Bunfight at the Virtual Beanery

[Wilfrid]

If it does anything to stop the entertaining ping pong, can I just confirm, as a former professional journalist, that journalists frequently conceal that they are working on a story - and even their identities - when they need information. Not saying it's good or bad - let alone comparing it with what JW did here - but it's a simple fact. Does that help?

[jaybee]

I love this place most when:

I learn something.

I laugh at Wilfrid's posts.

I chuckle lewdly at Tommy's posts.

I read about a meal I haven't had, in a place to which I probably won't go.

I post something either funny or informative and get nice compliments.

I get to know new people, some of whom might even become friends of mine.

All the rest is just bullshit and detracts from the above.

So I hereby withdraw from all verbal sparring unless it relates to a veal chop or an apple tart.

[Ron Johnson]

I love this place most when:

I learn something.

I laugh at Wilfrid's posts.

I chuckle lewdly at Tommy's posts.

I read about a meal I haven't had, in a place to which I probably won't go.

I post something either funny or informative and get nice compliments.

I get to know new people, some of whom might even become friends of mine.

All the rest is just bullshit and detracts from the above.

So I hereby withdraw from all verbal sparring unless it realtes to a veal chop or an apple tart.

Agreed. Although I occassionally guffaw at Tommy's posts. At first I thought all of the petty fighting and seeing who can get the last word was funny, but then there was so much reading, ugh!

[Jaymes]

I love this place most when:

I post something either funny or informative and get nice compliments. 

Wow. I thought that was a terrific post.

And I agree completely!

[Steve Plotnicki]

Bux - I think if you read back about my position on this it's been pretty consistant. Like I said earlier, I'm not sure what the professional standard is but *my gut* tells me that full disclosure is usually what happens. As I have stated, I have yet to be involved in a situation where it wasn't disclosed. Plus I also think it is the standard that other journalists on the site would adhere to even if there was no set professional standard. I can't imagine that you or FG or Steve Klc would write an article about the cite that was critical of the posters without announcing it in advance. I don't think that would happen in a million years. But putting all journalistic considerations aside, I would never write from my vantage point as a member without full disclosure. To me that's a matter of courtesy to the other members.

But you haven't addressed my points about the tone of the board and how the incident unleashed a torrent of invective that infests the board to this day. And it hasn't gone unnoticed by certain members that John cloaks himself in the invective of the trolls, which I must add is something Suvir did as well. It was true on the day of the incident and it's still true today. In fact he seems to be a troll magnet.

Wilfrid - Of course I know that. But for example, if you turned out to be a journalist and used the conversations you had with people here for an article without their knowledge, while that might be legal, that wouldn't mean they wouldn't feel betrayed by you. Not that I'm saying I feel betrayed by anything John did. I just find it odd that he feels it's okay to participate here and then write about it like he hasn't been part of the conversation. It's not only his lack of disclosure that I've been pointing to, it's the lack of disclosure in light of the way his article is written. Something about the tandem strike me as odd.

[Wilfrid]

I laugh at Wilfrid's posts.

But...but...

They're not meant to be funny...

Oh, I'm so misunderstood.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Wilfrd - Not funny ha-ha. The other funny .

[Bux]

Bux - I think if you read back about my position on this it's been pretty consistant.

It that's what you think, it's good reason for me to not reply.

I have fully expressed the limits of my dissatisfaction with John's article and don't agree with your view (which seems to boil down to the fact that you feel John was discourteous and his conduct "odd.") at all. What else can I or need I say on the matter. I see no public call for further discussion. I see exactly the opposite. Needless to say referring to someone as a troll magnet does not raise the level of discussion to one in which I am drawn either.

I owe you this much of an explanation, but I also understand that by each post in this thread--no matter what I say, or how well I say it--I lose public respect.

[cabrales]

I reiterate my concerns about the appropriateness of certain conclusions relating to Suvir's prior absence included in John's article, when disclosure on the board of surrounding facts has not been forthcoming.

[Jaymes]

If you turned out to be a journalist and used the conversations you had with people here for an article without their knowledge, while that might be legal, that wouldn't mean they wouldn't feel betrayed by you.

You know, Steve, if John had PM'd you, seeking your opinion on this or that, and then published your responses without your permission, you might have a point.

But if you really believe that what you post in this public forum, with full knowledge that your words are freely available to an indiscriminate audience of millions, is tantamount to a private conversation deserving of some degree of confidentiality, well then, to quote Judge Judy, "Are you nuts?"

If you actually do believe that, then may I suggest you change your signature line to: "Attention Journalists: This is off the record."

That is the phrase, is it not, that you use when requesting confidentiality during your many interviews?

