Dear Prudence:

Lots of folks are asking what happened to a bevy of your followers lately -- a sizeable, longstanding and often funny bunch of regulars who responded each week to your letters in ways that we know you want to.

In one of the responses to those questions, someone posted a link to a book (something like Slate Diaries) which indicated that some Slate writers felt, I don't know, wounded by what the "Fraygrants" had written about them. I doubt that this is what prompted Jeremy to crack down on your Fray, because (aside from the occasional dig about you being biased against men) most of the regulars spent their entire time making fun of your correspondents.

Of course, it is possible there were complaints from the ridiculed correspondents themselves, but let's look at this for a moment. Folks who write letters to Prudie must certainly know that there is a DP Fray. They must certainly know that it has been a tradition for years to have outlandish Fray responses to the letters. I'd be willing to bet there are not one or two in a year who didn't know it. They threw themselves under the bus driven by the funny cat. And if there are one or two who didn't know, are we to believe that, upon seeing their letter published by you, they suddenly discovered the Fray?

So, I suspect it's not the letter writers complaining of unexpectedly hurt feelings. If I'm wrong, I think it would be valuable to make that fact a part of the (right now, completely one-sided) "dialog" over what was, is, and is allowed to be done on the DP Fray.

As it is, I suspect that Jeremy has simply tried to tone down the language on a board that gets a lot of article-linked traffic. I have suggested before (with no response) that a warning on that particular Fray might do just as well. I mean, it's not as though the very topics dealt with in your letters are suitable for the young and meek.

I remember when one of the first "casting calls" went out for Slate staffers. If I remember correctly, they mentioned something about wanting to create an "edgy" and perhaps even "hip" e-zine. I think the DP Fray regulars were really a part of that, and also IIRC, past Fray editors allowed that tradition to take root.

Right now, I miss the regulars. Their absence significantly detracts from the whole "Dear Prudie" experience in my opinion, and based on the number of people posting "where are they" posts on the DP Fray, I think I'm not alone.

So my question is, if I wanted to spark a discussion of this topic with an advice columnist, a Fray editor, and readers, how do you think I should go about it?

Signed, Bleepless in Seattle.

Posting on Fraywatch would be the correct way to start a discussion with me.

I think the current DP Fray exodus stems from the fact that I deleted several posts that were belligerently rude towards fellow readers, and one post that was not abusive of any other reader, but which was incredibly sexually explicit.

I have left up the vast majority of DP responses and tried to exercise judgment in recognizing that DP was an adult board where adult discussions could take place.

Still, I don’t think that any line I have drawn has been excessively stringent. These are literally a handful of posts we’re talking about. And I have still yet to ban anyone from the board (all of the regulars that are gone have left of their own accord).

I’m sorry that these posters feel the need to leave the Fray, but I’m not going to completely abandon a minimum posting standard just because of this fact.

Best,
Jeremy

Jeremy, please understand that I am in no way trying to be disprespectful of you or the job you're doing when I ask what "a minimum posting standard" is? That phrase seems very subjective to me. Perhaps that's because we've been allowed to post in DP for many years, regulating ourselves (quite successfully, I might add), so any new and sudden interference seems heavy-handed and subjective in comparison.

Jeremy, every week, there was cursing. Some of it quite explicit. Yet, in most all cases, it was absolutely brilliant. I'm talking laugh-out-loud funny. Sometimes what seems rude can be raised to an artform. Especially when it's not actually rudeness, but satire. However, for satire to work, the writer must understand the culture of the audience (and the audience, the writer). Satire is culture-specific. As you were not familiar with the DP Fray culture, you're efforts at policing it were viewed by many as harsh and , well, ham-fisted. Not only did the types of posts you edited/deleted not elicit complaints, they generally motivated plentiful thumbs up. So, there was/is a definite market for them, at least in the DP forum.

The exodus is completely voluntary, you're correct. But its effect is a much less vibrant, much less active, much less spirited place. And that's a shame, because I'd say it was one of the more intelligent, vibrant, active forums in The Fray prior.

Best to you, too,

The Smag

came to his attention in the first place.....

Well, I'm grateful that you responded. I did not know precisely what had been deleted, or why, and so I was left to assume that you had simply ruled out, e.g., SchuylerCat's schtick. (I still suspect his was the "incredibly sexually explicit" one, making me all the more sorry I missed it.)

Still, I think that board is much less than it once was, and that's a shame.

Putting aside the "belligerently rude towards fellow readers" issue for a moment, what do you think of my warning label idea?

I firmly believe some kind of adjustment deserves consideration, because what has been lost (overreaction or not) is without a doubt some of the best writing going on in the Fray.

...Inkberrow wants to know how the problem came to your attention in the first place.

He's a meek sort.

