Ok, so what's all this about @xx posters being "rude"?

[ButchyRestingFace]

Come at me gently, please.

I do it all the time. And I'm a feminist.

Don't think it's been a thing for long Butchy, I've only seen it be a thing recently. Never by anyone outside of FWR posting, interestingly.
Says who? People "In The Know" or "Da Club" at a guess

It does feel like someone who is name checking you all the time to make you reply

It sure doesn't feel like that to me. It might if they did it all the time and the thread was an endless line of @so-and-so, but I can't think of any time I've seen that. I've only seen @ used sparingly on AIBU and Chat.

Maybe the practice varies from board to board?

I should say, I tend not to start thread on AIBU. Maybe if I did, and was instantly subjected to a 900 post pile-on, perhaps I'd be more sensitive to any @ that took place on the thread.

Wow that is a lot of meaning,feeling and intent attributed to one key. I @ because I'm lazy(easier than bolding and remembering/typing every username ,especially if responding to more than one) and that's it,no hidden meanings or much thought goes into it.

It's just a bit of forum etiquette. NBD

Says who? And how long has it been a "thing"?

It isn't.

OK, perhaps there's a difference between posting on the app and a laptop? I have to type the full name of the poster if I @ them - is it different on the app?

If I @ on the app a list of users,including OP shows up which is handy.

Ah well that doesn't happen on the laptop.

Like this

Ah well that explains part of it then, because that doesn't happen on the laptop.

I hardly ever see the @ feature used in Chat or AIBU, it seems far more prevalent in FWR.

I have personally seen it used in FWR on several occasions by one poster to another poster who was on the thread very much 'live' in the discussion, responding almost immediately to points made, so what was the point in continually @'ing that poster? They were there, reading and engaging and would have received about a dozen e-mails from the same person alerting them to points made in a thread they were actively posting on, and had already responded to. Why? it's totally unnecessary. When it is done like that it does come across as abrasive.

I suppose people are just so used to doing it that way on Twitter & Facebook that this doesn't seem any different.

I can see the list of names coming up would be useful, but typing full usernames has never really been a thing here either unless you really want to? Everyone's always been fine with short versions.

Done like that where it's constant I can see would be annoying, when it happens literally just once and you've done it only the once and said poster goes "don't @ me. It's rude." You do go eh?!

How is @LassWiADelicateAir more aggressive than LassWiADelicateAir ?

For me, Lass, as I explained, it's the @. It's just something I personally find terse and the equivalent of jabbing a finger, as I said.

Ridiculous, it’s not rude whatsoever. If someone doesn’t like it then so be it - the option is there to turn off ones email notification.

If you are involved in discussion with a certain individual then it is exactly that inidividual you would like notified.

Some people really can and do take offence from all sorts of the most trivial things, I would hate to live my life like that

It also feels like calling me my full name (you know - like Annabelle Jayne Smith for example rather than Anna or Belle or whatever my nickname is). I use a short form of names usually when I bold them, and the @ is full name only.

I wonder if there is an element of (some) posters feeling more exposed if someone @ them in the middle of having their arse handed to them?

For instance, if I'm skimming my way through a thread and see the following exchange:
----------
"I think are Chicken McNuggets are toxic poison and anyone who gives them to their kids should be the subject of a SS investigation"

"You're a fucking judgy cow and you're going to die alone"
--------

I might think, "oooh, fight, fight, fight!", but I'm unlikely to go scrolling back to see who made the original comment. So I probably won't know.

Had the second poster @ the person they were replying to, well, anyone reading that post would know immediately who was getting a pasting. But I don't think merely @ at the person involved would attract as much attention as actually quoting from their (ridiculous) post, so in that situation, I'd rather be @ than quoted.

I have an anonymous email address that I only use for things where you have to give an email address but don't want contact. I never check it. @ away. It passes me by.

Likewise I have a £17 Nokia payg spare phone for emergencies. I use that number if I'm required to supply a number to someone/an organisation I don't want contacting me. I used it recently for some website or another I was signing up to. Next time I switched on that phone there were a mass of missed calls and messages from a variety of numbers - they had definitely shared my details. I recommend this system.

@PebbleDashed here’s an idea, just turn it off. Also, I think feminism has bigger battles to fight and win than somehow equating the use of ‘@‘ to be symbolic of some wider struggle.

This is a feature introduced by MN at the request of its users, most appear to like it, some don’t - surely you wouldn’t expect the vocal minority to ask everyone else to stop using this feature simply as it appears to offend them in some convoluted and bizarre way - that is not the sort of society we live in thankfully

you wouldn’t expect the vocal minority to ask everyone else to stop using this feature simply as it appears to offend them in some convoluted and bizarre way - that is not the sort of society we live in thankfully

Are you being ironic?

I posted on AIBU yesterday to explain my position. I'll reiterate it here.

I don't have an issue with the @ function existing. It has uses - I don't mind it used to get my attention if I am being asked something specific and haven't already posted on the thread, or posted for some time because I may have just stopped following along.

If I'm already engaging in the thread, I'd prefer not to get an email unnecessarily, so if I get @ed, I will ask the person to bold me instead. I'm not unreasonable about it, but I know a number of other posters on FWR don't like it either, so I think it's a small part of the particular etiquette of the board that a significant number don't like it over used, so that is a thing. It's not a 'rule', it's just something which appears to have developed and is useful to be aware of.

It has been used persistently to me, even when I have asked the posters in question to stop, and I don't see why I should turn off a function I do sometimes find useful just because a few people have been unpleasant bullies.

Does bolding trigger an email? This is news to me.

Bolding doesn’t. @ ing does. Unless the person has gone and turned it off.

I do wonder why this seems to be so pertinent on the feminist chat thread as opposed to others...

Does bolding trigger an email? This is news to me

Bolding doesn't trigger an email, the @ function does though.
So not sure why bolding would be a problem if anyone is saying it is?
It literally just makes it easy to see who you're referring to.

I do wonder why this seems to be so pertinent on the feminist chat thread as opposed to others...

It seems to me that it's used as "I'm a woman, stop shouting at me, it's rude".
I have literally done it once and got "stop atting me." For others to say yes, stop, atting it's rude.
Me - whuh? Ok I won't then now I know it's a thing with some. Cos I'm not a dick.
Some like it though. So for them, I would.