Post by andyfromfbg on May 3, 2011 18:30:35 GMT -5
The community of Icelandic Chicken preservationists, hobbyists, breeders, or pet owners relies heavily on social media and digital interaction to stay connected and informed. The Icelandic Preservation Society of America has provided an online venue for discussion as a result of continuing interest and requests. As the IPSA grows, and it will, this venue will serve as a sounding board during its formative years. I am certain we will grow from this simple venue into a stream of Facebook, Twitter, blogs and forums catering to the various facets of our interest and styles of our fellow Icelandic Chicken Preservationists.
All of these are avenues of communication. The vast majority of communication is positive, and even when detractors respectfully disagree or constructively criticize, the dialog can evolve and grow.
On the other hand, a flippant response or scathing diatribe online is very disruptive to the tone of the collective conversation and can instantly derail a productive interaction.
A term has arisen recently describing such activity "snarky" or "snarking".
A snarky retort sends a shot across the bow and seems to bring some form of instant gratification to the writer, but it can quickly damage their credibility. There is a genuine need to remain respectful even in an unbridgeable disagreement. The breakdown in civility online begins with anonymity. It's easy to be a jerk if you don't really face the person you are addressing. For some the desire to be an iconoclast drives them to attack traditional beliefs and institutions in an effort to set themselves apart. For others the desire to polarize a community an individual may easily use snarky comments as a way to dissolve constructive dialog.
Online interactive communities thrive on diverse voices; sadly many of our peers have chosen to curtail contributions to online discussions because they don't want to deal with a small but vocal minority of malcontents who are more intent on personalizing a discussion or debate than openly and honestly presenting an alternative view. this faction feels obliged to shout down dissent, striving to dominate rather than interact in a positive manner.
Dealing with "snarks" ie disrupters, malcontents, dominator's, can be as easy as ignoring comments, in particular if the comment is personal. It may be tempting, but resist the temptation to reply. Snarkers often wish to obtain the favor of a dominator, and your response will only assure them of success. At times you may find that a few thoughtful words may diffuse a situation. Rarely does addressing the snark head on lead to a solution.
One approach to addressing a snark might be to check your emotions at the door and prepare to dissect the situation. Resist the urge to personalize the difficulty and start by logically addressing their case, point by point, working hard to identify any common ground. Even a small amount of agreement can bring resolution, allowing a fruitful conversation. If no common ground is established, at the very least you clearly stated your position and indicated you are not going to stoop to throwing stones. At times it is best to have these conversations via email, private message rather than broadcasting it to a general audience.
Nothing says "snark" faster than foul language, accusations out of the blue, abusive remarks, grandiose boasts or all out assaults on your wording, grammar or spelling. If the dialog has deteriorated to this point, please, walk away.
Snarks have differing motives. To be sure, some people live to get a rise out of you, and the best way to leave them unfulfilled is to resist their overtures. Other people feel a thread or a topic is their "territory" and when threatened they will use a common tactic, they will put you on the defensive and then slam your response as an excuse or an attempt to gloss over the issue. The same type will threaten to leave to garnish pity in an effort to then play the "victim" card, using responders to come back with a position in which they feel back in the saddle again.
Don't be a snark. Resist the temptation to respond to one of those comments that just screams out for a jab or long winded rant. This might be tough after that second glass of wine or second shot of espresso, but its best to show restraint. If you feel there if still reason to hang in there then try to think of a way to voice your disagreement. if you can't think of a good way then it would be wise to move on with your day and let it go. Yes let it go is a good motto. Also consider the source of the comment. If it is someone who has a propensity to go head on into criticism and rant, don't give them the satisfaction they are seeking.
One of the strengths of the Icelandic Breed is the lack of a standard, and a rich genetic diversity. We as as a community can share a similar quality, and be people of diverse backgrounds, and a broad spectrum of opinions. How we choose to word our opinions and, more importantly, how we react to others voices, will dictate the tone of our collective conversation. As with the Icelandic Chickens, our similarities help us share common ground, our differences allow us to be fascinated by each other.
Let us enter each conversation with this mind, then we can make the most of sharing this common interest, a little treasure of our own.
All of these are avenues of communication. The vast majority of communication is positive, and even when detractors respectfully disagree or constructively criticize, the dialog can evolve and grow.
On the other hand, a flippant response or scathing diatribe online is very disruptive to the tone of the collective conversation and can instantly derail a productive interaction.
A term has arisen recently describing such activity "snarky" or "snarking".
A snarky retort sends a shot across the bow and seems to bring some form of instant gratification to the writer, but it can quickly damage their credibility. There is a genuine need to remain respectful even in an unbridgeable disagreement. The breakdown in civility online begins with anonymity. It's easy to be a jerk if you don't really face the person you are addressing. For some the desire to be an iconoclast drives them to attack traditional beliefs and institutions in an effort to set themselves apart. For others the desire to polarize a community an individual may easily use snarky comments as a way to dissolve constructive dialog.
Online interactive communities thrive on diverse voices; sadly many of our peers have chosen to curtail contributions to online discussions because they don't want to deal with a small but vocal minority of malcontents who are more intent on personalizing a discussion or debate than openly and honestly presenting an alternative view. this faction feels obliged to shout down dissent, striving to dominate rather than interact in a positive manner.
Dealing with "snarks" ie disrupters, malcontents, dominator's, can be as easy as ignoring comments, in particular if the comment is personal. It may be tempting, but resist the temptation to reply. Snarkers often wish to obtain the favor of a dominator, and your response will only assure them of success. At times you may find that a few thoughtful words may diffuse a situation. Rarely does addressing the snark head on lead to a solution.
One approach to addressing a snark might be to check your emotions at the door and prepare to dissect the situation. Resist the urge to personalize the difficulty and start by logically addressing their case, point by point, working hard to identify any common ground. Even a small amount of agreement can bring resolution, allowing a fruitful conversation. If no common ground is established, at the very least you clearly stated your position and indicated you are not going to stoop to throwing stones. At times it is best to have these conversations via email, private message rather than broadcasting it to a general audience.
Nothing says "snark" faster than foul language, accusations out of the blue, abusive remarks, grandiose boasts or all out assaults on your wording, grammar or spelling. If the dialog has deteriorated to this point, please, walk away.
Snarks have differing motives. To be sure, some people live to get a rise out of you, and the best way to leave them unfulfilled is to resist their overtures. Other people feel a thread or a topic is their "territory" and when threatened they will use a common tactic, they will put you on the defensive and then slam your response as an excuse or an attempt to gloss over the issue. The same type will threaten to leave to garnish pity in an effort to then play the "victim" card, using responders to come back with a position in which they feel back in the saddle again.
Don't be a snark. Resist the temptation to respond to one of those comments that just screams out for a jab or long winded rant. This might be tough after that second glass of wine or second shot of espresso, but its best to show restraint. If you feel there if still reason to hang in there then try to think of a way to voice your disagreement. if you can't think of a good way then it would be wise to move on with your day and let it go. Yes let it go is a good motto. Also consider the source of the comment. If it is someone who has a propensity to go head on into criticism and rant, don't give them the satisfaction they are seeking.
One of the strengths of the Icelandic Breed is the lack of a standard, and a rich genetic diversity. We as as a community can share a similar quality, and be people of diverse backgrounds, and a broad spectrum of opinions. How we choose to word our opinions and, more importantly, how we react to others voices, will dictate the tone of our collective conversation. As with the Icelandic Chickens, our similarities help us share common ground, our differences allow us to be fascinated by each other.
Let us enter each conversation with this mind, then we can make the most of sharing this common interest, a little treasure of our own.