![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jayNow that the dust has settled a bit on last week's unpleasantness, there's been time to contemplate my group-communications style and absorb some of the constructive feedback.
The flames have been filed to /dev/null, even when they might otherwise contain a grain of something useful, simply because I'm not going to yield anything to harrassment or bullying tactics. But there were also a few rational, reasoned voices, and those are worth considering.
J: If you talk about some issues and aren't always in earnest, others won't know what your actual beliefs are -- and worse, they may feel like they've been dragged into a game, or feel manipulated!
B: Not everyone else is absolutely serious and deadpan all of the time... in fact, some of my biggest critics are themselves known for their online sarcasm and joking. One even founded a LJ community dedicated to such. How come people don't routinely dump on them?
J: I asked a neutral friend that same question... her response was "because most people in the online groups *know* the personality of these others... when [person X] is being catty or sarcastic, I can just hear X saying it, myself -- and I realize that zie isn't serious. No one really knows your voice, so they always take you at face value, and that's where you get in trouble." That was a very valuable input from that friend.
B: How can I address this? If I have to be serious all of the time, I'd rather not participate. It'd be like writing technical manuals in my leisure time...
J: Long-term? Be yourself. Open up more. People who know you one-on-one generally haven't had these issues, but you're still too guarded and projected around groups. Nearer-term? You need to find a way to overtly indicate what you're doing, because you can't assume that even your sweeties or friends will know what voice you're using. How many flamewars have started due to well-intentioned jokes that someone misunderstood? And in the most recent example, friends of yours were flamed more than you were yourself -- you can risk your own stress levels, have no right to do so with your friends.
B: Online emoticons help, but don't seem to do enough. Maybe if I used some flagging scheme in text... I've seen some people on alt.poly use pseudo-HTML inserts, similar to "" or "".
J: That might be useful in the sense that readers would know what to expect, so they couldn't accuse you of nonconsensual game-playing. But what about in front of live audiences? At workshops? And some people really would prefer a direct over an opaque or indirect approach... sure, the occasional pun or joke is OK (if it's good), but trying to use those voice-flags less might be better. Direct communication, remember?
B: In front of live people, maybe I could put on a hat or something. Or change my literal voice inflection.
B: But as far as indirect communications goes, or oblique approaches to discussions go... there are some people who simply don't like me, or my friends. I could say "the sky is blue" and some whackos would find a way to attack it as a nonconsensual imposement of an unrequested weather forecast, and why am I impersonating a meterologist? So, if I'm going to get attacked no matter what, why give up a layer of defenses? Being direct is being vulnerable.
J: Not being open means shutting out potential friends as well as the cranks out there. You're missing out on some quality people that way, and other people are getting a really skewed view of who you are. If you want to live that way, it's your call... Maybe you can find other ways to be open and relatively unstressed. Picking your forums, avoiding places with flamage/content ratioes. You've never in 22 years on the 'net used a killfile -- maybe it's time to learn. Or be willing to excise nastygrams from your LJ. More benefit, probably less long-term cost than all of this verbal posturing. Consider it, at least.
I have no desire to reopen last week's public arguments, so comments are disabled. If anyone would like to constructively comment, please email me.
The flames have been filed to /dev/null, even when they might otherwise contain a grain of something useful, simply because I'm not going to yield anything to harrassment or bullying tactics. But there were also a few rational, reasoned voices, and those are worth considering.
J: If you talk about some issues and aren't always in earnest, others won't know what your actual beliefs are -- and worse, they may feel like they've been dragged into a game, or feel manipulated!
B: Not everyone else is absolutely serious and deadpan all of the time... in fact, some of my biggest critics are themselves known for their online sarcasm and joking. One even founded a LJ community dedicated to such. How come people don't routinely dump on them?
J: I asked a neutral friend that same question... her response was "because most people in the online groups *know* the personality of these others... when [person X] is being catty or sarcastic, I can just hear X saying it, myself -- and I realize that zie isn't serious. No one really knows your voice, so they always take you at face value, and that's where you get in trouble." That was a very valuable input from that friend.
B: How can I address this? If I have to be serious all of the time, I'd rather not participate. It'd be like writing technical manuals in my leisure time...
J: Long-term? Be yourself. Open up more. People who know you one-on-one generally haven't had these issues, but you're still too guarded and projected around groups. Nearer-term? You need to find a way to overtly indicate what you're doing, because you can't assume that even your sweeties or friends will know what voice you're using. How many flamewars have started due to well-intentioned jokes that someone misunderstood? And in the most recent example, friends of yours were flamed more than you were yourself -- you can risk your own stress levels, have no right to do so with your friends.
B: Online emoticons help, but don't seem to do enough. Maybe if I used some flagging scheme in text... I've seen some people on alt.poly use pseudo-HTML inserts, similar to "
J: That might be useful in the sense that readers would know what to expect, so they couldn't accuse you of nonconsensual game-playing. But what about in front of live audiences? At workshops? And some people really would prefer a direct over an opaque or indirect approach... sure, the occasional pun or joke is OK (if it's good), but trying to use those voice-flags less might be better. Direct communication, remember?
B: In front of live people, maybe I could put on a hat or something. Or change my literal voice inflection.
B: But as far as indirect communications goes, or oblique approaches to discussions go... there are some people who simply don't like me, or my friends. I could say "the sky is blue" and some whackos would find a way to attack it as a nonconsensual imposement of an unrequested weather forecast, and why am I impersonating a meterologist? So, if I'm going to get attacked no matter what, why give up a layer of defenses? Being direct is being vulnerable.
J: Not being open means shutting out potential friends as well as the cranks out there. You're missing out on some quality people that way, and other people are getting a really skewed view of who you are. If you want to live that way, it's your call... Maybe you can find other ways to be open and relatively unstressed. Picking your forums, avoiding places with flamage/content ratioes. You've never in 22 years on the 'net used a killfile -- maybe it's time to learn. Or be willing to excise nastygrams from your LJ. More benefit, probably less long-term cost than all of this verbal posturing. Consider it, at least.
I have no desire to reopen last week's public arguments, so comments are disabled. If anyone would like to constructively comment, please email me.
