Are you aware of the so-called "Fluther code of conduct"?

I know about it because someone pointed it out to me. Yet some continue to be rude when they know it’s all under the protection of anonymity. I don’t name nobody so I can be rude to them. Happens a lot.

Yes, I am aware. I think it’s silly.

We’re adults and know what we signed up for when we entered discussions on the Net.

@Hibernate No one is saying you can’t use an active members name in an active thread.

Attack the post, not the poster is another one I see abused way too often.

@SpatzieLover I was referring to naming someone who doesn’t participate or making a thread where you point out directly to a similar question but not as an inspiration.

@Cruiser yeah. Maybe at some point we can do something about that “freedom”.

At first glance, it can be seen as a little silly, because we are all supposed to be adults, but having recently been on the receiving end of some vicious Fluther libel, which was believed by a number of people simply because it was said, I’m a supporter of the no-name out of basic courtesy and decency policy. It’s amazing to me how many people will take at face value alleged accusations, with no evidence to support them whatsoever.

@JilltheTooth I forgot about that thread…Yes, I see your point. There are times I’ve seen people use ACTUAL user names, too.

Not naming names prevents direct attacks but it doesn’t disable the “skirting of the rules” that sometimes goes on. Is it better to say something to someone directly or just hint at it?

@SpatzieLover : Yeah, MY actual user name was used but not with the @ sign, so it went quietly by for a long time.

@EnchantingEla : Unfounded allegations against a user can be damaging to the entire feel of the community.

I am totally fine with calling people out.

I agree @JilltheTooth. So is it better to name names so the alleged can call out the accuser?
I’m wondering which thread is being referred to : (

It’s been deleted or severely modded at this point @EnchantingEla

Calling people out and saying something about someone are different. You can argue and debate all you want on threads with someone, but when you start saying things about someones personal life – things they have or haven’t shared elsewhere – then that’s not ok whether they’re involved on the thread or not.

@allie :: I guess I never see that and the position is understandable. And how is it I am a huge asshole and never get dragged into this high school bullshit?

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. I say keep it.

You could get some pretty douchey people who will go at others. Do we want that here?

@EnchantingEla “So is it better to name names so the alleged can call out the accuser?”

No, no one should be naming anyone at all. Stick to the discussion – argue points relevant to the topic.

(Carrying on the conversation by @ replying to someones comment in a thread is not what “naming names” means here.)

By observation I have noticed that a lot of feelings are hurt when names are hinted at or mentioned. Recently we have had two major incidents where several users were hurt and one disabled their account. This morning we averted yet another possible issue.

As a mod I have seen this happen multiple times, even when it could be taken as a compliment by the mentioned party most of the time it is not appreciated at all.

I think it falls under the lines of talking behind someones back. When a user is not in a thread to defend themselves, I think that they should never be discussed.

@Dog never forget that sometimes a user gives a few replies then gets sickened by what he/she sees and unfollows the question. What then? They clearly can’t see they are highlighted and it’s less likely someone will point out in a private message “you .. X said this in that question ..” unless they know that person doesn’t receive that question in “Activity for you”.

Again, @Hibernate That is not what is being discussed here. We’re not discussing a direct response in a thread.

There is a big difference between directing a post ”@” someone in a thread, usually in response to what they posted and saying, third person “So-and-so did this and as a result that bad thing happened”.

I don’t know when it went into effect, because I remember a phase where there were lots of.. who is your jelly crush, and what jellies would you like to meet, etc, type threads being made regularly. There were a lot of names named, and it wasn’t modded. I am not really sure when it shifted.

@SpatzieLover don’t act like you don’t see what I’m talking about. @Dog said “When a user is not in a thread to defend themselves, I think that they should never be discussed” as talking behind someone’s back. I point out that sometimes an user leaves a reply and when they see all the bad things said decides to unfollow. What then? This situation falls under what rule? Seems you don’t see it as talking behind ones back. Enlighten me please.
I’m sure I’ve stayed on topic.

@Hibernate This does not fall under what I am discussing at all.

If you begin a conversation and leave before it ends then others can,and will, comment on your points and present a counter point. You are the one who has chosen to leave. If you are attacked personally in that thread and called names then it is removed as a “personal attack.”

Please stick to the topic at hand.

I’m dyslexic. God rocks.

@Hibernate If the responses the user doesn’t see (because (s)he left the thread) are relevant to the discussion then that’s ok. If they don’t see them, then they just don’t respond. But if they are personal attacks, then that’s not ok. The latter should be flagged for removal.

@Dog you brought it up not me.

Who’s gonna flag personal attacks if the user in case isn’t there? Who knows if a person left a thread if they don’t point it out themselves ?

Code or conduct or not sometimes people get warned it’s not okay yet a lot of the times, just like @ANef_is_Enuf said a lot of questions/posts don’t seem relevant and they get away with it.

@Dog Yes.

@Hibernate : Other users flag personal attacks. I’m not sure what your argument is about, or what you’re not understanding in what @Dog and @Allie are saying. Do you want us to think your understanding of English really is that deficient?

That’s not what I said at all….

This is completely absurd. Clearly some people know what others are talking about, and others are clueless. SO this policy creates more division between insiders who know what is going on and outsiders who are mystified and hurt because they have been left out. There are a lot of secrets around here as a result. It’s extremely annoying.

If people are talking about specific others, they should have the courtesy to address those people instead of being dishonest and hiding behind veiled threats. Unfortunately, that’s not allowed here, so people are, in essence, forced to be devious. What kind of culture is that?

In other cases, people take things personally when someone really is just talking generally, even if they may have had that person in mind. There’s no telling what is personal unless someone specifically names names.

I understand that we are trying to keep things friendly, but enough is enough. This kind of political correctness can also kill discussion and create enmities that are well known but unacknowledged. I know who dislikes me. I try to avoid them unless there is a more neutral issue or an issue on which we agree. But if an issue is raised where I feel passionately opposed to them, forget it. The gloves are off. No personal attacks, but definitely attacking the idea of a person. Let’s be clear about that.

