The long, slow and painful death of a friendship

Susan says:

11:14am | 21/07/12

@Babylon…Part of your post reminded me of this new and too often applied term “monetizing relationships”. I worked for a great company at one stage but then they went to some conference thing in Sydney about this and everything changed and it ruined them in my view. They kicked off loyal people and got cheap overseas workers for example.  That isn’t a relationship or friendship, that’s treating loyalty as if it means nothing. Blah to that.

Then on LI recently I was sent an email from two people that started off something like: “Of course you will want to join us in ensuring all your LI relationships are appropriately monetized.  Click here to see out webcast..”

I wrote back and said that their email presumed I want to apply a monetary value to every encounter I had and I was not interested.  Not heard from them again and for all I know they disconnected.

Seems to be the catch cry of the financially avaricious.  Your comment is timely I think.

Babylon in Canberra says:

02:26pm | 21/07/12

Ghastly Mate, that whole idea of putting monetary value on friends.

Networking is an acceptable activity for career advancement, but pretending friendships jeeez.

Corporates can be cruel beasts to have a relationship with. People make the mistake of devoting themselves to the company objectives without aligning their own personal objectives for growth. Those people that do not look after their own objectives are often more hurt when the inevitable redundancy devil comes calling.

Susan says:

03:27pm | 21/07/12

@Babylon..your comment about personal objectives rather than adhering to the company ones is really apt.  I recognise that I’ve generally not done that and assumed I guess that one might flow from the other.  Not.

Rose says:

09:47am | 21/07/12

Be kind, what a joke. The book’s author is suggesting that some people get to dump others because they are clearly too superior to have them as friends.
What about getting to know some one, understanding their limitations.
I have the broke friend, I still enjoy her company, but we tend to visit each other at home, catch up for a chat and a giggle and spend very little money. That would be me respecting her limitations. I have a ‘hot mess’ friend too. I have just learnt NOT to rely on them, that way, I still get to enjoy hanging out with him, he’s good for a laugh and some fun, but no, I would never count on him to do anything remotely responsible, that’s not his cup of tea. I gotta admit, it’s one of the reasons I like him, when my husband and I are with him we get to to let our hair down and be kids again, just for a while. I have a friend who suffers quite severe depression at times, another who is always pissed off at somebody because everything that goes wrong in her life is some one else’s fault (and an awful lot goes wrong). I also have nice, responsible, upwardly mobile friends,
Bottom line is that I know my friends, I know a lot of their strengths and weaknesses and I like them anyway. Knowing them means that it becomes my responsibility to control my dependence on the relationship. Would I ever destroy a friendship because the other person isn’t perfect, hell no!! If I did that I would be setting the bar pretty high and I wouldn’t then be able to ask my friends to put up with my crap. The only time I would dump a friend is if they did something that was unforgivable to me or to some one I love.
This whole clearing out of unsuitable friends actually makes the person doing the clearing out the most undesirable friend of all.

TracyH says:

09:25am | 22/07/12

Rose…wow…great post!!!

TimB says:

09:30am | 21/07/12

So that’s why you walked away? They wouldn’t indulge in your whining about Tony Abbott?

Good on them.

Alfie says:

09:38am | 21/07/12

You’re shitting me Acotrel. You wouldn’t get through the soup without blaming Abbott for something.

TracyH says:

09:43am | 21/07/12

hehe…must be a lot of talk about sex, then, acotel!

Fiddler says:

10:04am | 21/07/12

so you were cut out on the first night when they left the prawns out of the fried rice and you blamed Tony Abbott for it?

JT says:

10:11am | 21/07/12

In other words, there’s 13 friends in town who have dinner and you watching on.

Anthony Sharwood says:

10:47am | 21/07/12

Now hear this everybody. @JT’s comment is a classic case of a comment which contravenes our Community Agreement as it is mean and adds nothing to the dialogue, even if it is an attempt at humour.

But I made an exception to our normal standards and uploaded it becasue I know Acotrel is a big enough boy to look after himself, but more importantly, because I thought it might be a chance for Punchers to give Acotrel some love and say words to the effect of “hey buddy, I pretty much disagree with everything you write, but I reckon you’re an OK chap”.

