Calling all nice people - what to do about the mean people on DCUM

post reply Forum Index » Off-Topic
[Post New]01/08/2012 13:37
quote
Anonymous
So, basically, the new rule should be "answer only the question specifically asked"?

What if someone were to post: "My gay neighbors are trying to adopt, and I feel children are best raised by a man and a woman. How should I go about stopping this adoption?"

Or "My 4 year old DD is getting a little chunky. I'm thinking about giving her some of DS's Adderall to help reduce her appetite. How much should I give her? Half a pill?"

I think in a lot of cases there's room to question both the "how" and the "whether".
[Post New]01/08/2012 13:51
quote
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Wow, you are really making our point for us and I'm guessing Jeff is reading this and thinking twice about intervening considering it has put wind in your sails on this issue. I'm not the PP you're responding to, but I also weighed in on that thread and I *do* have experience with this, (your first post on this thread said "people with no experience were chiming in." I shared my genuine experiences with you. I was devastated as a child by my parents leaving me behind during a divorce. I've talked to a therapist about it, and that expert told me that it is a mistake that parents make, thinking that it will be better for the kids, and it is almost universally considered to be harmful to the children. Nobody was saying you were trying to compel her. We aren't thinking about hte mom's sensitivities here, we were asking you to consider whether or not this was best for the children. You really think it was a bunch of "meanies" picking on you? And look what you're saying, why do others think they get to control direction of a thread. Nobody thought that except you. Neither I nor anyone was controlling that thread. We were simply responding. And you decided you didn't like the responses so you cried to Jeff to shut them down. If every OP starts doing this, and Jeff intervenes, the usefulness of this thread as an open exchange of information and philosophies will be greatly diminished. And THAT will drive people away.


8:46 again. I do hope Jeff is reading this. My complaint to Jeff wasn’t because of the ‘meanies picking on’ me. As I indicated in my two posts prior to yours on that thread and several other places since, I’m not interested in ‘whether’ we should do this. I’m interested in “how”. I’m sorry your experience as a child was traumatic but your post added no value since it didn’t address my question nor did it give me any information on how we could avoid the mistakes your parents made when leaving you with relatives – other than just “don’t do it”. By itself, your post wasn’t bad and I would have ignored it had others not felt compelled to continue to discuss “whether” we should do it. It was de-railing the thread and the value of the thread to me, the OP. If you wanted an “open exchange of ideas and philosophies’ you should have started your own thread because that’s not what my thread was about. I’m not interested, as you acknowledged in your own post, on whether we should offer to be temporary guardians. Just because DCUM is an open forum doesn’t mean that it’s a free for all. If original posters don’t feel they get useful response, they won’t post any more and that would defeat the purpose of DCUM.


well, I think my post has been deleted now, at your request. However, my first reply actually did lay out WHY I didn't think it was a good idea. The thing is, I have personal experience with this. I stayed with loving relatives who did everything they could to help me through the ordeal. I was told by everyone that it wasn't that my mom didn't love me, she just needed some time to get back on her feet, etc, etc. I. missed. my. mom. Every day. And I missed my dad, too. To this day, my relationship with my parents suffered and, while there were other issues, this was a huge part of it. Some of the other posters suggested you were doing this from something less than a place of love. I didn't make that assumption. I can't possibly know, but suspect you love these kids. However, sometimes when we love someone we have one idea of what is best and that idea is not always the best idea. I can't offer you any ways to mitigate the damage that this will do to the kids. I can only say that, barring some exceptional situation where the children are best separated from the mother due to abusive or neglect issues, which would NOT be a temporary custody thing so much as a much broader issue involving a longer-term solution, the kids are going to be best with their own family. My therapist told me that children are better off with their parents even if that means a shelter. It's why homeless kids are kept with their parents. I know it sounds insane, but I think it's true. I get that you don't want people accusing you of trying to steal her kids, but I was urging you to look at this from another perspective. By closing down the debate, you lose that perspective. It makes you seem like you don't even care to hear how the kids might feel being separated from their parents during a traumatic time like this. You only want to know, logistically, how to do it.

