Peter Kraus - Bachelorette 13 - Discussion - #9

albean99 wrote:I think the reason that some threads seem more negative than others (not just Peter's discussion thread) is that the same people keep posting over and over. It gets overwhelming if you happen to like that person. If you don't like that person then it probably seems just fine because they support your opinion and it's natural to want to reply. Sometimes the positive posts are a better fit in the fan thread although that makes it a little less diverse in the discussion thread as a result. This is all according to the rules so it's not something that will or should be changed but it's just an observation. All JMO.

Thank you for this post. I agree completely. If someone is not liked, I don't understand the need to come back and re-state that dislike with different wording, almost everyday, breaking down all the ways that _____is such a terrible person. I simply stay out of the threads of people that I am not a fan of, but I know that is just me, and everyone is entitled to do what they like, assuming it's within the rules.

That being said, I like Peter as a person. Off the show it's apparent that he care deeply about other people, volunteers his time often, etc. He is not perfect, no one is. Apparently he wasn't the best fit for Rachel, but she saw something in him to keep him around as long as she did.

I wish him well, as I also wish Rachel and her fiance well.

I hold back 90% of the things I want to write about certain contestants out of respect for the rules tone of this forum. But that's just me. LOL



Source

This is the problem IMHO because I've seen it for years. There are sleuthers, they don't care how how handsome a contestant is, they want to sleuth.

There are fans, obsessive fans, that are clueless when it comes to sleuthing.

Peter unfollowed 200 followers. A comment as simply as that starts WW3.

There have been a cuzzlion comments about what Peter is doing what he's not doing and what he should do. All those comments were attacked because the poster was a "hater".

Somehow it was fine when Bryan was being slammed for being a player, which there was no proof of, no one could provide proof, however when it came to sleuthing Peter, discussing body language, his attitude, or whatever, it was taken as a slam. It's not a slam it's called sleuthing. When some insisted there was chalk on the grass, pages and pages of chalk on the grass, sleuthers posted how unreaonable that speculation was, it was attacked JUST because it was Peter. When the idea that Rachel was going to Peter for SHV even though there was zero proof of that, and it was not something that has ever happened before, it was considered as season of firsts. That's not sleuthing, that's being obsessive, it was illogical but it didn't matter, names were called.

Some Peter fans could simply not sleuth, and quite frankly behaved like SM trolls.

Long time sleuthers are able to care for a contestant and and sleuth at the same time. Some cannot. That behaviour prevented sleuthers from doing great work on the open forum, which would have helped newer sleuthers, which is always my goal.

This will not happen again. We sleuth, you can't force someone to like a contestant and they should have every right to say so. If the posts are negative so be it. We aren't all suddenly going to post lovey dovey posts about Peter just because there aren't enough positive posts.

If someone wants to leave, they leave, we don't need a grand exit announcement, they don't follow rules they get banned.

@GuardianAngel
Members(myself included) chose not to post and sleuth this season due to being shot down over and over again because it wasn't Peter oriented.
I sent out pms to other members asking them to post my ideas for me. Never before have I done this. I am pretty vocal. I can't imagine how someone less vocal felt. I'm embarrassed to post this, but it's true. And I thank those who helped me out.
I got pms from members regarding names I was being called on other forums from "members" here. Slanderous things.
Ugly, horrible things went on and I'm not someone on your tv. Neither is GuardianAngel.
There are reasons we have the rules we have.
We hope this is a nice place for everyone. We try to make it that way. We aren't perfect. We don't claim to be. But if this isn't the place for you, there are other places.
Peace be with you.

kerriway wrote:When anyone has a favorite anything it's not as much fun when others don't see what you see. I didn't like the Bryan bashing on other parts of SM so I know how you all feel. And I actually understand why some of you don't run to the Peter fan threads, I like a little gushing but prefer to read thoughtful observations so the Discussion and SM threads are my go to's.

