Complaint by Wild Haggis

I am reposting here a complaint made by Wild Haggis' on the 10 Commandments thread where it was originally posted. Any comments on this complaint should be posted here, not on the 10Cs thread.

Eutychus
SoF Admin

WildHaggis wrote: »
This is a tiny rant (maybe it should be ant and I crawl into a hole).

I have been categated today, for supposidly calling people names on the post about "Screw loose." I was really trying to bring to people's attention that the original post was about a horrific accident. I felt the thread was making light of it and it was getting out of hand.

I have been quite upset as I think this whole incident of the pilot saying he had a "screw loose" is not something to take lightly nor to make fun about. We don't know his whole story. I just think this thread is insensitive. I tried to change the direction earlier in the thread to take it off the incident, but was overtaken by a load of men going on about gaming and calling each other names. I just don't understand why some on these posts can say anything they want to others, while others of us get told off for trying to bring common sense into discussion and stopping the discussion being hogged by the same three or four people.

It might also be useful for me to say that my mum committed suicide, as others may have experienced too, so this kind of discussion on "screws loose" is not something to take lightly.

It happened once before on a thread and he went into Hell (which I rarely do) when one gentleman put some horrible things about me (I thought ths wasn;t allowed of SofF - personal comments!!!!!). We actually eventually sorted it out privately, he and I get on well now.

Is this really what SoF is about? Some seem to get away with all sorts of things while others even mildly correcting others can't? We need more women's voices of SoF (we have very few) yet when we try to partake men come down on us - it has happened a number of times, and not with me either! We need more women friendly discussion and not just on Heaven with "nice things" Please include our different points of view in discussions and please don't let the same few always be dominant.

I came off SofF for a while ago (actually over the years, on 2 occassions) because I got fed up with it always the same people who posted, some comments were quite nasty and intolerant of a different opinion and ecclesiology/theology rather than their own. But I came back on again because I felt, as a women (and other reasons) there should be more of a balance. So please be equitable in applying the rules.

And please note that many of us don't sit all day in front of the computer so don't have time to read hundreds of posts on a theme, we take up the argument from where it has been left off.

Will I stay on........help!

«1

Comments

  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Dead Horses Host
    Here is the ruling by fineline.

    And here is the guideline on which the ruling is based.
    Purgatory Guideline 5. Be courteous in your debating style

    Apologise when you err; apologies are always well-received here. Take personal offense or disagreements to the Hell board, where they won't bother other posters.

    WildHaggis, what exactly are you complaining about in the ruling? What aspect of the ruling do you think is unfair?



  • You're correct that 'screws loose' is inappropriate re psych problems. Inappropriate even when used by the man who did the thing. But people like to make light of things which are awful, and joking about suicide and death isn't really uncommon. It brings some sort of control and comfort to inexplicable things.

    It's also inappropriate to 'armchair' diagnose and to comfort ourselves that we have an explanation for behaviour which doesn't have an explanation. But we do it for the reason of making ourselves feel better about trouble.

    I take your concern about 'screws loose' to be one beyond the thread it's on, and your concern is a real one, Needs to be highlighted. That there is much inappropriate in our discourse everywhere about problems in living, mental health problems, social behaviour problems etc. I hear people who I think are tuned in discuss things in ways in which I don't think they're aware are inappropriate, whether about illness and disability, social standing and class, ways people speak, manner of dress, race, gender - all of it. In my thoughts, it is better to consider that there's a problem to discuss rather than decide not to discuss and remove yourself from discussion (but I'm biased quite heavily toward engagement with others versus avoidance). I'm glad you raised both the problem on the thread and also that you saw fit to complain about it.
  • Curiosity killedCuriosity killed Shipmate
    edited August 2018
    I'll bite.

    Firstly, @WildHaggis I am female and have been participating on many of the threads you are posting on complaining about the lack of women's voices, and have been aware of several other female posters. I have pointed out on other threads that you cannot know for certain whether posters are male, female, transgender or whatever.

    You breeze on to various threads and post something that makes it entirely clear you haven't been following the discussion. Your posts on the Shroud thread and the post here on the Screws Loose that got you a hosting admonishments show that you haven't been reading the debate. In some cases you post twice on the same thread in a way that seems that you have not remembered the first post (on the Screws Loose thread). Both these threads are in Purgatory, where the guidelines say:
    Purgatory is our serious discussion space – where theological, ethical, political, social and cultural issues are discussed from a Christian perspective.
    2. Expect to be disagreed with!

    This is how good debate is conducted. Questioning of your opinions should be taken as a compliment about their weight.