But it gets complicated when we make generalizations. Someone included in the generalization will take it personally in many cases. I suppose it helps to qualify things, but do you think me saying “in many cases” is going to allow someone who makes generalizations to feel excluded from the people I’m talking about? Like, “Oh, I’m one of the generalizers who is all right.” I doubt it. It’s human nature and there’s no fighting it. People will take the least comment personally just because that’s the way we are. The intent of the commentator really makes no difference.

I was seriously asking about when it shifted, not being a smartass…

Fuck, yeah.

I don’t see why its wrong to inquire about someone who is MIA. Some people on here are sick and if they don’t show for a long time I would like to know if something happened to them.
So does that mean you can’t PM someone on fluther who may be good friends with the person?

@wundayatta We are speaking more about accusations and divulging personal information when a person is not present to defend themselves.

@Pandora We are only discussing public dialogue.

In the specific circumstances which you desribe, yes i’m completely aware of that policy.
Not that i’d ever feel the need to indulge in playground games of that ilk anyway, but yeah, I hear ya, loud & clear.
I mean, we all could sit here & fundamentally “rip the shit” out of each other for various reasons, some of them more than likely legitimate, but that’s just bloody childish isn’t it?
I’m a big dumb kid myself sometimes, but I have the clarity of thought to stay away from unneccesary hostilities.
It’s a Q&A site when all’s said & done, now where’s the harm in that eh? :¬)

Yes, vaguely am aware of it. Also, for the record, I was not hurt when someone asked that q about me. I don’t get upset by randoms on a high horse, please.

Oh jeez – if someone is inappropriate, flag it and remove it. I do understand why we can’t name someone in a Q, but I guess I don’t really understand why we can’t say we miss someone or wonder why they’re not around in a quip.

Remember, I am the “old broad who shall not be named” lolol

@wundayatta “If people are talking about specific others, they should have the courtesy to address those people instead of being dishonest and hiding behind veiled threats. Unfortunately, that’s not allowed here, so people are, in essence, forced to be devious. What kind of culture is that?”
1) It is possible to have a discussion without mentioning things about other people. 2) Addressing people in public threads often entices them to respond… hello flame war. 3) We’re not “forcing you to be devious,” we’re asking you to be polite.

@Pandora “I don’t see why its wrong to inquire about someone who is MIA. Some people on here are sick and if they don’t show for a long time I would like to know if something happened to them. So does that mean you can’t PM someone on fluther who may be good friends with the person?”
You can PM other friends of the person, but asking front-page questions about someone is a general no-no. One reason is because the person being asked about might not have departed on their own accord, but banned. Disclosing details about someones departure (voluntary or not) isn’t front-page Fluther business.

@Allie ” It is possible to have a discussion without mentioning things about other people.”

Of course. That’s exactly my point. You have the conversation about the other person without mentioning them. That is dishonest in my book, and this rule (not “your” rule, which would personalize it), actually actively sponsors that kind of deception.

Similarly, there are no individual moderators with names. Only the moderators. They make decisions with no personal accountability. Only collective accountability. It protects mods from personal attack. It also pushes along a culture that says we should hide behind impersonality. That way, we don’t have to take responsibility for our decisions or for our feelings about others. After all, we were not addressing them personally (even though anyone in the know knows exactly who you were referring to).

In my opinion, it’s deceptive and self-defeating. It hurts the culture. It saddens me that so many buy into it. But I recognize that I am a minority, and I bow to the majority.

Nein. Was ist das?

@wundayatta : Why are you having a public conversation about a third party in the first place?

What is MIA?

@rebbel Missing in action

@rebbel : Where’s your face? I love your face! Bring back your face, please!

@wundayatta Why would you have a conversation about someone in the first place? How about sticking to the question that was asked and – if there even is a debate going on – debating with the people involved? Either way, there’s no need to make snide comments about anyone else. You call it dishonest, I call it being decent. I’m not saying you can’t argue or disagree. By all means, go for it, just do so without personal comments. It’s not necessary.
Regarding “protecting mods from personal attack” – well, sometimes we get attacked anyway. Comes with the title. And no, we do not always hide behind the “Mod” curtain. For example, every time we send a moderator PM it says our individual user names on it. That doesn’t matter anyway though, because when we do something “as a mod” that’s exactly what it means. Personal accountability isn’t an issue. I won’t mod you (general ‘you’) because I dislike you, you need to have done something wrong. As a mod, I don’t remove something based on my feelings about it, I remove something because it’s against the guidelines. Make sense?

@Coloma Thanks!
@JilltheTooth I answered the to autumn avatar question and now I transmorphed into a leafless tree…(thank you for your sweet words!)

I choose to not make public the remarks about some persons that I have made in private to some other persons. It would serve no purpose at all. I can’t see how this is so hard for some to understand.

@Allie I thought they meant anywhere including PMing.
But what if the person is still on only they haven’t been around? I know when I look at someones name on a post it will say they are no longer on so that is a no brainer. But what if the account is still active and they just haven’t been on for a while and you wanted to find out if someone could get a hold of them and get a message across?

I found out about the MIA policy by asking a question in Meta about a fellow jelly I hadn’t seen in a period of time and couldn’t remember her name to send a PM. My question was stopped by a mod and I was told to ask @augustlan. I did and she never responded.

@Pandora PMing someone who might have know the person is fine. PMs, yes. Public, front-page questions, no.

@bkcunningham I’m sure there was a reason. Auggie gets tons of PMs a day I’m sure, so maybe it just got lost in the chaos that is her inbox, ha.

I’m very aware of it and it’s enforced by a wonderful group of people!

The code of conduct makes sense to me in the context of not maligning someone. But it does seem odd that in this community, which clearly has some caring people and some folks with long-standing relationships, we are not allowed to use the forum to inquire about the well-being of others. I think the moderators will always have the backs of current and former subscribers, so I’m not sure of the harm in calling out a name in a cordial manner.

@Allie, it was several months ago. It doesn’t matter really. I’m sure you are correct about Auggie just losing my question in the mess on her desk. I still wonder about the fellow jelly though.

