I've been around the 'net since it's inception and have ran a bunch of different forums and participated in many more, but the anger and hostility that is often the norm can still shock me on occasion.

Even here -- where everyone either lives in or comes from Oklahoma, a place famous for friendliness -- the most innocuous threads tend to take an angry and even acrimonious turn. Someone could post about their favorite corn dog and by the second page of discussion, we'll be calling each other idiots for preferring thick batter to the thinner variety or some other trivial point of disagreement.

I just don't get it. I also don't expect to change it and therefore have to accept it here, even though I feel a strong sense of ownership (literally and figuratively).


There are some times it bothers me more than others, though, and today was one of those days. Hence the post.


BTW, I'm not trying to be high-and-mighty here because I can lose my cool as well or simply make a bad assumption that leads me down a dark path. But today is one of those days where I reaffirm a promise to myself to try and be nice, even when others aren't providing the same courtesy.


My dad used to say this (not sure where he heard it): "I choose to treat any man as a gentleman, not because he is one but because I am one."

I always try to keep that in mind.

Kudos to you, Sir . . . and to your Dad.
(For Real: No kidding, no joke, no sarcasm, no snark.)

And thanks--from a Newbie--for the light-handed reminders that "this" is YOUR house.

Since you asked: I think "the anger on the Internet" is simply a means of venting in response to a lack of justice, kindness and common sense in the real world.

One of the main problem is the anonymity. With only a nickname/username, it tend to bring out the worse in people. Also, people tend to get carried away so easily that its considered the norm these days on the Internet. What I can say is that when people diss each other online, its rarely that way in person. Hell, people could diss each other on here without being aware that they are friendly to each other in person and/or know each other through friendship or family member. Its just that people feel safer to speak their mind online, but there is a line that tend to be broken, which is the respect for each other.

Some people have different methods for releasing whatever they want. Most prefer the Internet as to not burden their family and friends. As Pete said recently, some people do use OKCTalk (in proper location) for support system...to vent...rant...etc...within acceptable guidelines. Its impossible to avoid people slamming each other when the best course of action is to remain silent if nothing good/supportive can be said. The Internet...discussion forums...chats...all are powerful tools and lifesaver to many people. Sadly, there are those that just do not understand and enjoy bashing people...but, the main focus is to provide education for those sort of people such as telling them to respect people the way they want to be respected.

Yes, the anonymity makes it easy to vent but why people feel the need is the bigger question. What is everybody so angry about in the first place?


I've toyed with the idea of having everyone here post under their real names but I know that would be death for the forum.

Well...everyone is angry at the world. Its just that phase and can only be changed, which I believe, when we finally get into serious space exploration with the world becoming united rather than split country by country.

Requiring us to use our real name is a huge NO-NO, because it takes away our identity protection. It may prevent bad behaviors, but it can pose a serious security/identity risk. Like what Facebook is doing is a huge NO-NO, because they failed to follow what MySpace did...keep our anonymity. There was a recent protest against Google+ for enforcing us to use real name that was too much the same as Facebook.

First name will be fine, I guess, but last name....hell no. I just do not want to risk it. That doesn't mean that I'm hidden or anything like that since people know me and know where to find me, etc, but I just don't want it publicly out there for the thousands of people that I do not know.

I would have no problem posting under my real name since my user name is is so close to it anyway. A lot of news sites' comments sections now require users to post under a facebook account. If you have a social network account you have far less privacy than you think. Whats so different about your profile on Facebook vs having a profile on OKCTalk?

As far as the anger, well unfortunately we live in an increasingly angry society. And an anonymous internet forum will be the first place to feel it given the fact that so many avenues for outward emotional expression in our society are very repressed nowadays. But I'll spare you all of my ramblings. Even in very friendly Oklahoma, people are just in a natural pissy mood. Maybe its the economy, the poor job market that has caused people to be stressed at work, the hideous weather as of late burning people out.

Part of it is also the fact that society in general has become a lot less personal. We don't call anyone to see how they are, we just shoot a text message saying "R U Ok". We don't meetup with friends we sit and have AIM or Facebook chat. Sorry, but even someone who is fairly young I can tell you its not the same thing. The is something emotionally numbing about trying to express yourself through a computer. Its shocking at my job how many so called professionals I deal with will send my emails IN ALL CAPS with lots of EXCLAMATION POINTS!!!! not knowing this is the same as yelling and very rude IMO. Perhaps in this increasingly unpersonal world where true relationships are becoming less and less common its no longer a big deal to fire off a message on an internet forum telling someone to go to hell for favoring the wrong Corn Dog batter. Its really sad, and I don't see it getting any better.

On the upside, I participate in several internet forums (OKC Talk, City-Data, Camaro 5, Sooner Fans, plus some other news sites), and OKC Talk is pretty mild. This is a great site and it does indeed have a lot of passionate people. Yes some can get a little ahead of themselves, but its nothing a sternly worded PM can't fix. I just want to say that this site is a valuable asset to the community, and I would hope a few screamers in the balcony aren't going to derail it anytime soon.

I've operated several message boards over the years, worked in customer service industries, and all around have been exposed to the public. There has been a tremendous shift over the like 3-4 years where people have become just downright hateful online or over the phone. It seems people, when they know they don't have to face the person in real life, will say whatever they want because there are no repercussions for such behavior. Whether in a customer service capacity where my employees would be dealing with the public and get absolutely torn apart over the phone, or on a message board...it is just a sad state we are in.