    I find that I have to evidence what I am saying on Purgatory or Dead Horses to the level I would write a report for work, as there is certainly someone posting there who has a doctorate or more in the topic in question. So if I am going to disagree with them I need to be able to back up what I am saying. I regularly start a reply, go off and research what I thought was right and quietly delete that draft post.

    There are different guidelines for different boards, with different expectations, atmospheres and guidelines. On none of them can you tell people what to think or that they are male so possibly all have screws loose.

    I said on the Hell thread that
    The problem with Wild Haggis has been a lot of enthusiasm in posting, without always reading / absorbing what other people are saying: for example the forgiveness thread in Purgatory where her first post was to tell everyone off for posting theoretically, when several of us had been posting from experience. It has made for a grating tone at moments. And not really getting the different tones on the different boards.

    But so many now much loved Shipmates have made the same mistake to start with. It would be a shame to lose her or anyone else through collateral damage.
    And I will stick to that and suggest that a solution for many Shipmates is that they never post in Purgatory or Dead Horses, confining themselves to Heaven, All Saints or the Circus to play games. Others only occasionally post in Purgatory or Dead Horses - me being one of these last - if I have time, school holidays usually, I will post and follow everything. During the school terms I will follow threads, usually reading while commuting, so not posting, but won't keep up with everything.

    I also note that the Hell thread has been reopened.
  • Curiosity killedCuriosity killed Shipmate
    edited August 2018
    duplicated while trying to correct a typo
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    edited August 2018
    As someone who posted on the 'screws loose' thread (albeit a man), my impression from your first post, @WildHaggis was that you were unaware that the phrase about 'screws loose' had been used by this person about himself just before he crashed the plane. What you said
    WildHaggis wrote: »
    Don't worry if you have a few screws loose it means that you can recreate something new. You will have to drill new holes for the screws to go into as the old holes have split and change your shape and be more useful!
    seemed to me, in the circumstances, if you had been aware of that fact, to be a bit flippant or insensitive. I didn't understand it as an attempt to change the direction of the thread.

    I don't think anyone else interacted with your post because a spat was already developing on that thread about the comments in the OP about gamers. My own reading of the thread was that when people were commenting about the specific incident, they were actually quite respectful and sensitive to what might have put someone into that situation. I certainly didn't read anyone's comments as, in your phrase
    castigating this guy.

    When you posted your second post on that thread (nobody having interacted with your first post) it was not a male but @fineline in her capacity as host who responded. Apart from her, (Oh, and Doublethink who has previously self-identified as female) I don't think anyone else interacted with your second post.

    I am generally unaware of the gender of contributors to threads, so I had to go back and look at this one to see. 13 participants I believe are male (including me) and 4 are female (including you), and there are 2 whose gender I don't know. Contributions are broadly in proportion - 22 by men, 11 by women, and 6 by the not-known.

    I felt there was a "telling-off" tone in your second post, but felt that you had misread the tone of the thread, or perhaps not really been following it. Also given that a number of the preceding posts had been made by women, I was not really sure what to make of what felt to me like a stereotyping comment about males. Were you aware that some of the posters were female, and therefore excepting their comments from your criticism, or were you simply assuming that all the other posters were male?

    I sympathise with you about not following all the thread all the time. I find there are sometimes threads I would be interested in taking part in, but feel I can't because I don't have time to read the whole discussion. My own impression is that it is better in that case to refrain from commenting, otherwise there will be something relevant that someone else has posted which I fail to take into account, or I am simply posting the same comment/argument that another poster has made two pages previously.
  • Yes I am female.
  • I counted 5 I knew were female, 12 I knew were male, two I wasn't sure but thought were probably male. 39 posts, 13 or 1 in 3 by the posters I identified as female.
  • Perhaps I should elaborate on that, I responded to Wild Haggis' post in the way I did because I fundamentally disagree that respectful speculation about people's motivations in high profile situations is wrong. It is part of how we make sense of the world, and it is part of how we can try to imagine how to make the world different in positive ways.

    Not do I think it is disrespectful to suggest that the individual may be mentally ill if that is in fact consistent with the information available, and relevant. It is not, or should not be, a derogatory judgement. It might lead us to ask questions like, why didn't he get the help he may have needed in time ? And ultimately, one day, that may save someone else's life.

    (I largely ignored the comments about gamers on the thread because I thought they were irrelevant and unhelpful.)
  • I've not been involved in that thread, but there does at times seem to be a tendancy for attempting pseudo diagnoses here based on very limited information.

    I suppose the impact on a dead person none of us know is pretty limited, but I'm not sure it is a helpful or healthy thing even from self-declared professionals.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host
    The appropriateness/helpfulness of speculating motives and possible mental or neurological issues is certainly a controversial topic, not just on the Ship. It would make an interesting Purgatory thread if people wish to discuss it more.

