Forum Entitlement

AJuliaNJ · May 2013

@ramonaflowers, I loved the video. That was me.

RamonaFlowers · May 2013

@andreajulia, I loved that you loved it

Dreamergirl8812 · May 2013

allychase said:

MuppetFan said:

"I don't like you" is definitely not a personal attack.

I'd like to believe this ... except there are people that totally get a bug up their butt about not being liked.

And thusfar, the Knot Gods have been anti "things that gets bugs up whiney beebee's butts" regardless of how stupid the "offense" is.
Good thing for you I really don't give a shit what you think of me, I have no idea who you are. My favorite is when people avoid good points others make and shoot right to "I don't like you wahhhh" mature award is yours tonight.
Apparently, I missed the "good points" you made?
See: what I said above about how acting like a child throwing temper tantrums and threatening to leave and TK will lose lots of money is ridiculous. When you're biased to immediately dislike a statement because of the person who it's coming from its easy to miss things.

It's not a temper tantrum, it's capitalism. Would you call someone a baby for voting against a politician they didn't like?

rajahmd · May 2013

FYI @StageManager14, I loved your most recent post. I'm so glad that at least some people understand the difference between a personality trait and a personality disorder.

My 2 cents on the subject matter: why bother asking our opinions on the forum if they aren't going to use them? It's perfectly acceptable for someone to get annoyed and frustrated when someone asks their opinion on something important to them, and then went and did the opposite. Imagine this scenario: I ask you your favorite flavor of cake because I want to bake you a birthday cake. You say chocolate. I decide instead, since So-and-So who will be at the party likes vanilla, I'm going to make the cake vanilla. That's frustrating and annoying like whoa.

Obviously that's an oversimplification of the situation, but it shows the emotions involved. The KG's have spent a lot of time over the past few months, and then spent ever more time ignoring our comments and doing the exact opposite. Take the Love it's for example. Everyone was loving them at the beginning. Then, all of sudden, they made them anonymous, when no one had complained about them on the board for all to see. To us, it seemed like a random change. When we then gave our opinions on the change, we found out that a few PM's were behind it. A poll then conducted has so far showed overwhelming support for public love it's. This is just an example of circumstances were the majority of users feel like they are being ignored while the few who can complain the most (usually in PM form) get what they want. It's ridiculous and bad for business.

As far as the argument that a few regs won't make a big difference, think about it this way: most ad revenue is based on clicks, not individual users. It stands to reason that regs are more likely to visit the site more often, visit more parts of the site (ie, more boards), and comment more. Each comment is another click. Look at some of the post counts for the main regs, and then imagine just how many clicks they have generated over the years. Even lurkers who don't post often but read the majority of posts are contributing quite a few clicks. Taking the theory a step further, if the regs that produce the most clicks leave, then that will drastically decrease the amount of traffic on the boards, even if the actual number of users leaving is low. Of course, we have no idea if the ad revenue on this site is purely clicks, purely individual IP addresses, or a combination, but it's something to keep in mind.

MuppetFan · May 2013

I can't find it. Didn't they say somewhere that they were going to check into the love its and get back to us?

I hope so. That made me feel good on Friday.

ETA: Is "search" not working for others too?

Peledreamsofrain · May 2013

MuppetFan said:

I can't find it. Didn't they say somewhere that they were going to check into the love its and get back to us?

I hope so. That made me feel good on Friday.

ETA: Is "search" not working for others too?

Yes, I think it was either Knot Porscha or Jackie that said she would pass along our poll results to the upper ups and see what they think of the data.

And Rachel, I loved your post too!

MuppetFan · May 2013

It's a good poll...

Hey we can't delete our posts anymore? Or could I only do that before bc I was a mod? This is going to get annoying with the duplications. My posts have been doing it all week. I see I'm not the only one.

MuppetFan · May 2013

dislike.

Peledreamsofrain · May 2013

MuppetFan said:

dislike.

Hmm... pretty sure that's the flag button now.

J&K10910 · May 2013

While there IS such a thing as passive-aggressive personality disorder, I have never, ever, not even ONCE seen it as an actual diagnosis given to someone. Passive-aggressive is most definitely also used to describe behaviors that are not necessarily a symptom of the personality disorder.

But really, referring to mental health disorders as "conditions" is just...lovely.

HappyPanda85 · May 2013

EllaYoung said:

Passive-aggressive is a personality disorder.
Since when? So, someone can be diagnosed as having "passive aggressive" just like the personality disorders Borderline Personality Disorder, Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Bi Polar Disorder, etc? No. Just like the behavior of being confrontational is not a diagnosis in and of itself.

http://www.steadyhealth.com/articles/Passive_Aggressive_Personality_Disorder_a289.html

rajahmd · May 2013

Actually, Passive Aggressive Personality Disorder is no longer a separate diagnosis in the DSM-IV and V. It's grouped in with Negativistic Personality Disorder (NEGPD), which is covered in an appendix.

rajahmd · May 2013

Not gonna lie, all these Love-it's make me feel warm and fuzzy inside. And seeing my post turn orange just made my day. I super miss the public love-it's right now. Y'all are awesome. Thanks for making my day!