Here is where I may disagree with y'all. There were several times I personally tried to invite thoughtful banter with Peter fans on this forum. I'd ask for examples of his deep affection towards Rachel, their connection etc and I didn't get any responses IIRC. I asked because you all seemed to see such good qualities in Peter that I wanted your POV.

I also remember mods and others sleuthing proof that Bryan was F1 and those members being told that the sleuthed info didn't mean Peter wasn't still the F1. When the response was then, 'OK, please provide sleuthed info that Peter is F1 then again it doesn't IMO appear as if there was a response/info provided.

I'm a noob on this forum and I don't want to come off as if I'm trying to tell anyone what to say but imo if more meaningful discussion on Peter was wanted it would have been great to have seen more posts that analyzed why the things Peter said/did showed his intentions towards Rachel. It would've been great to read, "yeah Peter shouldn't have done that but I think he meant this or maybe he'll improve" etc. On the contrary I saw more Bryan fans saying "I used to like Peter (which was also the case with me) but then I saw this" or Bryan fans saying "yeah his lines are cheesy" and even I said, "I didn't like the sloppy seconds" comment. But it does seem like there wasn't as much objective criticism of Peter's shortcomings, kind of like he was perfect imo.

I'd see breakdowns of Bryan/Rachel conversations, BL gifs, and theories on what it all meant in Bryan threads. I didn't see much of that hypothesizing and analysis to support Peters viability/good qualities in Peter threads IMO.

Again this is all JMO and I'm trying to be open and not critical or snarky. I concede that I may have missed posts where some of what I've said was lacking was mentioned, I just didn't see it.

I never thought Peter was for sure F1 (well maybe during the first episode, when there wasn't much to go by except the false spoiler), so I was never trying to prove he was F1, but I did defend his intentions quite a bit and I remember others did as well during the first half of the season. There were gifs and SC's provided to show tender moments with Rachel, but I think people just gave up after the hot tub sesh, because it seemed like everything was dismissed as not good enough. There they were literally on top of each other, Peter grabbing that azz and Rachel grinding on him, and it was still dismissed as awkward/scripted/Rachel doing all the work and basically just treated as further proof that Peter wasn't into her. It seemed like most remaining Peter fans just retreated into the fan thread after that, which I can understand, since it felt like it was already decided that Peter is borderline repulsed by Rachel and absolutely nothing would change that narrative. I'm not saying people can't express their opinions, but at some point it seemed to become a fact, no IMO needed, that Peter was always sitting miles away from Rachel and she had to ask him to kiss her. Even if it happened once or twice (not sitting miles apart, since they were always in the same room, usually on the same piece of furniture), it wasn't a rule, so reading it day after day stated as fact and "sleuthing proof" got a bit annoying for me as well, and I'm no "shipper". There's sleuthing, there are opinions and then there are exaggerations, and I wish there was less of the latter all around, regardless of who is being talked about. Expressing one's opinions in an extreme way does come off as needlessly provocative sometimes. I personally find it a bit weird how anyone can have extreme opinions one way or the other about people we've only seen mere minutes of on screen and have little to go by apart from that and SM. They're probably not nearly as good or bad as we think, just normal flawed people who sometimes do stupid things. Accusing them of having all kinds of mental issues and even disorders based on gut feelings is just baffling to me. It's not much different from the vitriol aimed at them on SM which we're all shaking our heads at over here. Just saying that a little self-moderation from everyone would go a long way in keeping blood pressures low on the forum IMHO. At the end of the day, we don't really know these people.

All JMOAA.

I agree with your analysis of the situation Mindless- it was very thoughtfully stated and it is how I see it as well. I never thought of Peter as evil personified either, plotting to be the bachelor since he was in high school. My high school thoughts were not all that mature I can honestly say. I just think he was not into Rachel and is emotional but has a hard time expressing himself verbally and he needs time to process- I can totally relate. While not a fan of Bryan at first due to the sloppy seconds comment, it became obvious that Rachel would pick him, thanks to the outstanding sleuthing here. It has been a little heated on this board to me and I want to thank the mods for keeping it under control. But it did feel to me that saying anything in Peter's favor on here was not a wise idea. I started liking Rachel but saw too many other sides of her that I don't like, especially on the finale. I am very glad this season is over.

