can the popularity contest threads stop?

Post Reply New Topic

TeaEarlGreyHot, are you defending the "who is your favorite member" threads, or just your right to banter and go off topci?

Do you honestly not see why "who is your favorite member' threads are hurtful?

What rules changed and when?

In my experience it depends on the person. Some realize it and relish it. Many are insecure about their ability to hold that position, and that is when the trouble starts, because the only way they see to keep it is by knocking others down. This is the type that notices people are being left out and plays it.

But others, if they realize, it, are humbled by it. I would put one of my son's classmates in that category. This child got to the top because he genuinely likes everyone, he has no enemies, and doesn't understand why anyone would reject anyone. How could anyone not like him? It took a while, but he figured out he has some social power, and then he started to use his position in defense of what is right: he has told kids, for example, that if they pick on my son, or even grumble when my son (or any other unfavored child) is part of the group, they are out of his circle. Got to love a person like that. If he was told someone felt left out, he'd run over to include them.

Other people I know would be stunned if you told them they were the top of the social pecking order. Not sure why they don't see it, but they aren't usually super insecure. Nice people at the top of the social pecking order seem to get there largely because they are self-secure, and people are attracted to it. Would this group know if they were unintentionally leaving someone else out? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Would they work to fix it if they saw? Also sometimes yes, sometimes no. I've honestly seen both. Really depends.

And then there is always the question, "whose top?" The social order isn't exactly one giant pyramid. It's a bunch of small hills that sometimes overlap and other times have elevators and criss-cross bridges, and one group's goal might be another group's avoid. So anyone who seems to be at the top of "A," if they are wise at all, will know there is a "B" that doesn't consider them top, at all. It depends on which hill you are visiting. Like the movie star who goes all gaga when they meet their favorite indie recording artist. Sometimes you can't be sure who is worshiping at which popularity alter.

Last edited by DW_a_mom on 21 May 2011, 1:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

As a site gets bigger it's harder to keep the "herd" focused, problems like these arise in every forum, it's unavoidable. What can one do? keep track of people you like, even going at lenght to chat in private with them, I've done it and it's a great way to keep the sanity in a place this huge.
Good luck!

I'm not defending either one. Yes, I do see why some would get their feelings hurt by the threads. I also think their feelings are no less valid than those making and posting in the threads.

Saying one should learn how to overcome these hurt feelings is not 'defending the hurtful actions'. It's acknowledging both sides and suggesting a real world solution to the problem. After all, the real world doesn't stop and change things just because someone got their feelings hurt.

Coping skills should be encouraged here. It is, after all, a support site.

While the whole thing in the adult section not too long ago was needed, IMO the moderation went a bit overboard. Have we forgotten already that we've lost members over it?

Could you be more precise, I really don't understand what you're referring to. No rules changed in that occasion.

they are not unrelated issues though (to address hyperlexian's question). those members that are especially socially fluent are the ones who tend to interject meaningless blather into more serious threads. (probably not meaningless to them, but meaningless to those of us who cannot follow it.) so if the solution is (as many of you have said) to ignore popularity type posts and instead create discussion that interests us more, we can do so all we like (and i have done so here, i believe) but regardless of our intention, the confetti squad might crash the geek party and say things that make no sense to us, seem dismissive or derail the topic.

i don't mean to disrespect you DW_a_mom (as you have requested that we move away from the topic of diversion). i find your input valuable and i appreciate your taking my concern seriously. i just wanted to clarify.




not everyone understands how to post in them. please make an effort to recognize that point.

you are playing basketball and callously saying the paraplegics are welcome to join in.



patience, tolerance, and compassion for those who have greater difficulty or more significant impairments than you should be encouraged here, and allow me to encourage you, personally, to cultivate those qualities.

Technically, no. No rules changed. However, there was micro-moderating. That never pans out in my experience.

I did ask what sorts of impairments would prevent someone from participating. I never got an answer. I was in no way being callous. I was trying to understand.