    However, it is worth mentioning that my hosting was not about this issue nor WildHaggis’s opinions on it. It was about Purgatory Guideline 5 - courtesy in debating style - and specifically Wild Haggis’s tendency (not just in that thread) to address everyone in one fell swoop in an insulting way, making unfounded assumptions, without having read what people have actually written.

    I am waiting for WildHaggis to answer Barnabas62’s question, because I am not yet sure what her particular question/issue with this ruling is.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Dead Horses Host
  • AravisAravis Shipmate
    I’m female. It wouldn’t bother me if every other person posting on a thread was male.
    I tend to avoid joining in discussions with WildHaggis as I am at serious risk of contravening Ship guidelines when doing so; this may affect the gender statistics, if anyone else is bothered by the issue.
  • EutychusEutychus Admin
    edited August 2018
    @WildHaggis, your attention was drawn by a Host here to your persistently discourteous posting across multiple threads, which is contrary to Purgatory Guideline 5, and you were warned to desist.

    In response, you brought this complaint to the Styx. A number of people, including the Host that made the ruling, offered explanations and you were specifically asked for clarification of your complaint.

    So far, you have not returned to this thread, ignoring others' responses and thus repeating the discourteous behaviour.

    You went on to attract further hostly intervention for continuing to post in the same manner (still on multiple threads, further examples here and here) which you also completely ignored - this is a breach of Commandment 5. You then went on to breach Commandment 3 by making a personal attack on another person posting as a Shipmate here.

    Your continued disregard for the contributions of other posters and for the interventions of Crew, designed to keep the boards running smoothly for everyone - including you - has been duly noted by the Admins.

    If you still feel you are being hard done by, or you don't understand what the problem is, you should discuss that here, on this thread, and nowhere else.

    If, however, you continue to post in the same manner regardless, you can expect to enjoy some enforced shore leave without further notice.

    And for the avoidance of doubt, this ruling applies however long you may voluntarily decide not to post for, because you have now built up enough form on this behaviour that we're not going to forget it.

    Eutychus
    SoF Admin


    [edited to fix a link]
  • I was the 'gentleman' who called Wild Haggis to Hell and yes, I apologised and still stand by that apology.

    I'm glad WH is back but can't say I'm either pleased or convinced by the reasons she gives for doing so. YMMV as they say.

    I think we get on reasonably well now but I've got to be honest, I do find Wild Haggis's posting style hard to take at times. I daresay people find the same with mine at and I've apologised to a number of people for mischievous and insulting behaviour recently.

    Nevertheless, like CK, I will bite.

    I'm sure WH means well but to my mind she plays the gender card rather too often, 'This thread is full of men, they are ganging up on me ...'

    I don't see other women on those threads playing that particular card but acquitting themselves well without recourse to hand-wringing. There's a kind of inverse sexism going on in WH's case it seems to me. 'I'm not winning the argument, therefore I'll play the sexism card.'

    I also find the tone of WH's posts rather patronising. In my view she talks down to people. She also fails to engage with what people have actually written and makes all sorts of assumptions either about people's worship preferences, 'perhaps you've never been in a lively church ...' (well actually I have, thank you very much and probably a lot more lively than hers), gender and lots more besides.

    These are minor irritations for the most part but when they're linked to what can come across as a somewhat hectoring, dismissive and patronising tone then it can cause hackles to rise.

    With all that said I'm sure I'm the pot calling the kettle black arse and I'm sure I irritate people and can be a right royal pain in the haemorrhoids.

    I was sorry I drove WH away from the Ship and glad she has returned. I hope she enjoys her stay. She's got some good things to say. However, I do think there's something a bit crusading and vainglorious about claiming only to be back to redress imbalances - too many men, too much bells and smells, too much whatever else.

    Whatever the motivation behind that it sounds like hubris to me, I'm afraid.

    I stand to be rebuked or corrected on any of this but am simply saying how I feel. I'm not going to call WH to Hell again as she hasn't offended me since she came back but I still roll my eyes at many of her posts for the reasons I've outlined.

    Here I stand, I can do no other.

  • One of the many Blessings of the Ship (and, of course, the internet in general) is the ability to scroll past the wearisome and hectoring posts one sometimes comes across....
    :weary:

    And WTF does it matter how many women or men (or transgender/whatever peeps) contribute to a given thread?
    :relaxed:

    GG, don't beat yourself up.

    IJ
  • Sure. I do have that tendency. I was surprised that I was the first to call WH to Hell though.

