Okay, I'm asking at my own risk...what happened to it?
Janet from Richmond
Nov 02, 2009 08:40AM
Recipe
Spiced Caramel Apple Upside-Down Cake
Story
Downsizing Bad Friends
Video
How to Make Limoncello
Recipe
Momofuku Chicken Wings
Story
The Basics: How to Make Mashed Potatoes
Video
What's the Best Order of Cocktail Ingredients?
Recipe
Sweet Potato Chips
View »
It got composted, as an example to all of us.
Permalink | Reply
It got locked which was probably appropriate. But I'd been thinking recently that I wish, when one does get locked, that it stay in the queque under "My Posts" until it drops off the screen, which would happen pretty quickly. There have been a number of times when something was locked that I didn't think about til much later. A bit of info that I wanted to retrieve but after the fact can't remember enough detail to search for it.
Permalink | Reply
I finally found it and if it had stayed with My Posts, I would have found it more quickly.
Permalink | Reply
I think DD is right. I can't find it anywhere, and personally, I think that's best.
Permalink | Reply
You can find it locked under NAF. And, yes, it got increasingly hostile at times. But there were good points there also. Maybe the Chowhound Team could tweak the system so it's locked but still under My Posts.
Permalink | Reply
Thanks, I found it.
We are a passionate and fascinating bunch, and it's funny, having been around these boards for over a year now, how touchy a seemingly inoccuous subject can become. :-)
Permalink | Reply
While I was one of the ones many of the personal and/or passionate remarks were in response to (and I made my own certainly) I didn't take it personally (even if it was intended to be...LOL). But we are a diverse group and that's a good thing :-)
Permalink | Reply
i've felt like the delete queen of threadlocking lately-- i didn't even want to touch that food waste thread by leaving even the teensiest post on it--though i was following the interesting conversation, which i do agree got unnecessarily nasty. i would not have even noticed the thread got locked until i saw this topic, though!
Permalink | Reply
Imagine. And as it so often happens here... I thought I was the only one, Soupkitten.
Permalink | Reply
Folks, there's been a lot of discussion lately about the banning of specific members. We're not going to allow that discussion -- the users who have been banned can't comment because they're banned, and we can't comment out of consideration for their privacy. All that leaves is speculation and gossip, and that doesn't really help the situation.
The best we can offer for those who are concerned that we're going ban-happy and may soon ban them is that we go through an escalation before it gets to that point. When it comes to real, contributing members of our site (shills and spammers don't get this consideration for obvious reasons), we don't ban anyone for one bad thing. We send warnings, we issue suspensions, and only when the behavior repeats after that point do we issue permanent bans. If you haven't been asked to change your behavior nor previously had your account suspended for it, a permanent ban is not in your immediate future.
-- Jacquilynne, Community Manager for Chowhound
Permalink | Reply
Jacquilynne, thank you for clarifying that we can discuss this issue as long as we don't discuss specific members and ex-members. Also realize, please, that when a goodly number of us are in direct contact with each other that it kind of dilutes the "speculation and gossip" factor. That's a good thing.
Permalink | Reply
Thanks, Jacquilynne, for clarifying. Sometimes we don't know how things work around here, so your explanation is helpful.
Permalink | Reply
Thanks for the helpful explanation Jacquilynne. i kinda have a big mouth so it's good to know. ;-P
do the moderators ever reconsider a ban on a specific poster for any reason?
Permalink | Reply
Probably more often than we should, really. I can think of a couple of posters we've "permanently banned" three or four times before it finally stuck. And therein lies the problem with reconsidering these decisions. By the time we've gotten to the point of a permanent ban, it's pretty well established that the poster has no interest in changing their behaviour, since they've been given several chances at it already.
Still, we don't like to ban people -- it's really one of the most depressing aspects of my job, coming to the realization that someone who really likes the site can also do too much damage to it to allow them to post. We want more users on the site, not less, bringing more, better chow tips and interesting conversations. So, yes, we do sometimes reconsider permanent bans, when a poster comes back a few months down the road and appears sincere about apologizing and aware of what the problem actually was. It often just leads to a repeat of the same problems, but we generally like people, and we really do hold out hope that they can return to being contributing members of the site.
Permalink | Reply
It's really quite depressing for us as well when we await the wisdom of a valued poster on a particular subject only to find out that the poster has been banned permanently.
So, you're saying that "permanent bans" really means, just for "a few months down the road?"
Permalink | Reply
There have been a few posters I have suspected have been banned, but I still see them in my profile where I have them marked.......
Permalink | Reply
Yes, they seem to remain there as well as their former posts. Thankfully.
Permalink | Reply
Gio, I compare it to my divorcing my husband and then marrying him again. People and circumstances change.
Permalink | Reply
No. I'm saying that if someone we've previously banned comes to us after a period of reflection and seems genuinely contrite and interested in returning to the site and working within the rules, we may reconsider our previous decision. It's not automatic, it's not guaranteed, and I may come to regret even making it known that we'll do it, but it has happened in the past.
Permalink | Reply
perhaps you won't come to regret it J.
absence does sometimes make the heart grow fonder and perhaps after a while some banned posters will realize they miss more about the site than they had issues with, apologize, and be allowed "back on the playground." in the meantime maybe the merry-go-round isn't quite so merry for the rest of us. :(
i really do like a lot of lively discussion and i probably need a healthier dose of snark in my day than most people. some threads have crossed the line lately and maybe i've contributed to them. i did at one time have a hair-trigger on some issues and i think the site has helped me calm down a little in my old age, not that i don't get out of line and get my own comments deleted regularly.
Permalink | Reply
Thank you Jacquilynne. It's good to know that a reconsideration is ...well...considered....sometimes. I'm not usually a confrontational person. But I've been known to get cranky if I perceive an injustice.
Permalink | Reply
I'll speak only for myself in saying thank you for allowing this dialogue to continue. No, Chowhound doesn't have to explain anything. We understand that. But it's a community and communities seem to need different types of people with different opinions. I believe that allowing calm dissension can defuse alot of things that can fester otherwise (did I just mix metaphors?!?) And I REALLY believe allowing us to question the moderators as well as other CHs is healthy. For you to be willing to explain some of the happenings on the other side of the curtain fosters good/better feelings and promotes a spirit of cooperation. As I started this post, I write only how *I* feel. Again, thank you, Jacquilynne.
Permalink | Reply
Wow! I had _no idea_ that posters can be banned... I guess I can consider myself lucky to not have noticed (?).
Permalink | Reply
We are much less a diverse group with the permanent banishment of some Chowhounds.
I don't know where the moderators are going with this, but my friends are getting tossed off right and left. One has been given one final, last chance and another has been told he cannot be critical of moderation. These people know a shit-load about food and its history from being all over the world and having lead a full life. You won't get this kind of experience and diversity from those who hide in their homes and cow-tow to Big Brother.
So, here I am, sticking my neck out for at least three people I care about and whose contributions I value highly.
We are losing diversity and becoming pablum.
FWIW, I religiously watch the News Hour with Jim Leherer with my SO as we prepare to eat dinner. We discuss the news and since it is recorded, we can pause it and discuss the pros and cons of contributions made by host and guests and compare it to similar news in the New York Times. Because of the horrific incident in my home state yesterday, we tuned to CBS for live coverage. On CBS news, in one instance, the only person being interviewed and expressing an opinion was the anchor and a CBS reporter. From one program and one channel to another, it is amazing the different slant you get. The News Hour interviewed Texas Republican, Kay Bailey Hutchison, who has been around forever in Texas politics. Big difference.
So, I liken the censorship and conservative party line of the moderators. They follow a track where outspoken people, strong opinions, colorful language or anything offensive is not condoned. From my own view, it is hard for (those Chowhounds that I relate to), to repress who we are and hard not to respond in a way related to what made us who we are.
True, this site is not a democracy. We are just guests here. Chowhound will, however, live or die by the contributions made by the participants. I think a level of edginess should be permitted. I think only direct and overt criticism of a Chowhound should be deleted and more leeway should be allowed for color and balance. Don't throw out so many babies with the bathwater!