@picante It used to be like that some time ago, but some people don’t like to be named, period – good or bad. So the general rule now is that naming names isn’t allowed.

@bkcunningham Know anyone else that knew them? Send a PM. :)

Thanks, @Allie. You are a sweetie.

I also want to add that many times a user will appear to leave but in reality they have created a new user account. So writing about users who are MIA is really not advisable since they may, in fact, not be gone at all.

Apparently this also means we can’t say something like “I’d love it if K—- could cater my party” or “I wish I could have tea and a nice long chat with g—.” I think that’s a shame.

I wonder if this comment has to be modded away now because I’ve implied that some users’ names start with letters of the alphabet.

@Jeruba I think that part is a shame too. I wish we could strike a balance without upsetting others.

Yeah – it kind of spoils some of the community feel for me. It really does.

My name starts with a silent “6.”

And I really thought the threads where we all expressed concern for an ill member and cheered her return were important in more than one way. I’m sad to think we can’t do that any more. What happened to the idea of the spirit versus the letter of the law?

yes

This feels like one of those policies that was created to mitigate a few bad situations. Are you sure it can’t be rethought? Not looking to make more mod work but it does seem counter-productive and draconian. I may be wrong.

Is this the question of the day?

@Jeruba @janbb The problem is when you get into grey areas and then one users asks, “Well, that was allowed, why wasn’t mine?” So in the end, after having discussions about it (and let me tell you, we discusseeeddd it), it was thought best to nix all questions/comments mentioning and alluding to a specific user.

Reading the answers so far, I put some thought to it too.
How about we review the unwritten no naming names rule and think of conditions as to when we can and cannot do so?
Apparently there is a lot of dissatisfaction about the rule, but on the other hand also people who are happy with naming no names, so I think it might be a good idea to try and keep both parties satisfied.
I can see @Jeruba‘s point of encouraging ill Jellies to be a kind of name naming that should be allowed.
Calling @rebbel a d..kh..d would be a form of name naming that isn’t.
There must be a way to come to a certain ruling that is to all our liking, I am sure.
We are f…king clever Flutherites!

I think the whole we shouldn’t name who is in the mansion is BS, too.

Well, it’s not like you can’t go and write some encouraging words, or whatever you want to, on someones page. Leave a public PM if you’d like others to be able to see it. But a question like “Where did ___ go?” or “Did you miss me!?” (yes, some people name themselves) doesn’t belong on the front-page.

@SpatzieLover We considered nixing those too when we got rid of the birthday questions, but decided that might be getting rid of too much of the community feel.

Mansion questions are still allowed. And with prior permission from @Augustlan some personal questions and get well questions have been allowed.

@HungryGuy As we’ve clarified in several posts throughout the thread, we’re not talking about @ mentioning a user. Might want to play catch up a bit.

Believe me, guys. This is something we agonized over. It was only after a lot of thought that we came to this decision. I, too, remember the fun of “Who is your Fluther crush?” questions, and such. But even those questions caused hurt feelings. On the part of people who weren’t mentioned. They were viewed as ‘popularity contests’, by more people than you can imagine.

@Allie – Ah, gotcha :-p

@augustlan – I see the problem. Hurt feelings from not being included, eh? I guess you have to make a decision one way or the other. But as @Dog asked ”...What is your opinion…” here’s my opinion: personal attacks against specific individuals should be prohibited, but if your feelings are hurt by something people are talking about that you’re not part of, then that’s your problem.

“I’m So Meta, Even This Acronym…” -xkcd
^This is a reference to another member.~

Anyone that carries around “hurt” feelings and nurtures a grudge over some little spat or misunderstanding on an internet forum, well…get some therapy. lol

This entire code of conduct came about by the attitude that, because this is the internet, anyone should be able to say or do anything they want and if the others are hurt by this rude, callous behavior then that is their problem.

Why can’t we treat each other with the same respect that we would if we were face to face with them?

Come on guys, It is not bots you are posting to- it is people. Some of whom are hurting and seeking answers and a quality place to hang out. Fluther has always been a cut above the other sites because of the respect of the fellowship. Is it so hard just to play nice anymore?

Yes- it would be wonderful to be able to mention people in a nice way. To build the community in a positive light. But I point you again up to @augustlan ‘s response above.

I just think we are all better than this as a fellowship- I believe in all the collective. Lets be peaceful and get along.

I would think that to most folks who have a moral compass in real life, a code of conduct on a site such as this should come as no surprise. Internet or no internet there are things that are just not cool. Name calling, libeling someone, revealing others’ personal information, or just plain being nasty are not appropriate no matter what the venue. I love a good debate as much as the next guy, as long as we refrain from resorting to ad hominem attacks. All the things I mentioned do nothing but take away from the topic at hand and lower the level of discourse. As my much loved human relations teacher used to say it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable

As for personal threads, the “Fluther crush” and similar posts were fun for a minute but grew old very quickly and I for one was glad to see them go. I do admit to enjoying the lurve celebrations and the occasional thread of personal congratulations. That being said, even those can be overdone. For example if we were to start celebrating birthdays there would certainly be hurt feelings if a regular was somehow overlooked, I think it is certainly best not to even go there.

@Dog – That’s not what I meant! I meant if persons A and B and C are having a conversation between themselves (re, what @augustlan said, ”...But even those questions caused hurt feelings. On the part of people who weren’t mentioned…”) and are joking and making fun of each other in a friendly way (even in a public setting such as a social networking site like Fluther), and then person D stops in and feels left out because D wasn’t mentioned, that’s not callous or disrespectful behavior on the part of person A or B or C.

I haven’t read everyone’s response yet, so if you’ve already answered this, forgive me.

I have on occasion said to an OP or another person on a particular thread, that they might like to contact @so and so, because that other Fluther member (who at that point is not yet joined in the particular thread) has a lot of expertise in the subject.

Is that permitted? Otherwise, I shall refrain from doing that. Is it OK to refer one Jelly to another in a PM.

This situation doesn’t involve talking behind someone’s back or suggesting that they might have a particular point of view that is either positive or negative, it’s only directing a member to another member who is knowledgeable with regards to the subject of the OP.

