Community Chat

[Johnnyeager]

Baiting is a terribly misused and misunderstood term.

Several moderators here don't quite grasp it.

Is it baiting just because I'm expecting a response to a post.

Crying bait has become a convenient way to get something deleted.

[proudlyfromNJ]

---

@suzyQ3 wrote:

---

@Oznell wrote:

I have several criteria for not reading further.  Over time, I've come to recognize the small number of posters who react to viewpoints they don't like by squabbling, mockery, and contempt-filled posts.  There's sometimes an escalating quality to their attacks, and several seem to cluster in almost what you could call a mob fashion, building on each others' attacks.

Luckily it's a very small number, but once they start in, the thread is lost to any civil discussion so further reading is futile.

---

@Oznell, while no one should be disrespectful, I have seen people start threads that almost seem to be baiting in that they include a particular stance that is in some way biased and/or controversial. Some are very good at cloaking such intent.

The OPs of such threads should be mindful that it might take a combative turn.

---

@suzyQ3. A number of posters do this. Sometimes it’s just the last line of the post and it’s ended with .....

[Oznell]

I personally don't believe the reprehensible behavior to which I've alluded can be justified by perceptions of "cloaked motives" on the part of posters,  @suzyQ3.

We all encounter things we don't like, in both "real" and in cyber social interchange, but in face-to-face encounters, most people have the good sense to restrain their reactions.  It appears easier for some  people, because of the anonymity they enjoy online, to suspend the rules of civility, but that is a no-win, in my book.

[suzyQ3]

---

@Oznell wrote:

I personally don't believe the reprehensible behavior to which I've alluded can be justified by perceptions of "cloaked motives" on the part of posters,  @suzyQ3.

We all encounter things we don't like, in both "real" and in cyber social interchange, but in face-to-face encounters, most people have the good sense to restrain their reactions.  It appears easier for some  people, because of the anonymity they enjoy online, to suspend the rules of civility, but that is a no-win, in my book.

---

@Oznell, if someone is posting something with a decided stance that is or might be controversial or biased, surely it might elicit opinions to the contrary.

If the poster does this on a regular basis, then he or she might encounter some blowback. Hopefully, any discussion, though, should remain civil.

[Katcat1]

When I first open a thread that interests me, I read the original poster's post.  If I decide to reply, I do immediately not reading other people's replies.  I then read some of the other replies but if the thread is too long, I seldom read everything.

[pigletsmom]

I'll usually keep reading a long thread if people are arguing. Gotta find out how it ends!

[this is my nic]

Well, in all honesty I only read the OP in this topic! 

[Oznell]

Ah, would that they would remain civil, @suzyQ3.  That is not the case.  I was precisely referring to those instances of callous, ruthless, verbal personal attacks that few will participate in, in face-to-face encounters, but that some will readily launch under the "protection" of the anonymity of online communication.

Sociologically, it's a sad phenomenon.  It's important to treat people like human beings, whatever the venue.  I've never seen the escalating, "piling on" factor among adults who are disagreeing in face-to-face group discussions, that I have here in the cyber world.  I'll simply reiterate that the same rules of decent behavior should apply in both worlds.

[RoughDraft]

---

@Oznell wrote:

Ah, would that they would remain civil, @suzyQ3.  That is not the case.  I was precisely referring to those instances of callous, ruthless, verbal personal attacks that few will participate in, in face-to-face encounters, but that some will readily launch under the "protection" of the anonymity of online communication.

Sociologically, it's a sad phenomenon.  It's important to treat people like human beings, whatever the venue.  I've never seen the escalating, "piling on" factor among adults who are disagreeing in face-to-face group discussions, that I have here in the cyber world.  I'll simply reiterate that the same rules of decent behavior should apply in both worlds.

---

Sadly, if we all admit the truth, decent behavior no longer applies in either world.

[libbyannE]

I only occasionally look at a conversation. I usually read the original post and comment if I have anything to say. I don’t often look back to see what else was said.