    Looking at the links on this thread I'm surprised she isn't called there every day. Other Shippies must be made of sterner stuff than me.
  • Well, perhaps. Or maybe we're just less patient than you?
    :wink:

    IJ
  • More patient you mean, surely ...?
  • Oops - a 'Homer Simpson' moment! Yes, indeed.

    :blush:

    IJ
  • Wild Haggis is a woman of confirmed prejudices and little patience. After one ugly run-in in Heaven, I actively avoid interacting with her.
  • EutychusEutychus Admin
    edited August 2018
    @Rossweisse, as CK has noted above, there's a perfectly good Hell thread with @WildHaggis' name on it already. Your remarks belong there, not here.
  • I just think she'd save herself and other posters a lot of grief if she actually bothered to read some of the previous posts before bouncing in and haranguing everyone as if they were a bunch of naughty school kids.

    I know it can be tempting to post 'in media res', particularly on a long thread, but it generally repays all contributors, not least the poster themselves, to read and inwardly digest before jumping in with both feet. I've done that too many times myself and splashed everybody.

    WH has the capacity to kill threads in my view, she is unnuanced, strident and hectoring in tone and can be insensitive, tactless and patronising whilst indulging in virtue-signalling hand-waving and trying to play the martyr card. Her lack of self-awareness is monumental and she doesn't seem to understand how these boards work.

    I'm sure she'd have a lot to say and contribute if she didn't try to bully people then flounce off all offended when they actually stand up to her and call her on it. If she actually deigned to read what other people wrote instead of claiming that she is too busy (or superior) to do so and listened to other people for a change then she might get somewhere.

    Like all of us she needs to learn the ropes. Hopefully, she will.
  • The thing is, though, GG, Wild Haggis doesn't seem willing to learn the ropes, or so it seems to me. She seems to think that the Ship needs to change, presumably to better accommodate her. It's like the thing about needing to hear more women's voices - it seems to be code for "more voices like mine".
  • Well yes, that too. I do regret calling her to Hell but she seemed to regard it as some kind of unprovoked attack, as if I had just randomly singled her out to call her to Hell and throw offensive remarks at her for no reason.

    It was a pretty inept Hell call and some Shippies were puzzled by it. Others could see why I'd issued it. Another rounded on me for inadvertently causing him offence and we were able to sort that out between us.

    I do regret the Hell Call and I'm glad WH and I sorted things out, but it was pretty clear that she either didn't read my rationale or didn't understand the context or didn't wish to.

    It's a shame, because if she slowed down a bit, read people's posts and stopped waving the virtue-signalling and martyr card then she'd probably have a lot of interesting things to say.

    As it is she simply parachutes into threads 'in media res' without bothering to familiarise herself with what's already been said and attack whatever strawmen she believes to be lurking there.

    The list of usual suspects generally includes:

    - Blokes.
    - Anyone who favours traditional liturgical forms.
    - Anyone with a high church ecclesiology.

    For someone who makes herself out to be broad-minded and liberal in the broader sense, she appears to have more prejudices and presuppositions than the President of The Prejudices and Presuppositions Society of Presupposition County.

    There are certain red rags to her bull and perhaps a red mist descends that prevents her from reading what people actually say rather than what she thinks they're saying.

    That can apply to all of us, of course. She is by no means unique in that respect.
  • As it is she simply parachutes into threads 'in media res' without bothering to familiarise herself with what's already been said and attack whatever strawmen she believes to be lurking there.

    And for me, this goes to the heart of the Host calls about discourteous posting. None of us (I imagine) spends the day glued to our screens, obsessively reading threads on the Ship. And yet, the vast majority of Shipmates take the time to read a thread before contributing; much less before contributing in such a way as to tell other contributors what uninformed dolts they are.

    (Although I will privately cherish her telling Piglet off for insufficiently authentic Scottishness in her dining habits. Comedy gold).
  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    Kittyville wrote: »
    ... Although I will privately cherish her telling Piglet off for insufficiently authentic Scottishness in her dining habits. Comedy gold ...
    ... and I'll forever be indebted to the late, great Uncle Pete for his response:
    If piglet makes it, it is Scottish, ipso facto.
    Bless him. :cry:
  • WildHaggis wrote: »
    We need more women's voices of SoF (we have very few) yet when we try to partake men come down on us - it has happened a number of times, and not with me either! We need more women friendly discussion and not just on Heaven with "nice things" Please include our different points of view in discussions and please don't let the same few always be dominant.

    There's a fundamental problem in here, I think. The nature of the serious discussion boards here is that people post when they disagree with something that someone says - either they think it's completely wrong, or they have a different slant, or whatever. "Me too" posts don't advance the discussion.

