Since it's not in the rules, what EXACTLY constitutes "baiting" - especially in P&R since that's where it's used the most.

Because I've seen different mods see the SAME EXACT COMMENT and have a bunch of different rulings on it. I've seen it declared as 'that person's opinion' another as 'goodhearted joking' and another as 'personal attack'.

This whole issue of baiting is getting WAY out of hand and it's more so knee-jerk reactions towards different factions than it is a case-by-case dealing. So, can there be something in writing on clarifying this because some people get away with it while others get 'accounted' for it.

HOPEFULLY this thread won't get out of hand and some REAL solutions will be gained here.

I'd like some clarification on this also. I've seen almost identical comments get totally different 'treatment.' And the context was the same. I understand it is supposedly done on a case-by-case basis, but some impartiality would be welcome.

I don't have a lot of time to respond at the moment, but off the top of my head it's a lot like "obscenity" in that it's tough to put a strict definition around, but most folks know it when they see it.

It's important to remember it IS on a case by case basis and also it's mainly the ones that get reported that will be scrutinized. Not to say we mods don't take action if we see something that breaks the rules even if it hasn't been reported, cause that happens all the time, but that may be why it appears some things are left unmoderated and others aren't. We simply didn't see it.

In my opinion, bait is even MORE prevalent/obvious if you know the same users go back and forth over the same topic/fight/pettiness over and over. In those situations we're WAY more likely to call it bait early on as there's a history of it. Those who have never had a history of bickering, etc. probably aren't as likely to be snipped.

And that's my quick and dirty 2 cents.

CarrieMpls said:

Look at the words on the screen before you hit the post button.

Do they add to the thread, or are they there simply to get a rise out of someone or attack them personally?

More and more posts in P&R are falling into the latter category.

Baiting is defined less by specific words and more by the intent behind the words. You could write "I love you and I hope you have a great day", but based on the context in which you're posting it - what you're responding to or the tenor of the discussion - it could be viewed as baiting. I think Mars23 put it really well - do your words add to the discussion, or are they only there to take a bite out of someone? I know we all know the difference.

I will agree with Carrie and Mars

My major red flag on "bait" is an attempt ( or attack ) on the person it is directed to - usually having very little to do with the threads subject

It looks like this only in petty written words and distracts from the topic and contributions on the topic of the thread

Usually ego based with intent to undermine a person we do not agree with or to make oneself look more important then one really is

Always a reflection on the poster of the bait more so then the person they try to make look foolish

that's my .07 cents

Well said, Mars, Anxy and Mach.

while you mods pat each other on the backs for your answers, I'd like to also add, I don't think there can ever be any hard fast rules around the matter and this is largely due to the General Discussion forum.

Every imaginable rule is slightly broken from time to time, and to enforce such rules would... completely dull the website and turn it into something it was never good at being....boring.

We're not suppose to have alters, but there are. And some are hilarious.
We're not suppose to 'flame' but often call each other idiots and jackasses.

The list goes on and on.


What the mods have been doing is daunting...they've been paying attention to context, relationships, and history.... It's impossible for this to be a perfect system... but any other approach makes it bland.




But it would be kind of cool if the org pole question just once was "Who do you think should be banned next".... lawd, do I have some recommendations.

Imago said:

That’s an excellent point. What may be allowed in GD may not be allowed in other forums, by the very nature of the forum.
And one mod may be well aware of 2 posters being good friends and what may be well understood as a hilarious joke to one, another mod may see as a horrible flame.
We note in the rules that the mods may not think you’re joking and so always post with caution. And that remains true and fair.
But when we KNOW it’s a joke, we’ll leave it all be. Cause we’d rather not have to moderate anything. We just want the org to remain a fun place to be.

CarrieMpls said:

Have you been paying attention to what Anxiety says to me on facebook?
Can you please factor that into his behavior here on the org?

Imago said:

Anxiety said:

CarrieMpls said:

Good, and that's exactly what I want to touch on. At a couple of other message boards, the way the mods dealt with this very issue was to come down hard on the instigator and not at all on the responder, because that immediately stopped the baiting once the baitor realized they're the ONLY one that got dealt with, so it wasn't in their best interest to start shit. That's exactly how it should be here.

I've seen people here get snipped for interacting with the instigator and sometimes the instigator never got snipped, even AFTER they were reported.

Anxiety said:

So then why are some remarks in the same thread snipped while other remarks of the same nature aren't? That's the real issue at hand. It's more so an emphasis on WHO than it is on the actual so-called "bait" itself.

Imago said:

Exactly - especially with the whole alter issue. That's where I say the "pick and choose" who to moderate comes in at. That's a HUGE issue here - some get away with murder, others get away with genocide, and some can't even get away with jaywalking.