Maybe the Mods can advise.

We seem to be overlooking the obvious here: all of the restrictions on naming names have come about as a result of more relaxed policies causing problems. Letting people name names at will was problematic. Allowing it only in “positive” cases was problematic. And now we see that letting it be an unofficial policy has caused problems.

Let’s not forget that this very question was asked only because we’re still having problems—and even here people are trying to hint at names. Is it really too much to ask that we, as a community, try to exhibit at least a little bit of self control?

Please note that I’m saying this as a community member, not as a mod. I haven’t even factored in the amount of extra work that these little spats bring our way.

@Kardamom Referring an asker to another member for their area of expertise (so long as it’s publicly known, and not something revealed in private) would be fine. Publicly or via PM, either way is ok.

I’m aware of it, aye, and I’ll keep my opinions to myself. One thing though, I definitely think it should be included in the guidelines.

@Symbeline – Right! If it’s a rule, it should be written, not unwritten.

@augustlan “Referring an asker to another member for their area of expertise (so long as it’s publicly known, and not something revealed in private) would be fine. ”
I agree, when it concerns me as being the referred-to party I was referred to a Jelly today by a dear member, as well as several other times that has happened, but I must admit that sometimes when I see that @random is referring @specialist to @OP I think: I wonder if @specialist is happy that his/her name is mentioned to @OP and if he/she is not feeling pressured in to answering a question that he/she maybe doesn’t feel/felt like answering (in the first place).

@Symbeline and @HungryGuy We are working on getting it included in the official guidelines as we speak (type?). :)

@rebbel You do have a point, there. Hrmm.

@augustlan Hrmmm, I may contradict myself now, but after re-reading my response I suddenly got aware of the fact that some people put fields of expertises in their profiles, in other words, that (could) mean that they are willing and not feeling pressured to answer people who have questions in these certain fields…....
I don’t know.
Maybe it is just an observation to take into account when debatting the naming no names rule.

Who debates the rules and who has the final say? I’m just wondering.

@rebbel and @augustlan if I see a question that fits specifically with a user’s expertise, I typically use the “Share Question” button. This gets the question to the expert without naming names in the thread. If I want to refer someone to a specific jelly whose expertise is not necessarily public knowledge, I check with the expert and once I have the go ahead, send the asker a PM suggesting they ask that expert.

@bkcunningham The owners of the site, myself, the mods, and the community all discuss these things. The final decisions are made by the owners, or by myself in their absence.

@SuperMouse That seems like the best solution.

I’m just curious. This was an issue on another board when a well-known member was gravely ill. People were posting and asking if this person was still alive. When they passed away, someone who was there in person posted about it.

A few years later a poster’s wife died and she posted as well. He posted about her death.

Are these posts not allowed here? I think if someone here was well known and died, others would like to know about it.

@keobooks Yes they are, so long as @augustlan grants approval.

@Dog Thank you. This is something I would hate to leave to the grapevine for people to find out. I don’t know anyone here well enough to wonder about it, but I have been there and wouldn’t want to rely on rumors.

@keobooks we have had a similar situation and update threads about the member have been allowed. Happy threads about specific members are allowed now and then too!

Mods, please answer me this because I’d like to understand.

I can readily see the problem with any kind of “Who’s your favorite jelly?” question. I have vocally opposed any call for threads that amount to popularity contests because they are divisive.

But if I made a comment such as “Wouldn’t it be fun to go camping with X?” or “I’d want Y behind me in a dark alley that’s probably full of zombies” somewhere in a thread, would you really get a complaint from Z, who was unhappy because I didn’t mention her? Has this kind of thing really happened? Does it really injure someone to see a nice acknowledgment of someone else?

If so, how hard those people’s lives must be. Watching the Academy Awards must be torture for them, and seeing someone get recognition or a promotion at work must just about destroy them.

I have been exasperated with the argument “If we let one, we’d have to let everybody” ever since I first encountered it at about the age of 6. Where is our common sense? Where are our powers of discrimination? Why can’t we say “This is like this, and this is not like that”? Why can’t we also say “Some distinctions are made subjectively, and that’s the price we pay for having things done by real people and not automatons”?

I am fully in support of policies that protect members and prevent hurt and harm. But I simply don’t see that neutrality and impersonality are the only solutions. Recognition of one another in various ways is exactly what fosters a sense of community. If we have to pretend at every juncture that those around us are all strangers, they might as well be.

And I also don’t see why a member was modded in this thread for making a specific name-naming reference to herself. Isn’t that taking it too far?

How can any website ever guarantee that no one will be upset by anything?

@Jeruba I completely understand where you’re coming from… it does seem innocuous to mention that so-and-so is a great cook, or that you’d want so-and-so by your side in case of a zombie apocalypse.

However, here’s what happens when somebody does that: Others quickly follow suit. By the end of the thread, numerous people will have been mentioned. Many more will not have been. And a perfectly harmless thread has turned into a popularity contest. We try to nip that in the bud.

It’s a pretty easy rule to abide by, but sometimes it does ruin a good quip. Just sayin’.

Thanks, @augustlan, for that perspective. I don’t mean to be difficult, but I truly would like to see an explicit yes here if the answer is yes:

…would you really get a complaint from Z, who was unhappy because I didn’t mention her? Has this kind of thing really happened?

I’m always for burning the code of conduct. It’s a public forum and people should be free to be themselves.

Can you cite an example? I’m lost. Feel free to use my name as an example.

@Jeruba Yes. It has actually happened. Not that they say “Nobody mentioned me, so I’m upset.”, but we do get flags on those threads that say “This is nothing but a popularity contest”.

Ok. Thank you. I would have expected a clearer distinction between something overtly competitive and something that’s really just a friendly compliment. I am genuinely surprised that we have so very many members who can’t bear to see anyone complimented. That’s truly sad.

I’m sorry, but that is going to affect my view of fluther from here on out. Suddenly it’s colder in here.

@Jeruba I don’t get the impression that they can’t stand to see anyone complimented. It’s that they see many people being complimented, and they are not among them. They feel left out, and that is truly sad.

