That is absolute rubbish. Show me one case where there has been disagreement that ACTUAL evidence of bullying behaviour has been disregarded or dismissed as innocent joke.
The problem is that you are carrying the classification of bullying behaviour TOO FAR. There is a very real risk here of “the boy who cried wolf”.
I’ll illustrate with what happened with our conversation:
I made a comment to you on a topic about being too liberal with the term “bully”. Not long after I get tagged by you on an observation saying “case in point”:
I looked at that observation, didn’t think there was any evidence of bullying behaviour, felt the best way to handle that was to highlight the site purpose and inappropriateness of those type of observations. I also followed up with a request for him to consider deleting the observations. This was an observer in a high density population area of France who posted 3 observations of houseplants a month ago, and then posts 4 subsequent photos 2 days ago of a house plant and 3 “adult flatmates or friends”. All appear to be mature adults, although the maturity level is obviously suspect. I finished by pointing out that I believed that was the best way to handle these situations going forward. I would imagine it to be another month before the observer sees the request, and even then may or may not act appropriately.
You then commenced what I felt was an inappropriate conversation on this persons observation, for which I was receiving alerts for every time one of you posted a comment:
After that last comment, I started a direct conversation between you and the other commenter, myself and Tony, and stated that I thought you were carrying on like a couple of old grannies on a school bus tut-tutting over the misbehaviour of the school kids. I pointed out that that sort of commentary was only likely to aggravate the very problem you are complaining about, and ASKED you politely to CONSIDER deleting your comments, which you thankfully did. After Tony’s comments in that discussion I felt it appropriate to withdraw my own message as well.
I’ll give another analogy here. When you have been shot, or seen a shooting, you are naturally going to be wary of everyone who has their hand in their pocket. If you have witnessed actual bullying and seen the outcome, then you are going to be overly concerned about “hands in pockets”, which this kind of humour largely is. Is every parent who calls their child “you mischievous little monkey” bullying their own child? If a group of us are at the local swimming hole, and we are unsure of the depth of the water, the cry is “who’s going to be the guinea pig?”. If I am watching my wife eat, and she eats a little faster than I think she should or usually does, I will say “you pig! slow down and save some for me!”. There is no malice intended, there is a relationship between us that allows that level of humour to be acceptable. You as an outsider looking in on those interactions are AN INVITED GUEST, and you don’t have the first clue what the relationship between those people is about. That they have invited you into that encounter I would sugest they should conduct themselves appropriately, yes indeed… there are things my wife and I will say to each other but only if no-one else is around!
You keep raising this “what if something happens, and it’s iNat’s fault?” nonsense. Another analogy… we are standing near a motorway, the speed limit is 100km/h. Several cars go whizzing by, all doing at or just under the speedlimit. You say that that speed is far too dangerous, you have seen cars crash at half that speed and people get hurt. Many, many cars go by, and no-one gets hurt. Then there is an accident. Someone gets hurt. It is not neccessarily the motorway, or it’s designer, that is at fault. Should we put the speed limit down to 50km/h? Only if it can be found that the speedlimit was itself the cause of the crash. If the driver was reckless, then it is not the motorway or the speedlimit at fault… it is the driver! Now, let’s say an accident has happened, and an investigation reveals that the cause of the accident is the speedlimit, that it does not adequately cater for all conditions of car, or weather conditions and so forth. The transport authority acts on that report and lowers the speedlimit appropriately. If they didn’t lower it after the report, THEN you can make the argument that they are negligent. What event has happened that you are deeming iNat systems and policy to be potentially negligent? A granny tut-tutting on a bus is not a report that would warrant a change of policy or system!
Another analogy… I invite you as a guest into my house for dinner, and during that dinner, I call my son an idiot for skipping out on a class. You, having worked at a child protection service, have seen cases where children are called many names, and many times over, and you have seen the damage it causes. Do you “delete” my comments? Do you take away my right to parent my child on that one situation alone? Even as a professional in the child protection services you would not, so why would a stranger invited into my house have any more right to do that? You would have to see ACTUAL evidence of risk before having the right to do that…
…so why should it be any different with iNat?
the definition of bully:
noun: a person who habitually seeks to harm or intimidate those whom they perceive as vulnerable.
verb: seek to harm, intimidate, or coerce (someone perceived as vulnerable).
note that the noun definition states “habitually”. I don’t think that applies to 3 observations of different people. 3 of the same person, yes. If it was 1 observation and several other “modes of attack”, then yes. I don’t see that in the observation you are tut-tutting about.
note that the verb definition implies an intent to do harm or coerce. I don’t see that in the observation you are tut-tutting about.
But I do see a conversation developing on someones elses observation involving several comments as meeting the definition of “habitual”, and I see comments aimed at denigrating their mental capacity as being consciously malicious and coercive, especially given that I can see in the forums a history of your attitude on this subject.
I understand that you see evil in the world, and feel compelled to confront it. I just think you are going way too far, and even if it was appropriate and justifiable, I think your approach is not going to achieve the result you claim to be seeking.
This topic/post was just meant to be the analogy of the kids and paintings and mixed age/level students, which I still think is a wonderful analogy in terms of helping people to see the perspectives of other iNatters. If you want to discuss this “bullying” further, please make your replies on one of those threads.
[edit]
if it helps:
https://forum.inaturalist.org/t/dealing-with-low-quality-observations-and-inappropriate-content-on-inaturalist/2416/1
and I apologise for my own transgressions here (including the allcaps :/ which I will let stand as emphasis, not shouting!)