As much of a techno geek that I am, I have to blame technology. I remember just a few years ago I would talk to all of my friends at least once on the phone, or in person, per week. Now? A random text message or facebook post and that is it. There has been a complete shift where patience is gone and people want immediate responses or results - without having to speak or see someone. The dawn of the current social media has been the tool for the population to turn into zombies that are becoming more incompetent to communicate in an in person social setting. It is also allowing people to express themselves, right or wrong, in ways that they feel will have no consequences (i.e. politicians). Also look at all the newspaper or TV station websites and the comments left. People don't care what they say even if it is racist, hateful, vulgar, etc. What is going to happen to them? Nothing 99% of the time.

I can appreciate the frustration from owning a message board on how to drive the community to be less hateful or just plain out rude. I've been part of forums where real names are required (and they do verification). Not even then do the trolls stay away. People let their egos and carelessness take control and they express themselves in all their ugliness. I have started to see a trend where more forums are restricting new posters from their posting ability and also even requiring some to mention references (of existing forum members) in order to be cleared to join. I just feel that we are in a state right now where, as a forum manager, the abilities to ensure a clean/safe/cordial environment is just too limited. We have a choice of either dealing with it, posting our disapproval, or banning the person. Then we run into the issue of people claiming we are censoring.

Overmoderation is always a risk, but sometimes it is needed to get things under control - if it is widespread. Some of the main forums I participate in, but don't manage, have extensive moderation staffing. Airlines.net is a great example. They have probably 24-30 moderators and if you get the least bit out of line, they delete the post and action your account with a warning. To me, that is a bit overkill as you don't have any recourse if you are pegged and anything you've contributed (even if the violation was just two words out of a long post) is gone for good. Then let's look at Stormtrack.org. They are a site that has had its ups and downs and also required real names to be used by everyone. Sometimes things get a bit pissy, but the mods step in and diffuse the situations rather quickly. Here, it has been a much more laid back moderation style, but I've definitely seen Pete & Mmm step it up (granted I have a feeling more people are using the report post feature than before). The vast majority of the forum is great with little issue, but we have our hot spots.

Is there any way to make an internet forum anger free again? No. As moderators we each take ownership of the sites under our watch and do what we feel is best. I've had my moments where I have gotten a bit pissy in the past, as we all have, so I need to hold myself accountable for those posts. I think though that some ignore that duty of accountability and just post whatever they want with reckless regard, and those are the people that truly ruin it for the rest of us. Majority of us can have a heated debate and still like or are respectful to each other at the end of the day. However, we will always have the trolls that are just here to get under people's skin and provide absolutely no value to the site as a whole. We know who those people are and have the ignore (and report post) feature to deal with them.

I've been very surprised that Pete has decided to keep the Politics section as it is. For those of us that have been here awhile remember the more rambunctious off topic area where things got very heated and hateful. It got deleted and things calmed down. The politics section sort of took over as that area of the forum where people feel they can behave without worry of who they impact by the words they type. We all remember how ugly it got around here in 2008 and I have a fear it is going to be even worse next year. This is just a smaller look at the issue with the country as a whole though, so it isn't shocking. How Pete decides to handle it is completely up to him. I just hope that those whom choose to participate here spend some more time thinking about the jokes, "news" stories, or other rhetoric they post and figure out how much value it really provides to the OKCTalk community and who it impacts. Are people posting things just to get a reaction or are they wanting to start an thoughtful discussion to exchange ideas.

There also has to be some consideration made for evaluating "are we giving trolls the resources to behave as they do?" Could moderation be stronger? It is a hard balance, and one I struggle with daily. Do certain areas incite or assist with this behavior? Possibly. I've seen many forums that had off topic areas completely remove them due to the trolls and anger taking over. The biggest thing though, how can we as a community assist in improving things? This one really shouldn't be hard. If we want our community (OKCTalk or other forums) to improve we need to empowering those that spread anger and utilize ignore, report post, or just outright disregard any comments they make on threads. Does that mean we don't participate? Not at all. Just means some threads are going to have 80% of the posts with the message "so and so is on your ignore list" when trying to view posts. If you haven't tried it yet, please do so. It helps. And when we stop giving attention to those that must act like 15 year olds (I'm probably being disrespectful to most 15 year olds right now), ideally they will give up and go find a new forum to troll. We've seen them come and go here. Yes they get replaced by a new crop every few months, but they will eventually leave too. Some of us have been here for years...it is our responsibility to help ensure things are welcoming to new people looking for a legitimate place to discuss common interests and hopefully keep those that are just here to be negative or toot their own agenda away.

Okay book done. Sorry. LOL

Some of the problem is anonymity, but its not just that. Sure, you get the guy who spouts off and causes problems because he's a jerk and the worst that could realistically happen is he gets banned. That's not going to be everyone, though. Or even most people.

I think the anger on the internet has more to do with three things:

1) The lack of clear communication. We are trained to communicate not just with words but also with body language and the tone of our voice. A sentence can carry a whole different meaning when accompanied by a different tone or with different body language. You can tell if someone is serious or joking. If they're angry, or happy, or apathetic. Without the additional layers of communication from "real life" interactions, I think people tend to assume the worst about what is being said. They read condescension into a post where it wasn't intended. Or anger. Or whatever. They take offense at what they assume must have been intended by the poster when that's not the case at all.