;)

I find it interesting that DP can deal with men wearing diapers during sex, and people jerking off in their office, and the fray must avoid sexually explicit posts. Perhaps if that is the new minimum posting standard, you'd probably should let Emily Yoffe know so that she stops violating it. Secondly, while I am unable to pull up the deleted posts for obvious reasons, the posts I noticed missing weren't any more abusive than what has been posted in the past. Most of them weren't polite, but they certain stopped short of insults I've heard hurled at the Rocky Horror Picture Show. I've also noticed that you've removed several posts that criticized either your moderation or Prudie. That definitely moves from a "minimum posting standard" to censorship. Sure, it's your game and you can censor if you want. But it seems a little ... ah ... unAmerican to used a tired phrase. Why is a "minimum posting standard" needed? We'd done fairly well without it, especially compared to some of the other more toxic places like BOTF. If enough people complain that a particular post/poster is like a disposable feminine cleansing product one might use on a summer's eve and the bag it came in, then step in and moderate. But, I think the current minimum standard is forcing blandness. Yes, all of us regulars have left of our own accord. And many of us had been posting for a long time (I know that I had at least 3 years under my belt since I started posting prior to grad school, and many of the more recognizable names were already there.) Do you think so many people would abandon their internet home if it were only a handful of removed posts that added no value? I guess you're free to keep applying your arbitrarily picked and poorly defined minimum standard, but chances are the DP fray will never go back to being the interesting place it was for years until last month.

And there were paragraphs in the above post. I think my ferrets could provide better computer service than whomever you currently have running things.....

PhysicsGirl:

Why is a "minimum posting standard" needed? We'd done fairly well without it, especially compared to some of the other more toxic places like BOTF.

This is the question I have put to Jeremy several times, to no avail. (Or if it availed, I missed it.)

Why would these minimum standards be imposed so suddenly and irrevocably on one baord, yet other boards are far worse? There are some posts I've seen on BOTF (which should be renamed WOTF, in my opinion) which go on for dozens of pages in the tone of "You're a dirt bag. Get lost." "Oh yeah? Make me!" Never on any real topic, and certainly not worth anyone's actual reading. At least that's the tone of the top post on every few pages when I've had time to waste there.

I'm very glad you're here, PhysicsGirl, and Incog. I hope more will follow in your footsteps.

With regards to BotF (which has largely been abandoned, I might add), let me say in Jeremy's defense that it gets zero "outsider" traffic, and he had indicated early on that Frays of that sort might be left to their own devices because of that isolation. DP is a different creature at least because it gets traffic driven -- sometimes -- even from the MSN home page.

While recognizing that the DP Fray gets fresh meat drawn in on occasion, I am nevertheless arguing that DP should also have a special dispensation, exactly for the reasons you and PhysicsGirl mention. (A) The topics of Dear Prudie are themselves "adult," and (2) long tradition holds that over-the-top-ism is the norm.

I think it's personal on his part. I don't know why exactly, but he has deleted virtually ALL of my posts in the last month, especially the ones where there is no bad language, and when all I do is disagree with some small aspect of the article or an interpretation by a fellow poster. The posters never seem to take anything I say personally, so it has to be Jeremy that's doing this. I don't know how I offended him personally, but clearly he has issues with me. Apparently there's no distinction made between a completely fictitious internet persona and the person. **************** ************* ************ *********************** ***************** ********* ************** ***************** ***************** ***************** ************* ************** ****** Those asterisks are as close as I can get to a paragraph break now. Ever since Jeremy started on his edits, I am not permitted paragraphs. And Jeremy, I ask again, and I would really appreciate the courtesy of an answer: Do you just want me to go away? If so, why just punish me with the paragraph breaks? Do you not have grounds to ban me outright? If not, then why the personal nonsense?*********** ************** **************** **************** ************** ************** ********* ************** ************** ***************** **************** ************* *********** ************* You don't have to answer me here. I've said repeatedly that anyone who wants to can e-mail me at onemessylady.gmail.com . I'm happy to talk to anyone, any time about anything related to Slate or the parodies that I do. Seriously Jeremy. I'm no ogre as Ron and a whole lot of other people can attest. I have no intention of giving you grief, I would just like to know what I, personally have done to offend you.

I wholeheartedly join your request for Jeremy to give you a direct response to this. I hope he remains engaged with this thread long enough to do so. If he does not, I will top-post again to get his attention. At the moment, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he will respond to you. And I think he will.

(I also vaguely hope Prudie will deign to post here. We'll see. Profiles in Courage, and all that.)

It's been a couple of weeks, so I'm not holding my breath on that one. Do fire me off a message, though. Like I said....trust me!

lol ok ok!

I believe I already know the answer, based on other Moderator actions reactions it's been my privilege to witness. It was your privilege to receive my rhetorical question!

I'm betting somebody or two complained to Our Placeholder about a Dear Prudence poster or two they don't like. Sometimes "I'd Rather Be Fishing" bureaucrats shoot the messengers; this time, JTM decided to shoot the messagers. And woe betide if a complaint comes in during The View or Judge Judy......