C Elegans wrote: I think you both understand and misunderstand my point. My point is 1. I think the nature of public internet forums is unsuitable for communities to form unless they are quite small, since it will have to be a special selection of people who share common goals etc.
Do you think this is a limitation of public internet forums or people in general?
My bold, it was the use of the word "current" that mislead me to think you were discussing "current" as opposed to "past". But maybe you did refer rather to the future, or to any other point of time. However, to comment of the general issue, flaming between members have always occured occationally here at SYM like on most (all I believe) message boards, and I think they way to deal with it has been satisfying.
I see. I think my focus here was more on the behaviors vs the point of time. While I agree that flaming has always occurred, my concern was more with interactions that were are not necessarily flaming but tend to set up a milieu that is not conducive to self-disclosure. Such a milieu becomes less satisfying for the participants, even if all they are looking for is the sharing of ideas.
Of course - if you read my posts in the threads I linked to above, Reagan's dead and Politics and sensitivity, it should be obvious what norms I advocate.
Forgive me. My time is limited and I have not read all the posts in these thread. But beyond that, I would never presume to know the views of someone as literate and complex as yourself without asking.
In summary, I think the norms should be equal to the forum rules, and they should be equal for all posters regardless of background and opinions as long as ad hominems and discriminating content is present. Forum rules in turn, should (as they are) be based on general criteria, ie the same type of criteria as real life groups or societies.
Given the large number of norms held by real life groups, your definition for general criteria is somewhat vague. For example, in most real life groups in America, to stand up in the middle of a funeral and deride the deceased would be considered a breach of several social norms. In fact, in some groups it would be considered a desecration. This is in spite of the obvious value groups (excluding the current administration apparently) have concerning free speech.
Now, it could be argued that an internet thread that was tacitly understood to memorialize a deceased person is not a funeral, but that seems open to debate in the view of some members. So how does a group of people posting in a public internet forum come to an agreement on general criteria upon which to base forum rules? And how does said group decide what level of sensitivity it should or should not show to its members’ beliefs, feeling, thoughts, etc?
Where were these people characterised as "needy and adolescent"?
Your statement concerning, “people [who] want a guarantee for getting a friendly and supportive environment where everybody agrees with your opinions and you get emotional, personal confirmation and soothing” in my mind speaks to the kind of person that is not full mature and requires a great deal of emotional and personal support. Thus the characterization as needy and adolescent. I think you will agree that your previous description is not a portrayal of a full-actualized, mature adult.
This brings me back to my main point, namely what I think it is realistic to expect from the medium in itself, an open internet forum where anybody could come and go and post whatever interest them at the moment. <snip> If people use SYM to cuddle up, to have intellectual discussions, to show off their collections of fantasy figures or to joke about booze, it's all fine - but my point is nobody can expect to control the information flow at a public forum in order to get their specific needs fulfilled.
In an ideal world, this may be true but I think in the world of human affairs this premise is problematic. First, given the brief amount of time that people have been relating via public internet forums, I do not think we have enough data to state definitively what is realistic and what is not in terms of what to expect from them. Second, I think controlling information flow to get their specific needs fulfilled is
exactly what people expect to be able to do in
any situation they find themselves in. How can it be otherwise? Humans are taught from childhood the importance the control of information flow has in every aspect of their life. Their parents, teachers, government, and other institutions participate in this all the time. As the child grows, they learn from their peer group how those in control of the information control who is “cool” and “not cool.” In romantic relationships, he or she learns to fight for control of whose narrative (theirs or their partner’s) will dominant the couple’s developing identity as a couple. In business, the individual is inundated with “spin” and “spin doctors” who manipulate information to their own ends. Why would people suddenly decide that public internet forums are somehow sacrosanct?
In addition, any time people invest a significant amount of time and energy socializing in a place, even a virtual place, there arises a concomitant desire to control or influence that place. Indeed, I do not think a workable forum can exist without some control. For example, you previously stated your opinion that ad hominem attacks should not be allowed. While I agree with you, you are already imposing a condition that is controlling the flow of information in accordance with your specific needs. Ostensibly, there could be others who do not mind ad hominem criticisms… or even relish them.
Well, I thought you asked for opinion so I posted my opinion, or did you want us to post other person's opinions?
Since it is you, I think it will be ok. I suspect, however, that you are actually channeling the opinions of Waverly.
Well, the central part of my statement is public internet forum. I am convinced that it is both possible and perhaps desired to create communities out of internet forums (just like any other groups) where there is a context present that includes such things as working for common, shared goals etc.
I see.
Let's assume that people at SYM decide that we should now create a community according to the definition in your first post. Then it would no longer, per definition, be an open forum, since in order to maintain the shared community goals, you can only include new members who share these goals and values, but exclude members who do not wish to participate in these shared goals or have different values.
Interesting. But surely this quality of “openness” that you mention must have gradations. By your own definition, SYM was never an
open forum, since it does have shared goals and values and does exclude members who do not wish to participate in these shared goals or have different values. To give one example, sociopaths, n’er-do-wells, sexual predators, and “trolls” are not welcome at GB. The whole mechanism of banning is based on this premise.
My original post was written out of a desire to understand this very dynamic – that is, how does the community as a whole decide what is “self” and “not self” in terms of the community identity. The emotional impetus for this was my own experience of loss in terms of behaviors that once seemed to be part of a shared norm, behaviors that defined GB as unique and vital to me personally. I also believe that, perhaps, the acrimony that was visible in some of the more politically-leaning threads may be symptomatic of unmet needs or unrealistic expectations or frustrations with changing norms. My assessment was that much of this was unspoken; thus, I appreciate your participation in an attempt to make such needs, expectation, feelings, perspective, and opinions more overt. In my mind, this will then allow for all members to have the opportunity to contribute to the flow of information – the narrative – that defines GB. This can then lead to more informed choices and perhaps a more vital community.
[/QUOTE]
