PDA

View Full Version : 3rd party references to forumites in posts



Magic Hans
30th-December-2004, 12:03 PM
[Quickly dons double asbestos full oversuit ..... and ducks behind wall of fire extinguishers!!]

Quick Preface: When quoting 99% of posts and posters, as far as I can tell, most respond directly to that quote, as if talking back to the poster (with the remaining forum as audience).

Occasionally a poster will refer to the author of a quote by (nick)name, as if they are addressing the crowd (forum), and not responding directly to the author.

I have never done this, and would never seek to. Why not? I ask myself. I think it's because I would regard it as showing disrespect. A little like talking about someone behind there back, but in full earshot.

Maybe I'm being hypersensitive and/or totally ridiculous. [It has been known :innocent: ... from time to time ... well, about once/twice monthly really!! :whistle: ]

In the interests of cultivating a respectful forum where we focus on issues, and respect the personalities, I'm interested what others on the forum think. [please mention no names .... that's distinctly not the idea :angry: :angry:]

How might someone feel when referred to in such a manner?

How might "the audience" read that particular post?

What might the motive be for a poster to use a third party reference?

Does it really matter?

All answers welcome hypothetical or not.

[Slightly raises eyebrows above the parapet!!]

Ian

Lynn
30th-December-2004, 12:23 PM
Occasionally a poster will refer to the author of a quote by (nick)name, as if they are addressing the crowd (forum), and not responding directly to the author.

I have never done this, and would never seek to. Why not? I ask myself. I think it's because I would regard it as showing disrespect. A little like talking about someone behind there back, but in full earshot. I know the type of posts you are referring to - I had always taken it as a 'debate' type approach, but maybe it also has a bit of the 'courtroom' approach? People strengthening their arguements by referring to what the other person has said and trying to 'disprove' the 'evidence'? Only a theory.

I think if both parties in this discussion can effectively communicate their point of view then its up to them - but there is the risk that reference to what 'person a' has said can be inaccurate or taken out of context.

Dreadful Scathe
30th-December-2004, 12:40 PM
I think I see what Magic Hans is getting at ;) and I don't see a problem. People mention others nicknames inside posts all the time, more often than not its a simple 'Nice to see you at that event Sparkles' type mentions or it could be 'I agree with ChrisA's point' or 'Andy McGregor is an evil conservative' but as long as it serves as an aid to understanding and furthers the topic in some way, whos complaining. Are you talking about a specific incident ? It certainly sounds like it ! :)

Maybe its just your perception. This is a public forum, so I imagine it in my head as a large room where people politely take their turn to speak. It stands to reason you can mention other people taking part in the conversation by name or directly quote them if need be, or both. Do others not think like this then, or is it just Magic Hans? :)

Graham
30th-December-2004, 01:11 PM
I can think of many circumstances where making third-party references is entirely appropriate. I agree that there are basically two modes of address on the forum - one where you are directly addressing a particular poster, and another where you are addressing the forum at large. In your post, as with most new topics, you are addressing us collectively, whereas in this reply I am addressing you specifically.

Often when posting on a topic which already has many replies I may wish to refer to the ideas already mentioned by other posters. By far the easiest way to do this is to say something like "I agree with what ChrisA said about using the in-and-out in teaching beginners", rather than finding exactly the right part of his post to quote and then continuing with whatever else it was I wanted to say.

Similarly, I may want to make comments on the posts of several contributors - I could quote them all but I think that makes it more difficult for readers to read my post, especially since it would be highly unlikely that the composition made grammatical sense.

