Here's a topic that should get it's own thread.

On 2+2 forums what is bullying? Do you feel you've been bullied? Is there anything that should be done about it?

In my view calling people names is not bullying. Reminding people of ****ty posts they've made in the past is not bullying. What are your thoughts?

I think someone with actual power, like a mod, going into another subforum and threatening to ban people and threatening people via PM constitutes bullying. We of course have enablers of that action here on twoplustwo, but the bullying itself is pretty rare.

Thumbs up to the thread.

So if a group of people follow someone around repeatedly calling them names then could never be bullying in your opinion?

BBCchez, of course, continuing to completely ignore the substance of an actual bullying situation.

In PU? No. The purpose of PU is to allow people to follow other people around and call them names. That is something you should know coming into PU. If you are not comfortable with people calling you names you shouldn't post in this forum.

I read that as if you're not willing to put up with being bullied then you shouldn't post in this forum.

So lets consider outside this forum - would it be bullying in a regular forum?

You've read it wrong. This thread is about bullying in PU because that has been your whipping boy for the last couple of days. PU is special because it allows personal attacks so comparing to forums that don't is pointless. My position is that calling name calling in PU bullying is a pointless activity because it is allowed by the rules and that rule isn't going to change.

PU is special but before dealing with the special it makes sense to deal with the ordinary. Then at least we can see if we have some common ground as to what constitutes bullying - the rest might just be semantics

So I'd appreciate your answer about a regular forum.

And I'm not going to give you one. I'm not interested in getting sidetracked arguing about what happens in other forums. You still haven't added any substance to the original question:

What is bullying in PU?

Just like with personal attacks when I call something bullying in PU I mean the same as I do in a regular forum. In both case the difference is to do with what's acceptable.

So if you agree it's bullying outside PU we do in fact agree even if you don't like me calling it that for some reason.

chez thinks what's acceptable is a moderator threatening bans in forums he doesn't mod and personally threatening people via pm.

I don't think anything like that LG. You're just being obsessively weird again.

So you think someone calling someone a name in PU is bullying? Yes or no?

So bizarre that such a crusader against bullying has spent a year and half here complaining that probably the biggest bully we've seen in politics was wronged.

Its almost like BBCchez is just hear to whine.

Not in isolation no. Nor would it be bullying outside PU

It's in aggregate that it can become bullying.

Whatever bullying is here has an analog in the real world which would seem like a reasonable place to start the discussion. Then again, that seems like introducing too much depth for this format.

I'll just assert something and maybe someone will tell me where I am wrong. Bullying has to have some significant consequence to the 'bullied' poster above and beyond their simply viewing criticism of their posting or their abilities. If we don't hold to that, then judging bullying becomes arbitrary and subjective (inserting bullying into the infraction list would probably, ironically, result in more flexibility for the alleged bullying group to attack their alleged targets). There is a pretty limited range of real consequence that can result here. This is not like a schoolyard where, if your bullied, there are real social costs like lost potential relationships or social advancement. Those stakes aren't nearly as considerable here, in a mostly anonymous thought exchange.

All I can think of in terms of consequences of bullying are unfair restrictions on posting and, less significantly, posters being unfairly biased against a target of bullying and subsequently not engaging that poster in discussion.

The latter case would happen when, for example, a non-reg sees wookie or someone with a high post count dissing another poster with impunity. The non-reg might then infer that whatever that dissed poster said is probably not worth considering since they obviously have a low standing with those who have good standing with the site controllers.

My main point is this discussion should ignore feelings, wherever it goes. If you can't make a case that you have suffered some unfair material consequence, (relating to the primary utility of the site) as a result of an implicit conspiracy then shut up. Go someplace where people love you if that's what you want.

So when people say you add nothing of substance to a thread this is what they are talking about. Why can't you answer the question? Is name calling in PU bullying? Not is name calling in the aggregate bullying, no one cares about that question.

To be fair chez has only been complaining about bullying for 5 days.

I did answer your question. What about the answer didn't you understand?

I answered even though you refused to answer mine.

What I don't understand is what relationship the answer "name calling in the aggregate is bullying" has to do with the question Is name calling PU bullying?

Dueces is largely correct. The bar for "bullying" on an internet message board, especially a lightly moderated one like PU, has to be very high. We're all adults and here by choice. Participants have many options for dealing with behavior they think is bullying.

I'm still curious about this though:
How can there be a power differential between two posters if neither of them is a mod? Chez's earlier contention that LG has "the support of the mods" is totally unpersuasive.

Your quote isn't what I said but let's try it with a nice and simple example.

One person calling someone a name once on a forum isn't bullying. Ten people calling them names every time they posted quite likely would be.

We can argue about that but have we got as far as agreeing that one party being in a stronger position than the other would make a difference to whether it was bullying or not? If not then it's a moot point.


I agree in as much as the bar for what is acceptable is very high. As I said to kerowo, just like with personal attacks the meaning doesn't change from forum to forum. It's the acceptability and expectations regarding bullying and personal attacks that change.

I get the feeling we're going to disagree on the meaning of "being in a stronger position". I think an element of that would have to be a legitimate threat of negative real-world consequences, and I don't see how that's possible in this context.

Deuces McKracken hit the nail on the head. A quick look at today's Cyberbullying Wikipedia page finds similar...
Coming from this perspective, I believe some points are clear...

• This kinda Cyberbullying is in generally explicitly, and unquestionably implicitly, against the 2+2 T&C, as well as contrary to the spirit of the 2+2 community. These kinda Cyberbullies should be perma-banned permanently.
  
  
• That's not what happens in Baja Politards. Not even close. Characterizing what happens in Baja Politards as 'bullying' just confuses the issues.
  
  
• No mod, acting as a mod, can ever be a 'bully' in this sense of the word. People may second guess a mods actions, sure, but as long as the mod is enforcing site policy (as they honestly see it), they aren't being a 'bully'.
  
  
• Neither bahbahmickey nor Teh Jabber-Wookie were ever being 'bullied'. LMFAO at saying they were.
  
  
• The closest, and really only, example was the odious Bruce Z. But even that fool can't be called a Cyberbully because his mental meltdown was by all accounts an isolated incident.