2) The anonymity of the OTHER guy. I think when the above happens people react more harshly than they normally would not because nobody knows who they are, but because they don't know who the other guy is. All you see on a message board is a username and maybe an avatar that is rarely a photo of the actual poster. For a lot of people, I think, its hard to register a username as a real person even when they logically know there is person behind a keyboard there. Since its "not a real person" they put less thought into whether what they say will cause offense.

3) The political environment. This is the media, government, anything involved with politics is contributing to it. Although "less vs. right" is nothing new and political figures have always tried to paint their opponents as failures and heathens, but there's a difference between a campaign speech or poster and day to day discourse. Lately the common belief seems to be that if someone doesn't agree with you they must hate and be actively planning to destroy everything you love and believe in. And you absolutely have to 100% agree with everything your side does or you, indeed, are also an enemy. There can be no intelligent discussion because each side automatically assumes the other side must not be intelligent or they wouldn't be on the other side. The object of a "debate" is not to convince the other guy you're right, but to absolutely destroy his credibility and self-respect. Even if a discussion somehow starts out as fair and open-minded, it very quickly devolves into a verbal monkey fight where feces is the weapon of choice. This mindset seems to be spreading to other, non-political topics as well unfortunately.

Those are my thoughts on it, anyway.

We could have it both ways, if Pete can somehow integrate a feature to do so. Like for posting on the forum, display the nickname/username, and have the real name (either opted to be viewable to the public or Mods only) on the profile portion. I think that will be the best solution, that way its up to the people to display on their profile for their real name to be shown to the public or Mods only, that way the Mods can easily contact law enforcement to locate the person.

I've been around the 'net since it's inception and have ran a bunch of different forums and participated in many more, but the anger and hostility that is often the norm can still shock me on occasion.

Even here -- where everyone either lives in or comes from Oklahoma, a place famous for friendliness -- the most innocuous threads tend to take an angry and even acrimonious turn. Someone could post about their favorite corn dog and by the second page of discussion, we'll be calling each other idiots for preferring thick batter to the thinner variety or some other trivial point of disagreement.

I just don't get it. I also don't expect to change it and therefore have to accept it here, even though I feel a strong sense of ownership (literally and figuratively).


There are some times it bothers me more than others, though, and today was one of those days. Hence the post.


BTW, I'm not trying to be high-and-mighty here because I can lose my cool as well or simply make a bad assumption that leads me down a dark path. But today is one of those days where I reaffirm a promise to myself to try and be nice, even when others aren't providing the same courtesy.


My dad used to say this (not sure where he heard it): "I choose to treat any man as a gentleman, not because he is one but because I am one."

I always try to keep that in mind.


I think it's because people are fed up with the game not being fair. The lies from the current administration & our representatives are pushing people to the tipping point of their patience. Even this forum is a crooked game. It's run to give an edge to the Lefties. I stopped posting in the politics section just because of the way the Lefties got a pass where the Conservitives were called for any infraction. My advice is if you want a civil forum, treat all the players equally. BTW, thanks for asking.

I was given the advice that if you want a pleasant dinner, never discuss politics or religion at the table. I suppose it's the same way for a forum. Strongly-held beliefs bring out the best and the worst in people.

Perhaps the tone of hostility some people freely give isn't really based outside circumstances. Perhaps the lack of civil dialog isn't due to politics, economics or family strife. The reality is unless the heart is content (which comes by wisdom and the ability to be emotionally healthy) then everything looks bleak.

Jesus Christ expressed it well, "from the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks".

The truth is all of the hateful and mean spirited dialog is simply revealing the condition of someones heart.

People get tired of the BS spewed by others and eventually call them out. Then the person spewing the BS gets upset because they usually aren't called out. All this is done in a forum because it's usually the only time certain people will interact with certain people. Think about it. A person will gravitate, or hang with, people he wants to hang out with. I'll say it............ there are many people on this forum I would NEVER want to meet and hang with, and therefore I would never have the opportunity to call them out in person. And I'm sure the feeling is mutual. No hard feelings, it's just how we humans are. Also, some people take these forums wayyyyyyy too seriously. Especially the one's who take themselves too seriously.

What I've seen is people who can't tell the difference between sharing a difference of opinion and a personal attack. And it seems the same people feel justified in "attacking back" as soon as someone disagrees with them. There are a few posters who spend most of their time - some nearly all of it - apparently looking through the posts and turning the whole thing ugly by focusing on personalities and hijacking the topic being discussed. I am not saying I am perfect or that I haven't done the same but I honestly try to be fair and not get into that. There are plenty of folks who have overlooked my lapses and whose occasional pissiniess I've overlooked, myself. To me, that is a healthy message board. There are some who can't forgive, can't forget, can't move on and seem to think attack, attack, attack is the purpose of the board.

I give a lot of weight to anonymity and separation of sensory input. Anonymity is a enabler and many feel there will never be actual repercussions for their written word or actions (I also see this daily on S. Robinson). I also think we don't realize the weight sensory input has on our actions. When you are face-to-face with someone you take in their size, demeanor, perceived social status, geographic location, and tone (happy, sad, nervous, joking, etc.), just to name a few. Even when people use their real names or have been identified, there is still a significant physical separation that reminds them the chances of actually ever running into an individual here and recognizing them (or being recognized) remote. I think the lack of these elements can cause tunnel vision and the societal norms that cause one to bite their tongue are often out the window.