I agree that if it were a different issue (PP had two good ones, with the "chunky" daughter and gay adoption, above) the meddling in the thread would seem even more out-of-place and I doubt Jeff would even consider it. But, maybe that's what DCUM will evolve into, that no matter how outrageous, offensive, or problematic we find the premise of an OP's question, we can only answer in a way that enables him / her to carry it out. I doubt I'd stick around under that scenario.
[Post New]01/08/2012 14:01
quote
Anonymous
You have to also realize that a lot of times internet message board wealth is imaginary, so that is another reason as to why people get snarky. Heck, people lie with fake pictures on match.com, fake illnesses, teens lie about being expecting moms of quints and quads all the time on baby names boards.
[Post New]01/08/2012 14:31
quote
Anonymous
8:46 again. I do hope Jeff is reading this. My complaint to Jeff wasn’t because of the ‘meanies picking on’ me. As I indicated in my two posts prior to yours on that thread and several other places since, I’m not interested in ‘whether’ we should do this. I’m interested in “how”. I’m sorry your experience as a child was traumatic but your post added no value since it didn’t address my question nor did it give me any information on how we could avoid the mistakes your parents made when leaving you with relatives – other than just “don’t do it”. By itself, your post wasn’t bad and I would have ignored it had others not felt compelled to continue to discuss “whether” we should do it. It was de-railing the thread and the value of the thread to me, the OP. If you wanted an “open exchange of ideas and philosophies’ you should have started your own thread because that’s not what my thread was about. I’m not interested, as you acknowledged in your own post, on whether we should offer to be temporary guardians. Just because DCUM is an open forum doesn’t mean that it’s a free for all. If original posters don’t feel they get useful response, they won’t post any more and that would defeat the purpose of DCUM.


Honestly, OP, I think you have an overinflated sense of importance. Any thread you start certainly has value to you, but , on the internet, it also has value to the whole community and that's what makes posting on an anonymous board different than asking your best friend for advice, or seeking counsel from a lawyer (in your case). This idea that you, and only you, can determine what is a useful comment and what has value is selfish. Frankly, the poster you are referring to in the quote above? I found her (or his) story very interesting and quite applicable to another situation facing another friend of mine. I'm glad it was posted and I'm glad for the perspective, even though it was in "your" thread and you didn't value the post.

I think Jeff was wrong to intervene in that thread. However, it's his sandbox and he and I aren't always going to agree and when in his sandbox, I play by his rules. But I think he was short sighted in allowing an OP such discretion on what constitutes a useful or appropriate reply. Look what's happening here. Further posts about justified you feel judging other people's posts and their value because they didn't give you exactly what you wanted when you wanted it. This is not a good way to encourage debate and discussion. It creates selfish people only concerned about themselves.

Oh, and you can be sure that if someone starts a thread asking how to create an explosive device, I'm going to certainly question whether they should do so rather than just offering up my pyrotechnic knowhow. Anything less is being irresponsible to the community at large, as well as the OP.

[Post New]01/08/2012 14:33
quote
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Most of the snark is amusing to me and part of the reason I visit this site-I admit it, I like watching the train wreck. However, I recently posted on the For Sale forum a short blurb describing the items I had for sale and got a snarky response there. Snark on the For Sale Forum? Isn't that a little much? I guess where there is no controvery, someone will feel the need to create some. Needless to say, I will not try to sell anything on this website again.


Not to be mean on a "calling all nice people" post, but this did make me laugh!
[Post New]01/08/2012 14:36
quote
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Misery loves company. I figure if that it what it takes for them to get through their day, I will just feel sorry that they are that miserable, at least by my standards. Maybe they have to kiss ass all day long and want to take a few minutes to let their inner dickwad out? Who really knows.

OP, it's time to thicken that skin. I used to get irritated about it but now, I just move on. I do think that some of the "mean" posters do have valid opinions that may oppose the person who began the thread but there's no need to be a jerk about it.



It's not the old misery loves company crap. Some posters need a wake up call. It's that simple. So what if it's harsh? If you can't get through your day because Anonymous 10:22 is making you cry, what's your life like?

Stop posting and go see a therapist - b/c the problem is MUCH bigger than DCUM.