I agree with the lady with the Cate Blanchet avatar.

I genuinely don’t understand why anyone would feel “left out” when pockets of friends give out virtual high-fives to each other. That’s a perfectly natural, entirely harmless thing to do, isn’t it?
I mean, I agree you have to act upon a groundswell of opinion, if the strength of numbers opposed to this are as significant as you say, then you’re bound to alter “policy” accordingly.
I just can’t comprehend those thought processes though, ah well, each to their own I suppose.

@ucme Perhaps the integrity of the questions and answers are hindered when someone is well liked or disliked. So the virtual high fives which usually transpose to hire points aren’t properly spread. Popularity and reputation dominate instead of great question or great answer in the case of this particular topic.

@whitetigress Well that’s a habit I certainly don’t practice, any question/answer is entirely based on it’s merits & has nothing to do with the individual concerned.
If people feel the need to give out “lurve” to someone they’re friends with, then that’s their business, I mean, so what? It’s only bloody points after all!

@perspicacious: Actually, “it’s a public forum” is not totally accurate. It’s a privately owned site and the owners let us hang out here if we agree to certain stipulations. There’s a difference.

Well, anyone who wants may talk about Penguins; just make sure you use a small “p.” That’s my Fluther policy.

I didn’t know we had an official unofficial code of conduct, and I think it’s silly. If people’s feeling are getting hurt because they are or are not mentioned in a thread, then they just need to get over it IMNSHO (in my not so humble opinion). I don’t get why it’s ok to talk about people through private messages, but not in public threads. I don’t make a habit of mentioning people’s names in threads, but I don’t agree with prohibiting people from doing so.

I don’t suppose it really matters how anyone feels, and perhaps people should just get over it. Perhaps people are unjustified in their feelings, according to others. I think that there can be people who probably have an oversized view of themselves who think they are notable for one reason or another. When they aren’t mentioned, except perhaps once or twice in any of these questions, it makes them feel like potted plants. There’s probably something wrong with them, mentally speaking, that makes them overreact. But overreact they do.

Should anyone care what they feel? Should fluther care what they feel? I, for one, am glad that fluther does care, even though they don’t deserve it. It’s probably good for them to get a reality check. I’ll bet some good contributors to the site have disappeared because they never felt appreciated, although I don’t know who they would be. This kind of thing is destructive and we never know this because we have no idea why people leave.

Popularity contests are inherently divisive. They make it obvious what the cliques are. They make people feel like insiders and outsiders. Of course the insiders love them and the outsiders hate them. It’s like being back in high school. It’s not just divisive, but it’s also destructive and I think it’s a good policy.

Fluther can not afford to lose people because they no longer feel appreciated. There are too few people left here as it is and not enough new people arriving. We want new people to feel welcome. Showing them the cliques is never very welcoming to anyone.

Maybe people should grow a pair, and if they don’t, they don’t belong here. Surely there are people who join and don’t care, and welcome the elevation of others into the pantheon of fluther gods. But there are those who are new and those who are veterans who do care, and who see it as a sign of being disliked by others, and so they don’t stick around or they leave.

Sure, we lose some of the pep rally nature of the community, but I think we hold onto to more people, including some people I suspect at lot of people would like to hold onto. But I have no idea about that, because we don’t have these beauty contests any more. But not having beauty contests allow everyone to believe they are beautiful, whether it’s true or not. Holding these contests makes it clear who people think are beautiful. Maybe not all the rest feel left out, but if anyone does, is it still worth holding the contest? What if a significant portion of people feel left out? I know, it’s hard for popular people to imagine how the unpopular people feel, so it seems like such a little thing. Perhaps it isn’t—at least to some. Although, perhaps they don’t matter to the rest of us.

fluther says they do matter. Let’s keep it that way.

@perspicacious Although it is literally a forum where members of the public are for the most part free to speak. It does not constitute this particular entity as a member of the freedom of speech, because it is a privatized entity. It’s their ballpark, their rules. Fluther didn’t pull any legs for you to join (::ominous sounds:: unless the marketing team is really tricking us! =O ::ominous sounds::)

Here’s a suggestion I thought of:

How about in Meta anything goes as far as naming names? No personal attacks or nasty cracks, of course, but what about “I miss so-an-so” at least in quips if not in questions? It seems to me that Meta is our area to talk about the community and it would be appropriate to mention people there. And a question could be moved to Meta if it did become about people.

Let me know, mods and Auggie, if this is no good.

I see that feelings do matter. I see that some feelings matter. If someone is upset because he (a hypothetical “he,” of course) isn’t mentioned in a specific conversation, he is upset, and it matters. If I am upset because I can’t mention how much I enjoy this jelly or say how highly I think of that one, it doesn’t matter.

I am upset because I can’t give compliments, and that doesn’t count, but if someone is upset because he doesn’t receive them, that does.

I think this is catering to the immature and self-absorbed. Just what we need more of on fluther! This is giving the right of blackball to babies. This is denouncing your neighbors behind their backs so they never know what they’ve been accused of or by whom and can’t answer the charges. They just suddenly … disappear.

Why don’t we have a system of flags so that a score of us can mark a thread to say “I’m NOT upset by this”? Or is it only the whiners who have power on fluther any more?

I agree that a rule with this much force and breadth of application ought to be written rather than unwritten. Let me propose a draft:

No user on fluther shall be made to suffer any emotional distress.
– If any user is emotionally distressed by a comment that is posted in a thread, the comment shall be removed.
– If any user is emotionally distressed by a comment that is not posted in a thread, the thread shall be removed.
– If any user is emotionally distressed by the removal of a comment or a thread, the user shall be removed.

Removing myself now and for the indefinite future.

Redacted

Personally, I think it doesn’t matter. The whiners will find something new to whine about, the skirters will be more evasive (because they either think they are cute, smarter/better than others or are just plain asses) and the people who are mean will still be mean…. like the people who won’t name a name but anyone with half a brain can see it for what it is… a derogatory, belittling comment.
btw: I’d really like to know what exactly a troll is and why is it okay for people to use this term in any form in a reply or in reference to another member.