    It's true that the majority of posts in these discussions are by men, although there are usually a few women in the scrum as well. But because the majority of posters are men, it is likely that the person who responds to you (and disagrees with you, because "me too" is boring) is going to be a man.

    This, I think, is a difference between an online forum and an in-person discussion. If we're in the same room, and I agree with 90% if what you say, I'm mostly going to talk about how I agree with you. Online, I'm going to pick apart the 10% that we disagree on, to try to converge on complete agreement. There's so much latency in an online forum that it can't work the same way as an in-person discussion.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited August 2018
    But how does WildHaggis know that there are 'very few' women contributing to the Ship's discussions?

    Are there Secret Statistics, somewhere down in the depths of the hold, known only to the Captain (and WildHaggis)?
    :grey_question:

    IJ
  • We don't collect information such as gender. So, there is no such secret statistic. In the majority of instances the gender of participants is irrelevant, a good point is a good point regardless of who made it (ditto for a bad point). We generally discourage discussion based on the gender (or other personal characteristic) of the participants, discuss the issues not the people.
  • Well, we are discussing a person here, but yes, very insightful points about the difference between online and face to face discussions.

    My beef with WH is that however well she might manage the latter in real life, I don't think she has/had much of a clue as to how to conduct them online. That might be a generational thing, I don't know.

    Plus the somewhat crusading assumption that she was speaking out on behalf of all these poor ickle women who were oppressed by patriarchal posters aboard Ship. Had she ever encountered the late, lamented Erin?

    That somehow she had to put the balance right against all these liturgical snobs who dominate the boards and who like nothing better than poncing about in lace and not getting their hands dirty like she does doing face-painting at a community event ... martyr, martyr, martyr, virtue-signalling handwave, look at me, look at me, look at me ...
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Dead Horses Host
    I didn't even think of it until now, but I wonder if persistently demeaning the appropriateness of contributions to any discussion simply on the grounds of the gender of the contributors might be a Commandment 1 offence. Sexism is listed as one of the negative -isms in the Commandment 1 definition.
  • We don't collect information such as gender. So, there is no such secret statistic. In the majority of instances the gender of participants is irrelevant, a good point is a good point regardless of who made it (ditto for a bad point). We generally discourage discussion based on the gender (or other personal characteristic) of the participants, discuss the issues not the people.

    Well, I thought that was indeed the case, but thanks for confirming it!

    IJ

  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host
    In the interests of fairness, I should mention that I myself have, in the thread about ‘Gender and the line,’ questioned the genders of those posting - both here and here. I felt - and still feel - that in that particular discussion it was relevant (though of course no one was/is obliged to declare gender) and stated my reasons in my posts. So I think there is a place for questioning gender, in a thread discussing how a particular gender feels about certain things. But in random, non-gender-related posts, to be declaring (not even questioning) everyone posting to be male is an unfounded assumption, as most people don’t regularly declare their gender, and also seems irrelevant.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    @Rossweisse, as CK has noted above, there's a perfectly good Hell thread with @WildHaggis' name on it already. Your remarks belong there, not here.

    You're right, and I apologize, although it seems to me that others have also been guilty of that in this thread. At any rate, it won't happen again.

  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, Dead Horses Host
    Demeaning was the key word in my thought. I think any of us are free to ask questions which seem relevant to us on any thread.
  • @Rossweisse I'm sorry you felt singled out, and I could have worded my post better.

    It's true that a couple of other posters have been treading close to the line, you just happened to cross it first in my estimation.

    I think it's not surprising there's a lot of frustration being vented here. However, I think that to belong here and not in Hell such frustration needs to be tempered with at least some positive recommendations or, as ever, addressing the issue not the person.

    It's also worth bearing in mind that Wild Haggis is free to post at any time. She's had a warning, not a suspension. It would be great if this thread led to positive change and restoration, and for contributions to bear that possible outcome in mind.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host
    I agree, it would be good if Wild Haggis could come and talk to people about this - maybe some mutual understanding would be gained, and less conflict in future. I observe conflicts are often sorted out, or at least lessened, by people being willing to engage with the people who are frustrated with them.
  • Mea culpa. I have probably crossed the line.

    I'd like to see WH 'restored'. I don't think she'd need to make that much of an adjustment. Reading a few previous posts before diving in would resolve a lot of the issues I think.

    I'm sure she doesn't mean to put people's backs up.
  • Some of the very nasty comments that you have made about me should not go unchallenged. Please look at the log in your own eyes before you criticise me.

    I thought & prayed long before I decided to write anything here. I am shocked at some of the comments.

