A word about 'bullying' in AIBU

[Alifelivedforwards]

Looooonnng time poster/leaver/lurker/delurker/name changer (let's say I have a love/hate relationship with Mumsnet like I know a lot of you do!).

The 'bullying' issue comes up again and again on AIBU.

In my opinion what happens is that there is so much traffic on here and if your OP pushes lots of buttons (usually in a negative way ie people strongly disagree with you) you will get a lot of responses very quickly.

Therefore you will get the same comments from many people who are cross posting with each other so it feels like people berating you as one gang.

Also, despite cries of 'RTFT', people don't always because they don't have time, so they might be repeating what others said.

I really don't think it's 'bullying', though of course sometimes people go too far and are unpleasant.

To those who say people turn into aggressive arseholes on AIBU - no it's pretty obvious that on an anon internet forum people can just be more direct and speak the thoughts they have in real life!

AIBU???

Ahh I'm so in two minds about that, Sanity.

I've seen two or three posters talking to posters very sharply, using sarcasm, being dismissive - quite shocking really - in the circumstances you describe.

BUT these posters seem always to be right about the poster's relationship and get amazing 'results' when they break through and then are very supportive.

Weirdly I agree with you though that in that instance it's bullying...

I get fed up with the troll hunting - particularly if the thread has already been 'commented' upon and other troll hunting deleted.

Oh right sorry NearTheWindmill, I'm being a thicko

Oh, I absolutely agree that pointing out to someone that their relationship is abusive may be a good thing.

Making the same point, over and over again in the same way is counterproductive. If what you are doing isn't working, why not try something new?

And I do know what you mean about the shortness, sarcasm, etc, and usually after trying once or twice, that sort of poster will announce they are "bowing out", and will do, until there is a breakthrough, in which case, they are right there being supportive.

Yes, it's bullying behaviour imo - whatever the motivations or outcome.

Crossed posts, that was to your post of 09.54, Sanity.

I had to educate my daughter when she was in junior school on the difference between agreeing strongly with somebody, and bullying.

There's nothing wrong with disagreeing forcibly with somebody and big difference between that and bullying with is a systematic campaign to deliberately hurt another person.

So you're complaining about everyone sticking boot in (which is often a side effect of no one RTFT and seeing things have already been said and/or resolved) but you don't RTFT and post without seeing how the conversation has developed?

I think there's some people who literally salivate when they do RTFT and see a load of people laying into some because that gives them free rein to do the same. That is quite bullying.

The cross-posting isn't a problem. Lots of people agreeing because, maybe, they haven't seen other posters saying the same thing already, isn't a problem.

Not reading the OP's posts is a problem, because you end up missing much of the point of the whole thing.

And if you're too busy to read those, then you're too busy to post (imo).

I am in two minds about whether you can bully on an online forum. Because (and I'm not 'victim'-blaming here), you can disengage from a thread or a forum. In real-life, not so possible.
However, I do know how much words on a screen can hurt.

Out of interest, if you're posting from a phone, can the OP's posts be highlighted?

I think as people often say the first few posts dictates the turn of events and the salivaters turn up like a pack of hyenas dribbling over a carcass.

If anyone is saying I (I'm the OP) don't read the thread...ummm I do 90%+ of the time. As I said. Twice.

But I do not think it should be 'a rule' on here - we are not schoolchildren and, despite what some think, some posters do not have time to read a 20-page thread.

It is a step too far to try and control how we consume Mumsnet - it is tantamount to saying you must invest 'X' amount of your time when you come on here...!

It's not a rule people expect, just manners. If you don't have time to read a 20 page thread, it's good manners to at least read the OPs posts and the last couple of pages to see if the situation described in the OP had moved on. If people don't have time to do that, they should reconsider contributing. Nothing worse than a thread where an emotional OP has been resolved and supports and some donut adds their "I haven't read the thread but..." at the end attacking the OP again.

That's a bit of a straw man argument Alifelivedforwards.

I don't think anyone has seriously suggested that posters be forced to read the thread - apart from anything else how could it be monitored.

What people have said is that if you can't be arsed tormead the thread then maybe consider not posting as what you do post is likely to be uninformed because the thread/op has moved on or another one of 300 previous posts saying the same thing.

If I cant be arsed/don't have time to read the thread I don't post. I don't feel so incredibly vital to a discussion that an uninformed comment from me is vital to its continuing.
I find a thread I have time to read.

I agree that is courteous and best practice to read the thread, Luke.

But many posters on this thread have suggested it become part of the (presumably enforceable....don't know how though) guidelines along with troll hunting and personal attacks.

'to read' not tornead

X-posted

I really don't think lots of people have suggested that

If you don't want to RTFT then don't post-simple. If you post without reading it you are highly likely to look like an arse.

There are lot of people that reply to an OP in Chat with 'YABU'. So they think the whole of MN is AIBU presumably?

There is so much to read on MN & a limited time that if I see a long thread that I wasn't around for at the start it is rare for me to post on it, unless it is so interesting that I can be bothered to go back 10+ pages.

I feel the same magi.

I don't always read the whole thread, but I usually read most of it. I will give my opinion even if it matches other replies, because if you disallow that you can only really have 2-3 replies per thread. Often AIBU is a straw poll so the OP wants repetitive replies.

I think you're taking me too literally there, I said it should be included in the guidelines IMO, I meant that's my personal feeling on the subject, I think if you're going to bother to post it's stupid not to at least read the OP's posts and get a feeling of the thread at the point you are posting, - you really can look an utter knob if you don't.

I've just seen it on a thread I was on, a new poster has just delivered an outraged YABU, but the OP hasn't been seen on the thread since she started it 3 days ago - I mean what's the point? We don't operate on the number of 'Likes' or 'Dislikes' a post gets on this forum, thank goodness.

And if you read the Talk Guidelines you'll see that whilst some of it refers to enforceable Rules, a lot of it is just a serving suggestion on how not to be a dick on the internet.

I don't see anyone suggesting it be enforced? Just that it's good forum etiquette. It's smacks of narcissism to not RTFT and reply too. Like the opinion is so good no one in the previous 20 pages could possibly have suggested it.