snippty snappity slop - subjective ambiguity ran up the clock

Actually, I'm involved in the "snippy" thread you mention and I was wondering the same thing myself. So, I requested that my snippy comments be made clear to me (if indeed something I said prompted the warning), because I didn't think I was being snippy at all and I would like to avoid being snippy or being perceived as snippy in the future. I have not yet received an answer to that question.

It's true, some people simply have a  more direct method of communication than others and it's difficult to know what is considered a "direct attack" or "snippy" according to the perception of another person unless it's pointed out. I recall a moderator asking us to self-edit so we wouldn't get red-inked... How do we know what to edit if WE don't think there's anything wrong with it, but a mod does?

lostcoyote

It should have been spelled out specifically. as it now stands, people are going to wonder "was it me?", "was it her?", "what post was snippity?"

Exactly, I don't know if it was me or not. Or several of us - or perhaps I wasn't involved at all...  

I don't actually expect a change, but I would like an answer.   If a mod is going to post that they see something, can we ask that you at least show us what you see? Please?

lostcoyote

Maybe people should just be left to iron things out for themselves

We can do that. We are adults. There's no need for a preemptive strike just because you think things get a little snippy. Most likely, given a bit of space, we can and will iron things out ourselves. This is how we get through our differences. This is actually how we make friends from enemies.

Just my opinion...  

lostcoyote

 

Compared with 6 months ago, and today, the moderation hasn't been able to change and control people like they want, other than to have the power to suspend people from the board and apply red-ink. It's a joke. It's not working. I don't see any difference in peoples character and personality today as compared with 6 months ago when I signed on. I suspect it goes back like that much further. Maybe people should just be left to iron things out for themselves with the moderators stepping in only to remove cuss words and outright personal attacks (by using objective reasoning instead of subjective & emotional reasoning)....as dgriego suggested last night.

Maybe you don't see a difference in peoples' character and personality because there are pretty much the same people here?

I think the moderation is quite fair, and maybe it's just me, but I am never confused as to whether a mod is talking to me or not.  I have a good feel for where the line is, and I know when I cross it.  Even if it is not done deliberately, all it takes is a read through my post to see the snappiness.

In a board this size (especially one connected to ac commercial entity), mods cannot just let things iron themselves out sometimes because threads go way off into never-never land, or get dragged into "I'm I better dog trainer than you"  "I can train MY dog to do xyz faster"  "The food you feed is crap"  "Your dog does xyz because you are a neglectful owner."  The result is a generally unpleasant tone that is not conducive to learning--and that, IMHO, is one of the main purposes of a board like this.   

It has actually been a really long time since I've seen a post before it was edited and been confused as to why the editing occurred after the fact.  It's usually slap-you-in-the-face obvious IMHO.  It surprises me when posters get all hot and bothered when their post is edited (especially since most of those edited are clearly over the line according to the rules)--you (collective) mess with the bull long enough and you're gonna get the horns.

In addition, there is no way to be completely objective when there are humans moderating a board full of other humans.  Even things like cuss words are subjective.  I don't consider many of the words the filter edits out to be swearing.  There is even subjectivity when it comes to detecting insults.  You'll notice that very few insults are blatant--many are more subtle--which leads to subjectivity.  

I have a different take on this.  The thread you are referencing is 8 pages long and the posts within are pretty lengthy.  Now the topic has been covered here over and over again and yes, it may be new to a few members....possibly a different angle is being discussed.  Now if you are a mod and have been here for awhile, and the same subject thread is repeated, and mostly the same people are responding, the interest in the contents, the flow, and tone are greatly diminished.  So a mod has to do their job...has to read the thread...so they look for phrases and make a judgement call based on that snippet.  What else are you going to do?

Having said that I don't see why there has to be two sets of languages and demeanors with one set restricted to members only. 

The post in question has been edited by me. Please continue the discussion in the thread and allow the Admin to handle the rest

My post that expressed a desire to see stickied materials posted without **Previously removed content** has just been edited. Since I expressed this very matter-of-factly, and didn't address my comments to any particular poster, rather, simply stated a preference regarding a published statement (in agreement with another poster) I don't know how that qualifies as "** Rude remarks**" ... . I'm guessing that my "intentions" have been misinterpreted, and that while others here are allowed to post their preferences, I am not.

Regardless, my words and demeanor were not rude towards anyone, so I resent being characterized as someone who has just made "rude remarks" towards another poster. 

 Yes, ambiguous, indeed.
 

Ixas_girl

My post that expressed a desire to see stickied materials posted without **previously removed content** has just been edited. Since I expressed this very matter-of-factly, and didn't address my comments to any particular poster, rather, simply stated a preference regarding a published statement (in agreement with another poster) I don't know how that qualifies as "** Rude remarks**" ... . I'm guessing that my "intentions" have been misinterpreted, and that while others here are allowed to post their preferences, I am not.

Regardless, my words and demeanor were not rude towards anyone, so I resent being characterized as someone who has just made "rude remarks" towards another poster. 

 Yes, ambiguous, indeed.
 

