Peeve

Gentlemen (Ladies are exempt from the ctiticism laid out below),

 

I have noticed on a number of occaisions, and on a number of different forums,

where some respondents to a particular question seem more intent on bashing

another respondent than in helping the original poster of the question.

 

Why do some people seemingly derive pleasure from attempting to assainate the

character of a respondent? If they have posted something that is clearly wrong

or a common misconception, then by all means correct the facts, but do so sans

attitude.

 

I'm sure there will be those responding to this post in the negative, but that

will just go to proving the point I'm making. We're here to learn and to help

others. Cocky, hollier than thou attitudes are not appreciated.

 

Ian

Without specifics - probably ill advised anyway - to put this in context it's difficult to respond.

 

I'll agree, occasionally responses seem less than constructive. That's life on the web. But on photo.net the constructive replies usually far outnumber the negatives.

 

Some of us (I'm guilty) occasionally enjoy interjecting a bit of humor. Some folks prefer direct answers rather than digressions, so I try to restrain myself to the Casual Conversations Forum.

 

It's easy to misinterpret well-intended humor as rudeness. And, sure, occasionally some folks are outright rude, no humor intended.

 

Too often, I've seen original posters respond inappropriately to perfectly constructive replies. This is simply ungracious. People asking open ended questions or questions that invite speculative discussions shouldn't try to dictate the terms of the replies. This isn't a paid technical support line. It's a community of diverse people who share a common interest. I've seen some valuable information come from speculative and rambling discussions. It just takes a bit of effort to dig out the gold.

You can't stop people being jerks. Well, you can by throwing them off the site (which we do), but their "jerkiness" has to rise to a certain level for that to happen.

 

The internet and it's anonimity brings out the worst in some people. Sort of an "In Ineternet Vertias" syndrome.

"Some folks prefer direct answers rather than digressions"

 

Why are you bashing digression, Lex? Have you not heard the old saying "digression is the better part of valor"?

 

Or, as originally penned by William Shakespeare in Henry IV:

 

"The better part of valor is digression, in the which better

part I have saved my life."

 

Or, has his rival Francis Bacon did say:

 

"Digression of speech is more than eloquence, and to speak agreeably to him with whom we deal is more than to speak in good words, or in good order."

Me, bash digression? That's my main form of communication.

My own digression:

I'm kind of curious as to why Ladies are exempt? This is a human-ism, not just male-ism.

 

I will grant that women are usually more polite, but that doesn't mean always.

Bob, I thought "in vino veritas" was more about honesty than civility.

 

I've always considered honesty and civility to be pretty much independent, although both as worthy of cultivation. You can have very civil people span the entire spectrum from nearly incapable of truth (but I wish we would stop electing them to public office) to the saintly honesty of a Mother Theresa. Likewise, you can have very rude people who are very honest or highly dishonest.

 

Oddly enough, it is only when one lacks both civility and honesty that one cannot function well in this society.

 

One dreams of an internet "Ubicumque homo est, ibi benefici locus est" but the sad reality is that the internet allows us to see a larger range of human behavior than we would as residents of a smaller village, so we see more that we agree with, and more that we disagree with. So, whether we need something to love, or something to hate, we find it here. "Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt".

 

Pax.

Ty is right. In my short time as a Photo.net member I've seen some corkers. By that I mean one or two Ladies behaving ungraciously when their work or their point of view is (constructively) criticised, in a thread where they have asked for precisely that. I think this can happen when their perception of whatever is being discussed fails to be matched by the comments they receive, and it hits a nerve. The problem is that some people are sensitive. On other occasions the written word can be misinterpreted, when the vein is often lighthearted.

 

But in general I would say that the men are the worst :-)

"I'm kind of curious as to why Ladies are exempt?"

 

We just had a thread get closed this weekend in another forum here due to a 'lady' bashing a lot of the other participants.

Lex, I agree that it is difficult to determine exactly if a comment was an attempt at humour or if a response was malice. The internet leaves a lot to ponder in terms of tone and inflection. But some are very obviously shots at people attempting to respond to a query rather than trying to answer the question posed. I don't mind the digressions, I could do without the back biting which adds nothing to the experience which is PN.

 

Ty, I left out the ladies because everytime I've seen such behaviour it has always been from the gentlemen. Others may have witness women partaking on other occaisions, in which case, please do include then, but it just hasn't been my experience.

I think Ian is being a true gentleman here. But I do agree that at times we ladies can be rotten. Notice I say 'at times'. This is not an excuse, but a very real and very unpleasant hormonal phenomenon. Putting it plainly, there are certain days when a woman's behaviour will be, literally (and sadly) beyond her control. Mayhem ensues. For the remaining 23 days, she'll be a relatively normal person.

 

If you consider the crime statistics, say domestic murders where women are the perpetrators ..... as related to the aforementioned hormonal cycles .... I am digressing but it's something to bear in mind.

It has been my experience, and I digress here, that people that respond badly to constructive criticism are not really looking for a critique, they are looking for validation.

Lindsay, I wouldn't necessarily subscribe to your tip-toe-ing as a defense, but it would explain the occaisional female outburst - not that it justifies it, though. But I have seen males consistantly respond to both posts and responses to posts in the same crotchety manner, without such a slim defense on which to fall back.

