Clearing The Air

[Bunty Lawless]

To the Moderator,

Regarding the debate as to why one person's off-color comment may not be considered as offensive as another persons:

Perhaps it is because there is a cumulative affect relating to those individuals prone to being aggressive, as if they are the person that gets to say who can "play" and who cannot. Whereas, those not tending to use that style as their stock 'n' trade come off as making a gentle poke in the ribs kind of "funny". Those kinds of remarks are more like standing one's ground, IMO, in response to an attack. If such a remark is a first salvo, then it takes on a different context.

In the law, it is the rule to avoid the appearance of partiality or conflict of interest that governs.

Taking things out of context, without chronologically verifying how the matter evolved, it is easy to lump people together, as if both are equally the problem. However, there are huge differences in being the one put in a responsive frame of mind to a side-swiping attack and being the aggressor who aimed deliberately to put someone's thoughts or position down, as if they had some higher authority to do so.

Then the arguments begin about expecting the person attacked to just ignore the attack, while the person who uses the bullying style is defended as knowing the difference between attacking the person and attacking the person's words, post or idea. Even the law provided for "self-defense" when someone throws the first punch.

I see this in all walks of life, where certain individuals start out being accepted as "cute" or a good jolt of shock therapy, as part of their personality. Unfortunately, they either mistakenly get it into their heads that it is their brash behavior that actually causes people to like them, or those that find them acceptable in small doses don't realize that is their only way of expressing themselves. It then starts to seem as if these individuals don't have an "off button" until they get everyone else all involved. Then, with such predictability, the aggressor walks away as if the rest of the group has the problem and they are the only one that doesn't.

Problem is, especially in the work place, management allowed it to go on and now they have a problem stopping it. Office turnover is rampant, but the problems keep happening. Why? Because the person who is generally the one starting the problems is still there. You can replace the whole team, but if the aggressor remains, the team continues to be dysfunctional.

Even those able to survive the constant, seemingly unfair political imbalance get fed up because it is cumulative. Sooner or later, even the strongest and most unflappable get fed up fighting the political inequities and the aggressive behavior of those seemingly shielded by some imaginary conduct line, which no one else can quite pin down as to its location.

If a person is going to accept the position of judge or moderator, they must be clear and specific in setting policy/law and they must hold everyone equally to the standard, allowing all to have the same procedures applied to them and the same amount of prior warnings before being told they've failed to conduct themselves in accordance with the rules.

It's so much easier to keep things moving smoothly when everyone understands the rules/standards and can expect, by watching the rules being evenly applied, to be treated with impartiality.

A person shouldn't have to defend themselves to post an idea relating to horses, the horse industry and the many facets and issues affecting the breeding, racing, raising and disposal of Thoroughbred horses.

People here should only have to defend their ideas and/or positions from the point of laying out how they came to that position based upon facts, experience, etc.

I would venture to say that belittling, condemning or demeaning someone for feeling one way or another, about any given topic relating to Thoroughbred horses, is not what this forum was built on. I think most would like to make sure it doesn't become a place one has to fight to reasonably express an opinion, share an experience or ask a question.

[larrygene]

rogue, my response is appropriate for this topic, Clearing the Air that I do know!! By the way Rogue , the poll count is not a 3 way stalemate, its 18,18, 20. And as you stated in the beginning the majority will rule. Please don't continue to mislead us!!!

[Roguelet]

Bunty, I'm not certain whether your post indicates that you feel I took other people's posts "out of context" or whether you feel that others, when posting attacks on people, have been taking their posts "out of context." I do feel that you've touched on some valid points, though, and I'm hoping that this discussion, if people will keep it constructive, and the resulting new rules will help define some of this in our future.

Several on this board have a history of "pottymouth" or "sexual" or "mean-natured" posts. That has been addressed with those people in the past and is not the purpose of my current posts. My exercise has to do with the tone and the language that people feel is acceptable here. If your argument is that a certain WORD is offensive and unacceptable and should not be allowed, as many here seem to feel, than it should make no difference HOW that word is used. It is still, after all, the same offensive and unacceptable word. However, I will point out that I did include the sentences around the word or the tone in my example list, so people could get a feel for the context of the message as it was originally intended.

I have pulled many quotes from many people to use in that list; some who have never been in any type of trouble or argument whatsoever. It is a very wide sampling. However, I did do that quickly, and it was much easier, obviously, to find those words nestled in posts made by people who use those words more often than the average poster does. That's just the law of numbers.

rogue, my response is appropriate for this topic, Clearing the Air that I do know!!

Thanks, but that's not what I asked. As one of the most vocal complainers about this, why not take the opportunity to contribute to the decision I'm in the process of making regarding what will and will not be acceptable here when that opportunity is handed to you?

[larrygene]

My response is appropriate here and would be appropriate on your new revised forum. Especially when I feel I am being singled out by you taking excerpts and comments of mine totally out of context of the original topic!! Anyone can cut and paste to get their point across!!! I am only standing up and defending myself as you would do!!! rogue, you don't like me and I don't care for your moderating style. So how about putting the rules and guidelines out and let us get back to talking TB's. Isn't that why we are all here??

[Roguelet]

My response is appropriate here and would be appropriate on your new revised forum. Especially when I feel I am being singled out by you taking excerpts and comments of mine totally out of context of the original topic!! Anyone can cut and paste to get their point across!!! I am only standing up and defending myself as you would do!!! rogue, you don't like me and I don't care for your moderating style. So how about putting the rules and guidelines out and let us get back to talking TB's. Isn't that why we are all here??

