I want to address the term “sealioning” and whether it is “real” or “manufactured”. As was pointed out earlier, the term came from a meme derived from a comic strip, the strip in question can be seen here: Wondermark by David Malki
The context of that comic was that it was created in the midst of the “GamerGate” controversy in 2014. Without getting into too many details as to what GamerGate involved (Google it if you are curious and unfamiliar), a tactic that was alleged in online debates on the topic was a form of harassment that involved frequent and unceasingly repeated demands from one person to another to provide evidence and answer questions. In the midst of this the harasser declares repeatedly that they are only trying to make sure the facts are clarified and when the target inevitably becomes hostile, the harasser claims that they have been polite and accuse the victim of rudeness.
The term “sealioning” was borrowed from that strip, as the behavior displayed by the sealion in the comic was identical to what was being observed in those online discussions. So it has been a term popularized over the past five years, and while clearly a neologism it seems to be an accepted part of internet slang.
When questioning the legitimacy of the term, recall that the term “spam” was a reference to a Monty Python sketch where the word “spam” was repeated over and over in a British diner. It too was a meme that came about as a way to describe observed online behavior. Even “trolling” is itself originally an online meme, though one of a less-certain etymology. These terms which were as “manufactured” as sealioning have become accepted enough to appear in reputable English dictionaries (Oxford, Merriam-Webster, etc.).
Altho the issue is important, I dropped out of the thread because of exactly what JC is saying. Of course, several people would take me dropping out if a plus, no doubt.
I thought that was one of the major purposes of this subforum: to offer opinions about the moderation whilst not actually being a moderator.
I do appreciate that the moderators know more about these things than I do, and will keep an open mind when they do or do not explain their actions. I also recognize that moderation does affect me, either directly or indirectly, so I do not feel ashamed for having an opinion.
I appreciate this response. It certainly seems bad faith to me, but I can see how you’re interpreting it, and won’t report anything that falls beneath this measure.
Given that, I’m not sure I see much moderatable sea-lioning in that thread. I still think the whole-group punishment is a very unwise idea, and the threat was unnecessary and overly aggressive, but will drop the sea-lioning complaint.
I’m going to weigh in here with my humble opinion, FWIW. In short, I respectfully disagree with the moderation on this, but I’d like to explain why.
I sometimes get the impression that it isn’t adequately recognized that the only value this board has – the ONLY value – comes from the contributions made by a sizeable minority of active posters who provide thoughtful commentary and information. From that standpoint, it seems to me that it’s counterproductive to threaten the entire community with officious school-marmish dictates like “I’m going to shut down this whole thread if you don’t behave” as if dealing with a roomful of unruly first-graders. After all, the only expectations we have of first-graders is for them to shut up and be nice and maybe try to learn something. But these posters are mostly intelligent adults, and they’re not just an important part of the board, they ARE the board, and their opinions its lifeblood and currency. The thread that might be unceremoniously shut down may be one in which they’ve invested a lot of time and intellectual energy. Such moderator dictates seem to imply a complete disregard for that investment or its fundamental value to the board. We deserve better than that, in my view.
The second thing I believe one should glean from the value of the community contributors is that whenever possible it’s more important to address the disrupters who are the root cause of problems than it is to sanction the posters who react to them. It’s pretty easy to moderate against users who may be superficially rude or use bad words, but a lot harder to address those who contrive to act within the letter of the rules yet are the underlying root cause of many of the disruptions, whether it’s sealioning, simple trolling, or any other kind of bad-faith posting by those who apparently don’t care about having a serious discussion.
I realize this is very hard to do while maintaining fairness to everyone. But I find it discouraging when it’s seemingly not even attempted, and what we get instead is a kind of hair-trigger over-reaction that threatens to sweep away the entirety of a valuable discussion simply as an easy way to deal with the bickering of a few.
And saying “just Pit those who you disagree with” doesn’t work with many of our Usual Suspects, as they refuse to engage there - thus escaping the only sanction the board members can exact against them. Not coincidentally, I assume.
A fair point, and I should withdraw that, and say instead “sanction those who argue only in bad faith”. That’s really what I meant, but I phrased it wrong. Mea culpa.
I just don’t agree with this concept. You shouldn’t have the expectation of sanctioning anyone. That’s the administration’s job, not yours.
Someone acting like a dipshit? Go to the Pit and call them out as a dipshit. Vent, rant, garner sympathy( or not ). That’s what the Pit is for. But no one owes you or should owe you their participation in their own roasting. I would frankly suggest that participating in a thread where you are being pitted is probably counter-productive much of the time and I’d generally recommend people not bother.
In fact I think I’ve made that exact suggestion in the past to people having sociability issues here on the board. Whining that no one loves you? Well, step number one is to stop digging a deeper hole in whatever Pit thread you’re wallowing in. Sit silent, take your most likely deserved lumps and move on. That would be pretty shitty advice if there was a cultural expectation that you had to respond to your pittings ;). IMHO such an expectation didn’t used to exist here and it shouldn’t now.
Frustrated the target of your ire won’t come by and get called shitty to their face? Tough luck. Vent and move on.
Heh. Remembering what my dear old Auntie once told me - paraphrased:
“If you’re sure you’re right, but a lot of people tell you you’re wrong, you should maybe rethink your position.”
…and it’s just a message board. The “winner” doesn’t gain Ultimate Power, the “loser” doesn’t get condemned to an eternity on the Small World Ride at Disney.
In fact, viewing it as anything more than an exchange of ideas is probably ludicrous, at the poster level. Those who argue in bad faith can be modded, and (hopefully) will be.
The “winner” doesn’t gain Ultimate Power, the “loser” doesn’t get condemned to an eternity on the Small World Ride at Disney.