@EnchantingEla I’ve always wondered about what a troll is too. Other than the kind that live under bridges, I don’t really know the definition of an internet troll.

Excuse the beginning advertisement. This is an Internet troll.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMEe7JqBgvg

@dog What are mansion questions?

Oh, NSFW on the above post. Sorry.

@Kato mansion questions are threads that celebrate a user’s hitting lurve milestones such as 10, 20, 30, or even 40,000 lurve points.

Oh ok, thank you!
@SuperMouse

I’ve gotten a few PMs since this thread started, from people who really appreciate this policy. People who have been hurt in the past. Those folks are not very likely to post in this thread, after being referred to as ‘whiners’ and ‘babies’ by several people.

I remind everyone, once again… we are talking about real people here. Your friends, in many cases.

Politics…..

Understood and my apologizes extended to them that took offense, @augustlan. When people PM you and say they see it as nothing but a popularity contest… what is that if not whining? I mean really, why do people care so much that they actually feel compelled to tell you? I don’t understand why they would drag you or any of the mods in that position. Maybe I’m not reading the correct threads where this is so obviously taking place. Why can’t people shake it off, not take it so personal and move along? It seems like some have to have their fingers in everything regardless of what it is. I honestly have no idea who would complain about not being mentioned. For lurve? I guess I just don’t get it…

Maybe we should put a Thumper rule in place. “If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all.”

I was a little intimidated about turning over 10,000. I didn’t know what to expect. I didn’t want it to be obvious to everyone that I wasn’t liked by many people or maybe nobody would show up for the party or… I dunno. I just didn’t want to deal with it to be honest. As it approached, I honestly thought, “Screw it. Que sera, sera. Put your big girl panties on. It is only the Internet.”

@augustlan I understand that; people shouldn’t be dicks. But, adults should be able to handle themselves and their feelings without having to stifle everyone just in case unwanted comments are made.

“Removing myself now and for the indefinite future.” This statement makes angry with the people complaining about so called popularity contests. Name calling and making derogatory, belittling comments I understand. Not getting a mention… I just don’t, sorry.
No disrespect intended @augustlan and I will try hard to drop it after this, but bottom line, in my eyes, it’s just a bunch of hs bs.

I wonder what the numbers are now as to how many people get/got their feelings hurt in relation to how many people are/will be hurt due to this.

I think @augustlan and the mods are doing their best to please everyone and are trying to find a happy medium. They love this site and they don’t want to see it go to shit. I see a lot of whining above me, unfortunately. :/

I just wanted to respond so I wouldn’t be suspected of being one of the “whiners” because I’ve been absent from this thread.~

And here I was certain it was you @jonsblond~

Marking @jonsblond off my list of potential culprits.

phew!......... beer, anyone? It is Friday

I am already in the thread and I am a whiner (ask my girlfriend ;-) ).
@jonsblond I could not see you as being whining!

@rebbel I could not see you as being whining! Thank god my husband isn’t following this thread. ;)

I’m not naming names, BUT, someone was whining about having to change the butt-wipe paper in the home the other night. Not a whiner? Right, jb? jk

I would not stay on this site if people were allowed to flame each other. It ruins everything.

@YARNLADY Define flame?

source

@YARNLADY We can flag it if it’s flaming. I think using someone’s @name is quite different than flaming. I must be thinking way differently about this than some other jellies are_

Gosh I haven’t heard from @C_ _ in a looong time. I wonder if any other jellies have?

^That &

Let’s all welcome @so& so into the mansion…. was what I was thinking when I first read this Q.

@SpatzieLover Yes, those are benign uses, I was thinking of I’m glad @—- left or such.

@YARNLADY I know what it means. I want to know what you think flaming is. People have different ideas of what is and isn’t acceptable, and I think that’s part of the problem with moderation.

@Facade OK, I think is is so easy to misunderstand a post that it is safer to use generalities rather than users as examples. If I said I love long answers, and gave an example, someone could think I was dissing their short answers. Leave off the example, and it’s less likely.

Saying anything derogatory in public about any particular user is wrong, or using an example that would identify them. If there is an issue with a user, it should be discussed directly with the moderators. I have done this on at least three occasions.

Referring to a user as stupid, or always mistaken, or other general derogatory words does not enhance any discussion.

@YARNLADY I get it. People don’t want to be singled out or called stupid. To me, moderators should only remove posts that are, for instance, threatening a person’s life or something of that nature. It sucks to go through a thread and see several posts removed; it’s boring.

I think the entire spirit of what they were trying to do has gone so far off the
mark in this thread. @augustlan, in a nice way, tries to explain why they remove
the popularity threads, and suddenly it’s all about “whiners”. Maybe the bugs
aren’t worked out, yet, but I’m pretty sure it’s more about respecting the other
users than anything else. It seems silly to not be able to say “I’d want
@username at my back during a Zombie attack”, I get that, but where’s the line
drawn between that and “Let’s get @Christianuser to help us fight vampires,
his/her crucifix necklace would be a great weapon!” Maybe a bit of extra
filtering couldn’t hurt. That said, I’m sure I will be an offender until I get a
handle on this, too, but I think some of you guys are being a bit hard on the
very people who have to make the “line-drawing” decisions every day around here,
so the rest of us can play.

BTW, sorry about the formatting here, I wrote this on my notepad and margins are funny when I bring it over.

Want to know what I think? That I was surprised to learn when I grew up that adults are just as gossipy as teenagers. I think the policy is probably a good one as it can serve to reduce drama on the site and keep the focus on its intended use: discussion.

Who really needs to talk about other people on here?

@whitetigress “the freedom of speech” Oh my goodness!

We try our best to be fair, but the hard truth is that we can’t please everyone. I’m genuinely sorry that so many are upset with this policy, and will be giving it a lot of thought.

^^she’s the best :D

Thanks, blondie. :)

There is no way to avoid the “popularity” or “clique” aspect. Look at lurve scores, doesn’t that reflect popularity and give a measure of it. Look at the number of congrats sent to a milestone party, some have many more than others again indicating popularity. So I don’t get the can’t name names or ask blatantly popularity questions because someone’s feelings will get hurt. As long as anyone keeps a score there is the possibility of feelings being hurt.