    You say you don't believe in calling names but you seem to call me plenty. You say you shouldn't make personal comments. But you have made plenty about me. Saying I am playing a "martyr card" is really very nasty indeed and beneath anyone who calls themselves any kind of christian. I think it may say more about the name caller than the subject - especially as you have not had the decency to ask why I feel the way I do. It may not be your experience. But it is mine. Maybe you need to understand the perspective of others and walk in their shoes a wee bit more.

    You criticise me for going off the point in discussions. Have you never gone off in a tangent? Read through all the discussion boards and you will see it is very common. (eg the interpolation re gaming by some men into a discussion which had nothing to do about the subject, and even after another lady, not me, made the first complaint, they kept going with impunity.) Let him without guilt cast the first stone.

    When I join in discussions I look at the question and then at the last 10 or so posts, if I am interested in joining the debate. I don't have time, who does, to go back and read every post especially if their are over 100 posts. Are you saying then that unless you have been at the beginning of a discussion and read every post, you can't contribute?
    There are many posts repeating something from way back in the discussion board, particularly if there are more than 5 pages - it's not just me. Look back and see if I'm right?

    My "multiple discourtious comments". That really has puzzled me. I became very upset and annoyed at the criticisms made against me, while seeing much worse posts, posted by others accepted with impunity.
    I have read very many "rude"posts (some very rude indeed) and "personal" posts on the discussion boards, that I don't contribute to (I'm not referring to Hell which I very rarely visit). There have even been rude comments about me but I don't go and cry wolf - nor were they castigated. I haven't knowingly made rude personal posts. I haven't sworn at people, as I have seen others do in Purgatory. I may have challenged and debated and disagreed. If you think anyone who disagrees with you is discourtious, then that closes down debate except with people who agree with you.

    Maybe it is my Scots use of English (I'm not posh); maybe I have been arguing tongue in cheek or playing devil's advocate; maybe I have challenged a point to say that there is a different way of looking at things; but isn't that what discussion and debate is about? There seems to be one rule for those who are in an accepted group and another for guests who dip in and out of the ship. Some of you are every critical of others who perhaps use language in a different way, due to where they have been brought up or their age.

    I thought "Barnabus" meant "brother of encouragement" - not someone who smashes down people (sorry I'm being personal again). How am I supposed to know you are not in the role of host if you only use one avatar that says Host? I don't mind read - lost that skill when I stopped teaching! You need 2 avatars if you have 2 roles, so users know exactly which you using at that time. I still don't know what I said that was different from many of the other posts that came before me.

    This is not what the SofF that I joined many years ago was about. I have been in and out over the years due to pressure of work and also ill health but that shouldn't preclude someone if they aren't posting all the time. I am finding that the present incarnation is somewhat unwelcoming for those of us who aren't posting multiple times. Sorry, but that is my experience. You aren't me.

    If people have to "learn the ropes" then that clearly indicates an "in" group where outsiders aren't really welcome until they "learn the ropes" whatever they are! What happened to inclusivity what happened to welcome?

    Personal again, sorry - Gamma I'm shocked at what you said. Especially as we had had a conversation and I had grown to appreciate you in these emails. When I jump ship, I will still will pray and light candles for your family. I don't hold grudges.

    I honestly have felt unwelcome and excluded over these last few months, in what is supposed to be an open debating website. So I am now jumping ship definitively. I seem to have be walking on eggshells in a darkened room in discussions where there are unwritten rules by people who know each other well and excuse all sorts of things among themselves but are very critical of others.

    So I'm going to take my coracle and sail away to other islands where I know there are people who are welcoming, not so touchy, critical and unaccepting of those who are different.

    So good luck everyone and goodbye and enjoy each other's company. And try to be more welcoming, and less judgmental.
  • :rolleyes:
  • I'm speechless.
  • Which didn't last long ...

    I've never seen anyone swear at anyone else in Purgatory and not be hauled up for it by Hosts or Admins. The swearing at people happens in Hell.

    If someone can show me an instance of someone swearing at someone else in Purgatory and not being told off for it, I'll accept what you're saying.

    Being personal -well yes, I appreciate your prayers and lighting candles.

    Does that mean you are beyond criticism or challenge?

    I've given you a hard time, I accept that. I'm not posh either.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    WildHaggis wrote: »
    How am I supposed to know you are not in the role of host if you only use one avatar that says Host? I don't mind read - lost that skill when I stopped teaching! You need 2 avatars if you have 2 roles
    WildHaggis, I’m sorry you are having such a painful time with this. Like you, I have dipped in and out of the boards over the years. One thing I have noticed is that when hosts or admins post in their capacity as such, they sign their post as [Boardname] Host, or as Admin. Otherwise they are free to take part in discussions in the same way as the rest of us.

