I don't know that I'd go so far as to call them a troll squad, but there is definitely a bloc of ladies in there that seem to over react to the slightest hint of a generalization about women in a thread, causing the offending poster to get defensive andd other guys to defend what they see as a someone getting unfairly attacked. True there are some genuinely offensive posts in there, but I think the problem is that those posts are not being distinguished from the frustrated male venting posts or posts from men who simply don't understand the dating game in terms of the response.

I'm also seeing a variation on a problem common to PPR, where newer posters don't quite understand the dynamics of the forum and either push the rules or over-interpret them, usually confusing personal attacks with attacks on an idea. I've noticed a number of "questionable" moderation requests coming out of both forums lately, people thinking merely discussing or even advocating an offensive idea is against the rules, or that making an extreme comparison is an offense worthy of moderator intervention just being two of the most current ones.

Basically, I think a bunch of people are going to have to chill out a bit about people being wrong on the internet, and start giving the benefit of the doubt when a poster's intentions either aren't clear or aren't meant to be offensive. Going nuclear on these posts doesn't help anybody, doesn't make the forum any more pleasant, and perhaps most importantly, won't change a person's (perceived) negative opinion of your sex. Better to just ignore ignorant posts than to turn a whole forum into a warzone, and risk bringing Modzilla down on all of your heads (he doesn't care who he stomps on once lands in your forum).

I'd say that's a pretty good overview of the situation.

I have to add though that generalized statements offensive toward groups of people based on a characteristic not of their choosing (race, gender, or sexual orientation as opposed to a political opinion, for example) is easily perceived as a personal attack. The weight is the same.

It's a dodgy distinction for sure between what could be considered an attack and what's just overreactive or rude.

Sorry to hear it has gotten contentious in there; I guess I'm not surprised. I agree that Dox's overall analysis sounds solid, even though I haven't read that board in a few weeks; I think that is the pattern. I did try to post a more localized guideline before I resigned, and if people followed and understood that guideline, it ought to help.

I'm just checking in for a few minutes so I don't have time to take in on (and I'm resigned as a mod, anyway) but I think one issue may be that the moderation team is, as far as I know, currently absent any moderators with investment in the subject. Our married or attached (or formerly married or attached) mods are gone, and I always found that "down the road" perspective pretty essential to figuring out the conflicts on that forum. You do learn that there are quite a few different viewpoints in this world that work just fine, IF you can find a partner who accepts them. There is no right or wrong answer on the role of women or of men, just people who have compatible ideas on the subject, and people who don't. Members should be able to express their views as long as they refrain from insinuating that someone else's view is invalid, and as long as they choose words that don't draw overly broad generalization. When a poster is failing to do that, ask for help from a moderator.

I really liked the approach Quatermaster took with one recent poster who I found offensive, and who was refusing my attempts at moderation largely because I was female. QM basically told the guy that he didn't care what his positions were, he was free to have them, but that when his posts started to cause distress on WP boards, that was a problem the moderators would squash. So, using that general guideline, if a poster is managing to upset a large section of the membership on that board, the poster igniting the upset is the problem. If the instigating poster had an important or sincere message, in theory, he or she would figure out how to convey it without setting other people off. I've walked into plenty of threads where I held the unpopular position, and lived to tell the tale, largely because I've learned how to present that unpopular position in a way that doesn't attack or denigrate.

It may not always seem fair, but in love and war that is kind of how things go in this world.