Andy McGregor
30th-December-2004, 01:41 PM
I think I see what Magic Hans is getting at ;) and I don't see a problem. People mention others nicknames inside posts all the time, more often than not its a simple 'Nice to see you at that event Sparkles' type mentions or it could be 'I agree with ChrisA's point' or 'Andy McGregor is an evil conservative' but as long as it serves as an aid to understanding and furthers the topic in some way, whos complaining. Are you talking about a specific incident ? It certainly sounds like it ! :)

Maybe its just your perception. This is a public forum, so I imagine it in my head as a large room where people politely take their turn to speak. It stands to reason you can mention other people taking part in the conversation by name or directly quote them if need be, or both. Do others not think like this then, or is it just Magic Hans? :)
:yeah:

I see the forum as a debate. There are those who join in the debate and there are those who are in the audience - or even the jury. So, I take the opposing view to Magic Hans - I think it's rude to conduct, what seems like a private conversation, in a public forum. I often re-write my replies because I've, what I consider mistakenly, replied to the individual doing the posting: if I'd wanted to do that I'd have sent a PM.

When quoting from another post I suppose I respond to the post rather than the poster. I usually comment on the content of the post rather than the individual who wrote such rubbish/genius. In that way I think it makes it less personal. It's nicer to take the stance "you're lovely but your opinion sucks" than it is to say "if you think that way you must be an idiot/genius".

So, my opinion is completely opposed to that of Magic Hans - but I'm sure he's absolutely lovely :flower:

Magic Hans
30th-December-2004, 02:18 PM
All very interesting replies/responses!!

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

Thanks for taking the time!

... it certainly gives me food for thought!

Bangers & Mash
30th-December-2004, 06:15 PM
I'm a firm believer and advocate in these forums and have spoken out about issues and received positive responses and also been flamed.

I always believed that "assume that anything you say or do may be taken down in evidence against you" and so I always try and avoid slander and libel, be fair, accept criticism on the chin and stick by what I say.

I know I have upset some people in the past who like to sit around tables and plot vengeance but on the whole, I find the attitude of 99% of people on the forum very refreshing.

If I post on the forum I must expect people to agree with me, disagree with me and protest thereon in the same way.

What does make it interesting is when you meet these people face to face - at the BFG, at Southport and at different venues - but even that has been completely refreshing.

I regard the forum as a community with an incredible community spirit and I've met some really nice people as a result.

Keep up the good work all; I'll continue to post and people will continue to agree or disagree with me. That's the nature of the beast and you all have right of reply.

cheeks
30th-December-2004, 06:56 PM
:clap: :clap: :clap:

I am not known for posting as by the time I find time to post I have completly lost the will to speak or run out of time to keep an eye on post.
I do enjoy reading and following most threads and do not feel that anyone uses the forum as a way to make third party comments that are deprimental to ones charachter on the contrary most are in a complimentary manner. As Andy mentioned when responding to a post I comment on the content of quote rather than the author.

I have met many a fantastic person through using the forum and hope to continue to do so.... :clap:

And as in life it would be a dull and boring place if every one agreed about everything and had no thoughts of their own. Agreeing and Disagreeing come part and parcel, :hug:

jockey
1st-January-2005, 08:52 PM
For my part I see the forum as a seminar - we are all (metaphorically) sat around a table, taking it in turns to address the 'motion', with some choosing to listen only. Anything private can be done via E mail, I would have thought.

Gadget
1st-January-2005, 11:33 PM
To me, it's all pub talk - people contribute to the conversation and agree/dissagree with points raised; personally, if I agree with a post, I will probably PM or rep that person; if I have nothing to contribute or I see nothing that strikes aginst my particular ethos {:whistle:} then I won't post.

If there is a comment or concept put forward that I dissagree with, then it is more likley I will respond (which is why the majority of my posts seem argumentative :innocent: ) My responses are more to question ideas and further clarify what I think the person is saying. Most/all of my responses to an argument try to be formed as opinions or questions. Only when I am putting forward my thoughts, can I phrase them as statements of fact.

When responding to a quoted section of text, I am responding to the person who wrote it. When proposing an idea, or asking a general question, I am opening it up to all. It is pub talk - if you don't want it to be over-heard, talk in private. If you pick on someone individually, it's paramount to a shove and going "oi-you; did you spill ma pint?!".