[Steve Plotnicki]

Bux - Well just so the record can be straight here, and I will do it in reverse this time. I would never do what John did without full disclosure. And I think the same is true for every other long term poster on the board including the moderators. Secondly, I think that almost any journalist who participated wearing both hats would would make full disclosure even if they didn't have to. And I also think that many publications would ensure that disclosure was made before going to print on an article like that. You can say I'm wrong about that, but like I've said, I've never seen it happen any other way. Except I guess if it is intended to be adversarial.

As to the contents of the article, what's different about it? It's just the usual class warfare stuff that John trots out in every post. Read his writing on the French/Chinese thread or the Best Food Writers thread and it's the same politicizing only from a different soapbox. He's just unhappy the world is ordered according to how much money people have and he is going to make sure that he points that out as often as possible. But that's why the article is so laughable. Here is a guy who cloaks himself in the writing of trolls when it suits him. But the purpose of the trolls is to limit free speech. And then, he writes an article saying "Big Brother" has set in on eGullet. Hellooooooo.

I am with Cabrales on this one. I have refrained from making comments about what I've been told by various people here because I have been asked to. But then someone like John comes along and uses his "connections" to eGullet to draw conclusions that might not be true, and to denigrate other members in the process. If you ask me that does get to be a bit much. So I hope you reconsider how you feel about my point. Because in the end, I am really on your side here and would like to see the site do well. But I can't say the same for some other people whose participation seems to be motivated by some other agenda.

Jaymes - I haven't complained that I have been misquoted. I have complained that the non-disclosure didn't let the other side get its story out. That's two different things. Had John disclosed his story then I am sure he would have gotten a flood of PM's about it and then he probably wouldn't have been able to reach various conclusions he arrived at. And to gather information as a member for the purpose of writing about the other members, while not giving the members a chance to get their side of the story out (because of non-disclosure) strikes me as odd at best, and unethical at worst.

[Bux]

may I suggest you change your signature line to: "Attention Journalists:  This is off the record."

Hey that's cool, but I wonder if it has any legal effect. Although I haven't been interviewed very often (the last time was for an article on eGullet and much to my surprise I was not only quoted accurately, but in exactly the context in which I placed my responses) I have used the expression "off the record" both when I've felt I might be quoted and just when I don't want a confidant repeating my words to another in private. Generally however, I think e-mail and private messages are off limits unless in response to an interview.

[Deacon]

Plotnicki, you probably don't realize how unintentionally hilarious your post was. Nonetheless, as much as I'd like to dismantle your arguments here I'm in the unenviable position of having to lead by example. So I must say goodbye to this topic as difficult as it will be for me to ignore your subsequent attempts to perpetuate it.

If Shaw keeps refusing to add to threads he hates, after awhile he won't be able to post here at all.

[Jaymes]

may I suggest you change your signature line to: "Attention Journalists:  This is off the record."

Hey that's cool, but I wonder if it has any legal effect. Although I haven't been interviewed very often (the last time was for an article on eGullet and much to my surprise I was not only quoted accurately, but in exactly the context in which I placed my responses) I have used the expression "off the record" both when I've felt I might be quoted and just when I don't want a confidant repeating my words to another in private. Generally however, I think e-mail and private messages are off limits unless in response to an interview.

"Any legal effect" when you yourself have put something into the public domain?

Of course not. As soon as you publish it, it is "on the record."

That was the joke, that Steve thinks it might be!!

[cabrales]

For me, what is disconcerting about John's recent article is that, as other members have noted, a number of the concerns that some members may have with such article had been conveyed on the board in connection with John's prior write-up on eGullet. While John is of course free to write as he sees fit, I come away feeling that not only were extensively discussed concerns regarding the potentially unrepresentative nature of the description of eGullet not addressed, but also (as discussed by lizziee and others) an "unusual" troll-affected period was focused on as though it foretold the decline of the board.

[Steve Plotnicki]

"an "unusual" troll-affected period was focused on as though it foretold the decline of the board."

Cabby - I love ya but sometimes you have to put two and two together. Don't you see that John was at the center of the troll-affected period? Just look at this thread. Criticism of John's post brought the trolls out. And then instead of being critical of said troll about their use of certain language and general personal invective, he congratulated the troll on their presence. It's like he and Suvir created the trolls and then he went out and wrote about the downfall of the board. What's the name of that syndrome when the mother gets her kids sick on purpose to draw attention to herself?

[Deacon]

What's the name of that syndrome when the mother gets her kids sick on purpose to draw attention to herself?

Munchausen-by-Proxy.

[=Mark]

What's the name of that syndrome when the mother gets her kids sick on purpose to draw attention to herself?

Munchousen by Proxy.