TiaTea · May 2013

@RachelBFMD
"My 2 cents on the subject matter: why bother asking our opinions on the forum if they aren't going to use them? It's perfectly acceptable for someone to get annoyed and frustrated when someone asks their opinion on something important to them, and then went and did the opposite"

A possible explanation to that might be the researches done years ago on the life and development of forums.( I wish I could find some links now... ) Basically , they found out that a lot of forums have similar way if developing: first they grow and attract many participants and discussions are lively. Then groups are formed and some bonds created between some of the members. Little by little the forums get to be dominated by few people. Those few people share the same opinions and support each other. They are usually older members and often know each other socially. They become the "core people" of the forum. If an opinion is posted by a person who does not belong to a group, or is different than the opinion of the "core " people , this opinion is either dismissed, or the "core people" would "gang up" against the new, or different opinion. Naturally , the people who do not share the same opinions, as the core people, just drop off. New people who join are also forced by the "core peopl"e to either accept the same opinions, or are forced to drop off.
After a while the forum becomes the private message board for the "core people" Since they share the same ideas, there is nothing new . Lurkers are either not interested to join, or discouraged.
The irony is that while the "core people" pride themself for being the backbone of the forum, they are at the same time the reason why no one else wnats to be in the forum.
So the owners of the forums face a problem. While they don't want to alienate their core people, they want to have more people to join and stick around. There are a whole bunch of advices how to increase traffic, membership, etc.
Maybe that was the reason why they asked for opinions in this form too. And then they have to balance the suggestions as to please the core people, but to also attract and retain new ones.

As far as those" love" buttons, I personally liked them. To me they are time savers. They show exactly those groups and alliances, as they were described in the researches. When you see the people who like eachother all the time, you realize who shares the same opinion all the time. No need to read or respond- it will be all the same:)

With those "love" buttons, I was going to give it a few more days and then I would have known for sure if there will ever be any constructive conversations. If I saw that there are only " fan clubs" repeating the same things over and over , obviously the forum would be a waste of time. And if there were no fresh ideas , and no development I'd "quit " . Neither will I be sorry, nor anyone will miss me. No harm done

Without the love buttons , it will take me a little longer to figure out if there are people with interesting ideas or new and different aproach to problems

Now I think that taking away the love buttons, for example, was a way to make people stick around for a little longer. ( I don't know what other changes were done, since I am relatively new. )
Of course , there could be some completely different reason

rajahmd · May 2013

TiaTea said:

@RachelBFMD
"My 2 cents on the subject matter: why bother asking our opinions on the forum if they aren't going to use them? It's perfectly acceptable for someone to get annoyed and frustrated when someone asks their opinion on something important to them, and then went and did the opposite"

A possible explanation to that might be the researches done years ago on the life and development of forums.( I wish I could find some links now... ) Basically , they found out that a lot of forums have similar way if developing: first they grow and attract many participants and discussions are lively. Then groups are formed and some bonds created between some of the members. Little by little the forums get to be dominated by few people. Those few people share the same opinions and support each other. They are usually older members and often know each other socially. They become the "core people" of the forum. If an opinion is posted by a person who does not belong to a group, or is different than the opinion of the "core " people , this opinion is either dismissed, or the "core people" would "gang up" against the new, or different opinion. Naturally , the people who do not share the same opinions, as the core people, just drop off. New people who join are also forced by the "core peopl"e to either accept the same opinions, or are forced to drop off.
After a while the forum becomes the private message board for the "core people" Since they share the same ideas, there is nothing new . Lurkers are either not interested to join, or discouraged.
The irony is that while the "core people" pride themself for being the backbone of the forum, they are at the same time the reason why no one else wnats to be in the forum.
So the owners of the forums face a problem. While they don't want to alienate their core people, they want to have more people to join and stick around. There are a whole bunch of advices how to increase traffic, membership, etc.
Maybe that was the reason why they asked for opinions in this form too. And then they have to balance the suggestions as to please the core people, but to also attract and retain new ones.