Thank you for your input. I do not know you personally, so can not say that I "do not like you." I can say that I don't care for some of your posts, but that certainly does not cause me to make the jump to "I don't like you." That would be silly. I am sorry if you feel singled out; that is not my intent. I do not like to see ANYONE singled out, though I have certainly seen much of that from posters here lately. It is easy to address your posts here because you are one of the most vocal on the topic, therefore there are more of your posts to address; but I think that if you go back and read, you'll find that there are many, many others who I have quoted and addressed as well.

As I mentioned, it will take me several days to get the rules worked out, and I will post them as soon as I get them completed. Meanwhile, I did ask for constructive discussion and I would love to see that continue here.

[larrygene]

Rogue, I can't speak for everyone but I feel like I can speak for a great number. Please put out the rules so we all know the boundaries and let us get back to talking TB's!!

Thanks,
Larrygene

[Bunty Lawless]

To the Moderator:

I'm speaking in generalities, based upon what I'm reading in this thread and a few others.

As an outside observer, with no attachments to one position or the other, and much less of a cumulative perception than I've no doubt you are experiencing, there does seem to be some blurring of the ability to perceive and accept the difference between an aggressor and one's response to that aggressor.

When able to step back and truly clear the air of the smoke some blow, impartial judges pound the gavel first upon the aggressor, in any given situation, no matter who it is. I see threads progressing until they are way out of hand and then it is the last person to speak that seems to get the hammer.

I can see where that isn't viewed as being terribly equitable.

I think there is a desire (from what I'm reading) for the Moderator to stop the aggressive behavior before it gets to the point of a free-for-all. Go back to the one that threw the first punch. If need be, take out the defender as well, but don't take out the defender (who may be responding to cumulative, unpunished attacks by an individual) and leave in the aggressor.

That is what I'm hearing these people trying to express to you. Whether their perception is accurate or not, something is creating that perception.

Also , I would truly respectfully suggest that admonishments be public and not private. That way everyone can see what is and what isn't acceptable and assure themselves they are being treated fairly. Maybe even create a "time-out" or "contempt of court" thread, where those that have been "timed-out" can post until they can be reintroduced into the general population.

Perhaps only really bad, repeat offenders that don't self-correct should be booted off the forum, IMO. People tend to go with the flow. The flow gets dicey when some are continuously allowed to get dicey. That's human nature.

There is a difference, IMO, between someone (anyone) saying "check your meds" and something like, "if you weren't so pathetically stupid..."

One is a gentle poke in the ribs and the other is a smack in the face. Which of the two would most be able to tolerate? (These are not direct quotes. They're theoretical examples.) That is not to say, that a gentle poke can't get out of hand. But most can take a gentle poke, while few can tolerate a slap in the face.

You are absolutely correct that people should give the Moderators the utmost respect. I think most do and only seem to challenge when they feel they are not being treated even-handedly. Whether perceptually correct or not, it is the "appearance" of impartiality that counts. That is where a Moderator or Judge's responsibility truly rests.

[Tucumcari]

Well, just to make the air squeaky clean, I will attest to Tucumcari's new way of dealing with people. Early in my time on this forum she went after me a bit and since I wasn't used to forums I felt a bit hurt. But I've definitely noticed that she has made a real effort, not just some one week wonder but her whole way of treating people has changed over the long term through her choice to make that effort. The result for me is that before I was a bit scared of what she might say to me (I'm a wimp at heart) but these days I look forward enthusiastically to her posts because now she focuses on the expertise she has to share and the interesting questions she asks.

If we're going to feel the love for ageecee, then lets feel it for Tuc as well.

Thanks, Geo! I appreciate that a ton! And though I don't recall picking on you I am so sorry that I made you feel crappy or unwelcome in any way shape or form. Sincerely!

[larrygene]

Tuc, I don't think you and I have ever tied up but I too have noted a kinder, gentler you!!

[Tucumcari]

Well thank God, cause I was getting sick and tired of being me!!! LOL

[pfrsue]

(Tuc, that flower picture you took belongs on a greeting card or poster. It's beautiful!)

I think I'm catching Bunty Lawless' point, but maybe it comes down to the school yard truism that the "second punch thrown is the first one the teacher notices". Because there really haven't been any established rules of conduct, it must have been a moderating nightmare to try and figure out exactly where in an argument the line was crossed to the point of action having to be taken.

With luck, the new rules and the increased number of mods shoud go a long way toward resolving that problem. And that's sort of the point, right? We'll all be held to one standard, the mods will moderate according to rules that are spelled out, and the whole argument of unfair subjectivity flies out the window.

[bayrabicano]

BL, I like the way you think!!!

You, too - Tuc! You're awesome.

Ageecee – I'm sorry about the compliment.

To anyone that thinks that's crazy. Here's my attempt to explain it...

Calling someone a coonass (in most cases) is not any more offensive than calling someone a hoosier.

However, calling someone a coon is a racist act.

If it’s the a** part…

”now you’re being an a**” is an insulting response to a differing opinion intended to belittle the other poster.

“A male ass (or donkey) is called a jack , a female a jenny, and offspring less than one year old, a foal.” Is simply a word that looks bad, but clearly is not. Same thing with coonass.

Now, I hope everyone understands a little better. I’d be more than happy to explain the crawfish and boudin part if anyone is interested.

[Tucumcari]

Thanks much!!! Who knew I could take I nice pic!!!! I'm so pleased!!!

Rogue I am happy you left this thread open. It has been interesting. It has been alot of "food for though," I suppose. Adults having to look at how they treat or speak to others. And believe me when I say it's not easy to watch your mouth or your tone. It takes careful deliberate effort. I do think that this was and continues to be a fruitful thread. Thanks Rogue!

[Roguelet]

Calling someone a coonass (in most cases) is not any more offensive than calling someone a hoosier.

Maybe that's the problem... I get offended when people call me a Hoosier.

[larrygene]

Rogue, are you saying Hokie sounds better than Hoosier??