Anyone game?

AdamC says:

11:04am | 21/07/12

No.

However, I am pleased that acotrel can refrain from dissing Tony Abbott in real life, even if he cannot manage it on the Punch.

JT says:

11:09am | 21/07/12

You must be reading a different Community Agreement to one I have read: http://www.thepunch.com.au/community-agreement/

No where on that page is a directive not to be ‘‘mean’’ to people, not that my comment is even mean. Acotrel displays a one track mind and as the 4 other comments published above mine have likewise stated, it is a stretch to believe he could have dinner without mentioning politics.

eRon says:

11:10am | 21/07/12

OK, Ant. Fair call.
Everybody holding hands? Sing after me…
Someone’s sleeping Lord…
Dear, dear alcotrel. Welcome into our collective, punching, bosom.

Bill says:

11:28am | 21/07/12

@ Sharwood - why are you pretending to uphold the community agreement all of a sudden? You guys publish heaps of posts a day which directly contravene the agreement, and when people complain nothing is done about it…

Susan says:

11:32am | 21/07/12

Ant..in fairness…many of us lately have copped comments as the one you selected out, and far worse.  I posted about the Tour and was called a poser - but Claire the writer was called this and worse.  I overdid smiley emoticons and was chipped for it….though in reflection, the person was right, I did overdo them, so, some self-reflection doesn’t hurt.  Some regular posters are told off every day by someone or other.

I agree that we shouldn’t get personal however.  acotrel does comment about Tony Abbott in every topic going however, I’ve not seen him to be mean to anyone in doing that and he just simply raises it…..so…it’s become a sort of game and part of the Punch culture for him to post and a run of people who say,...at it again?

I suspect some of the posters here feel your critique a tad unjust because how on-topic is Tony Abbott no matter what the blog piece is about?  (Yes, I know the name was not used here) If adding to the topic discussion means reasonably being on topic, arcotrel is rarely on topic.  And you can’t really add to a discussion when it’s just a throw down line about Abbott so often.

Still, arcotrel isn’t, as said, mean-spirited so best ignore than inflame and apply the old adage..‘If you’ve nothing constructive to say…be quiet”.

Hoping I am offering a fair and balanced take on this.

arcotrel, it would be nice to see your views on a range of topics as presented in Punch.  Have a great weekend!

Everyone else, I think the general warning about abuse was timely…it’s risen in the last few weeks until some folks just think put-downs are ok.  They’re not.

Everyone here is a real person with vulnerabilities.  Let’s not dig at them simply because we can.

Elphaba says:

11:54am | 21/07/12

There’s very little consistency when it comes to you and your colleagues enforcing your community agreement, Sharwood.

Susan says:

01:22pm | 21/07/12

It just struck me Ant and the other Punch writers.  You often allow abusive post about you guys through.  I think there is often a concern among writers that culling out such posts will be seen as being precious and ‘protecting one’s own’.  The trouble is, those abusive posts appear and provide a tacit acceptance that abuse posts are ok.

Consistency as much as possible is always preferable and if you don’t want abuse posts then all the moderators (who may be you guys, I don’t know) need to decide what is, and is not, abuse and all moderate as closely as possible.

Same as being on-topic.  You want light-hearted humour between people because it’s what makes for a better ‘community’ but there should be some basic rule that if a writer say poses a point about…well..jam making…that someone simply doesn’t play with the words and make it another opportunity for a political comment that goes nowhere - or a comment about anything else actually.

Open threads are the anything goes (topic-wise) places and where anyone with a soapbox has their chance.

In fact, this whole topic could serve as a useful subject for Punch to write about.

Babylon in Canberra says:

02:10pm | 21/07/12

I thought the rule to avoid censorship was say anything about Abbott and the Coalition, but Miss Gillard is not touchable.

As for Acotrel, why not offer this deal, first he says some complimentary things about Abbott then we will say nice things about him? Call it a personal growth exercise.

Deal?

stephen says:

02:15pm | 21/07/12

Yeah I’m not one to play ‘the game’, but there has been too much snarping about this chap Alco, (for short) which borders on bad manners.

And as Bruce Dawe might say ... cut it out !

