The question of groups

[artislife]

I was reading in a group , let say the Pineapple group,that I don't belong to as I am not a Pineapple and there was a post about the member posting in this group that was supportive of the group. Well, someone who didn't belong to the group, alerted the post and got a jury to hide it.

I believe if you are in a group that is for pineapples and someone who doesn't like pineapples reads your pro pineapple post, they shouldn't be allowed to alert.

How can we change this?

I believe in the sanctity of the group. If I like pineapples, I should be able to wax on about them being the best fruit and not have to worry about the Peaches coming in and shutting it down.

The initial group I read in was not a candidate group, but I don't belong to that group. I do see that the member should not have been alerted upon and then hidden for being in the group, posting pro group things.


I hope I am clear.

[virtualobserver]

1. I agree

It seems unfair unless the post was incredibly offensive.


unfortunately, you are so persuasive that as a side effect, I am now totally committed to preserving the sanctity of the pineapple group....we must resist the peaches at all cost.

[artislife]

4. I like you.

I do.

[msongs]

2. groups are exclusive. all that stuff about free speech, equality, bill of rights do not apply in

groups. no big deal really. just remember the famous remark by groucho marx about clubs lol

[hfojvt]

3. without a link it is not clear if the hide was good or bad

Hopefully one can trust a jury to be fair, although some people clearly are not, and even for people trying to be fair, let's face it, we are human and if we like pineapples are more likely to like a pro-pineapple post and if we dislike them, more likely to dislike a pro-pineapple post.

Still, it seems more likely to me that it was hidden because it violated some rules, and not out of partisanship.

[artislife]

5. I don't want to link

Because I don't know what the original post was, but I do believe there is some partisanship going on.

I think though, when we go to the Pineapple group, not really liking pineapples, we need to not post or alert. We should be there to maybe learn why they like Pineapples so much and perhaps think why we don't. Use it to learn and be self aware, but not be a bully.

I am not even sure I agreed with the original poster, but I knew where I was and what I was allowing myself to be exposed to.

It is like going to a war movie and then being upset that people are being killed. IMO.

[hfojvt]

13. that seems rather restrictive

if somebody posts something about pineapples that doesn't make sense or is simply factually wrong, then I should refrain from either posting facts or asking questions.

Alerting is the same way.

Again, I do not know what the alert was. There's a fairly big, although not always clearly defined line between saying something like "I really like pineapples" and saying something like "people who do not like pineapples have small penises and halitosis too"

It can be a tough call, and maybe you disagree with the jury. It happens. Some people on the jury disagree with the jury. Maybe it is a 4-3 vote to NOT hide and the 3 jurors who voted to hide are like The larger group gets to decide if a post was good or bad, and the jury is weighted to better participants. The odds of being on a jury increase if you - a) have made a contribution of money, b) have few hides yourself, c) have a long history, d) have been active lately

No system is gonna be perfect, but a blanket prohibition on alerts seems more imperfect to me, than mostly trusting a jury (a majority of the jury) to get it right.

And war movies? Well, there can be war movies that glorify war and war movies that try to show the horrors of war. So one could goto a war movie and not like its message.

[m-lekktor]

6. I sometimes see nasty shit talking or blatently false info

posted in certain protected groups against folks that can't retaliate properly because the groups are protected and biased hosts can ban folks who "disagree" as they please with no rhyme or reason so the alert function is the only recourse.

on edit: that being said, I personally don't participate in the jury/alert thing and I never put anybody on ignore.

[artislife]

7. But if they can say it in their group

then maybe the public forums will be calmer and less inflammatory?

There is one group I purposely don't read. And a boat load of others I don't read because they have no spark of interest in me. So why subject yourself to a group that makes you want to debate. That is what the GDP is for.

I get upset when I read other groups and then decide...don't go in there. They have a viewpoint that isn't mine and they are in a group where they don't have to logically back up what they write. They are amongst likeminded folks.

I don't really go to the Latest or Greatest threads so I wouldn't see the OP anyway unless I hunted it down.

I do read some thread titles, see who posted the OP and will trash the thread. I don't ignore posters....yet. But usually trashing the OP is enough. Some fights you cannot win. Some fights you shouldn't even jump in on.

GDP is fair game, though!

[Igel]

9. We'd like to think that the main forums would be less inflammatory.

But what happens is that the subgroups become more extreme. It's like a nuclear reactor with the cooling rods pulled out. Perhaps they'll burn themselves out in isolation; perhaps they'll explode and make a mess elsewhere.

US politics and such in the last 30 years has become a case of groups retreating to their own corners, accruing their own facts, and building their own views in which everybody but a small minority are in whole-hearted agreement with them. It was a running joke--now it's just sad--that 99% of the population tends to look down at the remaining 60%, but can tolerate the remaining 20%. (The numbers changed from person to person, but the fact that the 99% was far less than half was a constant.)

[tkmorris]

15. Maybe they shouldn't say it at all

While I recognize that there are viewpoints which must be viewed in the context of the groups in which they are expressed, I doubt that there are a rash of posts being hidden because people visit groups that don't pertain to themselves and then get thin-skinned over what they read there.

This idea that people should be able to say whatever they please because they are among like minded people is not helpful. Ultimately we all need to be able to talk to each other in civil and respectful ways; walling off certain areas where people are free to say whatever they please does not help in this regard. Would the N word be acceptable in the Ignorant Hillbilly group? Is anti-semitism acceptable in the Farrakhan Fan Group? And so on. And yes, I realize those groups don't exit here but the point is that offensive posting is precisely that, regardless of where it occurs. I personally give groups some leeway since theirs is a uniquely selective perspective, but there are limits.

[artislife]

16. Your example should be alerted

but I have served on at least 10 juries and most of them are frivolous.

I just think team Hillary should be able to say that Bernie is a wanker and get away with it in the Hillary group. And the same holds true for other groups.


My original example was in the AA group. I don't think they should be alerted for having greivences about members, candidates or the world at large that a poster feels is impinging upon them. I agree. But that example had me think about the whole group idea and others coming in and alerting. I think outsiders shouldn't be able to unless it is jaw dropping behavior. And I mean the kind of thing that ruins careers or causes spouses to up and leave. You should be able to speak a lot more freely and maybe a lot more rudely. Let their group members tell them if a line has been crossed or not.

I guess I want to stop people from coming in to pick a fight and shut people up.


That is what the GDP is for! We have one Madison Square Garden!

[pnwmom]

8. You are very clear and I agree completely. n/t

[davidpdx]

10. I don't know what the *bleep* you are talking about

But I do like your Community logo. Maybe we will get our movie someday.

[artislife]

12. That would be great, wouldn't it?

It's okay that you don't get what I wrote. It won't get changed anyway.....

[seaglass]

11. My feeling has always been that the juries are the problem not the alerters so I would not take

away the ability for any active member to alert. The only exception would be for abusive alerts, like abusive jury comments, those should be subject to some sort of reduction/elimination of privileges.

[restorefreedom]

14. but what about the pears?

seriously, though, it does seem that alerts and juries have become increasingly partisan, even outside of the groups. i agree with you but i don't know what the solution is.