Please counter-flag this wrongly flagged comment


Bara medlemmar i LibraryThing kan skriva.

Please counter-flag this wrongly flagged comment

jun 25, 2021, 7:19 am

Hi, this post has been wrongly given multiple flags as supposedly an abuse of the TOS which it's clearly not:

Please unflag the message.

Redigerat: jun 25, 2021, 8:45 am

>1 spiralsheep: attacked me in that message and another one further down with name calling. I do not find it at all 'humorous'.

jun 25, 2021, 8:12 am

>1 spiralsheep:

I do not consider that post wrongly flagged. You claim it was "humorous", but it was not It was snide and nasty, and definitely deserved the flags

jun 25, 2021, 9:12 am

I've become aware that some people seem to have some sort of personal problem with me but that doesn't alter the fact that the people who wrongly flagged my previous comment were violating the terms of service while my comment was not and should be unflagged.

I've literally been verbally abused on LT talk without anyone giving a single flag but now I'm being told obvious humour about MarthaJeanne self-identifying as a pedant is a TOS violation. Nonsense.

jun 25, 2021, 9:16 am

>2 MarthaJeanne: ">1 spiralsheep: spiralsheep: attacked me in that message and another one further down with name calling. I do not find it at all 'humorous'."

Please stop lying. I've never "attacked" anyone in the over twenty years I've been posting on the internet. Nor did I call you anything you don't self-describe as. You post as a pedant in the LT "pedant" group. What other self-descriptions are banned now because the self-describer suddenly chooses to find them "name-calling"? And it's obvious that not all people share the same sense of humour but abusive flagging of my comments is not a reasonable adult way to deal with personal differences in our senses of humour!

jun 25, 2021, 9:18 am

Again, I'm asking the reasonable members of this group who have read the TOS to unflag my humorous comment.

jun 25, 2021, 9:22 am

We're allowed to complain about what other members say, but not through personal attacks. To convince the flaggers your message should again be visible without readers having to click on the "show" link, the message will need to be rephrased. Obviously, more people think it's a personal attack (against the TOS) than people who think it's acceptable as-is.

jun 25, 2021, 9:32 am

You are not the person who gets to decide if a comment you made is flaggable or not.

jun 25, 2021, 9:38 am

>8 norabelle414: Asking for counter-flagging is one of the reasons this group exists, no?

jun 25, 2021, 9:39 am

The difficulty you run across here is that you are losing 90% of your communication with it being strictly text. So humor and sarcasm do not translate well, no matter how much you wish it to.

The comment doesn't not read as humorous nor sarcastic. It reads as a rude jibe at another user.

And as such, does qualify as a flaggable post.

jun 25, 2021, 9:40 am

>7 aspirit: So lilithcat's "snide" and "nasty" aren't "personal attacks" but my "pedant" to a self-described pedant is a "personal attack"? Disgusting bias.

jun 25, 2021, 9:42 am

>10 gilroy: I should expect to see you all flagging lilithcat's "nasty" and "snide" comments then?

jun 25, 2021, 9:44 am

>12 spiralsheep: If you refer to >3 lilithcat:, no, since she was referring to the post. You were referring to another member.

jun 25, 2021, 9:50 am

>9 spiralsheep: The purpose of this group is to bring attention to items that may or may not need to be flagged, and to provide context and intent for those items, because context and intent matter. It's not a place where people show up and demand that their items be unflagged (not successfully, anyway). The result of your posting here is that your comment now has more flags than it did before you posted here.

You might be more successful with something like "I'm sorry my post hurt anyone's feelings. That was not my intention." instead of insisting that everyone else has read your words wrong.

jun 25, 2021, 10:57 am

I don't think the post was humorous but the worst name she was called was a pendant. Is that really against the TOS?

jun 25, 2021, 12:05 pm

>15 jjwilson61: I don't think it is-- I didn't flag the post-- but I also see how it would be seen as against the TOS, which is why I won't counter-flagged the post.

The thing is, a specific word doesn't matter as much as the implied meaning. Example: "You're a pretty storytelling" could be a straightforward compliment of storytelling ability, or it could be an insult that's calling the addressee a liar while making a subtle threat of sexual harassment. Another example is that just because someone idrntifies as "queer" doesn't mean their identity label can't be used to show aggression against them. Context matters.

jun 25, 2021, 12:08 pm

spiralsheep, I completely understand why you'd be annoyed by certain responses, but I also believe you can express your annoyance in a way that people don't feel the need to flag. We are able to edit messages after posting. Maybe after waiting a bit, that's easier to do.

jun 25, 2021, 1:00 pm

>15 jjwilson61:
Calling someone a pendant is a hanging offense... ;)

jun 25, 2021, 1:42 pm

“Pointless nit-picking” is a negative judgement; there’s no humour involved. That’s before we get to whether someone’s self-identification as a pedant justifies the use of the vocative. Do not go down the dark and lonely path to Collectoratorville. Stick to the highway of positive reinforcement.

jun 25, 2021, 4:25 pm

Smacks forehead

I haven't seen Collectorator in a while...thankfully...banned now??

jun 25, 2021, 6:09 pm

>20 Bookmarque:

I believe she quit the site.

jun 25, 2021, 6:38 pm

>15 jjwilson61: I found the post stalkerish - it's following the user between groups and using the information from one topic in another un-related thread in a negative manner. Whether it's technically against the TOS I'm not sure, but I too didn't find it sufficiently clear to un-flag the message.

jun 25, 2021, 9:53 pm

>22 reading_fox: I'd really rather drop this but I can't let this bit of character assassination go. ss just pointed out that bug had been reported in another thread. It wasn't even mj who had reported the bug, so there is nothing stalkerish about it.

Redigerat: jun 25, 2021, 10:54 pm

>21 lilithcat: According to timspalding’s post of January 7 of this year she was suspended. Post 241 on the thread “Collectorator: Explain your edit wars.”

jun 26, 2021, 11:18 am

>23 jjwilson61: Characters can be assassinated in bits? I learn something new every day.

I also noted that your... defensive argument(...?) disregarded all of the "O Pendantic One of the Pendant group" comments that might come off as more than a bit stalkerish.

jun 26, 2021, 1:48 pm

Could we quit the drama, please. There's nothing stalkerish about knowing someone is a member of a public group. Nor is there any history of conflict. I struggle to think how a single occurrence of anything can constitute stalking, which by definition is repeated behavior. Frankly, calling someone a stalker on a whim is also a personal attack, so the next person to do it, I will flag their post as such. Thank you.

jun 27, 2021, 7:00 am

Yes. An LT stalker monitors the Helpers’ Log, waits for X to do something, and then undoes it, perhaps adding a snarky “Disambiguation Notice.” Adding an message to a thread, even an aggrieved message, is not “stalking,” which implies surreptitiously following someone’s trail. I guess one could look through every talk thread for a comment by X and respond with, say, “Your Folio Society collection is rubbish,” or something equally hurtful, but that is not what is going on here. If we can’t get our terms correct here on Library Thing, what’s the point, really?