A question of LJ ethics

[chickenfeet]

I'd appreciate my esteemed friends comments on this.

Person X makes a f-locked post.

Person Y (in this case me) responds causing offence to person X though third party enquiries suggest it's no more than me being my, admittedly, robust self.

Person X deletes me from friends list but leaves the f-locked post and my response up. This allows allows random ad hominem attacks on person Y (me) but blocks me from replying. Polite back channel enquiries are ignored.

Is this ethical?

Comments

[ironed_orchid]

The only think that suggests a lapse of ethics is the ad hominen attacks. The deleting you from list before discussing action with others is a bit cowardly and reactionary, but deleting people who upset one is both possible and quite ordinary on lj.

Everything else is perfectly understandable. Let's try the basic arrangement with another example.

Person X makes f'locked post.

Person Y makes a comment that person X finds offensive. Some discussion ensues between person X and person Y, but person X comes away feeling (rightly or wrongly) attacked and offended in their own journal.

Person X then makes another post on a filter which person Y can't see, discussing their reactions to the discussion, those on the filter comment, probably giving advice.
---

Now, what's different here is that person X has not deleted Y off the f'list yet, but in all other things, it's pretty much the same scenario, in which the person who, perhaps unwittingly, gave offense, is not able to see the post in which the offended party discusses their reaction.

I have done this, so have other friends we have in common. So, I would think, people do outside of lj when they are hurt or offended by something another said.

---

Although having just written this, I've thought that perhaps you mean that people are responding to your comments and you cannot reply - that sems rather unfair. I'll leave teh rest of my comment intact, as i think it's still a handy comparison.