Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

The reader in BQ #74344 seems to think we're mean, so I'm curious - which writers do you think are meanest/scariest/most hostile/most intimidating? Vote for up to three.

I feel like it's a golden age of the board fallacy. There were writers in my day and before who were rude. Whose trademarks were being rude. And sometimes I loved it, sometimes I thought it was too much. I guess it probably depended on how much I agreed with them. But I don't feel like it's a recent trend.

Looking at that list, I really don't think there is a mean writer on staff right now. Not compared to years previous anyway. Gimgimno can be a little snarky from time to time, but he doesn't even answer that much any more.

If I were to say anything about this generation of writers, it would be that overall they are more concerned and caring than many of previous generations. Maybe this questioner was interpreting concern as rudeness?

Aw, come on. It's no fun if no one votes.

I don't feel like any of the writers are outright mean, but sometimes I feel like their secondary aliases or whoever is the voice behind some of the lesser used names like "Snarky Snicket" are often rude. I get that SS is from the Snicket books and is trying to mimic him and be funny and stuff, but most of the time I feel like it's completely unnecessary and for people who don't get the reference, it may be hurtful. I feel like the secondary nyms are just being used for writers to hide behind and be cutting.

Hah, my name is spelled wrong-- maybe that will throw people off my trail and I won't get any mean votes.

Although I am curious to know who "we" is in that asker's question. And I'd like to know specifics. I do agree that sometimes writers can be snarky (and Anonymous Reader, I have to agree- I find that some of the things the secondary nyms say are really not necessary, but that could be because I haven't yet created a secondary nym and discovered their potential value) but really, the majority are not and when something mean is said, the person taking offense should e-mail the writer(s) and deal with it one on one, instead of lambasting the entire board, because hey, that stings a bit.

UffishThought wrote:I feel like it's a golden age of the board fallacy. There were writers in my day and before who were rude. Whose trademarks were being rude. And sometimes I loved it, sometimes I thought it was too much. I guess it probably depended on how much I agreed with them. But I don't feel like it's a recent trend.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner! I think the current writers are lightweights on snarkiness. I almost voted for Squirrel, for irony.

Squirrel and Yayfulness are the meanest writers EVAH.

Also, I agree with everyone who said it is the secondary nyms that tend to say rude things. I can't remember anything lately that seemed too harsh. Most of the times when things come off as harsh I think it is because the writer is projecting from their own life (which is understandable) instead of seeing things from the reader's perspective, or because they are being too honest when IRL no one would respond with such honesty (which is really a pro for the Board as an advice place).

Concorde wrote:Hah, my name is spelled wrong-- maybe that will throw people off my trail and I won't get any mean votes.

No way I'm letting you off the hook; it's fixed now.

Portia wrote: I almost voted for Squirrel, for irony.

mic0 wrote:Squirrel and Yayfulness are the meanest writers EVAH.

HAH! I can be quite mean if I want to. The problem is that most of the time I really don't want to be mean, which makes rudeness difficult, for sure.

Edit: But writers aren't trying to be rude, just blunt. Which isn't much different than being rude. But still- sometimes bluntness is called for.

YOU'RE ALL SO MEAN!!!!!!!!!!!!! SO MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, Gimpers is snarky. But not mean, usually. I think most of the "mean" feelings come when a question wasn't clear. Or the writers interpret it wrong. I know I've read some where three answers post, and they are all harsh. But to me, the question was something that needed comfort and support. In the Board's defense, this happens the other way too, where the answers are all waaay more gentle than the reader probably deserves. This is the downfall of emotion-free textual communication.

Yeah, I don't feel like it's meanness so much as bluntness. I know some of you writers personally, so I know your bluntness isn't meant to make people feel bad (more like... to inform them of where you stand?), but other people might not see it that way. Maybe it's their problem.

The original question said "hypersensitive." How did we get from there to "mean"?

Portia wrote:The original question said "hypersensitive." How did we get from there to "mean"?

Because the board writers are hypersensitive.

Marduk wrote:

Portia wrote:The original question said "hypersensitive." How did we get from there to "mean"?

Because the board writers are hypersensitive.

We are noooootttt! How could you say that? You are so mean!!!

That was funny, Marduk, but I think it is fair to summarize what the reader asked by saying he/she thought some writers of the Board are mean. It is mean to write like you think the reader is a "terrriby ignorant or arrogant" person. It is mean to offer unsolicited advice "after blasting and belittling the indefensible reader." Calling people "selfish, racist, sexist" when they don't deserve it is mean. Hostility can be mean.

That being said, I don't agree with the person who asked the question. In my limited observation of the Board in the last three months I find the Board writers go out of their way to be nice and polite. I think they address the readers sweetly, but there have been a few times where they referred to others (like a certain stake president) in a way that was mean. In the more distant past I think some of the writers were not as careful to be nice as the current writers.

Probably I'm thought of as mean from time to time, but I never think of myself that way.

aw man. shouldn't've retired. i could have gotten a vote or two.

No Dice wrote:aw man. shouldn't've retired. i could have gotten a vote or two.

You were the first person I looked for, no joke.

No Dice is one of my all time favorite writers. Because while he may have been caustic (a lot of the time), his answers were never over-the-line rude.