Making it Better: The future of WP

Post Reply New Topic

And lots more besides , it would be a bit of daunting task to list every nuance of bullying , harassment etc but a clear and defined list might be the way to go so there is no doubt in anyone's mind what constitutes an infraction.

Well, according to The Legal Dictionary, bullying is defined as: "The act of forcing, coercing, intimidating, or threatening others for the purpose of dominating them."

How has any member of WP been forced, coerced, intimidated, or threatened by another member?  How could any one member dominate any other member on a remote website?

Personally, I think the word "bullying" has been misused or misapplied to statements with which other people disagree, and to members whom other members simply do not like.

Sure, let's all be nicer to one-another; but let's all try to grow thicker skins and be more tolerant, and to review The Rules, as well.

The Legal Dictionary also lists cyberbullying as a seperate crime.

It goes on to say it may be difficult to discern what is classified as bullying, and what is simply the negative opinion of another person.

Cyberbullying differs from a disagreement when it is intentional, recurring, and causes harm to the target (victim).

Yep, those three words intentional, recurring and harm are the key to trying to understand bullying for those incapable of doing so.

One could, therefore, suggest that a person making a post that said that members who disagreed with conservatives were "perceptive enough to see what was going on", "intelligent enough to know why itt was going on", and "wise enough to understand what it means"[1], thereby claiming conservative members (or their views) were not "perceptive", "intelligent", or "wise", which would sure feel like they were being intimidated, and at the very least is aimed at making them feel that they were of little value.

What was particularly upsetting is that the member who posted that post had also been in threads where moderators had warned that attacking those on a "side" in a discussion rather than than the topic being discussed fell under "personal attack", yet they still feel justified in making those comments, followed later in another thread with comments ASKING for the rules to be enforced and members breaking them to be suspended\banned.

Whilst calling a member "racist" when unable to debate them on facts is obviously a personal attack, it is the members who attack a "side" (calling all conservatives Nazi's, white supremacists, etc). or making statements such as above, where you assign certain "virtues" to a side in such a way as to explicitly exclude the other side from having them, thereby leading those people to feel unwelcomed, or to appear more virtuous than them\dominate them and make their opinion seem worthless would also count as a "personal attack"\bullying, and this sort of behaviour also need to be prevented.

I would also suggest that acts of trying to diminsh a person's input (for example: "Whatever you say, British Victorian", a comment aimed at myself through assumptions on the meaning behind my username) are also attacking the person - if there is a problem with what a person has said, responces aimed at that person\group and not at the words they have said should be treated as attacking the person...Get rid of that behaviour (and members perpetuating it) and the site will be much more welcoming to all.

[1] Whilst the particular post was deleted yesterday by a moderator (no idea if any further actions occurred), a copy lives on and can be provided if required.

^ I think referring to members as racist nazis white supremacists etc but also stating that you want to punch nazi's or even kill them gives off a vibe of threatening behaviour.

Should we not refer to a poster who consistently puts the interests and concerns of white people ahead of others, or who consistently denigrates or is hostile to the interests and concerns of PoC by the term used to describe such people?
I thought we were supposed to be in favour of speaking the truth plainly.

The constant focus on "bullying" seems to be another issue that just allows people to go in circles arguing what constitutes "bullying" and also allows people to further justify their misbehaviour. You can be acting in a childish and unacceptable manner without "bullying" someone.

Name-calling, no matter the reason, should be agreed upon as unacceptable behaviour. Returning said name-calling is also unacceptable behaviour.

Bringing up past arguments in unrelated threads to either single out or rile up other members is unacceptable.

Continuing to derail and bicker in threads despite the OP and/or a mod telling people to knock it off is unacceptable.

Making posts and threads to complain about other members, whether it's done "discreetly" or not, is childish and unacceptable.

Etc. etc. etc.

If you have an issue with what a member posts, you should refer to what they post and indicate what you disagree with in the posts...If you are not able to do so, and need to rely on attacking the person (or their "side") who made the post (whether directly, or using unsubstantiated claims of them being "hostile to the interests and concerns" of a group), then it would be an attack on them as a person.

Just because a person's views do not match yours on a given subject does not mean they are against the subject - Maybe they see it differently to you, and so think a different solution may be better...The more "invested" in a subject, the harder it can be to look at posts that do not match your viewpoint in an objective manner, and it can also lead to focussing on a small portion of the issue, whereas someone who is less "invested" may see things which are missed by those on the "inside".

I was looking through some of the mods post to see their moderation style. One of the mods essentially said there are posters here who hold alt-right/Nazi/white nationalist views and they are allowed to post here as long as they don't violate WP's rules.

What part of that statement do you disagree with?

There are posters who hold WN/alt-right views and they are allowed to post here just like anyone else who obeys the rules.

I do generally point out what specifically is problematic and why. When I don't it's probably because after a 10 hour day I don't always have time or energy to yet again point out someone doing the same s**t I pointed out explicitly in the past. If you display a consistent pattern at some point you have to accept you'll be known by your ongoing patterns of behaviour and expecting to always be spoon-fed an explanation of why the same behaviour is still problematic is an unreasonable expectation.

hope this WP continues on in the best interest of all whom inhabit on this here Planet .

By not pointing out what they have said that you believe is wrong, and attacking them\making statements regarding their person, then it becomes a personal attack.

If you don't feel there is any value in pointing out the "error" as you see it in what they have posted, it is better to not post anything. Again, just because you see an issue with what they have posted, it does not neccessarily follow that it is them in error - There is also the possibility that it is your perception of what they have typed (or assumptions you have made regarding their post) that may be where the issue lies.

Intent can only be determined by explicit statements like "I'm gonna get you banned!"; recurrence (while obvious) can be attributed to and mitigated by the suspected bully's own ASD, OCD, PTSD, or special interests; and harm is subjective to the alleged victim only.

So the following must be determined in any suspected case of cyberbullying:

• The actual stated intent of the suspected bully.
• The real root cause of the recurring disagreement.
• The real harm, if any, done to the alleged victim.

It isn't enough to merely claim that someone is being a bully, to assume that the bully has malicious intent, to see that the suspected bully repeatedly behaves in a certain way without noting what triggers that behavior, or to even claim that a difference of opinion is harmful, especially to only one person.

It's not a personal attack when it's true, it's just a statement of fact.