As one Chowhound friend just said privately, "Too bad, some of the most knowledgeable, passionate, erudite posters have been "disappeared"."
From another Texas Chowhound I am told that Houston area Chowhounds have defected because of their displeasure with moderation, seen as heavy-handed. 500 Chowhounds have joined in forming their own Facebook-like network to do their Chowhounding. Texans are like that. No wonder the Houston area participation is pathetic.
Permalink | Reply
I want to comment on this statement that you made:
I think a level of edginess should be permitted. I think only direct and overt criticism of a Chowhound should be deleted and more leeway should be allowed for color and balance.
Snark and sarcasm and whatnot are fun and common, I totally get that. I often tell people that sarcasm is my natural tone of voice, and everything else takes effort. But they're a lot less fun to be on the receiving end of.
We don't want posters trying to figure out precisely how close to insulting they can possibly get before they step over the line. To use an example of a hair that is split on another site I frequent, the difference between "you're ignorant" and "your opinion is ignorant" is very tiny -- they both feel the same to the person who has just been slapped upside the head for expressing an opinion on food.
We do ask that people try not to read more into posts than is actually written in them, and to take everything in the friendliest possible light, but it's often to see that insult was intended, even if the poster managed to dance around making it direct.
If your argument or opinion is right, you can make it without belittling the other person, and people will still recognize the strength and truth of it. Chowhound is neither a debate class nor a celebrity roast, and there's simply no need to score points off other members, no matter how obliquely it is done.
Permalink | Reply
Your last paragraph is spot on.
Permalink | Reply
Thank you for the thoughtful and lengthy response and thanks for allowing my revised post (you responded to), to stand (at least for the time being).
I have had to seek counseling regarding my attitude on Chowhound. Thankfully, it did not cost me much. I usually fix her a nice meal now and then, anyway.
Like you, there are those of us who thrive on sarcasm. I can be a curmudgeon, too. Passa a bit of a Luddite. Veggo is too bright for his own good and does not suffer dim people easily. When you consider that some of us have taken bullets in Vietnam, driven cars off overpasses, been on fire or evaded the Coast Guard on the high seas (and all lived to tell about it), we probably give a rat's ass about being banned.
Speaking for myself, it has become a little more of an obsession than I could have ever imagined. I have spent a whole morning editing pictures and writing reviews for several meals I have had. I enjoy doing it. Chowhound has meant that I have made quite a few friends. I will be having dinner with four of them next week. I have made fast friends with several, too. I feel a kinship and hate it when you put them on probation or banish them.
As I said, some of these people have invaluable information to share and amazing stories to tell. You could do worse than to mine what Sam, Passa, Alan and Veggo have to offer, which they often do offer voluntarily, as is. Has anyone ever asked any of them to write a piece for Chow? You might get posting cooperation if the staff (not mods), took notice, or just appreciated them more, or if they were to cultivate what potential they have. FFT
Permalink | Reply
I have to say that I, for one, appreciate very much your seemingly constant sticking your neck out for certain principles in regard to this site. This site would be far more boring if it had no element of a community, and it's good to see someone so intent on standing up for that. I think you know that I share your distaste for censorship.
But, you probably also know I do a lot of disagreeing, so here goes that. This is in response to both your posts, which I do mostly agree with. Also, I don't know anything about who has and hasn't been banned, so this is not specifically about any of the particular individuals you name (two of whom are on my reading list, as I have always had quite enjoyable exchanges with them). But, there is a strong element of an old boys' club on these boards, and it can be a huge turnoff to new community members. I can't tell you how many times in my first few years here I have come close to swearing off Chowhound because members of what seems, on first glance, to be a clique of old timers who all have each others' undying respect, and work hard to be the loudest voices, turned too many good discussions into mean spirited crap. Now, after some time, I did realize there was really no clique, but there sure was plenty of mean spiritedness among some of the well respected community members that seemingly everyone fawns over as knowing oh so much and never being wrong. It can be incredibly difficult for latecomers to have their voice be heard. There is far too much of an attitude out there of, "This is our party, please don't spoil it with your silly little opinions." Hell, it took me less time in grad school to get published, with glowing peer reviews, than it took to get to the point here where it seemed like I wasn't wasting my time by adding to a discussion.
Now, do I think that merits people being banned? No. I don't believe in censorship. I live in a country where even Neo-Nazis can hold rallies. I can't fault the moderators, however, as I know well that lacking the resources to maintain a controlled anarchy often necessitates the institution of unfair regulation. But, you say this site is not a democracy. That is true, but I find it unfortunate that it is not a free marketplace of ideas. It does not take an advanced sociology degree to understand that the communities with the strongest output of ideas have the highest degrees of freedom. The success of the American system of higher education, which is able to overcome having the lowest levels of central government support of any developed nation by granting the highest levels of academic freedom, has long stood as proof of this.
So, the whole thing is a bit difficult. You're right that weeding people out is directly decreasing the diversity of ideas, which is never a good thing. But, in some cases, it may be indirectly increasing diversity when it means new members are less turned off to the discussions here. A lot of the time, they aren't even being turned off by actual mean spiritedness. Sarcasm doesn't come through in print, and sometime one might think you're being an asshole when you're really cracking a joke. The longer one posts here, the more at ease one become with posting, and responding to people in a familiar way. One might assume everyone will know they're kidding, because hey, they always are. But the new kid might not know, and it might make him go play somewhere else.
Permalink | Reply
Wow. Superb input.
Permalink | Reply
great post! i *do* believe there are some real cliques on this playground. sometimes it is hard to represent the minority opinion because you just know you'll get flamed. sometimes a simple question leads to a very intolerant and snobby response. it doesn't bug me so much when someone calls me ignorant (even about subjects i know well), but it sucks to see moderately well-informed, intelligent, and civil newcomers shouted down at top decibel for daring to ask about the inside scoop about something pretty obscure. then sometimes they are never heard from again. the echo chamber gets old. nobody knows everything, and if people are afraid to ask questions (or respond to them), we all miss out.
Permalink | Reply
I don't really see what you describe --- getting shouted down for asking an obscure question. I do see people (I'll include myself) who take a particular stand and won't budge off that mark. And it's seems to frequently be on the NAF board. It seems when it comes to cooking, there's a little more give and take, tho' you shouldn't get Scargod going about *authentic* Tex-Mex :) I've had private conversations with other CHs who feel NAF is just fraught with all sorts of opportunities to "get in trouble." Some say to deep-six NAF but it's so fun, isn't it?!?
I'm reluctant to call things cliques (here's Wikipedia's definition which was the first to pop up)
"A clique (IPA:/'kliːk/, pronounced /'klɪk/ by some Americans) is an exclusive group of people who share interests, views, purposes, patterns of behavior, or ethnicity.[1] A clique as a reference group can be either normative or comparative. Membership in a clique is often, but not necessarily, exclusive, and qualifications for membership may be social or essential to the nature of the clique. The term 'clique' may be used pejoratively."
So, yes, CH is a clique but it needn't be pejorative. Let's face it. We "see" the same people here day in and day out and we establish the oddest relationships with them, don't we? A familiarity develops after a while and the new people may feel a little left out. But isn't that true in an office or a neighborhood. It takes a while for social dynamics to sort themselves out when new people come in. Oh, hell, I'm just blethering on and on. But these aren't math problems. It's always going to be complicated this coming together of peoples. But otherwise I guess we would just use cookbooks and not be here at all, eh?
Permalink | Reply
"I don't really see what you describe --- getting shouted down for asking an obscure question."
Some examples: http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/508739
Permalink | Reply
You cited the Carty post about Neptune Oyster versus Summer Shack: http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/5747...
I don't see the issue. Carty gave as good as he/she got. Opinion was mixed. Seems only one person came back and argued. Tame stuff to me on that one example. Perhaps "shouted down" is slight hyperbole?
Permalink | Reply
Nope, the examples I'm citing are the ones mentioned in the Site Talk Thread.
But regardless, even in the case you cite one shouldn't have to argue just because one expresses a contrary opinion. It's not about giving as good as one gets. Chowhound is not a debating club. There is no right answer and no one's opinion trumps anyone else's. I'd much rather people spend time eating, thinking critically about the food and forging their own paths to deliciousness rather than spending time attacking or defending opinions on food.