I am an extremely patient person. I'm also a very accepting person and as I understand it trying to understand and help is a compassionate thing to do.

Your encouragement is moot. I'm sorry you don't like what I've said, and it's clear you interpreted it all as hostile and/or dismissive when my participation in this discussion is in fact the exact opposite.

I see - the rules were broken in there on a regular basis and people were asked nicely to correct the situation time and again. Because they didn't - despite a new sticky and a few other threads being created especially to cater to their needs, another thread got locked, without any official warnings being given or other punitive actions taking place. Do you honestly believe this is "moderation gone overboard"?

Do you know how many people leave the forum because they feel marginalised? I do because I often try to convince them to stay and give it another try. Are you trying to say it's our fault that a member left the board because they were politely asked to respect the ToS?

i don't know how to explain an inability to understand something that i do not understand. so i will demonstrate:



do you understand how to participate in this discussion? no?

what about it did you not understand? please explain to me what impairment prevents you from understanding.

i don't intend to be obtuse but it is difficult to explain to someone who understands something why you do not understand it - like trying to prove something does not exist. like trying to tell someone what social cues one does not pick up. they are the ones you don't pick up! so how do you know what they are? if you knew what they were, you would be picking them up.

impairments in interpreting the contextual mood of a discussion or the intention behind something that has been posted can silence someone who might wish to join in. how would they join in? they don't speak the language.

how would you join into this conversation?



your turn.

try to figure out what to say.

is John Doe having a laugh at your expense? or has he just agreed you are a stellar person who he would like to get to know better? or has NoNamePerson asked you a question, albeit subtly, that you have not replied to, prompting JohnDoe to rephrase the question or (to complicate things further) become annoyed at you for not responding to it directly?

if you choose to post a response you will have to guess at what letters are appropriate to type - xxkdsfoi .. 7? (is it ok to put a 7 in there? you believe it might lighten the mood, but you aren't really sure what it indicates ... )

i don't in any way believe that social impairments in autism necessarily are rooted in an inability to interpret body language and facial expressions. it is more complex than that: there is a wild variance in people's ability to interpret the context of someone else's communication. some of us seem to have the same trouble online as we do in person. so body language is certainly not the only thing to blame.



i did in fact interpret it as dismissive, because you have said things like this:



perhaps it is not (and perhaps you are not) actually dismissive, but this (above) seems to me to be an outsider's perspective; an insider's (or sympathetic) perspective is more like this: it's very helpful to learn how to accommodate your own needs and sensitivities better, as other people will not understand that the difficulties presented by (for example) your sensory sensitivities. they may not realize they are aggravating them or being insensitive to what you are experiencing, since they do not experience things the same way.

people do not impose their disabilities on other people. they suffer far more than those around them.

i do misinterpret a lot of things. i do not understand your intentions despite having seen many many of your posts.

I don't see how telling someone to learn to cope with feeling excluded on a site that is supposed to be comfortable for people who have mostly spent their lives feeling excluded is supportive. That takes some twisting.

I don't see why people have to publicly applaud their friends. I don't see where the "valid" in that is. A pm works just as well as far as making a friend happy, and doesn't result in hurt feelings. Why is it so hard for people to figure out that pm is the better way to go?

You know how I cope with it this sort of thing in real life? I avoid the people who do it, in favor of those who are more inclusive. They exist, no toughening up required.

I never said the ToS wasn't broken in that incident. I just disagree with the way the whole thing was handled. Please note that what I said would happen is exactly what DID happen.

I'm sorry. I've read this and the rest of your post 3 times now and I really don't understand. Perhaps I'll process it better after some sleep. It's been a long day.

How about suggesting coping mechanisms for such things?



I agree with this, which is why I never actually name anyone in these threads. I'm still not really seeing a legitimate reason why the threads should be banned.



The bolded... is exactly what I've been saying this entire time.