Please counter-flag this wrongly flagged comment

Hi, this post has been wrongly given multiple flags as supposedly an abuse of the TOS which it's clearly not:

https://www.librarything.com/topic/333184#7537914

Please unflag the message.

>1 spiralsheep: attacked me in that message and another one further down with name calling. I do not find it at all 'humorous'.

>1 spiralsheep:

I do not consider that post wrongly flagged. You claim it was "humorous", but it was not It was snide and nasty, and definitely deserved the flags

I've become aware that some people seem to have some sort of personal problem with me but that doesn't alter the fact that the people who wrongly flagged my previous comment were violating the terms of service while my comment was not and should be unflagged.

I've literally been verbally abused on LT talk without anyone giving a single flag but now I'm being told obvious humour about MarthaJeanne self-identifying as a pedant is a TOS violation. Nonsense.

>2 MarthaJeanne: ">1 spiralsheep: spiralsheep: attacked me in that message and another one further down with name calling. I do not find it at all 'humorous'."

Please stop lying. I've never "attacked" anyone in the over twenty years I've been posting on the internet. Nor did I call you anything you don't self-describe as. You post as a pedant in the LT "pedant" group. What other self-descriptions are banned now because the self-describer suddenly chooses to find them "name-calling"? And it's obvious that not all people share the same sense of humour but abusive flagging of my comments is not a reasonable adult way to deal with personal differences in our senses of humour!

Again, I'm asking the reasonable members of this group who have read the TOS to unflag my humorous comment.

We're allowed to complain about what other members say, but not through personal attacks. To convince the flaggers your message should again be visible without readers having to click on the "show" link, the message will need to be rephrased. Obviously, more people think it's a personal attack (against the TOS) than people who think it's acceptable as-is.

You are not the person who gets to decide if a comment you made is flaggable or not.

>8 norabelle414: Asking for counter-flagging is one of the reasons this group exists, no?

The difficulty you run across here is that you are losing 90% of your communication with it being strictly text. So humor and sarcasm do not translate well, no matter how much you wish it to.

The comment doesn't not read as humorous nor sarcastic. It reads as a rude jibe at another user.

And as such, does qualify as a flaggable post.

>7 aspirit: So lilithcat's "snide" and "nasty" aren't "personal attacks" but my "pedant" to a self-described pedant is a "personal attack"? Disgusting bias.

>10 gilroy: I should expect to see you all flagging lilithcat's "nasty" and "snide" comments then?

>12 spiralsheep: If you refer to >3 lilithcat:, no, since she was referring to the post. You were referring to another member.

>9 spiralsheep: The purpose of this group is to bring attention to items that may or may not need to be flagged, and to provide context and intent for those items, because context and intent matter. It's not a place where people show up and demand that their items be unflagged (not successfully, anyway). The result of your posting here is that your comment now has more flags than it did before you posted here.

You might be more successful with something like "I'm sorry my post hurt anyone's feelings. That was not my intention." instead of insisting that everyone else has read your words wrong.

I don't think the post was humorous but the worst name she was called was a pendant. Is that really against the TOS?

>15 jjwilson61: I don't think it is-- I didn't flag the post-- but I also see how it would be seen as against the TOS, which is why I won't counter-flagged the post.

The thing is, a specific word doesn't matter as much as the implied meaning. Example: "You're a pretty storytelling" could be a straightforward compliment of storytelling ability, or it could be an insult that's calling the addressee a liar while making a subtle threat of sexual harassment. Another example is that just because someone idrntifies as "queer" doesn't mean their identity label can't be used to show aggression against them. Context matters.

spiralsheep, I completely understand why you'd be annoyed by certain responses, but I also believe you can express your annoyance in a way that people don't feel the need to flag. We are able to edit messages after posting. Maybe after waiting a bit, that's easier to do.

>15 jjwilson61:
Calling someone a pendant is a hanging offense... ;)

“Pointless nit-picking” is a negative judgement; there’s no humour involved. That’s before we get to whether someone’s self-identification as a pedant justifies the use of the vocative. Do not go down the dark and lonely path to Collectoratorville. Stick to the highway of positive reinforcement.

Smacks forehead

I haven't seen Collectorator in a while...thankfully...banned now??

>20 Bookmarque:

I believe she quit the site.

>15 jjwilson61: I found the post stalkerish - it's following the user between groups and using the information from one topic in another un-related thread in a negative manner. Whether it's technically against the TOS I'm not sure, but I too didn't find it sufficiently clear to un-flag the message.

>22 reading_fox: I'd really rather drop this but I can't let this bit of character assassination go. ss just pointed out that bug had been reported in another thread. It wasn't even mj who had reported the bug, so there is nothing stalkerish about it.

>21 lilithcat: According to timspalding’s post of January 7 of this year she was suspended. Post 241 on the thread “Collectorator: Explain your edit wars.”

>23 jjwilson61: Characters can be assassinated in bits? I learn something new every day.

I also noted that your... defensive argument(...?) disregarded all of the "O Pendantic One of the Pendant group" comments that might come off as more than a bit stalkerish.

Could we quit the drama, please. There's nothing stalkerish about knowing someone is a member of a public group. Nor is there any history of conflict. I struggle to think how a single occurrence of anything can constitute stalking, which by definition is repeated behavior. Frankly, calling someone a stalker on a whim is also a personal attack, so the next person to do it, I will flag their post as such. Thank you.

Yes. An LT stalker monitors the Helpers’ Log, waits for X to do something, and then undoes it, perhaps adding a snarky “Disambiguation Notice.” Adding an message to a thread, even an aggrieved message, is not “stalking,” which implies surreptitiously following someone’s trail. I guess one could look through every talk thread for a comment by X and respond with, say, “Your Folio Society collection is rubbish,” or something equally hurtful, but that is not what is going on here. If we can’t get our terms correct here on Library Thing, what’s the point, really?