 

Bob, you're right, jerks will be jerks. But I'd hate to see a newbie turned off by a response to their post to a forum or someone declining to offer help or a comment just because jerks hide behind the anonimity of the net. Maybe Admin could raise the bar for decorum? Or am I just being over sensitive to this. Afterall, it's never happened to me; I just get tired of it interupting an otherwise enjoyable post, digressions or not.

have gotten mixed reviews on my photo critiques the few that I have gotten, compliments are always nice but I like to hear the things they didn?t like or the things I could do to better for my next photo. My main reason for joining was to better my photography, and yes it hurts a little when you think its a good photo and someone puts holes in it but so far I haven?t disagreed with any them witch makes me work harder at getting better.Im on here everyday I don?t always post in the forum but I read a lot of them so I agree you can dig a ton of gold from this site and I am fine dealing with a few jerks to get it.

 

Amber

What point, Ian? This is the same, tired, tendentious "hollier than thou"(sic)attitude you're trying to criticize.Sure, keeping our sticks on the ice matters but there's a limit to forbearance.PN isn't an NGO mandated to help alleviate suffering in the photographic world.

I'm sorry Gary. I completely miss the point you're trying to make. Are you suggesting that I'm displaying the same attitude that I'm complaining about? If I were I would question your integrity instead of debating the issue with you. Just saying that there are a number of people who put down the poster/commentator instead of sticking to the issue(or digressing with humourous intent). Being unwilling to rise to a higher level of civility detracts from what is otherwise a very useful and welcomed web site. But as Amber and others say, there is much here for those willing to suffer the fools. Everyone can decide for themselves how much foolishness they are willing to endure.

I've stepped into deeper puddles. Look up the word tendentious which describes exactly what you're playing in this "discussion." I wish I had 50 bucks for every "play nice" missive I've read on PN. Surely you've got bigger fish to fry, Ian?

Nothing more than airing a peeve, Gary. Hence the title of this thread. You'll need to look for conspiracies elsewhere.

<i>I completely miss the point you're trying to make. Are you suggesting that I'm displaying the same attitude that I'm complaining about? </i><P>

I'm not accusing you of the behavior you're condemning. But it is a little funny (and more than a little ironic) to start a thread chastising people about how badly they behave and telling them how they <b>should</b> behave, and then end the paragraph with "Cocky, holier-than-thou attitudes are not appreciated."

>>> "Why do some people seemingly derive pleasure from attempting to assainate the character of a respondent?" <<<

 

I believe it is a power/attention thing that really does go back to a person's childhood; not enough attention from one or both parents. It also manifests as a need to be the big man on campus; i.e. someone that walks all over everyone else with their "superior" knowledge. It is on every forum.

 

Best thing to do with ANY negative messaging is to avoid responding to it, totally ignore it. Besides, there ain't nothin' gonna send someone with a need for attention to the moon faster than not getting that attention. They will eventually move on. Take Ian and Gary for example... :) :) :)

 

(Just kidding, guys. You aren't into like what I'm talking about.)

"Lindsay, I wouldn't necessarily subscribe to your tip-toe-ing as a defense, but it would explain the occaisional female outburst - not that it justifies it".

 

Apologies Ian, I now suspect I am guilty of the points you have raised, in an attempt to inject some humour to the topic. I was sincere in referrng to you as a gentleman, and I was not intentionally 'tip-toe-ing' around anything. I thought I was acknowledging that female behaviour is often less than perfect, and I apologise once again for digressing. I think I'd best leave this discussion to the boys.

 

But I feel that the vast majority of us can see bad behaviour for what it is (insecurity, attention-seeking, misinterpretation, and such-like) and pay little heed to it, since it's a drop in the ocean in an otherwise marvellous forum. Most of us are subjected to criticism in our daily lives, it's how the world works, especially when we are employed in a creative capacity. If it isn't constructive, it's best ingnored. Simple as that.

Lindsay, It is my turn to apologize to you. By "tip-toe-ing" I was refering to the delicate way you were describing the monthly female predicament, not to anything more than that. And I think that is a perfect example where inflection is often absent in on-line discussion; my own attempt at humour being missed.

 

I do appreciate your comments and believe your points to be valid.

Thank you Ian. It does make the point that without visual clues, communications can be hit and miss at times!

 

I believe that where there is such a vast global audience, misinterpretation is probably the biggest contributor to squabbles. We are all different characters, with differing personas and often very divergent backgrounds. And so at times we may react in a way which is incomprehensible or exhasperating to other readers. One just has to accept this, and not take things to heart when there is a perceived attack. I know that can be difficult at times, I suppose we just have to discipline ourselves to see it that way. Of course, it's also the main reason why the forum is so interesting. You can't have one without the other. Human nature.

Ahh, this is so cute! You guy holding hands and kissing and making up.

 

Hey, get a camera! We have us a Kodak moment! :) :) :)

"Hey, get a camera! We have us a Kodak moment! :) :) :)"

 

Good point - before long most forums will be visually interactive as well ... there'll be an option where we'll all have those little 'screens in screens' where, webcams allowing, we can toggle between active contributors in any given thread ..... yikes! It would be that much harder to feel aggrieved towards anyone who has inadvertantly left theirs on at the end of the session, and is wandering around in their underwear ....