I'm the OP of THIS thread and I missed that entire thread on guardianship. I don't have time to read up on it to comment either.

But I was talking generally about how mean spiritedness is detracting from the purpose of using DCUM. I do get the feeling that what one PP wrote may be true - people in the DC area are tired, frustrated, and weary. The recession has made them uncertain and angry now too.

So I think they come on here to, as one PP said, watch a train wreck. It gives them some kind of pleasure I suppose. And I, for one, am never going to write to ask for advice on DCUM again. It's pointless, really. The most honest question can quite easily be derailed and the OP butchered senselessly until she is left dizzy and confused wondering what she did wrong.

Let's never confuse free speech with simple mean-spiritedeness that detracts from the topic in question. Free speech that should be protected on this forum should be that which is relevant, albeit may be impolite or rude even. That which is specifically said for the purpose of creating a mockery or circus is just senseless. DCUM doesn't have to follow federal free speech guidelines; remember, it's a private forum. My guess is that it was created to be purposeful and helpful. How can it be with so much crap on here though?

As for that woman who said she had a tennis court and swimming pool but wasn't rich, would you have been more polite to her if she had said they had a tennis court and swimming pool and she realized they were indeed privileged? I doubt it. That's an example of unnecessary crap that just detracts from helping the OP. Who gives a shit if she has a tennis court or swimming pool? She's mentioning it to make a point about her question. Some posters got so stuck on this issue they couldn't get past it to offer her real advice.

So now DCUM has a bad reputation for being a minefield of snarky people. It'll only get worse too..

OP of the guardianship thread, please get over yourself, fast. Your 15 minutes are over.

Anonymous wrote:Guardianship PP, you're not the OP of this thread, are you? Why is it OK for you to hijack this thread, which was supposed to be about mean people, but not OK for other people to go off-topic on "your" thread?

You won't answer this question, I'm sure, but since I know you are reading I hope you at least think about it and maybe reconsider your understanding of how a site like this actually works.

I'm the OP you're referring to and I'm happy to respond. The OP's question was

Any ideas on how to squash mean spiritedness and bring more civil discussions or even debates to DCUM?

and my response was that I 'report' posts to the moderator. Although it's very tired and been beat to death, I feel this discussion has been relevant because what you, and others like you, did on the temporary guardianship thread is similar to what the OP is trying to change. I interpreted the OP's request as wanting to make DCUM a better place. I offered an idea on how the OP might achieve her goal - use the 'report' button - and what my experience with doing it was. Subsequently, I think it's been very useful to see the effects of the 'report' button. It's certainly shown that some people get very upset when they aren't allowed to criticise or indulge in mean spiritedness. It illustrates the challenge of trying to make DCUMs a more civil place.

If the OP of this thread feels this has gone too far off course, she's welcome to post and ask people to keep to the question asked. If others continue to stray, she should use the 'report' button. What suggestions have you offered to squash mean spiritedness and bring more civil discussions or even debates to DCUM? I, at least, did address the question asked by the OP.

Pp, I think that if you want to ask Jeff anything, the Website Feedback forum is the place. He's not in the business of reading every thread ever posted, or even Googling the site for mentions of his name.

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".

Jeff, for the sake of clarity and consistency, how would you handle these situations, above? I really hope we aren't going to allow OPs to micromanage their threads. I posted before about how I got useful info when one of MY threads went off the rails, but I also frequently get good information when people on other threads answer questions not posed by the OP or provide additional information. I just want to know how you'd respond in the situations PP crafted above. And while you might say it's different, I would like to know how it's different? Is it because your opinions mesh with the OP's? I think it's a slippery slope once you start to interfere in these types of things. It's hard to be a benevolent dictator, I'm sure. I think intervening has its place, but is this really how you want to go? Do you want to have to referee all the threads to make sure they're "germane" enough to suit an OP?

Also, Jeff, after reading that OP's continuing rants on this thread and in the website feedback thread, are you still glad you backed that horse???

Anonymous wrote:Have you ever gotten a mean, snarky post for absolutely no reason at all? For example you complain that your house is so big that it's hard to keep clean and the mean posters berate you for complaining that you live in a big house? Or you complain that your child can't get enough play dates at his house even though you have a tennis court and swimming pool and the mean posters will be put off and unsupportive because you're rich? Or you're put off when you read women are bashing Michelle Duggar for having so many children so you argue the other point, and then the women all turn on you?

It happens with too much regularity here on DCUM. What do you think can be done about it? Should we all squash the mean poster as a way to discourage others too? Should we all start a new identical thread and keep starting new threads until the mean posters get off? Should we be more mean back to them? Any ideas on how to squash mean spiritedness and bring more civil discussions or even debates to DCUM?

How old are you?

Guardianship PP, you're not the OP of this thread, are you? Why is it OK for you to hijack this thread, which was supposed to be about mean people, but not OK for other people to go off-topic on "your" thread?

You won't answer this question, I'm sure, but since I know you are reading I hope you at least think about it and maybe reconsider your understanding of how a site like this actually works.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Guardianship PP, you're not the OP of this thread, are you? Why is it OK for you to hijack this thread, which was supposed to be about mean people, but not OK for other people to go off-topic on "your" thread?

You won't answer this question, I'm sure, but since I know you are reading I hope you at least think about it and maybe reconsider your understanding of how a site like this actually works.

The OP can't stop talking.

Wow, is this now the third or fourth thread that this guardianship issue is being debated in?