[GEN] Define Harassment?

I have been accused of harassing another user, because I sent them a private response to something they had posted publicly. I have a few questions:

Will a moderator please define harassment for me? How is it determined or decided that a post or a PM is harrassing? Does there need to be a recurrence?

I PMed the guy to avoid derailing the thread more than it had been: should I have responded to his question publicly instead?

If his reply accused me of some other wrongdoing that I know to be false, (and it is not the first accusatory communique I had recieved on that topic) but the thread to prove the falseness of it has been erased by a moderator, what recourse do I have to proving my innocence in the matter if I am not permitted to contact the accusing user privately? May I post the details and evidence publicly?

Thanks, I appreciate your time.


*Derisa*

 

ha·rass ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-rs, hrs)
tr.v. ha·rassed, ha·rass·ing, ha·rass·es
To irritate or torment persistently.
To wear out; exhaust.
To impede and exhaust (an enemy) by repeated attacks or raids.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[French harasser, possibly from Old French harer, to set a dog on, from hare, interj. used to set a dog on, of Germanic origin.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ha·rasser n.
ha·rassment n.
Synonyms: harass, harry, hound, badger, pester, plague
These verbs mean to trouble persistently or incessantly. Harass and harry imply systematic persecution by besieging with repeated annoyances, threats, or demands: The landlord harassed tenants who were behind in their rent. A rude customer had harried the storekeeper. Hound suggests unrelenting pursuit to gain a desired end: Reporters hounded the celebrity for an interview. To badger is to nag or tease persistently: The child badgered his parents for a new bicycle. To pester is to inflict a succession of petty annoyances: ?How she would have pursued and pestered me with questions and surmises? (Charlotte Brontë). Plague refers to a problem likened to an epidemic disease: ?As I have no estate, I am plagued with no tenants or stewards? (Henry Fielding).
Usage Note: Educated usage appears to be evenly divided on the pronunciation of harass. In a recent survey 50 percent of the Usage Panel preferred stressing the first syllable, while 50 percent preferred stressing the second. Curiously, the Panelists' comments appear to indicate that each side regards itself as an embattled minority.

[Download or Buy Now]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


Harassment

\Har"ass*ment\, n. The act of harassing, or state of being harassed; worry; annoyance; anxiety.

Little harassments which I am led to suspect do occasionally molest the most fortunate. --Ld. Lytton.


[Try Merriam-Webster Unabridged.]
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.


Harassment

n 1: a feeling of intense annoyance caused by being tormented; "so great was his harassment that he wanted to destroy his tormentors" [syn: torment] 2: tormenting by continued persistent attacks and criticism [syn: molestation]

UKS

 

If you haven't already done so, the best way to go is probably to contact an administrator, who can review the PMs in question.

The rules that govern general posting extend into private messages, and anything that would qualify as harassment in a post would almost certainly be likewise for a PM.

You cannot post private messages of others without permission, but I believe you can post your own.

 

UKS, thanks for the dictionary quotes, but I asked for a moderator to do so to get a better understanding of how the JC defines it.

KW: I appreciate the advice, I wasn't asking for that, though. I was asking very carefully specific-yet-general questions, that, while they apply to one situation, could easily apply to a variety.

Anyone wanna actually read my post and reply to the actual questions? Thanks!


*Derisa*

 

I think a lot of what defines harassment depends on the context and content of the issue.

But if all else is equal, and you replied with a PM instead of a post, then I don't see how that can be harassing. But of course it all depends on what was said.

I think harassment is a term people throw around too easily. It's like the boy who cried wolf syndrome. After a while, the legitimate complaints get lost in the pile of silly ones.

 

Will a moderator please define harassment for me?
I would define harassment as any unwanted advances, whether sexual or not, from one user to another. For example, continually PMing someone that their posts are annoying might be harassment. It's a case by case situation, however, and many times an administrator needs to step in to view PM's in order to determine if harassment took place.

How is it determined or decided that a post or a PM is harrassing? Does there need to be a recurrence?

Again, case by case. When I do investigations I look for whether the person who is sending PM's instigated the communication, if the communication was unwarranted and if the user continues to send the PM's despite the other user telling them to stop. Those are the general guidelines I use. Harassment can be a grey area in some cases because not everyone looks at it the same way.

As KW said, if you have a concern regarding harassment, you should PM an administrator who can investigate the issue.

I PMed the guy to avoid derailing the thread more than it had been: should I have responded to his question publicly instead?

If someone is doing something in a thread that you don't feel is appropriate, you should PM a mod instead of trying to intervene yourself.


On another note, while this seems to be a question specific to a particular incident, this thread should not be used to discuss that incident or specific indicents of harassment. I'm all for helping to clarify the general question of harassment, but not to air dirty laundry. Thanks.