They're probably not nearly as good or bad as we think, just normal flawed people who sometimes do stupid things. Accusing them of having all kinds of mental issues and even disorders based on gut feelings is just baffling to me. 

@mindless I agree with that! I think the furthest I've ever gone is that I think Peter is insecure, can be emotionally manipulative (possibly unintentionally), and seems two-faced to me. IMO, I do think that it's too far to call him abusive and psychotic and the such. Although everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I do sometimes get uncomfortable with vilifying and hero-worshiping that occurs here. They're all just normal people. I think that outside of this forum, the hero-worship of Peter and vilifying of Bryan was just so intense and didn't allow for differing opinion that it caused more frustration and outrage than normal. For the record, I made jokes all season along about Peter's awkward kissing and his sitting far apart from her, but I admitted that it was clear by the finale that Peter deeply cared for her and loved her. He's not good enough of an actor to fake all that and I can see now that his awkwardness/stiffness is probably just a personality trait. So, the Peter fans who provide another perspective - it's greatly appreciated so that it's not just an echo chamber here! Your opinions often do make me see things from a different perspective and I think that's needed for enjoyable discussions! IMO. 

BTW, mindless, I always "like" your posts here! Your posts are very well-thought out, objective, and logical so even if I disagree on parts, I appreciate the thought you put into them.

@mindless you put my thoughts into words . Thank you. I didn't know how to say that without being snarky and I really really didn't want to be pointed to the fan threads

mindless wrote:
I never thought Peter was for sure F1 (well maybe during the first episode, when there wasn't much to go by except the false spoiler), so I was never trying to prove he was F1, but I did defend his intentions quite a bit and I remember others did as well during the first half of the season. There were gifs and SC's provided to show tender moments with Rachel, but I think people just gave up after the hot tub sesh, because it seemed like everything was dismissed as not good enough. There they were literally on top of each other, Peter grabbing that azz and Rachel grinding on him, and it was still dismissed as awkward/scripted/Rachel doing all the work and basically just treated as further proof that Peter wasn't into her. It seemed like most remaining Peter fans just retreated into the fan thread after that, which I can understand, since it felt like it was already decided that Peter is borderline repulsed by Rachel and absolutely nothing would change that narrative. I'm not saying people can't express their opinions, but at some point it seemed to become a fact, no IMO needed, that Peter was always sitting miles away from Rachel and she had to ask him to kiss her. Even if it happened once or twice (not sitting miles apart, since they were always in the same room, usually on the same piece of furniture), it wasn't a rule, so reading it day after day stated as fact and "sleuthing proof" got a bit annoying for me as well, and I'm no "shipper". There's sleuthing, there are opinions and then there are exaggerations, and I wish there was less of the latter all around, regardless of who is being talked about. Expressing one's opinions in an extreme way does come off as needlessly provocative sometimes. I personally find it a bit weird how anyone can have extreme opinions one way or the other about people we've only seen mere minutes of on screen and have little to go by apart from that and SM. They're probably not nearly as good or bad as we think, just normal flawed people who sometimes do stupid things. Accusing them of having all kinds of mental issues and even disorders based on gut feelings is just baffling to me. It's not much different from the vitriol aimed at them on SM which we're all shaking our heads at over here. Just saying that a little self-moderation from everyone would go a long way in keeping blood pressures low on the forum IMHO. At the end of the day, we don't really know these people.

All JMOAA.