And it's not hyperbole insofar as the impact on the number of people who might otherwise express their opinions on the food. The really hardcore chowhounds might decide that the X minutes spent debating something could be better spent taking a detour to uncover an undiscovered place.
Permalink | Reply
Oh, horseshit!
Permalink | Reply
While your irony isn't lost, I disagree and I'll have to move on as I have a whole bunch of places to check out, and another bunch more in my backlog for posting.
In the early days of CH, hounds would try to cultivate and be extra diplomatic to cultivate new posters to gain additional and preferably diverse opinions. I hope that those efforts have not been undone.
Permalink | Reply
More good points, limster. There IS no right or wrong answer in most of these cases. I've seen people post that they had a disappointing dinner at The French Laundry but haven't seen that person get attacked for it. But I have seen an attitude (usually around restos) of "well, you're nuts; that resto sucks." Like how could you possibly say you liked that. I'm getting your point(s) loud and clear. If one's opinion becomes an indictment against anyone else or makes a would-be poster decide not to participate, then we need to "examine our conscience" before hitting the red button. This will be harder for some than others but I think this thread today has perhaps given us a forum to air issues that haven't seen the light of day before. A good thing.
Permalink | Reply
Cliques, sucking, screaming, attacks and indictments. Perhaps it's sounds from Blazing Saddles and not sucking at all? I feel I'm about as full of shit as I'm going to get today. I've consumed enough hyperbole, so I bid you adieu.
Permalink | Reply
Thanks. I read MOST of it. I was hoping to actually have one of the "shoutdowns" but I get what you mean. I live in CA but have visited NYC a few times in the last two years. I've been to Babbo and it was a great dinner and a great evening. But there on people on the Manhattan board who'll want to scream at you for that. I have a pretty thick skin :) And, yes, restaurants I guess do provoke strong loyalties. Alan Barnes and I were commiserating that in the places we live, there's not really enough to argue about so we live vicariously on NYC and SF and look forward to our visits.
And, again, thanks for posting that. I hadn't seen it before --- and some of my favorite 'hounds were on there.
PS: Still want to come to YVR and have dim sum with some of you.
Permalink | Reply
"and some of my favorite 'hounds were on there"
Hahaha, is this like a clique? Just asking.
And as I write this, I know that I am saying, "but i like c oliver, I shouldn't say this to her", while at the same time if I hadn't read 40+ of your posts, appreciated your Maya Angelou quote, and admired your recipe suggestions, I probably wouldn't think twice about saying it. Just saying... :-). Not a formal clique, for sure, but we all feel allegiances...
Permalink | Reply
Ditto. Clique doesn't have to have negative connotations. And, BTW, Ft, I tend to only tease people I like so be prepared to duck :) And thank you.
Permalink | Reply
I'm ducking, hahaha!!!!
Permalink | Reply
"
We "see" the same people here day in and day out and we establish the oddest relationships with them, don't we?
"
it's true! i think we interact with each other on a totally different level than in the "real world." when i found out today that a poster i like and respect had been "banned for life," i admit that i felt shock and dismay as if i'd found out that a terrible accident had happened to someone i had pleasant daily personal contact with. after a few years i really do feel i know people on CH and i do have a deep respect and affection for many people here-- perhaps even folks who don't really like me. unlike some others, i must keep my real identity secret, so i can't "hang out" or get to know people outside of our little text boxes. . . but i do feel like CH is a real community and when a long-term poster is gone, for any reason, it does affect the rest of us.
i'm going to go out on a limb and say that while CH isn't itself a clique, that there are definitely cliques here on CH. there is an "old-school," pre c-net clique, for example. there are regional cliques that are of course inevitable when folks are talking about the same restaurants, cities and neighborhoods-- but some of them are very snobby and downright unfriendly to outsiders, let's be honest. there are socio-political cliques-- who is, or used to be, a server, who's in the wine club/country club, who likes sustainable or local food, who tips a certain way, who gets to travel a lot. . . it isn't the end of the world, but new posters definitely pick up on it when the cliques aren't welcoming.
maybe it's time to take a hard look in the mirror. it can cramp the conversation in a big way to realize it's one person against a clique in a conversation that should be light but gets serious in a hurry. it does get old to be the outsider in each conversation, and i think that's why a lot of newer posters go away.
Permalink | Reply
I've been agreeing with a number of people today and I include you, soupkitten. A few days ago I was suspended. I asked for feedback from the moderators, received it, acknowledged the correctness (even though I felt I was QUITE as awful as THEY thought I was, of course!) and asked for and received reinstatement. So I've been looking in that mirror, knowing that sometimes it wasn't what I said but how I said it. Today's exchanges have reinforced that as you and others have come forward and in a quiet but firm way spoken up. I think what will continue to be a challenge, for me anyway, is when someone ELSE takes a really aggressive position and I oh so want to take him/her down a peg. Deep breaths. One day at a time :)
Permalink | Reply
I agree that there may be cliques, but honestly I don't have the time to try and keep up with that and keep score. There are the pre-Cnet old timers, but I don't see them united in a particular stand, other than they would like to see Jim's creation do well and some of the format or philosophy preserved.
I may too be "out on a limb" by saying that on boards I have frequented people have been nice and helpful, even if I am not from their area. Hounds in the Vancouver and Seattle area are two examples. Am I getting respect because I post a lot? I don't see the "clique mystique" versus individuals. I don't see how you (or others), conclude that we, as a whole or as like-minded loose groups, aren't welcoming and that new posters are driven off by a "serious" conversation. I frequently help newcomers to the New England area or those passing through.
Limster cited Carty's thread and I just don't see the problem in this one example. Even if this example seems egregious to some is it the tip of the iceberg..., the "cold shoulder of unfriendliness"? I can't support that claim.
Permalink | Reply
Nope, as mentioned above, I was citing the examples that were brought up in the Site Talk thread. Sugartoof was one example. In fact that thread got so acrimonious that it was locked.
Permalink | Reply
I think you bettered check your homework (these are your links): http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/6640...
You cite Sugartoof, but nothing specific. Sugartoof is still very active and doesn't seem scarred for life. I'm assuming Sugartoof was a newbie that got taken to the woodshed by San Francisco Hounds? Sugartoof didn't run off with his/her tail between their legs, did they? SF is pretty unique from what I hear. If true, I seriously doubt that how they act in SF is endemic to all the boards.
Permalink | Reply
there have been missing hounds in action down here is southwestern CT in FFD county over the last couple of years. Many jfood misses and some, well, meh?
Permalink | Reply
Do you know if those hounds were banned or just left for greener pastures? Posters drop in and out for all kinds of reasons. I remember losing some of my favorites during the great schism of 2001 when a number of long time posters broke off and started posting exclusively on egullet and then many broke off again. I honestly hope that some of the banned/disenchanted posters form their own board. The more food boards the better in my opinion
Permalink | Reply
There were some really great FFD County members and then poof...gone. They were not contentious so jfood thinks they moved elsewhere or did not get the feedback they wanted.
Permalink | Reply
I've found the SF 'hounds to be extremely helpful and non-judgmental. Not that I read them all the time - I would suffer even more than I already do from envy :) It seems from what limster and others are saying is that whether someone can endure the criticism (or whatever else that happens) is not the point. It's that it shouldn't be happening at all. At least not in the sarcastic and belittling way that it sometimes does. I'm going to try to make my point respectfully and if I get a too aggressive reponse, I will TRY to not respond in kind. I actually HAVE stop participating in some threads for that reason. I need to try harder. It might be "good" for my ego to one-up someone but it's not constructive. And who gains from it? No one. This is a good day to start the day, focusing on constructive behavior :)
Permalink | Reply
"I will TRY to not respond in kind. I actually HAVE stop participating in some threads for that reason. I need to try harder. It might be "good" for my ego to one-up someone but it's not constructive"
Jfood should place that on a stickie...hard to change the spots on a dog sometimes.