    I do think you have misread Barnabas62. I do not think his posts have either the intention or style that you seem to be inferring.

    I do not think the response you are getting is because of your Scots use of English (I hadn’t noticed it was different from other posters). There are quite a number of other Scots on the forum, and plenty of women too (though my guess is there are fewer women than men).

    I have no idea about social class - yours or any other posters on the boards. It’s a slippery enough distinction to make even just in England, let alone Britain as a whole or the much wider world represented by SoF posters. I certainly haven’t had any sense of any poster’s class from their style of posting.

    Finally, my personal discipline on long threads is generally not to post until I have either read the whole thing, or have really got a good feel for the discussion, otherwise my breath of fresh air and common sense at post # 103 turns out to be the same thing that someone else said at post # 53, and which was extensively discussed in the following dozen posts or so.

    Personally, I hope this blip can be overcome, and you’ll feel able to continue with the Ship, but if you can’t, I do hope you find somewhere else that works for you.
  • Ah well - accusing WH of virtue-signalling and playing the martyr card makes one sub-Christian. It's behaviour 'beneath any form of Christian.'

    What? Speaking as one finds makes some one sub-Christian?

    That's the second, if not the third time I've been accused of 'unChristian' behaviour by WH. She has accused others of the same thing.

    Swearing at her in Hell (not Purgatory) wasn't at all Christian. I'd accept that.

    I did have a fruitful email exchange with WH and I grew to appreciate her more there too, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't find her tone a tad condescending and patronising there too - but hey, it takes all sorts.

    I can understand people finding the Ship a bit cliquey, particularly among those who've been around a long time but I do think it's largely a forgiving kind of place.

    Anyway, it's a shame when people leave under a cloud.
  • WildHaggis wrote: »
    My "multiple discourtious comments". That really has puzzled me.
    You have been given the opportunity to ask questions about what is being seen as discourteous by many people. As it happens, your most recent post illustrates what people have been finding difficult about your posting style. It has nothing to do with "personal" comments, or whether you're disagreeing with the views others have expressed.

    Your latest post is long, it makes several disconnected points, and it fails to acknowledge recent posts on the thread (we don't expect people to read every post, especially on long threads, but it comes across as rude if posts suggest that the last half dozen posts haven't been read). An example of not appearing to have read recent posts is in your opening sentence.
    Some of the very nasty comments that you have made about me should not go unchallenged.
    This post by Eutychus challenged the personal comments on this thread, with a follow-up challenge. These challenges resulted in apologies from Rossweisse and Gamma Gamaliel (the post immediately before yours). It seems incongruent that you can claim to have read this thread and yet failed to miss the challenges to the more personal comments made, and the apologies that were offered.

    In all new situations there will be a certain amount of a requirement to "learn the ropes", and yes that's true here. Some of those ropes will be technical (how to quote sections of posts and include links), others what we understand as serious and robust discussion (which can get heated, but should take the opinions of others seriously and respond to what people have actually said). One of the purposes of the Styx is to provide a place for people to ask questions about how things are done here. If anyone finds that they don't understand how the Ship works then just ask and we'll try our best to explain. You've been directed on more than one occasion to raise questions you have about hostly actions here in the Styx, which is something you haven't taken the opportunity to do. Recognising that there is a requirement to "learn the ropes" yet refusing to do anything to learn the ropes also comes across as rude - as though you're expecting us to change the way we have operated for 20 years to suit you.

    Alan
    Ship of Fools Admin
  • Curiosity killedCuriosity killed Shipmate
    edited August 2018
    @WildHaggis I am someone else who is in and out of Ship of Fools: I have been around a lot recently partly because I was off sick as these new boards started, it's now the school holidays and I have to stay out of the sun/daylight. So I am posting far more than I usually do, but I have had many months in the 12 years I have been a member when I haven't been around at all.

    I suspect that I am one of the people you are finding difficult to deal with because I have been challenging you on the boards, although I do not believe I have called you names, even as I have challenged things you have said or asked if you have read threads you are posting on. It is within the guidelines for Purgatory that any posts can be challenged on the content, and challenged robustly, so long as the posts are courteous. If you can find anywhere where I have done anything more than this, please point it out.

    Like @BroJames when I am busy I do not post on threads. There are threads on this new Ship that I haven't read or engaged in because during term time they were busy and I didn't keep up with them and now they are so long that I am not going to go back and read through them all. Because I like the community and have made friends in real life among Shipmates, I tend to read All Saints, The Styx, Hell and any threads I'm involved in as priorities and anything else just gets left, so I do not always post in Purgatory and only selectively then.