I feel I should just follow you around posting ICAM. I feel exactly as you do on this topic. Thank you!

mindless wrote:I never thought Peter was for sure F1 (well maybe during the first episode, when there wasn't much to go by except the false spoiler), so I was never trying to prove he was F1, but I did defend his intentions quite a bit and I remember others did as well during the first half of the season. There were gifs and SC's provided to show tender moments with Rachel, but I think people just gave up after the hot tub sesh, because it seemed like everything was dismissed as not good enough. There they were literally on top of each other, Peter grabbing that azz and Rachel grinding on him, and it was still dismissed as awkward/scripted/Rachel doing all the work and basically just treated as further proof that Peter wasn't into her. It seemed like most remaining Peter fans just retreated into the fan thread after that, which I can understand, since it felt like it was already decided that Peter is borderline repulsed by Rachel and absolutely nothing would change that narrative. I'm not saying people can't express their opinions, but at some point it seemed to become a fact, no IMO needed, that Peter was always sitting miles away from Rachel and she had to ask him to kiss her. Even if it happened once or twice (not sitting miles apart, since they were always in the same room, usually on the same piece of furniture), it wasn't a rule, so reading it day after day stated as fact and "sleuthing proof" got a bit annoying for me as well, and I'm no "shipper". There's sleuthing, there are opinions and then there are exaggerations, and I wish there was less of the latter all around, regardless of who is being talked about. Expressing one's opinions in an extreme way does come off as needlessly provocative sometimes. I personally find it a bit weird how anyone can have extreme opinions one way or the other about people we've only seen mere minutes of on screen and have little to go by apart from that and SM. They're probably not nearly as good or bad as we think, just normal flawed people who sometimes do stupid things. Accusing them of having all kinds of mental issues and even disorders based on gut feelings is just baffling to me. It's not much different from the vitriol aimed at them on SM which we're all shaking our heads at over here. Just saying that a little self-moderation from everyone would go a long way in keeping blood pressures low on the forum IMHO. At the end of the day, we don't really know these people.

All JMOAA.

What I'm getting from this is that some or much of the criticism of Peter was OTT/perhaps annoying/or beating a dead horse for some. A mod or member posted something weeks ago that may add context: There were two times this season where we had 14 day breaks for new episodes. I think that in small part helped to create a small vacuum where a lot of the same info was rehashed. If that got boring, then well it got boring because we (or at least I was) bored and eagerly waiting for a new episode.

However, even if there was no vacuum, my point was that if others wanted to see more Peter positive posts then those readers might have provided them. What I'm understanding is that those same readers may have just said 'to heck with it' and just hung out in the fan thread because they felt others didn't accept their points. There is nothing wrong with that course of action or their rational. But, all that is a catch 22 IMO, the people posting criticism shouldn't have to change and the people choosing not to post compliments shouldn't have to change either.  

However, I saw mods telling several people it was ok to be hopeful for a Pachel finale. I was even contacted once by a mod and reminded to make sure I complied with the boards rules so I know the mods weren't biased.

If/Since Peter positive posts were driven from/seen less of in the Discussion forum then IMO there was also an opportunity for those kinds of posts in the episode forum. I often typed live during episodes, and based on my opinion a lot of the things Peter said and did were off putting/confusing/and negative. Others could have, if they chose, typed about all the good things they saw from Peter. Again, if they didn't well that's fine.

As far as the exaggerations, that's going to be debatable. IMO I think we should just agree that Peter is a divisive guy. This is a guy that whether intentionally or not garnered such polarizing opinions because he IMO did/said things that were open for interpretation. Some saw him as almost perfect IMO and others saw him as a manipulative opportunist. (This divisiveness is all the more reason IMO that he shouldn't be the Bachelor but that he probably will be.) Even Rachel, the person who dated Peter, kept him until the end but said she was left confused by him.

This is still the best forum, with the best posters out here. On that I think we can all agree.

@kerriway Thank you for a lovely, IMO, well thought out post. I totally agree especially this part.

This is still best forum, with the best posters out here.

There will never be a lead that everybody likes and we've had divisive leads before. If you look outside of this forum Peter has a lot of support with many people wanting him as the bachelor.

I would like for him to be lead but I'm not losing any sleep over it. I've been disappointed before in leads I thought I would like and pleasantly surprised by people I wasn't crazy about. Who knows maybe Peter's biggest critics may change their opinion of him.....and maybe not.