Anthony Sharwood says:

03:18pm | 21/07/12

Susan, you make a good point. We are a bit too slack in teh abuse we let thru on ourselves and yes, it is becasue we don;t want to seem to precious.

As for moderating inconsistencies, we admit to these. I guess it happens becasue different people moderate at differnet times, and mood can dictate what gets through and what doesn’t.

As for your Elphaba (and one or two others), would it kill you to use my first name?

Susan says:

03:34pm | 21/07/12

Thanks Ant.  I used to be a moderator on a huge member based forum of 15,000 plus people and, yes, your mood does tend to alter your moderation subjectivity.  The choice was made with the biz admin to cut anything where people used a negative personal term - idiot, jerk, wanker etc - and those game players who try and get away with abuse by posting something on topic and then getting the boot in just before they ended their post.

It’s not always an easy job and I respect that.  Glad this was raised today as said and I don’t think you guys should post comments abusive to you any more.

Mind you, those who write articles may need to consider not including abusive personal phrases in their own writing; not as censorship but as modeling what you want the community to deliver back.  It’s always problematic to ask people for behaviour not always presented to them.

Thanks for listening today.

Elphaba says:

03:40pm | 21/07/12

Fine. Anthony, if you want people to play nice, start moderating consistently so that people can get the message. The patchy hit-and-miss bias comes back to your moderators. Set an example.

marley says:

04:00pm | 21/07/12

@Anthony - I think, to be fair, that calling out JT on his remark was a bit over the top.  You and your colleagues have let much worse through, although I do concede that Acotrel does get a lot of stick (including from me - sorry about that, acotrel).  But, relatively speaking, JTs comment was much milder than a few of the insults being thrown around yesterday - and look at the “conservative bigot” insults being tossed around today on one of the other threads.

I think we all know that Punching (or any form of blogging) isn’t really for the faint of heart and most of us are prepared to take a bit of stick without getting too precious about it.  Frankly, I’d prefer that, as moderators, you paid more attention to getting rid of the trolls than the merely acerbic. Little Olive and her like add nothing at all to the forum,  and seem to me to violate your rules much more than this particular example.

sunny says:

05:13pm | 21/07/12

@Babylon “I thought the rule to avoid censorship was say anything about Abbott and the Coalition, but Miss Gillard is not touchable.”

It defies the utter definition of belief that you posted that. Have you not seen all the ignorant childish vitriol aimed at the PM every day of the week on this site, or are you new?

..but it just goes to show the tough epidermis political leaders need in this country, what with a million people snapping at your derriere. Hats off to both Gillard and Abbott, better you than me.

But to digress. Abbott is a dumb gorilla who has shown by his policies that he doesn’t deserve to be PM.

Rose says:

05:21pm | 21/07/12

The difference between Abbott and Acotrel is that Abbott has held himself as a potential Prime Minister and has therefore held himself to be judged not just on his policies but also on his personality an character. Acotrel has simply put his opinions up while still keeping much about himself private, not even his real name is known by most, if not all of us. Because of this we do get to comment on Abbott the person, but not really on Acotrel the person, because we can’t really know Acotrel the person, he may even be a she for all we really know (it is entirely possible he made stuff up about his personal life).
So if Acotrel wants to rip into Abbott, as annoying as it often is when he is off topic, Abbott has to suck it up, that is exactly what he signed up for. Gillard cops a fair whack from a lot of you and so what’s good for the goose and all that…..Acotrel only signed up to have his posts commented on, so that’s where the comments should end, far away from personal attack.
Australian politics has become a nastier game than ever before, and that is the absolute fault of the leaders of the major parties, it’s just a shame that the people on blogs have become equally as nasty.

LJ Dots says:

05:25pm | 21/07/12

Hi Ant. I think you may be a tad harsh on TJ here.

True, it was not nice, but even when serious topics such as euthanasia appear on The Punch and your readers share their own stories relevant to the topic you will still get good old reliable acotrel sharing his own classy comments on his favoutie theme such as:

*Take control of your own death before it’s too late’ - Do you mean before Tony Abbott gets into power*

Standards indeed.