I, for one, enjoy the snark. Some of it is witty!
[Post New]01/08/2012 14:59
quote
Anonymous
Some of the posters are correct in pointing out that free speech is defined somewhat loosely and schizophrenically here. There doesn't seem to be any clear model of what is considered OK and what is not-I guess that's why Jeff calls it an art and not a science. An open anonymous forum should be a type of philisophical free for all and censoring it detracts much more from its usefulness than deleting a few posts any OP might disagree with. I'm also not sure what purpose starting a new thread serves as evidenced on this very thread. It's kind of like asking two kids to take their fight outside. It is Jeff's sandbox, absolutely, I just wish the rules didn't change every other minute based on the weather.
[Post New]01/08/2012 15:08
quote
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:I've been a DCUM since 2003 when it was a listserve and you didn't often get the vitrolic, accusatory responses like you get on the forum. I like the forum format and post most frequently on the Special Needs forum and don't encounter this a lot (and trolls/negative people are usually just ignored). But I recently started this thread http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/209337.page . I am/was looking for information from people who had experience with temporary guardianship or had information to offer. When the majority of responses were from people who had no experience and were, instead, negative and unhelpful, I asked Jeff if he would be so kind to ask people to stick to the question asked and he did. I have no problem doing that because I had already asked people to stick to the question asked and Jeff has made it clear that he wants DCUM to be a place people find useful, participate and feel comfortable posting. When my post gets hijacked like that, I appreciate that he's willing to help get it back on course. I've also reported threads to him where a significant number of posts were abusive to the OP or not furthering discussion. I don't often do that but I, too, want DCUM to be useful place. Some posts are for discussion, some are from seeking information, some are seeking support. It's an open forum put that doesn't mean it's a free for all. People are welcome to start their own threads if they want to debate or pontificate.

Of course, not everyone feels the same way. When Jeff intervened in my thread, someone complained to him via the Feedback forum http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/209397.page . I think he explains further his thoughts on the website and his actions. I don't report very often, I usually try to ignore or nicely ask that people limit responses to the question asked. But, I do appreciate Jeff's willingness to keep an eye on things. I hope it lasts.



Anonymous wrote:So, basically, the new rule should be "answer only the question specifically asked"?
What if someone were to post: "My gay neighbors are trying to adopt, and I feel children are best raised by a man and a woman. How should I go about stopping this adoption?"

Or "My 4 year old DD is getting a little chunky. I'm thinking about giving her some of DS's Adderall to help reduce her appetite. How much should I give her? Half a pill?"

I think in a lot of cases there's room to question both the "how" and the "whether".


Agree with this. Once you put a question out there you cant expect to control where it goes from there. You don't have to read all of the responses if you don't find them helpful, but it's absurd to try to censor other people's responses (unless maybe they are being horribly cruel or offensive, which the guardianship ones were not.) Probably half the discussions on DCUM veer off from the original post, and honestly that's part of what keeps the conversation interesting. If Jeff deleted every response that didn't directly answer the original post, there would be like 3 posts left. That's just how conversations go, in real life and online.

And PP, you do realize that OP's post was about mean people, not people who change the subject, right? Hello pot, this is kettle...
[Post New]01/08/2012 15:14
quote
Anonymous
to the PP who keeps talking about asking for how to go about getting temporary guardianship (or whatever) -- your mistake is in giving way too many details about the situation.

If you just want technical details just give the bare minimum information needed:

We live in x county in Y state. We want to offer to take temporary guardianship of two children whose parents are asking us to do so. Do you know what steps we need to take?
[Post New]01/08/2012 16:26
quote
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:to the PP who keeps talking about asking for how to go about getting temporary guardianship (or whatever) -- your mistake is in giving way too many details about the situation.

If you just want technical details just give the bare minimum information needed:

We live in x county in Y state. We want to offer to take temporary guardianship of two children whose parents are asking us to do so. Do you know what steps we need to take?



I just want to state for the record that nowhere in the guardianship post was this stated. The OP clearly seemed to be acting unilaterally, and that is what drove much of the (since deleted) objection.
[Post New]01/08/2012 17:05
quote
Anonymous
Oh crap, do we have to dissect everything? Just don't be an asshole and you won't be reported. Simple.
[Post New]01/08/2012 17:18
quote
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:to the PP who keeps talking about asking for how to go about getting temporary guardianship (or whatever) -- your mistake is in giving way too many details about the situation.