This is one reason I post under my real name. I can be as sarcastic hot head, but I know I'll always own my words.

Another reality that some find good and others bad, is that a forum often gives each individual equal standing. For the most part we have no idea who is rich, who is poor, who is educated, or who is a complete buffoon we'd never give the time of day to (or at least any credibility) in a face-to-face meeting.

I also truly believe that some people who turn to the Internet are already lacking social skills.

Lastly, many people go to forums with an agenda or a bias they look to promote.

Lots of very good thoughts, so far, on how and why people express anger--in forums like this--yet not too much on why there is so much anger that needs to be expressed.
Please note that I didn't say that there was nothing said about the why? . . . Just not a lot.

I'm not sure that requiring posting under our real names would address that question either . . .
It would probably only modify how that anger is expressed.

The term "Metacognition" comes to mind: (Short version) "Why we think what we think."
For example: "Why do I feel so much anger [about this or that] . . ."
And, trust me: I ask myself that question a lot. =)

I think that the reason people get angry and abusive on the internet is the same reason kids throw temper tantrums in Wal Mart. It's because they can. I belong to forums with very strict rules about behavior, as well as forums with very loose rules. The strict forums are far more active and civilized.

I think it's because people are fed up with the game not being fair. The lies from the current administration & our representatives are pushing people to the tipping point of their patience. Even this forum is a crooked game. It's run to give an edge to the Lefties. I stopped posting in the politics section just because of the way the Lefties got a pass where the Conservitives were called for any infraction. My advice is if you want a civil forum, treat all the players equally. BTW, thanks for asking.

Can't agree with this point at all. Just looking through the Politics section and there are many topics, the majority of them, that are right slanted and they tend to get very insulting. However, the behavior does exist on both sides...but no, I would never considering their forum "crooked" though.


I was given the advice that if you want a pleasant dinner, never discuss politics or religion at the table. I suppose it's the same way for a forum. Strongly-held beliefs bring out the best and the worst in people.

Completely agree 100%.


People get tired of the BS spewed by others and eventually call them out. Then the person spewing the BS gets upset because they usually aren't called out.

It is a terrible cycle we get stuck in. Sometimes we do get baited into the trap set by others and lose decorum.


What I've seen is people who can't tell the difference between sharing a difference of opinion and a personal attack. And it seems the same people feel justified in "attacking back" as soon as someone disagrees with them. There are a few posters who spend most of their time - some nearly all of it - apparently looking through the posts and turning the whole thing ugly by focusing on personalities and hijacking the topic being discussed. I am not saying I am perfect or that I haven't done the same but I honestly try to be fair and not get into that. There are plenty of folks who have overlooked my lapses and whose occasional pissiniess I've overlooked, myself. To me, that is a healthy message board. There are some who can't forgive, can't forget, can't move on and seem to think attack, attack, attack is the purpose of the board.

I like this point because I feel the same. PQ there are times where I completely agree with what you say, and other times where I think you are battier than the crazy cat lady. LOL But I'm sure that is mutual. ;-)



I think that the reason people get angry and abusive on the internet is the same reason kids throw temper tantrums in Wal Mart. It's because they can. I belong to forums with very strict rules about behavior, as well as forums with very loose rules. The strict forums are far more active and civilized.

Agree with this too. If things did get strict here, we'd probably lose 4-10 people...people who normally only contribute to the political area...and the rest of us would be opened to a much more inviting atmosphere.

My advice is if you want a civil forum, treat all the players equally

I really don't want to turn this into a thread about how this board is moderated but I wanted to point out that any intervention at all is almost always seen as an affront to someone's personal belief system. Simultaneously, we are criticized for being biased to both ends of the political/religious spectrum. I am strongly considering doing away with the politics forum as it's a breeding ground for hostility which often bleeds into the other forums.


Back to the original topic, the point has been made a few times about how message boards bring together groups of people who would normally not interact, at least on the level we get into here. For example, I have friends and relatives that think all the MAPS projects are silly and unnecessary and I certainly don't engage in dialog with them on the subject. But when you are passionate about something and someone posts what you consider a very contrary and ill-informed view, for some reason it's much harder to ignore. Perhaps because you are already part of the dialog but also because that idea is put out there in writing for others to see and it's hard to let it go. A spoken opinion usually just falls flat if it's not engaged and even then, who cares what a few people think?

Another example I can think of is one of my very good friends that lives in OKC and is very accomplished and well-educated, but will say things like, "They just need to tear all those old buildings down and start over". I just ignore such comments because I know he doesn't really know much about such things and isn't in any position to influence decisions. Also, his point of view is so far from mine that I know it's pointless to try to convince him otherwise. But if that was posted on the forum, it would be very hard to let it pass without responding.

So, the 'net brings together people that would 1) normally not interact at all and 2) certainly not engage in active debate.


Also, due to the anonymity of everyone else, I think it's human nature to assume the person you are debating with is much like you. But of course, that person could be 10 years old, disabled, emotionally disturbed, 90 years old or even be posting from Serbia. Heck, we often don't even know the gender of the other person.


I suppose everyone has some inherent anger and frustration and all these factors tend to bring it out -- without any repercussions.

I am strongly considering doing away with the politics forum as it's a breeding ground for hostility which often bleeds into the other forums.