Mouse says:

07:42pm | 21/07/12

@sunny, you never fail to make me smile, whether I agree with you or not! 
PS   I like gorillas   lol   :o)

eRon says:

09:41pm | 21/07/12

Oh yes, and of course there’s that old adage about living by the sword…

Susan says:

10:50am | 22/07/12

LJ Dotes..  *Take control of your own death before it’s too late’ - Do you mean before Tony Abbott gets into power*

Yes, and I noticed the John Howard comment on the Batman deaths topic already however, as lacking in broader tact they may be, at least so far it’s not been done to say the person who posted anonymously about domestic violence.  I hope not anyway and there’s tact in those directions.

@acotrel…. It would seem appropriate for you to say something here now.  You’ve posted today and no doubt read through the comments. 

Do you agree with anything at all..the fact that sometimes you are off-topic or stretching a point to try and be on topic (with the agenda getting the political negative in?). Or, do you think that you’re all right thanks very much and should be left alone?

thatmosis says:

02:34pm | 22/07/12

Anthony Sharwood, several problem with your idea, firstly most people thing acotrel is a complete nutter who would blame the Big Bang on Abbott if he thought he could get away with it and secondly, see the first reason.
  He is not a friend or someone most of us would associate with and unlike his beloved PM we are not in the habit of making false and misleading statements just to make someone feel better.

Gregg says:

02:38pm | 22/07/12

Oh come on guys, Ant just lost a few legs to be human, his footy team lost, his tipping is probably about as far down the gurglar as our dear frien Acidweller could be and if he takes enough piss out of you all, he’ll have gallons and gallons of it to flush down the same pipe.
And besides, it could be that he is saddled with weekend duty.

Susan says:

04:27pm | 22/07/12

@Gregg.. you make Ant sound like he is having a male period (Of course one is not supposed to reference women being hormonal any more)

meh says:

10:35am | 23/07/12

Anyone notice, there isn’t the pic of the writer that usually appears when the site’s regular writers post in comments?

Susan says:

11:51am | 21/07/12

I had a solid friend for over 20 years and then they joined a particular form of religion (speaking in tongues etc).  She knew my view and we discussed the whole thing and I essentially said…if this makes you fulfilled and happy then I am really happy for you, but please don’t try and convert me.

And so we agreed on that.  But, then the conversion attempts began so we sat and discussed it again.  She felt because she cared for our friendship that she should try and ‘bring me to’ the knowledge that would save me and make my life better.  I told her I didn’t want to be involved and that for our friendship to survive, we needed to respect our different views on this and to not try and persuade each other in any direction.

But she couldn’t stop and the tapes and books and things started to flow in.  It ended the friendship.

So, I do agree that we should be able to discuss just about anything, but sometimes that discussion will accept also that the friendship is over; at least at that time.

JT says:

11:30am | 21/07/12

Exactly and why the need to cut off friends anyway? In almost every case I and my former friend simply grew apart, no need to ‘break up’ with them.

Susan says:

11:58am | 21/07/12

@M and @JT… I think what you say is perhaps the ideal??  But once you are friends with people for a long stretch of time…say 15 years plus…and life, values, what you do socially etc all starts to alter, things can happen.  I gave an example above re a religious issue where the ending was discussed.  I didn’t think of it as “breaking up” and I smile at the reference but I guess that’s what it was.  But true, most of the time we just drift away as you say.

Babylon in Canberra says:

01:24pm | 21/07/12

There are people out there with the personalities of crocodiles. I do not mean the freshwater type that kills to eat for 6 months of the year, but the big Salties that kill all year round regardless.

These friends are rightly removed.

Mouse says:

10:46am | 22/07/12

Yes Tator, ain’t that the truth. But hell, we had a good time anyway! lol :o)

ME says:

04:18pm | 22/07/12

You killed the war and peace lilly speal right there at the end AC. Have you ever heard of the Brutus salad?  It kills a Caeser.  Clearly coming from a hardened heart there. And not from your learned heart. You should round the edges a little. When people set upon this earth to clearly hurt people by permeating their nastiness onto others, it may be life, but its not quite clear the reason why it should be accepted. Death and distance yes, easy to accept, but outright underhanded dealings, not. Sorry, dont buy into that one.