Permalink | Reply
What you don't take into account is how many lurkers do you suppose get dissuaded from ever posting their finds here when they see someone new get beaten down? What about encouraging new posters? What about not slamming them for having the temerity to post a dissenting opinion? Part of the "clique" problem with some posters on this site is when any poster not in the circle of friends disagrees with one of them, the rest of the pack jumps into action attacking the single poster. It is very "gang" like behavior, and it is destructive of this site.
Permalink | Reply
I'm not sure of your position. Do you think we have a serious problem of lurkers who are unwilling to contribute? I read what others say and I remain unconvinced. I don't sense a hostile environment, just a passionate one, where there are many knowledgeable people who have a voice. There is the usual discourse. I mean sheesh, haven't you/anyone (I'm not just speaking to you Servorg) ever been in what was supposed to be a meeting of "professionals" and it get rancorous?
Isn't this like any social situation where there are those who watch or follow and those who don't contribute, but tag along?
We don't have a creed like, "Come all ye who are meek and downtrodden and we will protect you and nourish you so you can withstand the combat that is Chowhound"! I can't see people acting "unnaturally" just to encourage participation.
Permalink | Reply
"I can't see people acting "unnaturally" just to encourage participation."
I kinda think that there's a former president who squeezed a certain German chancellor who figured out that acting naturally can sometimes bring "participation" to a standstill.
susancinsf did give examples of people who were turned off by some of the tone. Not everyone has skin as tough as yours and mine, Scargod. Words hurt. You are very skilled with words (I'm not bad myself.) It's easy for us to slide the knife in, know we're doing it and then innocently proclaim "Who? Me?"
Permalink | Reply
Not sure whether it is thick skin or just convinced of the position. jfood has no guilt (being Jewish you figure it out) but he is passionate about certain items. His father's nickname was Mr Sacasm and he tries, and fails at times, staying out of that boat.
The Mods are pretty adept at finding the sliding knife, jfood has only slid ~10% past them. And then the -email and, as you said, "Huh?"
Permalink | Reply
It's perfectly natural to act in one's self interest, and it is in a chowhound's self interest to have a broad and open discussion about food.
Permalink | Reply
Read the thread carefully on Site Talk carefully. There are several other examples.
I quote from that thread:
"I experienced this on the San Francisco board a number of times, to the point where, even the slightest dissent of a CH favorite gets them worked into a tizzy, and half the discussion gets deleted. I have to wonder if these members have a personal stake in these establishments to actually respond as if I've made a personal attack?"
or from another poster who's not from SF:
"This is the prime reason that I tend to avoid posting in Chowhounds much over the last year."
I don't really care if they get scarred for life or not, but I do care if it's more difficult for people to offer their opinions. Whether a poster is active or not despite an acrimonious falme war is irrelevant. What is relevant is how easy is it for people to get their opinion across. For every person that has go through a flame war just to get their opinion across, there are others who decide it's not worth the trouble. That means we have less tips to go with. For a board that depends on sharing information, anything that even discourages people to come up with their independent opinions is bad.
That's not specific to SF where I've been rather active in the past.
Permalink | Reply
Another thought I've had. Perceptions matter. I used to have a friend who didn't get a HUGE promotion (division president) because there was a perception of him as being something he really wasn't. But that perception was in the eye of the offended so it was valid. So if someone perceives me as "sarcastically belittling" even it that isn't my intention, then I'm being sarcastically belittling. Does that make any sense?
Permalink | Reply
A lot of this current discussion has regarded, "that's why a lot of newer posters go away". A sincere and serious question: is there and what is the eveidence that newer posters are being scared off?
Permalink | Reply
Good question, Sam. But there have also been current and active posters who have expressed unhappiness with some of the aggressive posturing that some of us engage in. As I said above, offense is in the eye of the offended. Yes, there are people who may be overly sensitive but I'm betting they don't make up the full population of those who are displeased with the tone(s) that sometimes gets used. I'm just trying to raise my own consciousness. To admit I'm going for the juglar if I do and stop making any toe-in-the-sand pretenses :)
Permalink | Reply
i'm so with you on this, as i myself probably have a horrible reputation for being irascible and argumentative-- and the problem is i like a little back-and-forth with other posters who are also a little curmudgeonly (likably so, i might add)! there have been recent instances where i've gone along thinking it was all in fun, only to realize that my "opponent" was deadly serious. . . i think that many enjoyable and informative discussions between many posters with many povs can degenerate to ugly 2-sided snarky pissing matches between 2 people very quickly and we've all seen it happen and either joined in or said "i'm not touching that one" and moved on. i'm as guilty as the next person, except i'm much more likely to jump in, & on the side of the underdog, it seems.
another very real problem is that some posters seem to view other posters as permanent opponents on all levels rather than as people who will have a pov they agree with on some issues and disagree with on others. i don't get that at all-- there are some folks i frequently agree with (but not always) and folks i seldom agree with (but not never) and it isn't really a who's on who's side for me, the way it obviously is for others. i think that the "thermo-nuclear war" response (Jfood's phrase, i think), and also the belittling of a poster on a personal level/attempting to invalidate *all* of someone else's opinions has become a lot more common as a result. also we're seeing spillover from one thread to another like the snarky comments Im_Nomad noted below. it's disturbing to think of folks carrying grudges from one conversation to the next, even over a period of weeks or months, but i think it happens. this is the kind of thing we can try to watch out for ourselves rather than waiting for the mods to pick up on it, because sometimes it's pretty subtle.
i don't think it's a good idea to point fingers at specific posters or to continue pointing fingers at specific boards (let's lay off the SF board)-- it will only get people all defensive/offensive and illustrate what some of us are talking about!!! that would be humorous ;-P but not terribly constructive.
Permalink | Reply
Very good point about the permanent opponents. I've been focusing more on the permanent supporters, but the grudge holding is at least as damaging. There was one guy on here that, for a short while, would mock half the posts I made. No previous input on the thread, but only chiming in to make an immature comment in response to my thoughts. He seemed to particularly hate when I brought science in to a discussion. It was annoying, but I guess in the end he didn't have the attention span to keep it up, and I think he might have been banned since then.
Permalink | Reply
Yes, there definitely is grudge-holding going on, starting with disagreements on one thread and then migrating to other threads.
Permalink | Reply
here's a great example. In a previous era, jfood think soupk and he had a bit of a tuffle about tatoos or body art on servers. Jfood does not get it but numerous visits to NE MSP and tatoo sleeves on tons of waitresses, he still does not get it but accepts it. Likewise he feels like Leonard Nimoy in search of soup in the MSP area. So even with total disagreements on certain topics, posters see eye to eye on others.
Permalink | Reply
hwaa!! :-P
didn't even remember the tattoo spat! yet now that you've become such a regular poster on my local area board, Jfood, at least you see where i'm coming from, the land of multicolored people! (and i'm entertained that there are so many comments on the top chef threads about the heavily tattooed cheftestants-- doesn't ***everybody*** know that that's what *all* chefs look like?!? har har. tongue firmly in cheek).
yes, over a few years we've had our agreements and our disagreements. i'd like to note that i have great respect for you after our disagreements because you always seem to make such an effort to keep it civil, and to actually understand the disagreeing person's pov before giving the paw-thumbs-down to the argument. i look forward to many conversations with you where we may or may not agree, i usually learn something either way. so big kudos to you for your comportment, sir. it doesn't always have to be thermo-nuclear war, and some discussions don't need to have a winner or loser but they can be conversations where many hounds discuss many povs that are equally valid.
Permalink | Reply
Sam, over the years I have had at least four or five persons who came to Chowdowns in SF tell me that they have been intimidated from posting by the 'cliqueish' or whatever-you-want-to-call it tone of the boards. Since those were only people who overcame the intimidation enough to come out and meet other hounds in person (at least two of them had only lurked, had never posted), I can only assume that they are only the tip of an iceberg.