We are getting close to the dangerous point where legislating political correctness (either by written or unwritten rules) stifles free exchange of ideas.

I was recently insulted but not named explicitly so the insult was not removed despite being flagged. I assume it was because the insulter is a much liked and prolific contributor. It gives me a pain but I simply reassure myself that the insulter is the ass not I and move on. That is what adults do in adult situations.

@augustlan – You’re right; you can’t please everyone. So at the risk of repeating myself, that’s why freedom of speech is the best overall policy. And that’s why it’s my opinion that the guidelines should prohibit outright personal attacks and spam (and on-topic in the General section), but otherwise allow people to say whatever they want to say.

And maybe if an omission of somebody in a thread is an obvious snub against that person, maybe I’ll agree with prohibiting something like that too. As you say, these are our friends and we don’t want to hurt their feelings deliberately and maliciously. But if you’re going to censor everyone because someone is hurt (and yes, I do feel bad when someone’s feelings are hurt…I’ll be one of the first to raise a hue and cry over bullies) because they simply weren’t mentioned in a chatty discussion, you might as well raise the communist flag over Fluther.

Again, I will point out that we are ignoring the obvious. The policy was created in response to past problems. Recurring problems. To protect people’s privacy, we can only give generalizations here. Unfortunately, people have latched onto these generalizations as if they are the specific cases themselves and decided to brand those who complained as whiners without knowing the details.

No, you can’t please everyone. Some people like trouble. Others don’t care about anyone else’s well-being if it causes them even the slightest inconvenience. Those who create the policies for this site—@ben, @andrew, and @augustlan—have to balance the overall interests of the community, and this is what they’ve come up with.

Discussion of the policy is good, especially if we can come up with a better version of it, but let’s not pretend that it was created thoughtlessly or out of some devious and fascistic tendency in its authors. That sort of discussion—a discussion that merely criticizes and offers no constructive ideas—won’t get us anywhere.

[/plea for sanity]

@SavoirFaire I hear what you are saying but just want to point out that I did make a constructive suggestion.

@janbb Quite so. My apologies for implying that none of the comments here have been constructive. I think many of them have been. Consider it a generic plea for sanity.

@SavoirFaire – My comments have also been constructive.

Ooh, now my feelings are hurt :-(

Whiner.

Personal attack!!! Red alert! Red alert! Auggie! Auggie!

Well..I am upset when a question has more than 150 answers and I get motion sickness from having to scroll through all the replies. I demand a cap on the number of allowable answers or a free bottle of soothing eye drops. ;-)

I also don’t like the fact that they changed the code of language awhile back, but I discovered I could overlook the vulgar stuff especially since both my pre-school grandsons have a potty mouth mother

Also, no more whispering. Some of us have bad eyes. Lol.

@Blackberry I just use the Ctrl + button to make it big enough to see.

Ack! @YARNLADY how do you make it little again?

Ctrl – (minus)

Phew. Thank you.

Has anybody been having a hard time not naming names today? I know I have, but I’ve tried extra hard to follow the new potential code of conduct.

@JilltheTooth You can also press Crtl and scroll with the mouse to zoom in and out.

@Kardamom – Me, too. Since the Google thread, and this one, I have been trying to cut down on external links and references to other jellies in my answers. But sometimes links and jelly references are necessary once in a while. And it also seems silly to make people cut and paste web addresses when it’s so easy to make an actual link in an answer, just because of some new rule that Google made up to ban content farming.

@HungryGuy You clearly did not understand the point of either of thread. Try giving them a careful read.

[self moderated response to ^ flame bait]

@SavoirFaire – There have been a few references in various discussions to the use of links (both external and internal) having a negative impact of Fluther search standing per Google’s farming algorithm. I suggest you take your own advice :-p

@HungryGuy But the references are not about all links. They are fairly specific about what is and isn’t okay.

Oh No! Can someone please direct me to the Google thingy? I am unaware of this other potential problem. : (

@Kardamom See the discussion here. It looks like Ben and Andrew should be able to solve the problem with some behind the scenes actions.

@SavoirFaire Thanks, I’m going to read it right now.

The mods and I have been discussing this all week, and we think we may have taken a good idea too far. We’re thinking our new policy will be as follows:

No questions that name another member, except lurve milestone parties. (The odd exceptions, like congrats on a wedding or baby, or support for an illness or surgery – need to be approved by me in advance).

No popularity contests. (Who’s your Fluther crush, Who’s your favorite jelly, Which jelly would you like to meet, etc.).

No naming names in a negative way.

No revealing personal info without the member’s permission. (So-and-so is a Christian, etc.).
————————————————————————
This would still allow members to compliment one another. What do you all think?

Sounds good.

I stick by what I said above, you can’t eliminate the popularity aspect no matter what you do. I personally get a kick out of the Jelly crushes and fav jelly, etc. questions.

The rest all sounds okay to me.

Sounds great.

But how about, ”What’s your favorite jelly”? ‘Cuz I just might say ‘grape’.

And I totally get the whole “taking-a-good-thing-too-far” thing. One time, my wife baked two dozen chocolate chip cookies…

But I digress… @augustlan thanks for putting the time and thought into it. And, I’m even gonna go and break the new rule already…

@augustlan, @Dog, and all the Mods are wicked nice people.

@cprevite is delicious.

I am too; My favorite jelly is @Auggie!

@augustlan: Yes, but oh so fattening.

@cprevite why do I have a hard time believing two dozen chocolate chip cookies isn’t too far over the top?

Am I correct that we still can’t name another Jelly who has not yet entered a thread? Yesterday I was dying to mention that @Symbeline had also watched “Trilogy of Terror” on This Thread from yesterday. Thankfully, she was drawn to the question like a moth to a flame and came right on over. But if she hadn’t, would I still have to keep my lip zipped? Or if I, myself, somehow failed to enter a food thread and another Jelly mentioned that Kardamom would be very interested/excited/drooling over the subject, would they be allowed to say so?

