When Chats Go Bad

Sometimes conversations happen wherein one or more people end up feeling ticked off at each other. This may happen for any of the following reasons, and possibly others:

• one or more chatters are in a bad mood, and overreact to each other
• one or more chatters misunderstand what is being said
• a chatter may be displaying a subtle but persistent pattern of misbehavior; after an initial period of tolerance, other chatters may begin to grow tired of this pattern, and start making active efforts to quash it and to let their feelings be known

Apparently, the following transcript was one such chat. I am posting it in the interest of soliciting further opinions and hopefully reaching some kind of consensus about what happened. Please feel free to add your comments (though please make sure it is clear which text is your comment).

(Note: if this works well, it may become part of a formal process of dealing with problem chatters where the problem is too subtle in nature for an outright kick/ban. [I plead that is not the case.- Vee])

Contents 1 Transcript 2 Chanops Statement 3 Tentative Resolution 4 Discussion

[edit] Transcript

[edit] Chanops Statement

Some of the chanops had a preliminary discussion and agreed that the chatter referred to above as "Chatter" needs to be informed that their behavior is generally unacceptable.

[edit] Tentative Resolution

If there is no significant disagreement, these points will officially be brought to this chatter's attention, and said chatter will be asked to improve their style of interaction along the suggested lines.

This is a preliminary statement and is subject to revision as more chatters (especially chanops) weigh in on the matter. We are allowing until approximately 6 pm Friday 6/24 before making a final decision as to how to proceed.

Kitten wrote the following:

"The symptoms [...] are myriad. The insistence upon changing everyone's names to be cutesy and babyish, even when repeatedly asked not to do so. The begging and whining and squawling for attention at all hours of the day. The insistence that no one speak ill of anything (chatter) likes, from (favorite computer company) to (favorite animal). The demanding that we not speak positively of things (chatter) doesn't like, such as (disliked computer company).

"What do all these things point towards? Today's conversation was a good example. It all points to a condition of being entirely self absorbed. If you do not think as (chatter) does, then your opinion is incorrect. If (chatter) doesn't understand what you're talking about, then (chatter) doesn't like it. If (chatter) doesn't like it, it's wrong. If it's wrong, then (chatter is) right."

While most chatters and chanops may not agree with the specifics of this statement, it represents many of the feelings which have come up in discussion.

[edit] Discussion

I think this is one of the main places hitpoints could come in handy. I'm aware that we don't have a bot working currently which allows us to "hit" people - I was working on one, but then exams hit, and the way I was doing it was rather ineficient and stuff. I believe Phealy stated that he could get Sluggybot's hitpoints system up and working again, but I haven't seen him around recently.

I agree with the statement that these points should be brought to (chatter)'s attention. While previous annoyances (namely, to quote, "The insistence upon changing everyone's names to be cutesy and babyish") didn't affect me that greatly, the fact is that this goes beyond a minor annoyance and is genuinely disrupting to the channel.

--Thorog 00:00, 23 Jun 2005 (EDT)

My major issue is that (chatter) exhibits a general lack of respect for the opinions and ideas that are different than (chatter's) own. [This can be illustrated in lots of ways, occasionally intense "/me" interactions, the nickname complaint, as well as the obvious general conversational disrespect.] It is possible to think that someone is a complete jerk and all their opinions are useless, and still behave in a respectful manner. The very idea that one's own baseless thoughts and opinions can be offered as and should be taken as fact. Then in the same breath discounting for reasons seemingly based in a lack of understanding, a willful ignorance, or (as in some cases it appears) for the hell of it, is hugely disrespectful. Combined with a fairly volitile personality, and a marked unwilliness to engage a disagreement beyond "I am right, and you are wrong." creates an unpleasant environment, and is disruptive to the channel in the context that it ceases activity, [there have been in the past lulls caused in a formerly active discussion by (chatter)'s entrance into the channel, especially when she loudly states upon entry that (chatter) is in a poor mood, and then goes into a diatribe about what caused this mood without respect for flow] or creates a hostile chatting environment. In two instances in the above conversation, (chatter)'s lack of respect was pointed out to (chatter) directly in a fairly friendly way, with no discernable reaction other than mild annoyance that someone would call (chatter) out. The fact that some of these issues have been hinted at, to no avail illustrates perfectly the need to have an absolutely frank discussion with (chatter) directly.

--Grrly 13:02, 24 Jun 2005 (EDT)