BTW, it is somewhat counter-intuitive, but at least in my experience one of the benefits of the Chowdowns is that they make posters more thoughtful and more food focused. I've actually found that once you get to know someone in person, you are less likely to blast them. Of course, I have also found that some people just like to be combative. Indeed, I sometimes think you can often find a correlation between how often certain posters post on NAF, as opposed to how often they post on their home board or about something that is actually food related (such as on Home Cooking), and how likely they are to be combative. Indeed, there are some posters I've come to think of as 'NAF posters'...
Permalink | Reply
one other thought: in addition to the "NAF Poster" phenom, there is also what I think of as the "Trip Advisor" phenom: ie, I think that increasingly there are a lot of folks out there who use Chowhound the way that I use Trip Advisor: they get info from it, but don't post back. I suspect that posters are a very small percentage of the reading community, and many more lurk. Unfortunately, when that happens it doesn't improve the quality of the boards. IMO, we want to do everything we can to create a community where food lovers will want to post their experiences.
(and yes, perhaps I should post my own experiences on Trip Advisor. However, I don't see it as the community that I see CH as. Probably because I don't feel like it is a group with shared passion for something).
Permalink | Reply
Every friend I've ever recommended this site to has given it a try, then decided the atmosphere is just too contentious.
Permalink | Reply
To balance that out, there are several freinds that jfood has recommended to the site that love it.
Permalink | Reply
That is really unfortunate, in my opinion. Sorry to hear this.
Permalink | Reply
I've heard the same from some people I've met on the boards--and these are people with great recipes and ideas--that they would post more, but the contentiousness and snobbishness is off-putting. It's our loss, for sure.
Permalink | Reply
Well said. Well, Daniel, we have broken bread, or should I say tortilla? You know a little about the person behind the redneck sarcasm, or whatever it is seen as. You and I have had a face to face. I always appreciate your well spoken erudite comments. I wished I could speak as eloquently as yourself.
I am not saying I have approved of all that has been said by my friends or that I am without sin. I feel their good far outweighs their bad.
Perhaps I need to be reminded of when I first really got involved with Chowhound and didn't have a "voice" yet. I was sensitive to criticism, yet it did not drive me off. I could see how it might others. Some posters were intimidating; I remember jfood as someone I would occasionally spar with because he seemed so opinionated and sure of himself. I despised one woman from Manhattan, but she is long gone. I'm not sure what the answer is for the timid. Sometimes there is none, yet I hope my friends and I aren't running anyone off or impeding their desire to participate! As I said, if you've have had certain life experiences you get callouses and perhaps become too callous.
Thanks a lot for calling me an old timer, you young fart! Making any cheese in Boston yet ?
Permalink | Reply
Perhaps old timers was a poor choice of words. What I meant was long time chowhounds. And I don't think you and your friends are necessarily turning anyone off. Yours was certainly never a voice that made me think about quitting the habit. With a couple exceptions that I think eventually went away, the New England board was usually pretty friendly. It's more the topical boards that can get a little nasty.
I don't think any of the opinionated regulars are blameless, however. I'm sure I sometimes come off as a pretentious, condescending little shit. Communication is a difficult thing - some argue that it is the most complex, difficult thing that human beings are capable of.
But, I also don't think that's it's necessarily the timid who get turned off. It's easy enough for a timid new kid to just become one of the many followers of whatever loud voice appeals to them. An opinionated new kid, however, might find that if they dare disagree with certain regulars, a dozen voices chime in acting like they just pissed in the holy water. It can be kind of shocking when you're new and don't know who the big names are, and don't understand how powerful reputation is in this community.
I can remember one occasion on which I made the mistake of arguing with someone I didn't realize was a heavy hitter. Many vociferous voices came to his or her support. I did hours of research to make sure I was right. But it didn't matter, because many are quite willing to just assume their respected friend is always right, and chime in their support without bothering to do any fact checking. It can get a little bit like an elementary school argument.
It's too bad too, because there are a few very knowledgeable individuals that do add a whole lot to the discussion, but they're so abrasive otherwise that they end up detracting more than they add.
And no, no cheese yet. Things are shaping up to get rolling in the spring though, so stay tuned. And I'll be glad to break bread, or other starchy food, wih you again anytime. Did I see you mention somewhere you're heading to Maine soon? If so, add a meal in Boston on the drive up or down to your plans.
Permalink | Reply
Thank you, Daniel. This is very well said.
Permalink | Reply
I don't remember you as being little.
I say this to every Hound. This will be one of my few caveats: I hope that my word play is seen for what it is. If you get the wordcrafting I attempt that's great, but I am reluctant to be charmingly didactic (though edgy), on one hand, and apologize for it on the other (or feel like I need to do a lot of smiley faces).
This is similar to my stance about the pusillanimous poster. Suck it up and jump in. There are very few piranha (really). I am mostly educated from the school of hard knocks, so it is no big deal to me. Experiential learning.
As regulars, I doubt that we are without guilt. It is a shame that people pile on and are "yes men" for "heavy hitters" without doing any homework.
I liked what soupkitten said about the all or nothing alignment with other Hounds. This is a challenge for me, I suspect. I long thought that women should be on pedestals, and had trouble accepting that in movies there were bad guys, when they looked so wholesome and charming on the outside.
DJW, you are right. Communicating is perhaps the most important skill you need in a relationship. Doing it well is difficult. You can withhold it and you can distort it. Sometimes it's just as important to shut up and just listen.
Just being poor at communicating can leave you at a distinct disadvantage. Being unable or unwilling to bring forth what you know is part of what we are discussing here. I hope we are not intimidating to lurkers. Communicating honestly and openly (and being more transparent), involves risk. Remember, we cannot reach through the monitor and dope-slap you!
I will turn around what others have said: "if a person perceives it as real then it is real to them". I have to do what feels real to me, regardless of, and in spite of, how it might be perceived. If I am out of whack I assume there will be people telling me I need to recalibrate or buzz off.
Permalink | Reply
There are Chowhounds who are didactic and a lot more who are pedantic. The former can be done by *some* people in a kind, if not exactly charming, way; the latter never. Those who are kind and generous and patient when they give advice/teach are revered here. Those who don't are scorned and/or ridiculed.
And I agree with you that if any CH reads another being "out of whack," that's what that report button is for. I think I'll use that as my substitute for "acting out" :) I'll continue to remind myself that CH is not MY property and I need to behave myself. And behaving myself implies following THEIR rules. It's that old "my way or the highway" adage.
Permalink | Reply
I've been reading this thread for a while now, and not posting, but will now put in my two cents worth, which actually have nothing to do with the Food Waste thread. I try to be helpful and friendly when I post. If I don't have anything nice to say (and, yes, sometimes I feel like posting something snarky), I just move right on. If I disagree with someone, I try to do so quietly and politely, without antagonizing the other person or questioning their integrity or credentials. This isn't to make me sound like a Polly Anna, but I just don't see why I should do otherwise. I like to think of CH as being a welcoming place for diverse opinions, which, in my mind, means not ridiculing other opinions, or making them seem unwanted.
I know that sometimes, particularly on the Home Cooking board, I may err by chatting a bit more than I should, or having personal "chats" with posters with whom I am in email contact. Having read this thread, I'm going to try to do less of that. I don't think that clique-ishness - even when unintended - is a good thing for the site. To the contrary, I think we all need to focus more on the chow, and less on the chat/personal anecdotes etc. I'm on Facebook, and that is where I try to keep my on-line socializing. That way, CH posts can really be focused on the chow, so that those who follow/read threads will know that something useful will show up when they see "new" next to a thread, rather than my promising to send someone a cookbook or something - which I fully confess that I've done.
Well, that's my resolution for the week!
Permalink | Reply
MMRuth, I was hoping you would contribute to this. The process of working through it has helped ME alot. I was talking with a CH about the fact that as much as it might feel "good" to engage in arguing, it doesn't contribute to the purpose of Chowhound. And chatting? I'm certainly too high on the list with that. I will continue to thank when appropriate but am trying to limit the other parts. Regarding the argumentative aspect, I don't believe that people have a right to state their point of view ad nauseum. Anothing thing for me to work on. I may think my opinion is the BEST one but that doesn't make it so. And even if it were, I need to lay off the others. I'm not going to cut myself slack by saying "oh, it's only words."