Ixas_girl

My post that expressed a desire to see stickied materials posted without **Previously removed content** has just been edited. Since I expressed this very matter-of-factly, and didn't address my comments to any particular poster, rather, simply stated a preference regarding a published statement (in agreement with another poster) I don't know how that qualifies as "** Rude remarks**" ... . I'm guessing that my "intentions" have been misinterpreted, and that while others here are allowed to post their preferences, I am not.

Regardless, my words and demeanor were not rude towards anyone, so I resent being characterized as someone who has just made "rude remarks" towards another poster. 

 Yes, ambiguous, indeed.
 

Your post was directed at the OP and was rude, by criticizing the content and yes, you were edited again above by reposting the comment

The question that I guess I'm not communicating, is ... if my comment is aimed at "post content", not at "the poster" ... and I don't use attacking language, then aren't I following the rules, and conducting "discussion", which is the purpose of a "discussion forum"? Saying "emotionalized content" addresses the post, not the poster, I did not, for example say, "the emotions of the poster".

Honestly, I don't object to my post being edited, however, labeling my behavior as "rude" implies that I behaved in a way that was harsh or rough which I don't believe is a fair assessment of my post. I am left not understanding what constitutes "rude", in the minds of the mods and admins, on this forum. I am left wondering if simply disagreeing with content is now considered harsh, rough and "rude".

The problem with asking posters to "edit themselves" on this forum, is that it seems that we are being asked to guess the feelings of the mods/admins, and post in favor of what we think those thoughts and feelings might be.

And here,

amstaffy

Your post was directed at the OP and was rude, by criticizing the content and yes, you were edited again above by reposting the comment

It seems that you are saying that criticizing content is now disallowed. I am baffled to understand what kind of discussions can arise on a discussion forum that makes no allowances for criticism, which is simply articulated disagreement. Apparently we can report that we disagree, but if we explain why we are out of bounds? Furthermore, I don't understand "edited again", since my text in this thread was not edited. What does it mean that I was "edited again?"

Clarification would be appreciated, so that I can better understand the expectations here, now.
 

Ixas_girl

Furthermore, I don't understand "edited again", since my text in this thread was not edited. What does it mean that I was "edited again?"

If you want my opinion, I would be led to believe that you have been edited for the same reason in previous threads.  Therefore "edited again" would mean, at least to me, that you've been edited before for rude or percieved rude behavior on more than one occasion.

I could be totally wrong with my thoughts, but I thought that I would throw that out there for you.

BEVOLASVEGAS

If you want my opinion, I would be led to believe that you have been edited for the same reason in previous threads.  Therefore "edited again" would mean, at least to me, that you've been edited before for rude or percieved rude behavior on more than one occasion.

I could be totally wrong with my thoughts, but I thought that I would throw that out there for you.

Bevo,

Thanks! I appreciate your taking a stab at it, but the comment was "you were edited again above by reposting the comment" ... implying that I was edited in this thread for "reposting the comment", but as you and I can both see, I haven't been edited here in this thread for "reposting the comment." Thus, my question remains unanswered. What am I missing?

I don't intend to beleaguer the point, just adding to the chorus of voices that are expressing that we are unclear about the standards, and their expression. But, again, I would appreciate clarification of the standards.

lostcoyote

consider a quote out of the opening post:

I would much rather motivate than chastise my dogs

so i guess you don't think the OP's phrase is "emotionally charged" since you don't think that the word, chastise, contains any emotional charge.

In the styles of Koehler, more especially Frawley, and even the old edition of Monks of New Skete, physical punishment, such as hanging, near drowning, and body slamming the dogs was considered part of training. Chastise does mean to punish. Granted, there are ranges of punishment.

But now you are saying you draw exception because one person has the personal opinion that she would rather motive her dog than body slam them. And I don't recall the statement saying that anyone here is doing that, whether they are or not. It's the inference drawn. The rules require that when posting training links, one must also include relevance which will contain personal opinion.

And that's what we have, personal opinion. I've seen some things posted recently that could be taken in more than one way but I have held off of on making an official complaint because I might be reading too much into it and it is better to sit back, cool off, and re-read. Somethings I can be just too sensitive about and it's better to keep it to myself until I can judge better.

I certainly don't think the intent of the clicker links thread is to offend anyone, in particular, though, of course, the author is not a big fan of punishment, oh what a big surprise.

Mods and admin respond as best as they can to every complaint given. And the more picayune the complaint is, the more exacting and minute the enforcement might be. They are giving as they get. I could say I use +R because it works and someone could take offense to that, thinking that my statement implies that a more corrective style doesn't work, whether I think that or not. Mods and admin can't make us behave as adults, they can only hope for the best.

That last sentence could be taken as an implication that some here are not acting as adults. That is someone can interpret what is said in any ole way they care to and not much can be done about that. What can be done is rules of decorum can be enforced. Which I think is the aim.

I'm not disagreeing that some others here may feel unfairly edited and I'm sure the feeling is real. I was edited once, so I kinda know how that feels. OTOH, the forum is privately owned. Overseen by mods and admin and they could be far stricter than imagined if they wanted to be. While we members do make the forum what is to a large extent, it is still a privilege to be here.

Ixas_girl

But, again, I would appreciate clarification of the standards.

i thnk that proverb in your signature should give some clues....

"The nail that sticks out gets pounded down.  ~Old Japanese Saying  "

you step over the line and you get edited. isnt that setting the standard?