I'm in favor of it and if you do, it would prove that YOU have no agenda here.

I just think, as others have said, there's a lot of anger in the world and message boards are a way of releasing it. I'm sure the anonymity of most people makes it easier and I seriously doubt people would say the things they do if it was a face to face encounter, myself included. Most of the news we see now days is of war, crime, death, massacres, our politicians acting like jackasses so it's no wonder society had become this way. It's sad to say but I don't see it getting any better but I can change how I react to people and that's a start.

I'm in favor of it and if you do, it would prove that YOU have no agenda here.

How would it prove that? the politics forum is open to both sides and I rarely see Pete or mmm take any sides and only step in if it gets too nasty or personal.

I don't participate in the political forums hardly at all - because I know how heated the threads can be and there often is no 'right' or 'wrong' - but I really feel political forums are a necessity and unavoidable on general topic forums such as this.

"On the Internet, no-one knows you're a dog." - Anon.

Pete, I'd favor a registration format where a poster's name could be displayed or kept anonymous, and readers could select [Show all posts] or [Show only posts with verified names]. It sounds as simple as having two check boxes, but I'm sure that it's far more compliacated than that.

Anonymity - for the small-minded - propagates abusive behavior at its worst, boorish behavior at best. But for others, it allows inside information to be shared without "outing" the source. I've certainly done the latter here, and I confess to too much of the former. If you'd change the forum, I'd post using my real name unless anonymity dictates keeping my identity hidden.

I read two newspapers every day: The WSJ and the DO. Each has very different "comment" policies: The WSJ allows posts, but requires that real names be used. The DO prohibits comments on many stories, I suspect because of the bitterness and snarkiness. I've suggested that they adopt a policy more in line with the WSJ.

And Pete - thanks for asking!

This thread angers me........................LOL

Because people who participate in online forums have different ideas about what language is acceptable or threatening or rude. People on the net tend to flip out over descriptive words that I would use among my closest friends without a second thought.

Also because it's easy to be mean to someone if you cant see the pain you are causing.

Also because the people who participate in forums are not friends. They are not people who would necessarily get along no matter where they were. I can guarantee that while I would be cordial with many of the people on this board there are only 3-4 that I could even carry on an interesting conversation with. We don't all belong together, and we're all here for different reasons. That's bound to create some awkward conversations at best.

What is everybody so angry about in the first place?

People who demonize and advocate for the destruction of our way of life.

I think using verified FB profiles like many sites are doing would be a great way to calm things down.

If this were my forum and my primary interest was development (as it seems to be,) I'd kill the politics section. The only other way to keep it and make it less volatile and ugly is to be much more heavy handed than I think you want to be.

One benefit of the poli forum -

for those that choose to cross swords, whether frequently or on rare occasion, maybe ol' W was on to something after all. Maybe it is better for the fight to occur over there in its own little sandbox than for the fight to spill out on the local streets, so to speak.

Like Pete, I've been on line since before the Internet existed. For 15 years I ran a forum on CompuServe, which was ostensibly a technical area but which developed into a true community that we regulars called "The Pub" because the atmosphere was that of an old English public house. No subject was off limits, and my moderation was extremely light. The only inflexible rule was that one could disagree with any idea expressed, but could not engage in ad hominem attacks.

After CompuServe morphed into a tightly managed offshoot of AOL, The Pub temporarily went out of existence, only to re-emerge as a newsgroup hosted on a private commercial server, paid for by a couple of its most enthusiastic members. It still operates under the same rules although I no longer manage it and, in fact, have become only a part-time member there. The current manager is a Pole who migrated to this country during the height of the Cold War, and he feels even more strongly than I did about allowing any and all opinions to be expressed, having come of age in a place where doing so was impossible.

The thing that kept both Pub I and Pub II civilized is that each and every one of the regular members acted as unofficial moderators. As the sysop of Pub I, I almost never had to admonish anyone to behave. The regulars did that on their own, and anyone who ignored their rebukes simply found himself shunned. Being totally ignored rapidly caused most agitators to seek another place to spend their time and venom.

I have no idea whether that would work today; our national culture has changed drastically in the last 20 years or so, and the increased polarization may be the root cause of the present problem. The current "them against us" mentality and "if you're not with us, you're against us" attitude seems to rapidly be approaching a tipping point that, if reached, can cause the entire edifice to come crashing down about our ears -- and in a frighteningly short time. If that happens, it won't matter a bit whether the final push came from the left or from the right; the result will be the same: disaster for all.

As one who was pretty ticked yesterday I will say that I was largely wrong. I'm big enough to admit that. Many things I've volunteered for in the past and both my and my wifes jobs seem to put us around a number of people who live to find ways to take advantage of the system. So hearing of someone I think is doing just that is a hot button for me. In this case it was only after Brian posted more of what he knows that I see that there is more going on with Thunder than I knew. So I'll take this opportunity to send my apologies to Thunder.

I have a huge tendency to say what I think, on forums or in person, (unless the person could be an NFL linebacker). For this reason I almost completely avoid politics and religion forums. Yesterday will make me think twice about what I say about any one person.

Unless you dis my Sooners. Then all bets are off. : )

It seems people, when they know they don't have to face the person in real life, will say whatever they want because there are no repercussions for such behavior. Whether in a customer service capacity where my employees would be dealing with the public and get absolutely torn apart over the phone, or on a message board...it is just a sad state we are in.