 

Thanks, Katya, that's the sort of thing I was wondering about.


*Derisa*

 

Oft times, I don't consider any single PM based upon someone's public post to be "harrassment," PER SE.

Obviously there are case by case assessments, and I'm talking about sending someone a PM to clarify something posted or to attempt an off-line discussion that would derail the main purpose of the original thread, and that sort of thing.

Where harrassment comes is when virtually no good can come of the PM sent in the first place; like two users having history and one sending a PM to the other taunting them because of a post made, or PMing someone that they're going to burn in hell because they posted they don't accept Jesus as their savior or the obvious examples of cursing, flaming, etc.

Harrassment can even come when there's nothing inherently in violation of the TOS or ROC in terms of the PM itself, but where one user has asked another to stop contacting them and the other user continues it anyways.

For instance, let's say I PM Katya and tell her she's smoking hot and teh ubercool Admin (and, really, who wouldn't?). She says "that's nice, dear. don't ever PM me again" (and really, why wouldn't she?) -- if I continue the PM conversation EVER and FOR ANY REASON, it could be construed as harrassment. Obviously, me PM'ing Katya again for a mundane and theoretically non-harmful reason (complimenting her on a FanFic, whatever) might not be construed by her as "harrassment" -- but it MIGHT be and would likely be treated as such if a complaint was lodged.

That's my 2 creds on the subject...

 

Sometimes harassment is a thread discussion taken one step too far and it spills over into the PM's. Sometimes both parties are guilty of flaming the other privately, while other times a user just comes out of left field to simply slam that person privately. So long as that isn't met with a retaliation, the user sending the flame is at fault.

In some cases, a user will sign up a sock using an anonymizer and bash another user out of nowhere in a PM. The best thing you can do is get an administrator involved as we are able to verify, upon your permission, the content of the PM exchange.

 

Thanks for the clarification, dp and Sape.

I understand there is a fine line moderators have to consider as to what is and is not harassment, but basically I'm getting the impression that a PMed reply to a person (sent in order not to derail a thread), that was not threatening or insulting in any way, isn't really harassment, but replying to the response PM (asking not to be contacted again) would be.

So what does one do if it is determined that a PM was *not* harrassing? Is the other user informed they are wrong?

Does the request not to be contacted again include public posting: is it like a restraining order, in that the "harasser" has to keep a certain distance from the "harassee"? Or can both post to the same threads on the same forums, so long as the TOS are adhered to?

Also, to re-iterate an earlier question: If that response PM contained an untrue accusation, what should the reciever do to defend themselves from the misapprehension?

Thanks again.


*Derisa*

 

What I really think needs to happen is for an admin to take a look at the exchange because most times what's really going on becomes instantly and clearly obvious. Speaking in generalities like this is difficult and doesn't always solve the problem. Just a thought.

 

Does the request not to be contacted again include public posting: is it like a restraining order, in that the "harasser" has to keep a certain distance from the "harassee"? Or can both post to the same threads on the same forums, so long as the TOS are adhered to?

I'd say the latter; the boards themselves are public in a way that the PM system is not.

So long as the TOS is adhered to, I'd say it's fair game. Again, case by case comes in to play here, but that's likely to be the most common response, methinks...

 

I would not expect that two users couldn't post in the same threads/forums as long as they weren't baiting and flaming each other on a daily basis. As far as the harassment line, I could send dp a one time PM that is insulting (I'd never do that!) and/or antagonizing and that could be considered harassment even if I don't send a second one.

edit Also, to re-iterate an earlier question: If that response PM contained an untrue accusation, what should the reciever do to defend themselves from the misapprehension?

If I'm understanding correctly, there's a concern that there's an accusation made via PM or in public? If it's via PM, there's not much to do about that. I've had plenty of people PM me about untrue things they think about me, but they didn't post it publicly so it's not a big deal. If it is posted publicly, I would contact a mod to help with the situation. The last thing you want to do is create some sort of he said/she said debate in a forum.

 

I got a pm for someone when I posted in a EU debate thread in this forum they said


Quit bashing the EU! If you got a problem with it, don't bother the people that enjoy it! Go somewhere else if you have nothing better to do than throw childesh taunts at us. The EU is part of Star Wars, deal with it. I myself enjoy the EU, and I am a former member of the EUDF, and I'll continue to defend from people like you.

It doesnt bother me at all , but is something that could be considered harassment ?

 

I got a pm for someone when I posted in a EU debate thread in this forum they said

Probably not. And based off your comments in the thread, I'd say you got off easy.

 

I think that depends how do you take the PM.

 

Probably not. And based off your comments in the thread, I'd say you got off easy.