Sheesh, I could go on and on. I'll stop by saying that my desires aren't what it's all about. If I (or others) are offensive, then we need to STOP IT. This has been a very good thread for me. I think I'm medium smart but sometimes I need to walk all the way through things like this.
Again, MMR, thanks. You have lots of credibility and people will listen to you. x,c
Permalink | Reply
While we're all being so open, constructive, and soul-searchy, I would like to gently point out, if I might, that comments such as "I was hoping you would contribute to this" and "You have lots of credibility and people will listen to you" only serve to reinforce a clique-like atmosphere.
I'm not saying that I don't value MMRuth as a contributor (of course I do and her comments in this thread are excellent), but one thing that makes all 'hounds feel included is if you welcome everyone's comments equally, not just wait until a thread hits almost 100 posts for someone you REALLY respect to speak up.
You never know when your best tip is going to come from a quiet, lurker type or from a newbie. But if you give the impression that you really only want comments from your friends, you may be inadvertently suppressing tips from the people who aren't your friends. Yet. :).
~TDQ
Permalink | Reply
Cliquie: "exclusive group of people who share interests, views, purposes, patterns of behavior, or ethnicity.[1] "
By that definition CH is most definitely a clique. No argument from me on that one.
I wrote what I did because I've had exchanges with MMRuth and I know that she really does not care for the chattiness that happens so often. Because of that, I was pretty sure that she would also not like the mean-spiritedness that can occur. I also appreciate her ability to write in a way that's understandable (no double talk) and persuasive.
Although I'm trying quite hard not to be offended, I do take exception to even a whiff of an attitude that I only want comments from my "friends." While being "soul searchy" here, the one thing that I KNOW that I do right is really making a point of soliciting advice, using it, reporting back, thanking people. If I notice someone is new, I'll say "welcome." Whew. I feel better :) I guess my skin isn't that thick after all. Thanks for giving me the opprotunity to clarify, TDQ. All the best, CO.
Permalink | Reply
Your paragraph that begins with "I wrote what I did because I've had exchanges with MMRuth and I know that she really does not care for..." exactly illustrates the point I am trying to make. That kind of remark that implies that her input is more valuable to you because you know her so well from your previous interactions and comments such as "I was hoping you would contribute to this" and "You have lots of credibility and people will listen to you" make these kinds of conversations feel very unwelcoming and club-like to those who aren't part of the club. I don't know you well enough to know whether or not you actually only want comments from your friends, I only know that some of the remarks you've made make it seem like that's the case.
~TDQ
Permalink | Reply
If that is your perception, then that is your perception. So be it.
Permalink | Reply
It is my perception. It's also my perception that you're discounting my feedback because I'm not part of your club and I haven't had exchanges with you. Again, this is exactly what I'm trying to point out to you.
~TDQ
Permalink | Reply
I would hate if (many) others felt the same way. But truth be told, on certain threads I really do want certain people to weigh in. The easiest example is Sam Fujisaka when it comes to agricultural issues. There may be other CHs with the same knowledge that Sam has but I'm not seeing them as often. I don't want to start "naming names" because that WOULD be exclusionary. There are just some very active posters that I've assigned certain strengths (and weaknesses) too.
Guess I better start reading you more and exchanging :)
Permalink | Reply
My guess, there are others who feel this same way, but, of course, I don't know. If there are others who feel this way, I worry they might be the shy outsider types. :)
I love Sam's and MMRuth's posts, too. We all have our favorites. But, I'm just suggesting it might feel more welcoming if we were less overt about our favs. That way, others might be more emboldened to chime in.
I'm not trying to harsh on you and, if I might say so, I think you are being remarkably thick-skinned about my feedback at this point. You do seem sincerely willing to hear my feedback.
Okay, gotta go. My husband made dinner!
Yours in lively and passionate conversation in the pursuit of deliciousness,
~TDQ
Permalink | Reply
Your point is well made and true enough that it made me immediately think of the "rule" that Melanie Wong (and I believe that others on the SF board also may have followed) instituted in which she would not reply to posters who called on her "by name" as it were for this very reason. I think you said it perfectly when you wrote:
>>That kind of remark that implies that her input is more valuable to you because you know her so well from your previous interactions and comments such as "I was hoping you would contribute to this" and "You have lots of credibility and people will listen to you" make these kinds of conversations feel very unwelcoming and club-like to those who aren't part of the club.<<
Permalink | Reply
Had never heard of Melanie Wong, but I decided to do a search and came up with threads with titles like "Ode to Melanie Wong", "yes, thank you Melanie Wong", "attn melanie wong! (and others)", "melanie wong, can you help?"--and that's just a start. That just seems strange and out of place here, to me.
Permalink | Reply
It was and it is, which was recognized by Melanie and others. There are other more passive aggressive forms of "in circle" treatment that occur as well. Someone not part of the herd will suggest a restaurant to deafening silence (and I'm not talking on a 100 post thread, I'm talking a 10 post thread or less). Then one of the "group" will recommend the very same place and others will chime in on what a great suggestion that is and how spot on that is, etc., etc. - giving lots of approbation. It really does have a chilling effect on newer posters who are made to feel unwelcome and ignored.
Permalink | Reply
I went to her page, and she has maybe several hundred people "reading" her. We don't have anyone like that on the Toronto & Ontario board, not that I've noticed, though there are certainly some who are looked upon as being "experts" in one or more areas. I can't say that I've ever felt or observed that kind of treatment, thank goodness.
Have the moderators intervened at all? If so, has it helped?
Permalink | Reply
This isn't really something that can be "moderated" except by individual posters who take into account that there is more than one way to phrase things or approach differences of opinion, and they choose to take the path less demeaning to others...
Permalink | Reply
Okay, since jfood's here, let's use him as example. (Sorry, j). How many people "read" him. A hundred? So he posts about a short rib recipe that he loves.. Someone new has fewer people "reading" him/her. Posts about a short rib recipe. Is this just basic math that more people will read jfood than new poster and wil then comment? It doesn't mean NP isn't welcome; it's just math. I have no idea why it would have a "chilling effect." I further have no idea why that would make one feel "unwelcome and ignored."
Permalink | Reply
Boy, I'm really hearing stuff. It has never crossed my mind that referring to a CH by their "name" had that connotation. I will frequently do that simply because reading lengthy threads can get complicated. And my "name" gets truncated to 'CO" by others simply because of fewer keystrokes, I'm sure.
Keep up the dialogue. 'Though older than the average 'hound I (mostly) do have an open mind.
Permalink | Reply
Oh man...you think your having a problem. Jfood just took me outside to figure out how he would not see his name on his threads since he is too freakin' lazy to type.
Permalink | Reply
Jfood pleads guilty here and has noproblem with it. Why the heck would anyone not take some poster's replies with more credibility than others. There are some jfood trusts more from experience and others he does not trust at all. Then there are the ones that he is developing a trust or not.
The idea that people should immediately classify all responses as the same is not something jfood buys into.
And to be clear some opinions are more valuable to jfood than others.
And jfood has written more and deleted... :-)
Permalink | Reply
It's not whether you think some posters have more credibility than others. Or that there are opinions on food that you trust. We all do that. It's the type of feedback you give to those posters that may leave a lot of other posters feeling left on the outside of the glass looking in.
Permalink | Reply
Hey if people want to post as if this was a 1st day of kindergarten, that is their choice. Everyone has been the to the first day at a new school and with the internet that is occuring waaaaaay miore than when jfood was a kid. Tons of thread on being more self assertive face-to-face in a restautough for jfood to buy into.rant and that does not carry through to posting via a wireless connection with no chance of meeting the other person? Nah, that discoonect is
Permalink | Reply
Except some people go to school with a whole bunch of friends that they have been hanging out with in sports or the neighborhood or at church and others have just transferred in from another city or country. You can dismiss or discount this. Easy to do. The hard thing to do is take it into account and change behavior in small, but telling ways that foster a more inclusive give and take on the site.
TDQ said it very well (as I wrote elsewhere). I found her reasoning compelling. Still do.