I could be way off base here, but I think what they are trying to get away from are questions like these. Even though fun and posted with no ill intent, they provide a forum for favoritism to flourish. Not allowing them is completely understandable in my opinion. I personally think these questions really are of no use to the betterment of the community.
As far as mentioning someone in a thread, I’m of the opinion that if it is positive and either the person is present (or sent a pm notifying the mention), I may end up breaking this rule and therefore be flagged for it. So be it. If I find myself excessively flagged, I will have to reconsider my position on it : )

When starting this question it was not to slam nice mentions, it was inspired by a post, in a “hot” topic by another member. This post divulged very personal information about another user which could have been very damaging. Since this was the third time in a matter of a couple weeks this had happened I posted this question in frustration- hoping the collective would finally understand that this is not acceptable.

I love our community. I love that we, for the most part, are all very good to one another. The way things ended up here made me so sad because the point was missed by many, and the focus lay in the gray area and where a line is drawn. To me it does not matter if a person says something nice about a fellow jelly, or if they mention that a particular jelly might be a good resource for information. I really just am about people respecting one another.

The whole thing is that any rule can be over-enforced. My concern is ONLY in the BLACK area- not gray. The OBVIOUS harmful comments or ones that would divulge private information.

So hopefully we can move on and still mention happy things about each other. The world is so full of negative things. People can be so awful to one another. I just see Fluther as being a place above that.

Hugs

Can I mention that I love scratching behind @Dog‘s ears?

I like the idea of giving threads for an example, that way we can choose to look or not look.

@Kardamom As long as the mention is neutral or positive, I think we can allow using names of members who aren’t in a thread. Just no negative comments, if the person isn’t there to respond/defend. Revealing personal information (and by that I mean: info which is not commonly known by the majority of members) would be inappropriate anywhere, whether the member is present or not.

Obviously, some of this stuff is going to be subjective, and I hope you’ll all bear with us while we sort it out. :)

I don’t think we need the rules mentioned above.

@dog Thank you for clearing up the purpose of this post. Without that bit of information you gave, It seemed disconcerting. It’s good to know that common sense really does prevail and we don’t have to walk on tiptoes or be oddly paranoid about what we post.

Thanks so much!

@augustlan Good, I’m so relieved. I think as long as you are making the call, and because as you have pointed out, this is a private site, you are allowed to do that and if anyone has any problems, they can just talk to you. You are always very fair and you tell people exactly what the situation is. You’re never going to make everyone happy, but with you as the gatekeeper that’s about as good as it gets : )

Just no negative comments, if the person isn’t there to respond/defend.

Wait what, does that mean that if they are there, we can call em buttbags?

Joking lol, but I couldn’t resist. XD

@Symbeline You buttbag!

LOL seeing that typed by someone other than me makes it look hilarious. XD

It is!

I’m a buttbag, too! Buttbag, buttbag, buttbag!

[Wundy dances around in a strange, head between legs dance that has to be seen to be believed!]

Buttbag is definitely going to work its way into my vocabulary now.

Seeing buttbag spelled everywhere makes me smile. And that’s not even a joke.

Buttbag may be my new favorite word.

I have my own personal candidate right now for “Buttbag of the Year!”

I’m hopeful we don’t see the Community Feed flashing news that @picante received the Buttbad of the Year Award 20 seconds ago ;-)

That is an incredibly funny term, and one I’d not heard before. Definitely now a part of my ever-expanding vocabulary, thanks to Fluther.

How much trouble do I get into for saying “I sure miss @Jeruba”? And how the hell do I punctuate that, too?

There’s a bunch of people I miss.

But I won’t say who they are.

I am late to this thread. I was wondering why I had not seen @Jeruba lately and her profile pointed to her response here. I am glad to see that @CWOTUS was not modded for missing @Jeruba, because I feel the same way. Any policy that causes the loss of such a valuable member needs to be reconsidered.

I agree that any personal information that one person knows about another should not be posted, but I am assuming that we can at least refer to information that someone gives freely on this site. We should be able to establish online personalities.

Not being able to inquire about people who have left seems a bit silly. Is this a policy by the owners to cover up the fact that people leave?

I am not very socially adept. If there are cliques here, I am not aware of them. There is nobody here who I would deliberately avoid. I welcome those who disagree with me. How dull it would be if everyone thought the same.

It can hurt to be left out of a discussion. I would hope that there are very rare instances where this is due to a personality conflict.

Any policy that causes the loss of such a valuable member needs to be reconsidered.

I don’t think we need to every rule any one member doesn’t like. Everyone will never like any one rule. If a rule appears to cause dozens to leave immediately, perhaps the administration made a mistake but it’s probably too late. Kind of like when Netflix recently increased prices 60% and lost millions of customers. Oops.

Honestly, I don’t get what it was about this question that sent @Jeruba over the edge. It certainly didn’t have that effect on almost everyone else that has posted in this thread.

I’m sorry that @Jeruba is on hiatus, but I think she may have been a bit hasty, as much more was covered, worked out, and dealt with later in the thread.

There are a lot of people I would like to see go on indefinite hiatus, @Jeruba wasn’t one of them.

Is that legitimate or against the rules?

Mentioning that you miss @Jeruba here on this thread—a thread on which she participated and where the event happened—is not against the rules. That’s why none of the comments have been removed. Odd that we keep getting so many questions about it when the “new” policy is really just the old policy with no changes. We strengthened the policy for about a week and then reverted it to what it was before.

@SavoirFaire, I noticed you are a moderator. How many mods do we have? Do the mods outnumber the regular members? It seems like everyone and their daughter is a mod. LOL

@bkcunningham : here

Why, thank you very much!

@LostInParadise The rule about not publicly asking why so-and-so left isn’t in place to cover up their absence, it’s to protect their privacy. We don’t publicly comment on people we’ve banned or suspended (except trolls/spammers), for one thing. That’s between the member and the staff. And in cases where someone voluntarily leaves, it isn’t our place to tell everyone why they left (assuming we know their reasons). If the member wanted people to know, they’d tell them themselves.