As far as those" love" buttons, I personally liked them. To me they are time savers. They show exactly those groups and alliances, as they were described in the researches. When you see the people who like eachother all the time, you realize who shares the same opinion all the time. No need to read or respond- it will be all the same:)

With those "love" buttons, I was going to give it a few more days and then I would have known for sure if there will ever be any constructive conversations. If I saw that there are only " fan clubs" repeating the same things over and over , obviously the forum would be a waste of time. And if there were no fresh ideas , and no development I'd "quit " . Neither will I be sorry, nor anyone will miss me. No harm done
Without the love buttons , it will take me a little longer to figure out if there are people with interesting ideas or new and different aproach to problems

Now I think that taking away the love buttons, for example, was a way to make people stick around for a little longer. ( I don't know what other changes were done, since I am relatively new. )
Of course , there could be some completely different reason

That's an interesting theory. It seems a little too generalized though. From being here for awhile, there are quite a few different opinions, except on things involving etiquette (because etiquette isn't opinion, so of course that won't change between people). Most of the questions people ask are etiquette related, so it stands to reason that most responses will be the same. If you check out any of the non-etiquette related boards, the conversations are incredibly varied and represent a wide variety of opinions and ideological viewpoints.

As far as the bolded, I honestly think that's giving the KG's too much benefit of the doubt. They admitted in a thread on Snarky Brides that they changed it to anonymous because a few posters sent them PM's complaining that they were afraid of getting ganged up on if they loved something that was contrary to the consensus of a thread. Prior to the love-it's becoming anonymous, I don't think anyone was ever ganged up for loving something. I think it was a solution to a non-existent hypothetical problem. I know I couldn't care less if someone loves something wrong or stupid. I know I wouldn't call them out for just loving it, I would only call them out if they gave bad advice (ie, against etiquette, because otherwise it's their own opinion).

Peledreamsofrain · May 2013

Post removed due to GBCK

AddieCake · May 2013

Yep. It's all b/c we've bonded. I know I only agree not letting WP members sit with their dates or not letting people bring their SOs and B-listing and stuff like that are rude b/c the rest of the people at my lunch table do. Not because they're, you know, rude or anything.

Peledreamsofrain · May 2013

Post removed due to GBCK

TiaTea · May 2013

@RachelBFMD

You are probably right about the reasons. The bolded had to be a joke , as in" I wanted to figure it out faster, now I'm stuck". I have no idea why the love buttons exactly are so important

As for the etiquette, that should be one of the most interesting topics. It is not frozen. It evolves. It could be different depending on the circumstances ( are you hosting the family get together , or the Middle East peace talks - funnily, sometimes people can't tell the difference ) etc. That's why it is so important to be able to find out what other people think. For example, I have a grandmother who is very "big" on etiquette. But she is absolutely sure that married people should only dance with their own spouses. Married people should not mix with single people , unless acompanied by spouse .Singles should not mix with married people of the opposite sex, even if they just share a hobby, and so on. Or the acceptance of electronic media for wedding related events may vary between generations and even between people who are only 5 years apart. Etiquette comes from customs ant traditions, but is often the oposite of either. As in " tradition is what most people did, etiquette is what royalties did" . We have no royalties. Should we emulate the rich and famous? How about some common sense? I mean , there are so many interesting points of view and examples. Remember Michelle O. touching the Queen's back? Europeans talked for days about it.
What I mean is that I'd rather discuss many and different examples and experiences, than listen over and over what one person, or one group of people think .

Now what I wrote , seems to be far from the original meaning of the tread , sorry.

AddieCake · May 2013

Stage, you have disagreed with me on some minor things, but we're usually on the same page with the basic stuff. Sometimes I suspect you might be pro-unassigned seating, but I try not to think about it b/c I don't want to have to kill you in your sleep.

Please don't strip me of my sorority pin, Pele!

AddieCake · May 2013

I get so annoyed when people claim "the regs stick together." Stage, you're right that you HAVE disagreed with many a reg on here, and I can attest that you've done so for years. Many others have as well. There's nothing wrong with being on opposite sides of an argument. So to say that the regs stick together just b/c we've bonded is ridiculous. We agree on a lot of things, sure. But it's b/c we all genuinely believe something to be true, not b/c we're a clique. That's like saying anybody who prefers red licorice to black is just doing so b/c their clique feels the same way. Ummm, no. It's a popular line of thought.

And if people feel strongly about something, they should speak up. But they don't. Or they do, and then pull a dirty delete when it gets heated and or GBCK telling everyone how mean they are. I have no respect for that. If you feel a certain way, own it and have the balls to stand by it, not pack up your toys (the post) and run away. There are a lot of current regs who got off to a bad start here, but they stuck around. They didn't run away from a place they seem to enjoy being just b/c some people ruffled their feathers.

ETA: Plenty of people are not "favorites" around here, but they still stick around. Despite being disagreed with, allegedly "bullied" on a regular basis, etc, they remain. So they must like it here b/c they continue to just be themselves and not let the so-called "reg clique" run them off. So there goes the argument that we run everyone off. Because we don't. Some people just have the right skin for the internet, and some people don't.