I don't disagree with this however it really does not go far enough. For way too many folks civility is DEAD in any and all interactions. I have seen customers become absolutely apoplectic at clerks and employees at business when they are face to face. There are certain groups of people who have developed the "entitlement" atitude.

Tell people to get off their cell phone, talk quieter, and you will surely get an earful. I have sadly witnessed folks who thnk employees are punching bags and take their shot. It is interesting that when I talk to friends and describe a particular behavior they are able to describe the individual and are freqently very accurate about the individual based solely upon a description of the behavior.

As one who was pretty ticked yesterday I will say that I was largely wrong. I'm big enough to admit that. Many things I've volunteered for in the past and both my and my wifes jobs seem to put us around a number of people who live to find ways to take advantage of the system. So hearing of someone I think is doing just that is a hot button for me. In this case it was only after Brian posted more of what he knows that I see that there is more going on with Thunder than I knew. So I'll take this opportunity to send my apologies to Thunder.

I have a huge tendency to say what I think, on forums or in person, (unless the person could be an NFL linebacker). For this reason I almost completely avoid politics and religion forums. Yesterday will make me think twice about what I say about any one person.

Unless you dis my Sooners. Then all bets are off. : )

I too was pretty hard on the Lad and I also apologize. But I'll still comment if makes silly posts *lol*

Regarding Thunder, he wrote me (unsolicited) and asked that that thread remain open, despite the criticism he had received early on. I don't think he took anything too badly and even understood why some people would be critical. So, I hope no one is being too hard on themselves.

And clearly, there has to be limits in terms of just plain silly posts, and he and I have talked about that. Also, anyone that posts here opens themselves up and that comes with the territory.


But it does go to show how we all make assumptions, and they can often be way off base. I've made that mistake several times myself and it's one of the reasons I try to remember to always be nice and count my many blessings.

This is a great question. I think forums like OKCTalk have a particular problem because they have no real narrow interest that binds us. This is a case where diversity is certainly not a strength. I don't mean racial diversity, but diverse lives in so many ways. It makes it hard to relate to one another. Think about it: We have posters here with PhDs conversing about serious topics with people of little education and a completely different worldview (and everyone in between). That doesn't make one "better" than the other, but the various backgrounds, levels of education, etc. is obviously a cause for many troubles here at this forum - and any forum that invites everyone (our only common interest being we're interested in the same city). It's the same problem with newspaper comment sections - too much diversity in the lives of those posting. Clashes are just going to happen.

For example, threads that have to do with reality TV can go for pages simply discussing the plot and who likes who and why, while much of the serious discussion is nipped in the bud due, in large part, by some posters not understanding the more nuanced subject matter. It degrades into simple name-calling. This is clearly a difference in the class structure, educational levels, etc. Throw it all in the pot and you have so many people with completely different perspectives and little tolerance for the other. In some ways, this is just like the 'real world' where seldom you would find educated people 'hanging out' with people who don't know "seen" from "saw" and an obvious limited education. This is just a natural separation of people into those of like mind. In this light, the forum here just shadows the 'real world.'

Good reading: The Shallows and Hamlet's Blackberry. Both touch on similar themes.

Taking away the Politics section is not a proper course of action...I believe. We just need more strict Moderators (nominates Venture). What happened to Karried? Is she still alive? If so, I find it very hard to believe that she left us. How about Pete and Triple M set up a thread to have people discuss and nominate people for Moderators and then set up a polling system. Top 2 or 3 voted should go through the processes with Pete and Triple M on the guidelines. The more presence and strength of Moderators, the greatly it will help to curve unwanted personal attacks.

Also, I propose that rather than deleting posts generally, provide another option for Moderators to edit posts to where they can take out a portion of offensive statements/words with the notes on record in the Edit By field. That way the Moderators can consider deleting a post or simply to edit. Another option, rather than deleting an entire post (if that need to be done) is to do a complete edit do-over with a statement saying the post was removed to serve as a reminder to others that certain actions will not be tolerated. This also helps other Moderators knowing who and when something was done.

As mods go.............. anytime you give an individual alot of leeway (for whatever reason) over everyone else, it is not going to be fair. I've had my fair share of posts deleted. Some warrented, many not. One thing I've never understood. When a poster posts endlessly about his personal life on a forum, he needs not get upset when he gets answers he doesn't want to hear. There are many examples of that on this forum.

As mods go.............. anytime you give an individual alot of leeway (for whatever reason) over everyone else, it is not going to be fair. I've had my fair share of posts deleted. Some warrented, many not. One thing I've never understood. When a poster posts endlessly about his personal life on a forum, he needs not get upset when he gets answers he doesn't want to hear. There are many examples of that on this forum.

Posting about personal stuff is not attacking others. I haven't been upset with your behavior and never once reported you. I simply ignored most of your posts...hell I even confronted you in PM asking what was your problem with me, but you were afraid to engage in civilized discussion with me privately. I don't come on here to attack people.

Alright guys, we are way off topic here.

AND this was not meant to discuss board moderation issues. As always, PM me directly with those concerns.

Perhaps the tone of hostility some people freely give isn't really based outside circumstances. Perhaps the lack of civil dialog isn't due to politics, economics or family strife. The reality is unless the heart is content (which comes by wisdom and the ability to be emotionally healthy) then everything looks bleak.

Jesus Christ expressed it well, "from the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks".

