Prompted by a discussion in someone else's journal.

[redbird]

This was prompted by someone noting that we've all heard some variant on "sure, that person is obnoxious online, but they're good company in person," but that she'd also run into the reverse: people whoe are obnoxious in person but fine on the Internet. In the course of the comments, it occurred to me that a poll might be in order.

[Poll #1517524]

Comments

[pantryslut.livejournal.com]

The more honest answer would be "if I dislike them in one medium, I find it hard to separate that dislike from when I encounter them in the other."

[copperwise.livejournal.com]

Agreed.

There is a person I have only encountered online, but every time I come across him he is spewing the nastiest most hateful garbage. Yet everyone assures me that he's delightful in person, nicest guy I'd ever want to meet. Well, I don't want to meet him, and have avoided doing so, because I already think of him as a class-A shit.

I also avoid a couple of people who have big followings online and are adored, because I know things about them in Real Life that are absolutely the opposite of their Internet images, and I can't pretend to be pals online when I know their icky secrets.

[redbird]

Knowing their icky secrets feels slightly different, because I can see someone being popular with my friends in person, but me knowing enough to want to avoid them, but maybe not stuff I would feel comfortable passing along.

I think a piece of it, for me, is there are levels at which, if someone is that vile in one context, I'm not going to be prepared to ignore that in another, whether it's online vs. in person or someone who was intelligent and friendly here on LJ but I remember as being a nasty troll on Usenet.

[kiya]

This.

There is an exception to this, of sorts: if I don't remember that someone is someone who has enraged me online (which is quite likely, because I am extremely slow to associate names with both faces and texts but faces at least trigger the 'I know you, who the hell are you?' response) there may be a gap in reactions, obviously. This gap goes away in the event that I make the connection.

[nolly.livejournal.com]

Yes, that.

[micheinnz.livejournal.com]

Yes, this.

[ellarien]

I'm possibly an outlier here, in that the overlap between my online and in-person circles is very small, so I don't have a huge sample to speak to.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

I know people who are very bad at conversing in one medium or another as a skill set, rather than as a dung-flinging behavior. One of the major problems I see there is tone-deafness to written prose or to physical cues. There is a person I like to talk to in person, but this person goes into auto-patronize mode on the internet and is likely to act as though anyone soliciting opinions is looking for objective facts they could have looked up elsewhere. (Example: if I ask which are the good biographies of an historical figure, I mean, "Who here has read biographies of this figure and has personal opinions of them?", not, "I failed my card catalog roll and cannot tell you whether such biographies exist." This person does not make this mistake in person--or if they do, they notice from my facial expression that they have done so and correct for it quickly--but it is nearly their only observed mode online.)

I know people whose in-person interests are many and varied, and whose online interests seem limited to posting quiz results and game results.

I also know some people who say things online that they keep to themselves in person--the self-pitying "I am the only one who truly cares about x" or "I am the only one who truly understands y" sorts of rants. Unfortunately, when I tried to defriend one such person in hopes of it saving our in-person friendship, it went rather badly, so maybe I just don't like him in general.

[dichroic.livejournal.com]

I know at least one person who comes across completely different online and in person - there are a couple of others I suspect of being the same way but I've only encountered them online so far. It's not that I like one persona and dislike the other, just that they're noticeably different. I think some but not all of it has to do with English being the person's second languageIn person she seems direct, grounded and forceful; in print she's more fluttery and more enthusiastic. Either way, she's thoughtful and interesting.

[don-fitch.livejournal.com]

I don't find it so much a matter of "like" vs. "dislike" as of liking or disliking a few people somewhat more (or less) in one venue or the other. Usually only barely-perceptibly more (or less). On the whole, my feelings seem to be set mostly by in-person contact, and I seem to have very few ongoing OnLine associations with people I haven't previously met in person (albeit sometimes only once or twice, briefly, at Conventions).

Mind you, the OnLine thing is a close parallel with the long-ago-recognized (in fanzine fandom) possible difference between in-print and in-person personalities -- which was distinct in a few individuals, but imperceptible in most.

[bohemiancoast.livejournal.com]

This, though I do have a large online only or online mostly acquaintance.

[don-fitch.livejournal.com]

Which brings up what might be another point. I do have some-only acquaintances, with the latter being the operative word. Don't know them well enough to like or dislike to any significant degree, but associate with them because they have interesting things to say.

[hawkida.livejournal.com]

I believe people display different parts of themselves to different forums, and that people may appear likeable in each, but for me, once I know they're bigotted/rude/unfriendly/mean/stupid/uncaring etc it colours them as a person and I stop liking the more presentable side.

[supergee.livejournal.com]

I first encountered a version of this phenomenon in zines.

[stakebait.livejournal.com]

For me, some things carry over, some things don't. if the person is really obnoxious -- bigoted, prone to ad hominem attack sort of thing -- in one forum, it will color my impression of them overall until I cannot like them in any. But there are things short of obnoxious that will suffice to make me avoid one incarnation while still valuing the other.

Things that can make me avoid an online person but not their real life self -- a journal full of complaints/venting, a journal full of a hobby or interest we don't share, a journal full of spelling and grammar mistakes or lack of paragraphing, a journal full of interpersonal drama, such rampantly prolific updates that I can't keep up.

Things that make me prefer an online incarnation to an offline: incompatible communication styles. There's someone whose online thoughts I really value who when we met in person I felt I was constantly in danger of stepping on -- she's SO softspoken that it was really onerous to have to rein myself in, and i still came away from each meeting feeling vaguely guilty. Online that doesn't happen. On the opposite end of the spectrum, certain social blind spots which sometimes go with fandom, or with Aspergers, can make in-person interactions stressful for me that online tends to mediate.

[redbird]

A lot of that makes sense, including about communication styles.

I've got a note in my userinfo that basically says that if all a person posts is quiz results or their journal is entirely dedicated to an interest I don't share, I'm not going to read it. And this connects to rysmiel's observation that there are people they read who it would be feel presumptuous to call friends, and friends whose journals they don't read or who aren't on LJ.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

I expected to answer "yes" to the poll, but I realised I didn't actually know any. I know several people that _other_ people say are very different in person or onine, but don't know them in both places myself.

I know some people who are annoying online and are just the same in person, but because its face-to-face I've got used to them and got to like them, but I think that's in spite of their hyper-correctness, not instead of it.

And I know some people I didn't get to know in person, and then found really interesting online, and then later discovered they were equally interesting in person, I just hadn't discovered it.

So I definitely _see_ differences, and I think people definitely do _act_ differently, but I think the differences I see are different to the way people act differently... :)

[liv]

I haven't personally encountered the phenomenon of someone who's obnoxious online but lovely in person, or vice versa. I do have a few friends I'm very fond of, who online don't manage to engage me, either posting very dull, long-winded accounts of their day-to-day lives, or restricting themselves to auto-generated quiz results and repeating the latest trendy netspeak with little content. I don't dislike people who write like that, but they are people I would find totally uninteresting if I didn't already know them as intelligent, interesting people offline.

[hobbitblue.livejournal.com]

I've met people in real life that I'd previously only interacted with online and they were unpleasant to be around, and I stopped being in contact with them online after that, I prefer people to be pretty much the same on or offline (allowing for shyness, nerves, communication styles etc). And there's one person on my flist who is lovely in person but is sure-fire guaranteed to say exactly the wrong thing to me, or phrase things badly, but I'm aware its just the way zie writes. There are people online I probably wouldn't get on with in person, but the Atlantic solves that problem pretty much :)