An observation behaviour online

'So called followers' ? Bit harsh. Maybe other people just agree with what other posters say? Are people not entitled to hold differing views?

I have noticed that there seem to be some posters who 'vehemently condemn a post or poster'. I haven't been here long, so I'm not particularly noticing if there are regular cliques of people who all join in, but it does seem to me that as soon as one person sounds off about something someone has posted, that thread tends to become a battleground. I don't always agree with everything on here (who does?!) and I may voice an opposite view at times, but if I see it starting to get a bit out of hand I tend to back off. I didn't join GN for confrontation, I joined for friendship

You may well be right but one doesn't need to consider oneself a "follower" to feel the urge to speak out on the behalf of another member. As I know, having had my head bitten off met a robust response in the past for questioning the treatment of a member whose views on many things as it happens are quite possibly diametrically opposed to my own.
However, we are not supposed to have " threads about threads" so no need to elaborate. But maybe don't imagine "cliques" where none exist ?

Magpie, I'm sure you are right, several "old" names have gone silent.

Feel a bit miffed about this post, sorry magpie123 I have been a member since (literally, and that word used correctly )day one.

Yes, it might be that some of us have got used to another members style of posting, but "cliques" ? If there are some I'm not aware of being a member, or even NOT being a member!

Oh not the b****y clique accusation again. No, there are not cliques. It is possible to have the same opinion on a subject as someone else without being a clique.A clique keeps out other people. All threads are open to all posters who can add something to the conversation.

There are threads where people are discussing personal problems with others who are experiencing the same thing, and they don't take all that kindly to anyone coming in with quick answers who doesn't know the back story.

There are also people who have been here forever, are familiar with the personalities posting. They read posts about those who are being attacked for something, and comment that X would not have said Y to be deliberately nasty, as the attacker has claimed.

There are people who have met in person, have known one another for years and - of course - if they see a friend being unfairly criticised, they say so.

If you have something to say on a thread say it. If you don't like what someone has said, reply (politely) or report the post to GNHQ, who will act as seems best.

As for names disappearing, people come and go all the time, not usually because they have been "bullied" off. Try PMing anyone whose posts you miss, to see if they are OK. Chances are they are on holiday, busy with family things, or just doing something more interesting. This is only a virtual community, after all, people have a real life too.

Pheonix, it was not Magpie that mentioned "cliques" (your post read that way to me, but may not have been what you intended). Like you, I have been on here from almost day one. I do not see "cliques" but I do see what I consider bullying, this seems to be a recent development, I put it down to election fever.

I have noticed that over the past couple if weeks that some of the discussions and debates have gone from being a robust exchange of views to somewhat nasty bullying sometimes. Not always I hasten to add and of course we will differ in our viewpoints but some 'conversations' have so quickly become heated and a bit of a battle between just a few participants that I have decided to refrain from adding my two penn'orth.

In my experience, "old" names do not flounce off saying they have been bullied by a clique. It is relatively new posters who think that anyone not agreeing with them, or agreeing with someone they disagree with, is part of a conspiracy against them.

Pompa I too have seen some very strongly held views expressed recently. I too put it down to election fever. Some of them are very like the vitriol that flew around before the recent Scottish referendum. I don't think it is bullying though - and it will subside after the election.

Elegran, we will have to agree to differ over what we consider bullying. I didn't say old names had flounced off, I said they had gone silent, I hope they will still be lurking and return sometime.

Oh dear, I do wish I hadn't used the word 'clique'. I actually said that I hadn't noticed any here, but people seem to have picked up on the word. Sorry folks, not what I'd intended.

I thought you were just picking up on what the OP had termed 'followers' ashtree. No worries

Thanks janea, I was beginning to feel a little responsible for the way the thread was going

Whenever someone brings up this issue (bullying and cliques or gangs) some of us agree and others say it's nonsense and they certainly have never noticed anything of the kind.

Interesting ......!

meant to say

I agree, petallus!

I also agree with Elegran in that a lot of the more 'heated' exchanges on threads recently have been connected either directly or indirectly with the general election.

I'm sure you'll have noticed, magpie123 that there are quite a few GN members whose political views lean towards the left to a greater or lesser degree! Anyone who wants to put forward a different point of view might be wise to don a tin hat, but that applies at any other time as well...

A starts a thread with a fairly controversial post.
B immediately disagrees with that point of view.
C D and E agree with B and post accordingly.
Does that making them followers? Are they then a clique or bullies or simply 3 more who also disagree with A?
Others then post, agreeing with A. Do they constitute a second group of bullies or a rival clique?
Ridiculous isn't it?
How can anyone be bullied in this virtual setting when it is so easy to ignore someone whose views are different but equally worthy of expressing?
Childhood bullying? Nonsense! Get a grip!,

Oh no are we having this discussion again, it seems to do the rounds every so often.

On other forums I've seen the behaviour that Magpie described in ?her OP - a particularly strong character, expresses themselves well, and gets many "followers". I find it hard to understand because I'm quite independent, but there are many who are different.
But I haven't seen this kind of thing on here (unless I've missed something.)

I agree with some of you.

I'm fairly new here, too, and I can't say I've noticed any bullying. Some posters express very strong views, it's true, but then why shouldn't they? If others disagree then they are free to say so. Let's enjoy the discussions and if we don't, we can look at another website. If Gransnet had only threads about knitting or grandchildren then I for one wouldn't have joined it. We grans must remain engaged with the wider world! (PS I mean no disrespect to either knitters or grandchildren!)

I just back out quietly beat a hasty retreat if getting out of my depth or flummoxed

No one is forced has to join in a debate, I love the sparkiness!

Whenever this topic crops up – whether one, two, three or nearly four years ago – someone always refers to "recent" posts being the problem. Funny that! Sometimes there really is anger expressed on threads but any bullying that has taken place has nearly always been via spiteful personal messages.

Is it new or newish GNs who make these observations?
Just curious