The truth is all of the hateful and mean spirited dialog is simply revealing the condition of someones heart.

This^ is a great post and is basically how I feel.
The one rule I try very hard to follow for my self is to never say anything that I wouldn’t say to someone’s face.

I agree it's too easy to blame outside influences for your own demeanor, words and actions. Life is generally way easier now than it has ever been.

It's like when a couple of celebrities went on racial tirades then blamed it on being drunk or under stress. Those things might lower your guard and filters but if they didn't already have those thoughts, they wouldn't be there to come out.

I kind of feel that way about the Internet... Yes, it makes it easy to be impatient and rude and hostile but you'd have to have those feelings before they could ever come out here or elsewhere. We all have them to some degree but the times I've found myself being crappy on-line, I've tried to stop, take a break and evaluate where that hostility was coming from. It has to come from somewhere inside, regardless of stimulus or medium.

If I start getting too grumpy on the forums, I'm blaming the heat. Just letting you all know in advance.

I think we have a good handle on where the anger comes from. No accountability. No repercussions. I would also put in No Common Sense.

There are times where I've typed an emotionally charged book on here, but only to close the browser window and not post it. Sometimes it is just better to ignore people/comments and move on or type out your rant and then walk away and re-type it after reviewing.

There are times where I've typed an emotionally charged book on here, but only to close the browser window and not post it. Sometimes it is just better to ignore people/comments and move on or type out your rant and then walk away and re-type it after reviewing.

That is what I do, but I don't close the browser completely. I'd type whatever out then leave the page without posting. It does help typing it out...its a way of venting/ranting...then when all is done, just navigate away from the page without posting.

I'm surprised that I do not see mass anger directed at Venture for this heat wave. :-P

Yes, many Oklahomans do become angry at our weather men (and women) blaming them for the nonstop deadly heat. I wonder how many complaints the weather department for KFOR, KOCO, and KWTV receive daily now. Some people believe the meteorologists are jinxing the weather as in the weather coming true whatever they forecast the days to be. If they would just forecast storms/rain, weather should come true. lol

I try to be nice to everyone. Even those that I disagree with. I'm not ever going to cuss anyone out. You have your opinions and I have mine. I will read what you post and have an open enough mind that I might learn from you. Life is too short to fight and argue about things. I mostly post random things that I feel might be of interest to everyone. If you like what I post, please read it. If you don't, just move on to something else.

I try to be nice to everyone. Even those that I disagree with. I'm not ever going to cuss anyone out. You have your opinions and I have mine. I will read what you post and have an open enough mind that I might learn from you. Life is too short to fight and argue about things. I mostly post random things that I feel might be of interest to everyone. If you like what I post, please read it. If you don't, just move on to something else.

Very well said. It's the way I view this forum as well.

My dad used to say this (not sure where he heard it): "I choose to treat any man as a gentleman, not because he is one but because I am one."

I always try to keep that in mind.

Excellent!

As to the root of the anger, it no doubt varies from person to person, and the psychology books are full of plenty of theories as to how people handle their anger. That being said, though, it seems often to be a deep-seated sense of powerlessness and/or lack of control over situations which are actually quite out of a person's control that cause people to lash out at others. If I say something rude, unkind, etc., to anyone, it could be because I realize that "I" am basically a powerless person who can't affect anything or anyone...yet, via the Internet, I feel as if I might be able say something that might make someone notice me--even if it is in a negative way. At least then I become "someone" rather than a "no one." For most people, I think comments made are "put out there" w/o the conscious understanding of their own motivations; for others, it is a calculated, deliberate attempt to shout, "Look at me. Here I am. Notice me."

Face-to-face interaction does add the dimensions of body language and voice inflection; stark words on a page, typed in a hurry, don't allow those luxuries.

Good topic, Pete. Thank you. Lots of thought-provoking comments here.

Anonymity is a part of why I believe we are having these issues. I don't like aliases online. Not only does it enable odd behavior, but it makes it hard to focus on who I am talking to and try to talk to them, not simply toward them.

Sid, I understand your point and, for those who are comfortable using their real names in forums, that's fine. Keep in mind, however, that it can open up the possibilities for internet stalkers or worse. That has happened in the past with serious consequences and has to be a concern for some.

I wish I had anonymity.

I wish I had anonymity.

So what is your thought on the question that is being discussed in this thread?

Getting back to the idea of abolishing the politics section, I would suggest that instead of totally abolishing it that we restrict it to local and state issues and people and do away with the national stuff since that is where it gets nasty and often utterly irrelevant. I can't imagine not being able to discuss local political issues on a site that deals with local issues. Just my thoughts.

This is an interesting thread.

Some years back when I had my own brush with psychotherapy my counselor, after a few sessions, told me I only had 2 emotions I was willing to express: anger and joy and mostly it was the former. Initially I was not a very good patient.

But over time I came to learn that I actually did experience the full range of emotion and I learned there were better ways of dealing with them than expressing anger. In my case there was an awful lot of fear and self-doubt that I had to learn how to process.

Another thing I've noticed is the "win lose" mentality that seems to me to be so prevalent now. Regardless what it is there is this pervasive idea that there must be winners and losers. Covey calls it scarcity mentality and then goes on to advocate "Win Win" thinking. I've personally found great benefit in employing his abundance thinking.