Here I disagree; it probably COULD be construed as harrassment because of: "Go somewhere else if you have nothing better to do than throw childesh taunts at us" and "The EU is part of Star Wars, deal with it" both of which can likely be taken as baiting, trolling and/or not respecting another's opinions/beliefs.

Whether comet should have been banned for his comments in the EU thread is debatable, but the PM would definitely be over the line, IMO.

 

For instance, let's say I PM Katya and tell her she's smoking hot and teh ubercool Admin (and, really, who wouldn't?). She says "that's nice, dear. don't ever PM me again" (and really, why wouldn't she?) -- if I continue the PM conversation EVER and FOR ANY REASON, it could be construed as harrassment.


This statement actually surprised me and I was wondering if it could be clarified a bit.

The way I understand this, if someone tells another user never to PM them again even if this is said without any real reason, then if the person replies even just for an explanation it is automatically harassment?

For instance, using that same hypothetical situation, say dp4m does PM Katya again apologizing for his previous statement, would that be considered harassment?

 

For instance, using that same hypothetical situation, say dp4m does PM Katya again apologizing for his previous statement, would that be considered harassment?

If the user complained, I'd say "yes" it most likely would be, but the "punishment" would be probably negligible in this case (e.g. a PM to the sendee from a Mod saying, while the thought was appreciated, please not to do it again).

Remember -- there are degrees of things, including "punishment"...

 

Ah, ok. That makes more sense. Thanks

 

No it doesn't.

You're effectively allowing any user to make an arbitrary decision you have to enforce.

A mod should have the fortitude enough to be able to look at the situtation and decide who is right, not just how much punishment should be meted out.

In the example given, the proper response by a Mod to 'Katya's' complaint that user X apologized to her after she told him never to contact her again for telling her she was 'hawt', the proper response would be to tell "Katya" not to be an idjit.

It is much more harassing for user A to try and get user B in trouble for apologizing to them rather then for user B to apologize, or even more for user A to try and get user B into trouble 10 months later because user B had forgotten about their warning by then and asked user A if they had a link to some story they posted.

I've heard tell of common sense moderating, when can we look forward to that?

 

I've been accused of harassment in the past by admins when I was trying to sort out a ban through PM's and Unban Requests, not because of the content of any of them but because of the number that were sent.

I think harassment is a very subjective term and should be left up to those objective enough to deal with it in an adult fashion. It's in the TOS for a reason that isn't really clear to me because it's very rarely applied and can doubtlessly be covered by several other terms already there (eg flaming, trolling etc)

 

I've heard tell of common sense moderating, when can we look forward to that?

I thought what I posted was common sense, farraday.

If a user feels they're being harrassed by a user -- after asking that user to not contact them again -- we should step in.

We don't have to PUNISH anyone, but we should step in. It's like the sexual harrassment laws; sure, we may not personally think something's sexual harrassment, but it's that type of thinking that leads to a "hostile workplace" to begin with...

 

If a user feels they're being harrassed by a user -- after asking that user to not contact them again -- we should step in.

No, you should make a judgement call, not simply enforce any users preference without a modicum of sense. I've seen mods complain because one user says a threa dshould be locked, whinging indeed that it's not the users job to moderate(that they do this and complain about the lack of mod candidates is funny in and of itself, but I digress). Why then do you plan on blindly accepting any users decision of what harassment is?

We don't have to PUNISH anyone, but we should step in. It's like the sexual harrassment laws; sure, we may not personally think something's sexual harrassment, but it's that type of thinking that leads to a "hostile workplace" to begin with...

You know, using the sexual harassment as an example very possibly proves my point. You're opening yourself to obvious enforcment issues by allowing anyones preception of harassment to be a basis for moderation. Are we suggesting next that anytime feels a user offends them they should be charged with trolling and baiting? Didn't you try that already dp4m?

 

You know, using the sexual harassment as an example very possibly proves my point. You're opening yourself to obvious enforcment issues by allowing anyones preception of harassment to be a basis for moderation.

All dp4m is saying is that in the event of possible harrassment, a moderator should step in once alerted.

At that point, there are several options available.

1) The moderator can determine that willful harrassment occurred, and ban the user for it (extreme case).
2) The moderator can determine that unintentional harrassment occurred and warn the user for it (moderate case).
3) The moderator can determine that no harrassment occurred and no action is taken (no case).

Now, if a user tells another user not to PM them any more, even if the other user is trying to apologize, a subsequent PM could be considered harrassment, but I would classify it as #2, not #1 (in most cases). At that point, all that the moderator needs to do to "step in" is to gently warn the user to let the matter drop and simply not contact that individual unless they contact them first.

A moderator/administrator has to step in to some degree, at least to investigate the possibility, but whether it goes beyond that depends on the circumstances.

Kimball Kinnison