DiscussMormonism.com

"Dogpiling." What is it, and should it be treated as a bad thing in itself?

Dictionary.com gives the following definition:

When many people post unfriendly responses in short order to a single posting, they are sometimes said to "dogpile" or "dogpile on" the person to whom they're responding. For example, when a religious missionary posts a simplistic appeal to alt.atheism, he can expect to be dogpiled.

So, is it automatically a bad thing for many people to post unfriendly responses to a single posting in a short amount of time?

To use a recent MDB example without naming names, there was a thread posted yesterday about Elizabeth Smart. Within seven minutes, four people had posted in the thread objecting to thread title (most of them with very strong language). The thread has not been up for a day and now ten people have posted in the thread speaking out against the title of the OP.

How come nobody has come to the defense of the OP and attacked the other posters for "dogpiling" him? Maybe because most of us agree that the OP was ill-conceived and inappropriate and deserved to be denounced by multiple people in a short amount of time?

If the latter is true, then calling out "dogpile" is not, in itself, a particularly meaningful criticism. Some arguments and behaviors are bound to evoke a negative reaction from many different people. Why is it a bad thing if those many different people choose to speak up on the matter? Likewise, some posters or bloggers or blog commentators have a bad habit of being rude, nasty, or outright cruel to those they engage in disagreements with. Is it really so incredible that a person who has acted poorly around a high number of people is likely to have those people speak out against him/her when a good opportunity to do so presents itself?

I feel like I've seen the charge of "dogpile" quite a bit in my last few years of commenting on blogs and message boards. And more and more, I feel like it's become the last line of defense for people who wish to defend those who have engaged in behavior which is ultimately indefensible. When you can't show that a person was justified in acting badly, or that they only acted as poorly as the people they attacked, or that their behavior wasn't really all that bad, what do you do? When you can't show that an argument is not as bad as everyone is making it sound, that it can stand on its own merits, what do you do?

Well, cry "dogpile" and attempt to guilt people for daring to react to bad behavior or refute poor arguments, apparently.

Or in other words, "dogpile": most of the time, it's just another thought-terminating cliché.

There is one place where I believe the charge of "dogpile" is valid. I think that it's okay to say "dogpile" when people are not really responding to or engaging someone's position, but are instead only trying to drown out someone's voice in a tidal wave of noisiness.

Unfortunately, I think people who use "dogpile" in the first sense have completely ruined it for those who wish to use it in the second sense.

Thoughts?

I've seen a fair number of legitimate "dog piles" over on MDD. For example, I think you could fairly characterize the treatment of Bob Oliverio and LDST in a few threads as a "dog pile."

How come nobody has come to the defense of the OP and attacked the other posters for "dogpiling" him? Maybe because most of us agree that the OP was ill-conceived and inappropriate and deserved to be denounced by multiple people in a short amount of time?

If the latter is true, then calling out "dogpile" is not, in itself, a particularly meaningful criticism.

That could be a really big if. But I note most OPs here are started by LDS critics.......

As for dog piling, I've experienced it quite a few times here but never complained.

bcspace wrote:

But I note most OPs here are started by LDS critics.......

As for dog piling, I've experienced it quite a few times here but never complained.

I would say more than quite a few times and I have never seen you complain either. But then I think you employ other methods as a means to protest.

As to MsJack's thoughts on the use of dog pile to simply distract from a given point by a storm of words, here at MDB we have had a history of a very unique form of dog-pile.

Let's call it the one-man dog pile (sorry girls have not seen a example of a female doing it).

Can you find the one-man dog pile, used to ruin a very interesting OP in the following link?

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=22188

My all time favorite dog pile:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTOWMsm6W6w

And then the rare example of another good dog pile, mixed with a one-man dog pile.
search.php?search_id=newposts

Hi MsJack -

I appreciate your points and think your initial comment is valid. Especially in a community where freedom is valued it often falls on the community to act collectively to police its members. In this sense, I don't think there is anything wrong.

But I disagree with your definition for the second type of dog piling. You said -

... I feel like it's become the last line of defense for people who wish to defend those who have engaged in behavior which is ultimately indefensible. When you can't show that a person was justified in acting badly, or that they only acted as poorly as the people they attacked, or that their behavior wasn't really all that bad, what do you do?

Well, cry "dogpile" and attempt to guilt people for daring to react to bad behavior or refute poor arguments, apparently.

Or in other words, "dogpile": most of the time, it's just another thought-terminating cliché.

There is one place where I believe the charge of "dogpile" is valid. I think that it's okay to say "dogpile" when people are not really responding to or engaging someone's position, but are instead only trying to drown out someone's voice in a tidal wave of noisiness.

I think rather than "thought-terminating", the accusation of dog pile could be seen as a call for pause and consideration. I think when one is in the heat of an exchange it's not easy to self-assess where one has not met the minimum standard you outlined above of "acting no worse than the person with whom they were engaged". Even less so when there is a momentum caused by echoing voices saying the same thing. I'm not sure anyone ever feels they are not meeting this standard. In most cases, I think people feel some remorse when they look to a higher standard - Am I acting in line with my own values? - and feel they've come up short.

As Scratch noted, I've seen some of the worst kinds of dog piles on the former MAD. One in particular will hopefully be their low point - the dog pile on beastie a few years back.

For a different take on the phenom, consider this article - http://voices.yahoo.com/the-mob-mentality-internet-forums-why-weak-people-5388241.html

In my mind, something worth noting is occurring when people stop acting as individuals with all the nuance and preference this entails. I tend to suspect unhealthy dog piling is occurring when people who would otherwise not care or even would have a contradictory opinion begin to express a popular or endorsed view. It's easy to lose one's bearing on one's moral compass in such moments.

I agree with you that dog piling isn't always a bad thing. But the best way to be sure is to consider how one feels as an individual rather than as a member of a mob.

Individual bad behaviour is another topic entirely. And impossible to decide in any way that wouldn't turn ugly.

bcspace wrote:]

That could be a really big if. But I note most OPs here are started by LDS critics.......

As for dog piling, I've experienced it quite a few times here but never complained.

This is true. When I was posting on the postmo during its early days, I would receive a rapid fire of posts of which I was told that I should respond to all. I couldn't keep up with the dogpiling. I find that critics do this with LDS posters. They pile so much dog crap on the LDS poster that they can't get out from under.

However, i called it a circling by the wolves on the postmo. It is a good hunting tactic by the critics. But not exactly fair.

Prior to seeing this term used around here, I though a dogpile was a pile of dog poo.

H.