Getting back to the idea of abolishing the politics section, I would suggest that instead of totally abolishing it that we restrict it to local and state issues and people and do away with the national stuff since that is where it gets nasty and often utterly irrelevant. I can't imagine not being able to discuss local political issues on a site that deals with local issues. Just my thoughts.

I wish that were true but I can't agree with you on the lack of nastiness on state and local issues. I can't even bring myself to read them most of the time due to the rage expressed against christian local politicians and the like. It is negative, even vicious. Some emotions are really raw when those topics come up.

Outrage expressed against Christian politicians?

This is why anger shows itself...

I can't even bring myself to read them most of the time due to the rage expressed against christian local politicians and the like.

Really? Can you name one local politician discussed on these boards, other than Sally Kern, in which religious beliefs are an issue?

Anonymity is a part of why I believe we are having these issues.

To me, it is about a mental resolve to just act and speak in a way that you want to be remembered forever by.





If one has the second the first shouldn't matter.

I too have been on the internet for a very long time, I will tell a tale of two people that I have interacted with both in real life and in the cyber world. The first is a cousin of mine that I have known and like very much in real life but his online persona really, really sucks. He's brash and hateful bordering on obnoxious but in person he is nothing like that. The second was another father of a kid on one of my son's youth sports teams. I didn't like the guy at all and for all I cared his feelings towards me were mutual. However after finding out he was a poster on another board I frequent, I was amazed to find out how much our philosophies were alike.

I wish that were true but I can't agree with you on the lack of nastiness on state and local issues. I can't even bring myself to read them most of the time due to the rage expressed against christian local politicians and the like. It is negative, even vicious. Some emotions are really raw when those topics come up.

Over all though, Penny, we spend a lot more time on national politics in that section and I think that most of it is nastier than the state and local stuff. And again, it seems silly to have a site to talk about OKC if we can't discuss the political issues that hit us close to home, even if it does get bitter at times. I sure would not mind closer monitoring of our behavior even though I know I have "gotten away with murder" at times and never been called for it. I used to hate seat belts until their use became manditory and now I would never go without them. I am changeable and would actually like to know that I and everyone else has to enter the discussion with a modicum of grace.

Really? Can you name one local politician discussed on these boards, other than Sally Kern, in which religious beliefs are an issue?

Have to agree here. Even though things may get critical of mayor and other local politicians, Kern appears to be the only one who takes the brunt of any attack. That is mainly due to her aggressive nature of pushing her, what many would call, radical viewpoints on the public. When things are said that the majority of the population considers to be so out in left field (well I guess right field in this case), the reaction she is going to get is going to be just as aggressive. I would expect nothing less though and we see it all the time when politicians come out and make comments about race, gender, orientation, and so on that strike a nerve with the general population because they are, in today's world, radical.

I think we are drifting back off topic a bit, but we are pointing out a really strong issue. Politics and Religion are two things that are always asked to stay out of the work place because they are the key topics that can start fights and discord. A person's religion is private and sacred to them, so it should remain in their private lives and not in public. The same could be said about Politics, but the discussion of policies in a civil manner are fine. The problem is, not everyone plays by those rules and the extreme elements - which we have several here on this forum - will always take an aggressive stance to push their agenda. Whether it is by out right shouting and disrespect, or by mild baiting using key phrases or sarcasm to draw people into - aka getting under people's skin.

This board use to have a Faith section and it was eventually dropped. Though that had more to do with the low interest in such topics. The Politics section though is the 2nd most use section on the forum, but I wouldn't hesitate to say that it is only used by around 15 to 20 posters out of over 1100 active posters. So in the end getting rid of the section isn't that big of a deal. For one it will relieve a lot of the resources Pete is paying for by cutting down on the server load and it will likely disperse several of the routine trouble makers on the site. Not a bad trade off.

However, on a forum meant to discuss OKC and the surrounding area, by not having a section to discuss local politics when it comes to matters such as MAPS and what not - that could be a problem. We should have an outlet to discuss local elections and such, and without the threat of being censored when discussing various political heads in the community.

I also frequent an international forum area called dslreports.com which has solved the "politics" problem in what I think is a unique fashion: they created not one but two sections, called "Red Room" and "Blue Room" and both have a unique access-permission setting. After posting in either area, a member is banned from posting in the other for 30 days.

It's not censorship, since the member can continue to post in the first area, but each posting re-starts the 30-day clock. This makes it impossible for a troll to rile things up in both rooms at the same time, but tends to discourage zealots of either flavor from posting in the other area to defend their passion.

Dunno whether it might work here, but it's at least a different idea, and probably better than doing away with all political talk. If the section is dropped, those who feel strongly will simply hijack other sections, and the intense moderation which that would make necessary would probably destroy most interest in the entire forum...

Have to agree here. Even though things may get critical of mayor and other local politicians, Kern appears to be the only one who takes the brunt of any attack.

The hysteria over Kern is enough to keep me away from most of the state and local threads. We could be talking about the price of an X-Box in 2005 and someone would start up on Kern and how horrible, bigoted, blah, blah, blah Oklahoma is. I'm not saying people shouldn't be allowed to voice their opinions but the ones who hate Kern just can't get off it long enough to have a rational discussion about anything she can be dragged into. There is absolutely no point in even trying to say anything because it just disolves into an hysterical hatefest. How many times can people say she is a horrible person who should burn in hell before they get it out of their system and let someone else talk? We haven't reached that point, yet.