Permalink | Reply
out of curiosity Serv. how many posters do you think have people written on their home board welcoming a newbie. jfood has done that almost every time someone new shows up. so jfood understands the new poster, welcomes them and continues. Some want to play, others leave.
Permalink | Reply
I have a feeling a lot never get into the game, just stand on the sidelines and never say a word. Which is our loss as a site looking for new blood.
Permalink | Reply
couldn't agree more with new blood. the tri-state ffd county board could use more and more. several have come and left quickly. too bad for some.
Permalink | Reply
Well, it is daunting, for sure. It was daunting for me to start posting, and then to start a thread, which I still find a little scary. Wondering will anyone respond... haha. And I'm not very thick-skinned. You need to be to be posting on a board, though, and I think that would be the case with most any board. I felt the same way when I once made a post to gardenweb. But, I'm not a regular poster there and have no idea how it compares to Chowhound in terms of these issues. I wouldn't want a bland board; I like that it's lively. I just don't want it to feel exclusive, to me or anyone else. You're never going to get 100%, or anything close to that, of "lurkers" making posts. Lurking is what some people do, not just here, but elsewhere too. On the other hand, I spend far too much time here, hahaha, and need a 12 step Chowhound Anonymous program. Wish I had stayed at the lurking stage sometimes.
Permalink | Reply
So are you saying that if I call a poster by their screen name that I'm intimidating new or shy members of Chowhound? I just don't get that.
Permalink | Reply
Now, take your paw and pet jfood on the head.
Permalink | Reply
I see what people are saying, but even just hitting "reply" is kind of like putting the person's name at the front of your post. I guess it's all about limits. Reining in the fawning. Remembering there are others who may want--and should be able--to be part of the conversation. And, I don't think that requires hard and fast rules, except perhaps in an extreme situation where people are not using good judgment.
Permalink | Reply
kind of like putting?
the upper right on every reply spells in out completely.
when someone writes "hey abc123" please do not reply is when jfood will agree with this. Sorry guys. cant get there
Permalink | Reply
Ya, but if you came online and every single post was directed at one person, and every single thread was directed at that person, well you wouldn't hang around long. That's the extreme, of course, but it illustrates the point. In the meantime, this is a community where we talk to each other, and conversations mean using names, when appropriate. Sometimes I'm having a conversation with everyone and anyone, and sometimes I'm responding to one person. Others are welcome to chime in, as I feel I am when someone directs a question to another person. We need to be sensitive, but not nameless.
Permalink | Reply
this thread is a case in point. jfood was busy and did nt see it then just jumped in. he started travelling to MSP and started posting there. When he was travelling tp Philly and Boston likewise. It may not be the board but just the personality. jfood has two daughters that could not be more different and they are both wonderful. just the way it is. c'est la vie.
Permalink | Reply
It's not a comfortable feeling when one feels left out of the clique/club etc.
Some Chowhounds are just going to know others better. Pointing that out doesn't intend to be unwelcoming. With time, everyone who joins will get to know the regular posters in their area.
Chowhound is like a big party. Wouldn't it be boring, sterile (and a bit scary) if we had to attenuate our warm feelings for some and at the same time invite perfect strangers into familiar, friendly conversations? That's what's going to have to take place, it seems to me, for everyone here to feel as if they're a member of "the club."
Permalink | Reply
shaogo, I have probably met 200 hounds and organized a dozen chowdowns. I have lots of chowfriends, on and off the boards. I'm just suggesting we be mindful to avoid of club-like language so, in the interest of diversity, we don't intimidate new or quieter voices.
~TDQ
Permalink | Reply
I describe it like moving into a new neighborhood and starting a new job. People welcome you but, let's face it, you don't have the history together yet that the others do. It just takes time. In Chow-years I'm barely over two. I knew I wasn't going to crash in. You nibble around the edges (I actually asked on the Manhattan board about really good dim sum and no one mutilated me!), get comfort here and there and over time it happens. Or it doesn't. If it doesn't, I believe that decision lies with the newbie.
Permalink | Reply
So this thread really has me thinking...I've been here for about 3 yrs and I think I'm probably one of the quieter/less opinionated voices in the mix. I think it would be a shame if people started 'editing' their conversations so as not to 'offend' or 'alienate' new users. There are certainly posters that drive me up the wall with the what they say and the way they say it, but I am more terrified of the slippery slope that begins with a heavy hand in 'moderating'.
Of course we all want to foster a positive atmosphere where the quality and quantity of information reaches it's maximum potential, but one size never fits all when it comes to a large group. It is inevitable that some will feel like they don't fit in, but hopefully they will find some way to find those who are likeminded as there inevitably will be in so large a group.
Hope that makes sense.
Permalink | Reply
Yes, it does.
Permalink | Reply
I'll give one concrete example and then gravitate towards bed. There was a recent thread on the LA board in which someone asked about Mexican suggestions. One person chimed in with a place and someone replied "I wouldn't feed their food to my dog, and sometimes I don't even like my dog all that much." (I'm paraphrasing from memory so that may not be quite right).
I think that if you want to write that it will stand because it doesn't contravene any of the site rules. But it could have a very chilling effect on a new poster to get that as a reply. If you are posting an original review and want to say that - no problem.
To me it's just the way you disagree with someone. You can be totally dismissive of their recommendation and compare their choice of place to somewhere that serves food which is no better than dog food (no offense to JFood's literate pooch) or you can say "Have you tried that dish at restaurant B? I really find it to be much tastier (and then add any and all supporting points to why you think it's tastier).
Permalink | Reply
Alright! Now I agree with you 100%!!!!! But now you're not talking about "clique-ish-ness" but rather mean-ness. I think that's a serious issue, not at all like me calling jfood jfood. That's the "shouting" that was being discussed upthread. That offputting, judgmental, I-know-better-than-you attitude. The people who can't stand to button their lips and let other opinions get a hearing. The pedantic ones. We all know them.
Permalink | Reply
You are right about meanness, but I think clique-ish-ness comes into it too, sometimes, because people won't respond that way to someone they have established a rapport with or with someone who they perceive as having status on the Board. Many people feel free, however, to speak harshly to the newcomer who has no status (yet) or to those with whom interests haven't intersected, so no camaraderie exists. The newcomer may or may not weather the response, depending on a variety of factors. Some will, for sure, leave. On my Toronto board, there are plenty of those kinds of posts, and it makes it nerve-wracking for some (including myself) to participate.
Permalink | Reply
I see a bumper sticker occasionally:
Mean People Suck
And they do. And sometimes they suck UP. I see one who definitely cow tows to a few while denigrating others. I said this upthread but maybe it bears repeating. Hit that report button! If enought people report bad behavior, it will make a difference.
Permalink | Reply
I c one, too, oliver.
Permalink | Reply
Wow, I guess that was directed at me. More food for thought.
Permalink | Reply
But that feed to the dog comment is funny, and was probably meant to be funny. I hope most hounds are mature enough to enjoy humor. I certainly look for the laughs and the tears now and then).
Permalink | Reply
That's possible, Sam. As you know I go for the humorous most of the time. But there was no indication of humor, and it looked very much like the corollary to the old "That place sucks" comment we see too much of here.
Permalink | Reply
There is probably a happy medium. Jfood sits through so many meeting where the feelings are sometimes placed ahead of the purpose of the meeting. Somebody asks an inane question, sure enough someone says, "that's a great question..." No it's not. Disagreement is a means to communicate as well. In this example, the passive aggressive dismissal is there as well. If there is a disagreement on a dish, let's speak to the dish and try to discuss the dish, not take a snagglepuss and only offer a different dish. As long as the last few words in your post address the first dish, jfood agrees, but when someone raves about the beef and the next person only says, the chiocken is better, jfood lkikes the why is it better.
Now the dog food comment may cross the line but jfood normally states that it is "not to his liking" and then why. That is his happy medium compromise.
Permalink | Reply
Sorry. I didn't see this post before I made my last reply. I'm not discounting your perception. I just very strong disagree with it. I don't disrepect you, I just don't agree with you. But I will keep an open mind; I promise.
PS: My "club" consists of the banned, the suspended, the reprimanded, etc. You probably wouldn't WANT to associate with a group of reprobates who hang on by bloody fingertips.