If you just want technical details just give the bare minimum information needed:

We live in x county in Y state. We want to offer to take temporary guardianship of two children whose parents are asking us to do so. Do you know what steps we need to take?



I just want to state for the record that nowhere in the guardianship post was this stated. The OP clearly seemed to be acting unilaterally, and that is what drove much of the (since deleted) objection.


PP you are responding to. EXACTLY. IF op just wanted information on how to do this, and not a detailed discussion on whether it was a good idea to do so -- just post the facts, which I assume include the fact that the parents had requested it, otherwise what a damn foolish thing to be asking advice on, because it is a terrible idea.
[Post New]01/08/2012 17:20
quote
jsteele
Site Admin Offline
Anonymous wrote:
I just want to state for the record that nowhere in the guardianship post was this stated. The OP clearly seemed to be acting unilaterally, and that is what drove much of the (since deleted) objection.


Just to clarify something that has now been misstated twice in this thread. I only deleted one post from the thread in question. That post was in response to my post (and my post clearly said that any responses to me should be in Website Feedback). So, if you posted one of the many messages dealing with "whether" the OP should seek custody rather than "how" the OP could do so, your post is still there. Feel free to stop complaining about its imaginary deletion at any time.
[Post New]01/08/2012 17:29
quote
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:to the PP who keeps talking about asking for how to go about getting temporary guardianship (or whatever) -- your mistake is in giving way too many details about the situation.

If you just want technical details just give the bare minimum information needed:

We live in x county in Y state. We want to offer to take temporary guardianship of two children whose parents are asking us to do so. Do you know what steps we need to take?



I just want to state for the record that nowhere in the guardianship post was this stated. The OP clearly seemed to be acting unilaterally, and that is what drove much of the (since deleted) objection.


I'm the OP of that thread. This is a quote from my original post
My DH and I would like to offer to keep the kids until at least the end of the school year to give the mother a chance to settle into the new state, find a job and line up housing
(emphasis added). In my second post, I indicated the kids had lived with us on several occasions for extended periods already and this would just be the first time it was done officially. It's true that we had not yet been "asked" to do it but I still fail to see how people could interpret that as us acting "unilaterally" or that we were trying to "take" the children. If we were trying to "take" the kids as some accused us of doing, I would have asked about "taking custody" not "temporary guardianship". There is a signicant difference between the two.
[Post New]01/08/2012 17:43
quote
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:to the PP who keeps talking about asking for how to go about getting temporary guardianship (or whatever) -- your mistake is in giving way too many details about the situation.

If you just want technical details just give the bare minimum information needed:

We live in x county in Y state. We want to offer to take temporary guardianship of two children whose parents are asking us to do so. Do you know what steps we need to take?



I just want to state for the record that nowhere in the guardianship post was this stated. The OP clearly seemed to be acting unilaterally, and that is what drove much of the (since deleted) objection.


PP you are responding to. EXACTLY. IF op just wanted information on how to do this, and not a detailed discussion on whether it was a good idea to do so -- just post the facts, which I assume include the fact that the parents had requested it, otherwise what a damn foolish thing to be asking advice on, because it is a terrible idea.


OP again from that thread.

I'm trying to find more information on temporary guardianship and if anyone has experience in this area they can share


I still fail to see how this invites people to discuss the merits of whether we should make our offer. I think I was quite clear that I was not interested in discussing the merits of the idea.

If you had read the thread, you would have seen the girls had lived with on several other occasions. It's not like our offer was something really different than what we had been doing in the past. As I noted in a follow up post, this would be the first time we would do it officially so that we could make medical decisions and have standing with the school. I was actually expecting people to take me to task for having taken care of the girls previously without some sort of official documentation. And, if you had read my follow up, you would have read that the mother was very appreciative of our offer because it affords her more options. What's becoming more clear to me is that some people have a very difficult time not being able to express their opinion no matter how irrelevant it is. Again, why not start your own thread?
post reply Forum Index » Off-Topic
Message Quick Reply
Go to: 

Search   Recent Topics   Hottest Topics