MuthaFunka said:

The conservative alters are what crack me up the most.
It's like they're so desperate to make it look like their extremist views are legit that they create these alters to pat themselves on the back.
But they're all constantly baiting ... constantly. I'm always surprised they're allowed to exist, cause they're not created to enliven or entertain--they're created to hurt people.

MuthaFunka said:

you're right. it IS an emphasis on who. it's WHO is posting and WHO is the intended target of that post, and it's about the history of those parties and how they have interacted in the past.

Imago said:

Co-sign like a muh'fucka.

Anxiety said:

Right, but in that reasoning comes "guess work" and THAT'S where the shit gets out of hand: Mod reaction to thinking certain orgers are talking about other certain orgers and that's not always the case. Targeting. THAT'S the main problem with this. Ya can't just OVERLY mod one person/group simply based off history because then there's a STRONG chance they'll get it wrong BECAUSE of that "targeting".

And given that, that then allows others to "bait" more KNOWING that that orger is being targeted and that targeted orger will face more sanctions than the baitor him/herself. That's the shit that stinks to high hell.

Anxiety said:

Which is exactly what I'm trying to convey to Carrie and Mach with regards to your posts against me.


I mean, where is the justice? WHERE is the justice?

MuthaFunka said:

hmmm.

let's say the .org is a big house, and you can pretty much hang out wherever you want when you're in that house.

now, let's say every time you mess with the stove, you burn yourself. or whenver you try to pet one of the cats in the house, they hiss and scratch you. or when you dig around in the knife drawer, you always cut your fingers.

well...don't mess with the stove, then! stay away from the cats! don't rummage around in the knife drawer!

you can say you're an adult and that you should have the ability to do those things, but if you keep banging yourself up whenever you try, maybe it's just best if you stayed away from certain parts of the house. just because you CAN or OUGHT TO BE ABLE to do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD do something.

if there are certain people on here or topics discussed on here that end up with you winding up in a not-so-great situation, then instead of blaming the stove or the cats or the knife drawer, maybe you should think more about where you're sticking your fingers, or at the very least think about how you can be more cautious around those things. you know?

Anxiety said:

But in a world outside of a message board, that holds true. But just like we don't have freedom of speech here, there are also things we shouldn't have to put up with here as well. To have to "avoid" people is already a telling issue right there. And usually if there's a need to avoid someone then that means that person that you're avoiding is trying to start something. Or "bait". That's why I suggested the "Get the instigator only" action because it stops it completely when that baitor knows they can't drag anyone else down with them.

Who's to say who the instigator is really when shit has been going on for days, weeks, months, years, though?

Anxiety said:

I totally understand what you're saying, anx...but if every time someone makes a thread, no matter what the subject, certain people constantly jump into it and purposely bait and bait and nothing is done...what are you supposed to do? Just quit posting?

noimageatall said:

Are they truly baiting? Or are they just disagreeing with you? There's a fine line there too. Especially in P&R. We have folks that will never agree but continue to rehash the same topics over and over. And that's OK as long as we're talking about ideas, ideologies, etc. It's when it turns personal that rules are broken and mods should intervene.

If you believe you are being baited into an argument you can NOT TAKE THE BAIT and ignore the person. And you can report it.

CarrieMpls said:

When I modded a sports message board, we made it real simple: In each thread, whomever fired off the first salvo was immediately dealt with. It didn't matter how long the war of words had been going on, we took it thread by thread. Ended that shit real quickly.

But here, the other issue is the fine line between what's "baiting" and what's "not baiting" - that's the bigger issue of the 2. It's been said that if someone posts to get a rise out of someone - but WHO determines that? How can THAT be policed when one thing that may get a rise out of Orger X may not get a rise out of Orger Y.

Anxiety said:

But what if some of those cats are just other cats in disguise, and they are pissing on your shoes to get a reaction. Sure, you don't have to kick the cat, but why are the cats allowed to wear disguises if all they're doing is pissing on your shoes in disguise?

Shouldn't those in the house who have the ability to control the inhabitants spay/neuter and remove the vermin from the house, especially since the cats are meat eating pets thereby reducing one's vegan/vegetarian footprints in the first place?

As far as banging into the stove, if yall would pay the power bill and we'd get some damned light up in this motherfucker, I wouldn't be banging into ANYTHING!

And what's up with this tacky ass pink, yellow, and lavender wallpaper in all the rooms? That shit is rank.

noimageatall said:

Exactly my point. Why should OTHERS have to sacrifice their choice to post simply because a select few have personal/political agendas? That's what I mean by going after the instigator only and not the retaliator.