Permalink | Reply
Can anyone explain to me the reason why once a thread has been locked, it disappears from *My Posts* ?
BTW.....if you Google....Food Waste Chowhound. it's the first on the list.
Permalink | Reply
That's hilarious, because if you go on the Not About Food board and search for food waste, you will not find it, at least not in the first page of results. Can't say I searched exhaustively in 20 different ways for it.
It is annoying that a locked thread disappears from my Recent Posts lists, just as c oliver pointed out. I wonder what the reasoning is, or if this will be remedied.
Permalink | Reply
at the risk of being deleted here, i really have to wonder why this is the only board i've ever been part of -- out of 35 or 40 -- that thinks robust discussion is a mortal sin.
oh, and just to be safe....food is good!
Permalink | Reply
Mostly because it turns into a "bash the host" bitch fest that seems to draw every troll out from every bridge to join in the clubbing. Not a very friendly, or useful way to make the site better.
Permalink | Reply
In this particular case, it wasn't "bash the host", but there were a number of finger-waggers and then there were finger-wagger-bashers. Hope that explains it, hahahaha.
Permalink | Reply
My reply was really to David's general observation about "robust discussion" on Site Talk. Said "rd" rapidly turns into a litany of bash our hosts content, which seems to whip the troll like aspects of posters personalities into a frenzy of frothy feeding... ;-D>
Permalink | Reply
i maintain my position. been here for more than ten years and seen dissent crushed more and more. not so on sites involving my professional life (entertainment, fwiw). on those, obscenity is grounds for removal, as are really gratuitous personal attacks -- both reasonable grounds to axe. the schoolmarm scolding here seems to have devolved radically in recent years. oh well, we get what we accept.
Permalink | Reply
To me it's a case of "why are most of us here?" To bitch about something on Site Talk or to suss out and discuss delicious food in our local areas? Axing a thread here doesn't seem to impact the search for great food on my home board. And I definitely don't see the necessity or usefulness for drawing flies and propagating the bashing of unpaid, volunteer moderators who do a thankless task (which is not just necessary, but vital in keeping this site friendly and focused). Letting a lot of unhappy folks scream their lungs out here just seems to draw more unhappy folks, who are only too happy to join in the screaming.
Permalink | Reply
The thread was on Not About Food, and it was about food waste. If Chowhound did not intend that such topics be discussed, and wanted people to only discuss local food finds, then they shouldn't have a "Not About Food" board, or a "Home Cooking" board, or a "General Chowhounding Topics" board, or a "Site Talk" board.
While I think that the moderators do a wonderful job in many respects, and am thankful to have Chowhound, it is frustrating when you spend a lot of time writing a thoughtful post only to have it deleted. By the same token, it is frustrating when a thread gets locked, disappears from participants' recent posts lists, and from Chowhound searches, because some of us cross some line. It's sort of like telling us you can't continue this conversation because your behaviour is inappropriate, and only those who knew it was there in the first place, or who are willing to scroll back in the archives, screen after screen, will ever know of its existence.
Permalink | Reply
I don't participate on other boards but have seem enough to know that I WANT a moderated board. I've seen enough F**k you, no F**k YOU or I'm going out to dinner now (sorry for no quotes) and I would hate for CH to go that way. There are simply threads and the Food Waste one was one IMO that had said all new and unique that it could say (and I was pretty offensive a couple of times myself there) and it just is going nowhere good.
Let me tell some of you also that the moderators CAN be talked to. Do it in an email and you'll get an email back. I had a thread a few months ago that got censored/chopped because it became "chatty" during its brief life. I pointed out that some decent food info went along with that and they put the appropriate comments back in.
I have been formally reprimanded and am trying harder. I have been made to realize that sometimes it's not what I say but how I say it that can feel belittling to others. Do I still want to rant at times? You bet. And I probably will. But I'm also going to attempt to stay on the civil side of that line. What's the expression? Hate the sin but love the sinner. Now that I've probably come across as Saint Catherine the Goody Two-Shoes of the Whole Effing Universe, I shall go and fix a cocktail and get in the hot tub (That's what Californians do when they're not on CH, ya know?) Later, gators.
Permalink | Reply
I agree with you that something had to be done with the thread, and I am grateful for the fact that something was done--some of the messages were deleted, fine, but now that it's locked, it is being sent into the ether.
Hahaha, Miss Goody Two-Shoes, you earned that label after your Maya Angelou post.
Permalink | Reply
para. one: I would love it if locked still showed up on My Posts.
para. two: See, that's what I get for showing the warm and fuzzy side. Abuse :) Great quote though.
Permalink | Reply
I thought that David's comment was about CH in general, when it comes to disapproval of robust discussion, not specifically Site Talk.
Something that is somewhat amusing (not really) is that while the thread was locked, a couple of snarky comments about the thread itself showed up in other threads, sort of making fun of the practice. As the OP, it made me feel a little like the stupid kid in the playground.
Permalink | Reply
I guess I haven't been reading those threads... thankfully!!
And, btw, none of us saw YOU as the "stupid kid in the playground".
Permalink | Reply
+1
Permalink | Reply
i've left comments on threads lately, gone to work, and returned to find the threads locked, and presumably a lot of comments deleted, in the meantime. some of the remaining comments seem to point to my comments being seriously misunderstood-- and i was never able to clarify, or even know what the issue was in the first place. . . or maybe the criticism was with someone else's comments, not mine-- how to know?
but i gather that this is a common experience and folks who have been around the block here on CH don't hold any grudges. i don't think you or anyone else is "the stupid kid in the playground." i think that sometimes things spin out of control, or that people willfully don't understand where others are coming from. some threads meet ignominious deaths before their time, and some far after it's become completely ridiculous. i don't think it's the mods' fault, either. don't sweat it too much.
Permalink | Reply
While I didn't agree with you, I never saw you as the stupid kid on the playground or the like. Heck, most posters agreed with you. I was the bad, evil one ;-) Thus the snark on a couple of other threads.....none which was directed at you.
Permalink | Reply
just to get on the end of this sub-thread and not a response to JfromR, even though it was her fault that jfood got in trouble :-).
Permalink | Reply
I'm not making any statements for or against a heavily moderated board, but as someone who read the entire thread (and saw most of the deleted posts before they were deleted), I'd just say I agree with shutting down that thread in this case. It just got embarrassing. Frankly, there were several posters that I usually respect that posted some really juvenile things. Kind of bummed me out actually. Come to think of it, I AM going to make a pro-moderator comment, I think some posters were saved from themselves and should be thankful they were deleted so their posts haven't hung around to haunt them. Just my take as an observer, non-poster.
Permalink | Reply
Jfood gotta get to the Site Talk Board more often. Just saw this one.
As one of the posters who engaged in some passionate posts on that thread, it is always refreshing when cooler heads prevail and people regroup for a most mortum
Like many, jfood has received "those emails" to tone it down. Most were justified and others were, well not agreed with all his heart. Does jfood like the moderation? Nah. Does he understand it? Sure.
He sides more with Justice Douglas on the right of Free Speech, but CH is a private organization and a private site. They have their rules, similar to restaurants, and play by them, challenge them or leave.
He agrees with DanielDwyers statement which is eloquently written above. Jfood was a lone voice in the late 70s onthe Nazi march in Skokie. Let them speak and pray that people will understand their opinions and rise against them. Ban them and they become martyrs.
But when thread veer so afield, instead of locking them, star another thread with the path taken with the warning that has appeared often.."we will see how this goes, but if it gets to hostile we will delete it."
Oh well, getting late and the weekend approaches. Istead of wasting food jfood's gonna hopefully try some new braises. First frost hitting tonight.
Peace.
Permalink | Reply
Some threads just get so repetitive, they need to be killed. This was one.
Permalink | Reply
Ditto. I think some people take Chowhound and posting on it way too seriously. Oh, I know I'm going to get slammed for saying this, but lighten up, folks--we're not curing cancer here. CH is just one of several food sites I read (and post) regularly strictly for entertainment purposes only (and, boy, is the Not About Food board highly entertaining!).
Permalink | Reply