ETA Again: And when I think of "regs," I don't just think of those of us who are accused of being in this clique. I also consider those "unpopular opinions" posters I mentioned above regs as well, considering they post regularly. And like I said, they are still here, not scared off by any cliques!

If some of the rest of you want your opinions heard or want to actually be PART of the community, try contributing to the community on a regular basis. Believe it or not, a lot of us are here b/c we like talking to new people. If we didn't, we'd just join the private groups and talk only to each other. We're HERE b/c we like new faces and weddings.

mercimarie · May 2013

Sorry, bonafide noob here. What does GBCK mean? Go back.... something? I am not smart.

AddieCake · May 2013

GBCK= Good Bye Cruel Knot

mercimarie · May 2013

Gotcha, cheers Addie.

I've always wondered why people stick around places or people that aren't fun or positive for them. I hate when I know people don't like me, whether it's in my everyday life, or even on the internet. If I were to repeatedly post things that clearly didn't gel with the environment I was in, (and this is just me) I'd probably cut my losses and move on.

I've lurked for about a year before even registering and I've seen a few POB (that's my own little ditty; Peace Out Bitches) posts and I always wonder why they do it. It just riles people up for a few minutes and then everyone goes about their business. What do they think is going to happen, or want to happen? It's kind of narcissistic to think one post is going to change the fabric of an internet forum, no? I guess I'm just stumped at the logic behind it.

MoonlightSilver · May 2013

One of my favorite posts is when all the regulars comment on what etiquette they don't care about or share what etiquette rule they broke at their wedding. And then everyone disagrees with each other about why something does or doesn't matter, or was or wasn't rude in the end. That topic, whenever it comes up, really shows how different we all are.

AddieCake · May 2013

Marie, that's what many people are always wondering. Some people think they are the first person in all of TK, apparently, to think of making a post about how bad it is here and that they will somehow change the entire vibe of TK with their little ranting announcement.

Excellent point, Moonlight. Some newbs come in here and get a bee in their bonnet about how we're such a clique or whatever, but just b/c we're in agreement on many things, we do not always, as Stage pointed out, agree on everything. And I feel like if more people would actually pay attention instead of immediately going on the defensive and feeling like an outsider b/c they aren't immediately invited to the cool kids' table, they would see that more clearly and probably enjoy their experience here more.

daveANDkristen · May 2013

Exactly. Case in point, we had a "traditional" head table. I understand why it is rude to separate the WP from their SOs, but we did it anyway. Not to be shitty of course, our WP genuinely wanted it that way. The ones that are married did it that way, and the ones that aren't married wanted it that way because it made them feel special. I took heat for it on TK long ago and I totally get it. Just because I did it that way does not mean I think it's correct etiquette-wise, and I can enjoy being part of this community even knowing that I did something most do not agree with. There are so many fun people on TK, and I love getting to know them even though they aren't all clones of me.

Peledreamsofrain · May 2013

Post removed due to GBCK

daveANDkristen · May 2013

NYU is exactly who came to mind with Addie's last post. The aforementioned Retread is another. Not that I don't think she gives appropriate etiquette advice (usually), but she is most certainly not part of a clique. There is room here for anyone who owns a pair of big girl panties.

libby2483 · May 2013

I think that one reason it seems like so many of the regs agree is that on these boards, most people who post regularly have a firm grasp of etiquette. It's not because there is any sort of special bond or clique; it's just that the advice tends to be similar because people who post often are well-versed in correct manners.

In addition, I know that even if my personal beliefs differ from what is correct etiquette-wise, I just don't post it because I don't want to give incorrect etiquette advice. For example, we had a cash bar at our wedding, although not by choice. Long story short, the venue wouldn't remove liquor from the bar, so we hosted beer and wine and had liquor available for purchase. In my circle, cash bars are the norm and I personally have zero problem with partial cash bars. However, I am fully aware that cash bars are not proper etiquette, so I don't go blasting my personal opinion on the E board. In addition, we had a traditional head table at our wedding. After talking to our WP members, this is honestly what they wanted. Many had been in another friend's WP a few months prior, and they actually found it "weird" that the couple had SO sit at the head table. Everyone's SO also actually said they would rather sit with each other and other friends at a different table to they "weren't in the spotlight". So, we did what was right for our situation. Again, though, I don't advocate doing this on the etiquette board because it doesn't follow the rules of etiquette. I just avoid commenting on threads like this because I know that my personal experience conflicts with etiquette, and the point of the E board is to give etiquette advice, not what-I-did-at-my-own-wedding advice.

Forum Entitlement

Re: Forum Entitlement

Choose Another Board

Search Boards