[Steve Klc]

Munchausen's syndrome

[jordyn]

Steve P: While you were on vacation, we had a troll come in and respond to a bunch of your messages. By your logic, we might conclude that because you were at the center of all of this troll's post, you might somehow be culpable for their activity. Obviously, such an assumption would be absurd--but no less absurd than your claim that John is somehow responsible for certain for some of the trolling that has ocurred in this thread.

The fact is, trolls will prefer to use contentious topics as their base because they are more likely to incite a response. We can use this knowledge to either stay away from contentious discussions entirely, which seems unlikely and unproductive, or take it into account when deciding whether or not it is worthwhile to continue the agony of certain threads.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Jordyn - But John's article, and his general commentary on who posts here including his derogatory comments about what people can afford are exactly the contentious topics that trolls look for. That is exactly my point. Whether you want to see it or not, John's behavior encourages trolls. In fact he seems to have a number of troll pals.

I don't know if you were a member at the time of the infamous blowup with Suvir. The trolls appeared simultaneously with Suvir making personal statements about certain members on the board. Up until that day, I can't think of a single troll on the board. But since that day the board has been infected with them. And while many people have commented about the trolls on the board, I have yet to see John, or Suvir for that matter ever ask the trolls to stop. Is that an accident? I don't know about you but, you and I could have the biggest disagreement in the world but I would come to your defense if someone was trolling you.

[Bux]

Jordyn - But John's article, and his general commentary on who posts here including his derogatory comments about what people can afford are exactly the contentious topics that trolls look for. That is exactly my point. Whether you want to see it or not, John's behavior encourages trolls. In fact  he seems to have a number of troll pals.

I don't know if you were a member at the time of the infamous blowup with Suvir. The trolls appeared simultaneously with Suvir making personal statements about certain members on the board. Up until that day, I can't think of a single troll on the board. But since that day the board has been infected with them. And while many people have commented about the trolls on the board, I have yet to see John, or Suvir for that matter ever ask the trolls to stop. Is that an accident? I don't know about you but, you and I could have the biggest disagreement in the world but I would come to your defense if someone was trolling you.

Plotnicki, you are clearly the troll magnet. Most trolls refer to you and your behavior. You are the center of those posts. That the trolls appear to side with him is not his fault, nor does it make their authors his pals. Appearing simultaneously is not the scientific proof we need for cause and effect and I believe you're too smart not to see your own double talk for what it is and the members should feel insulted if you think it will carry any weight.

The reason you don't see John ask the trollers (and these trollers do not belong to him as you claim in a continuous stream of groundless assumptions presented as supporting facts) to stop is that you approach this site as your own work of fiction--The World According to Plotnicki. Here are John's words.

Spicegirl - That was a very kind and well-meaning letter, but I fear you don't know enough of the history that lies behind what you write. It would be best for you if you don't respond to the vituperation which will now be heaped on you. I apologize in advance for not coming further to your defence -- it's road that has been travelled before and it leads straight over a cliff.

[tommy]

while this is all extremely fascinating, i'm still, yes still, trying to figure out what "turn of events" was being "reported" on. i suppose this question will go ignored, yet again. this fact, of course, is very curious. why john? why why why? i'm just losing sleep yet again.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Bux - Sorry Bux. Appearing simultaneously seems like a good enough cause and effect for me. Either the writer who the troll is trying to pile on with separates himself from the troll or they don't. In fact here is the text of a PM sent to me today. Name of the author withheld as I haven't gotten their permission to use it and I hope they aren't angry with me for posting even this much of the message.

"I had a lot more trouble with the content of his article than you did. I take objection to his assertions which he states as fact, when what he writes are his opinions, completely unsubtantiated by the facts. What is worse is that everytime he starts this out come the "trolls" with their rants and raves."

It must be that you are not in touch with the tenor of the board because this is exactly how a bunch of people on the board feel about it. As for me, I am the troll magnet because I really don't want to stand for this bullshit so I speak my mind about it. Most of the other people are afraid to say anything about it so the rath of the trolls is usually directed at those who are brave enough. That is usually me and Nina and a few other posters.

Face it Bux, the trolls are here because management allows them to stay here via their "ignore the troll policy." It has nothing to do with me. I'm just the vehicle they want to use to screw up your board. If you were willing to enact a no-troll policy they would be gone in a heartbeat. And part of that is facing up to who the trolls always side with and why. Of course that doesn't mean you might not have prior experience with good trolls. But then you wouldn't be calling them trolls would you?

[tommy]

for months now, i've enjoyed interjecting nonsense in the middle of plotters' silly debates. i think once, maybe way back when, acknowledged me. that was cool. i liked that.