    One of the things I have noticed is that you seem to have become more upset over the last few weeks, since you have been challenged or asked to change your posting style to fit the guidelines, and this has seemed to be reflected in your more recent posts which have reflected emotional perturbation in their style and a reluctance to accept that there may be a reason for the criticism you are hearing. This last post suggests that you cannot see how you have been described as discourteous. Have you reread your posts to see if you can understand the criticisms?

    eta: cross post with Alan

    Alan I miss posts when they are posted while I'm composing a post unless I deliberately go back and check.
  • WildHaggis wrote: »
    Are you saying then that unless you have been at the beginning of a discussion and read every post, you can't contribute?
    This is exactly what I do before I post on any thread. I don’t think I’d ever post on a thread without having read it all first. Maybe if it’s a long thread that’s been going for ages, I’d settle for the last 5 pages or so, though. I suspect most Shipmates would do the same.
    WildHaggis wrote: »
    My "multiple discourtious comments". That really has puzzled me.
    @Eutychus has linked to some examples. The question is: do you genuinely want to understand what it is about the way you post that is offensive, or would you prefer your indignation? There have already been offers to explain to you clearly how dismissive and rude your posts can be. And, yes, you can be extremely dismissive and rude without swearing or directly insulting other Shipmates. If you do want to understand and learn, this could easily be done by PM, if you don’t want it done on this thread.
    WildHaggis wrote: »
    Maybe it is my Scots use of English (I'm not posh)
    No, this is nothing to do with it.
    WildHaggis wrote: »
    If people have to "learn the ropes" then that clearly indicates an "in" group where outsiders aren't really welcome until they "learn the ropes" whatever they are!
    Also nothing to do with it. You’ve been around as long as I have. This isn’t about learning the ropes. This is about you repeatedly blundering into threads, dismissing other people’s experiences, and chastising everyone else for not having the same opinion as you (even when they do).
    WildHaggis wrote: »
    I thought & prayed long before I decided to write anything here.
    That’s great. Our (vertical) relationship with the Divine is so important. But this is about the (horizontal) interactions you have with other people. That’s what got you here. Your choice whether to do the hard work of shadow-boxing; or whether to leave. I hope you stay.
  • Is it 'beneath any form of Christian' to suggest that a martyrdom card is being played when a Shipmate insists, either explicitly or implicitly, that they are being treated differently to anyone else on the grounds of:

    - Nationality
    - Gender
    - Social class
    - The alleged exclusivity of the boards and apparent favouritism towards particular positions which the poster does not hold?

    How is that in any way sub-Christian?

    I'll readily accept that I've been rude to WH. I've used what is euphemistically called intemperate or 'strong language.'

    I've also apologised and I've also extended an olive branch by email which WH very graciously accepted.

    I hope she stays around but would well understand if she chooses to paddle off elsewhere.

    I bear WH no ill will but I am puzzled and frustrated at her apparent inability to understand how dismissive, discourteous and rude her posts can come across - I'm sure unintentionally.

    If that's 'shocking' then I stand by my shocking remarks.

    I've enjoyed some of WH's posts, particularly on the Old Ship, but even there would skip over many of them or roll my eyes as it appeared she either spectacularly missed a point or started castigating posters for positions they either didn't even hold or where she appeared to have jumped to conclusions about them with very little evidence.

    Perhaps I need more patience, but there's only so long you can put up with what appears to be a serial inability or unwillingness to read for comprehension.

    It may be inadvertent but it comes over as dismissive.

    What a shocking observation for anyone to make.

    It must be because I'm not Scots, because I must be posh or something, because I'm male, because ... [Insert other condition of choice here].

    Surely the only possible reason any of us could challenge particular Shipmates is because there's something wrong with us? Either we are not properly Christian, or we represent some hegemonic elite or we fail by some other standard.

    Why hadn't I noticed this before?

    Anyhow, enough's enough.

    If you paddle away, WH, godspeed on your travels.

    If you stay then we can all sharpen one another up.
  • passerpasser Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    :rolleyes:

    If I might be so bold as to add :

    case proven.
  • Would I be allowed to agree?

    QED.

    I can be blunt at times but equally I do have a tendency to beat myself up.

    My usual default position when faced by a challenge such as, 'that was below the belt and very unworthy of someone who calls themself a Christian' would be to skulk away, don a hair shirt and beat myself with brambles ... Then, after several days in sackcloth and ashes I would crawl on my hands and knees to a priest or trusted confidante saying, 'Forgive me Father / Brother / Sister for I have sinned, please specify the toughest penance you can possibly prescribe ... No, no, not the Comfy Chair!!!!'

    In this particular instance it evoked a very different reaction.

Sign In or Register to comment.