Contrary to several other posters in this thread, but in agreement with Robnark I don't think "net anonymity" plays a role in what people percieve as negative change here at SYM. On the contrary, it is logical to assume that people were more anonymous to each other in the early days of SYM than now. Like I posted in DW's net anonymity thread, there is always a sender and a receiver of communication, and some people might show blunted sensitivity, others increased, and some the same as in RL both as senders and receivers. The netto effect of this is IMO that the "sensitivity" at group level is the same as in RL. Instead, I think the core features of the perceived deterioration of SYM lies in discrepancy between expectation and outcome, and changes that are perceived as loss.
I searched for your post, but I couldn't find it, so I'd be thankful if you could link to it since I would find it interesting to read. I agree with you that a clique-mentality has formed at SYM, which is why I posted about subgroups and in- versus out-group behaviours above. When a group of people grow large enough (usually around 30+ people or so), subgroups tend to form spontanously, and as soon as you have more than one group, in- and out-group behavious will set in. A very common human in-group behaviour is to apply different sets of values towards ingroup members than towards outgroup members - and voila there you have created a "we and them"-behaviour. This inevitable creates a barrier between old and new users, that makes it more difficult for new users to find acceptance. In-group behaviours tend to marginalise others, newcomers as well as people with ideas that are not shared by the in-group. So if we want a forum which encourages new users to become regular posters and actively express themselves, in-group behaviours are not helpful.Aegis wrote:It also leads into the idea of the clique mentality. He also touches on something I brought up some time ago, in the 'Is SYM dying' thread (too lazy to link, will do so if asked, though), in that there is very much an elitest attitude here.
These statements were not removed, and did not lead to neither warnings from Mods or banning of any of the members. I could post numours such examples from old debates. Right after the 9/11 WTC attack, it was a lot of emotions flying around here. Right after the US invasion of Iraq there were many political discussion. But when I look back at the last months, I see fewer hot debates than for instance 1 year ago...so I really don't understand what exactly the sense of increased hostility or unpleasant behaviours referrs to.Chanak]In all cases - on SYM wrote:
Exactly, and this is why I am very much against the idea that an open forum such as SYM should have any other rules than those stated in the Forum rules. Implicit, unspoken rules of how one should behave to be accepted, only provide a barrier for new users who are not familiar with those rules, and they also marginalise everybody who does not behave according to the majority (or the norm-setting groups) values. In RL, this is called conformism and whereas conformism in both necessary and desired for instance in the traffic, I personally find it highly undesirable at an open internet forum entitled "Speak Your Mind". I may experince some discomfort when I see various people here post that they think evolution never happened, that poor people in the development countries have themselves to blame or that the slaughtering of civilians in poor countries were noble and heroic acts committed by various Western countries that only aimed to help out, but gee - if I didn't tolerate that kind of comments and opinions, I would quit posting here. Nobody is forcing me to read those posts, even less reply to them. Variability, not homogenity, is one of the key attractions with SYM in my opinion - if I only want to discuss with people who share my views and I expect everybody to uncritically accept my opinions and values, then I should look out for a fan-club for myself rather than SYM.
Lost One]I just did a quick scanning through other threads to see if I'm right about this wrote:
I totally agree with Lost One about the board being much more positively interpreted as an old user than as a new. This is also one reason why I against the idea of implicit rules and creating a community out of SYM, since I think this would add even more difficulties to incorporation of new members - the new members that are necessary if we want keep this forum alive and developing rather than increasingly stale.
However, I previously asked Thantor this question but he made it clear that he did not refer to change, so instead I ask it to you who have posted who do refer explicitely to a change: (DW, Chanak, Lost One, Aegis): Could you in greater detail describe what you refer to when you talk about "callous disregard" or "critisism...that can very much be intimidating" or "posts being picked apart by moderators and veterans alike"? I would also be thankful if anyone could post examples, because I really don't get it. Lost One gives a description that I can understand, but the other comments I can't relate to. Now, I haven't posted much the last few months except for quite recently, but I certainly don't think the general atmosphere in discussions have become more aggressive or hostile or "callous". The things people could say to each other in the old politics, religion and morality threads are IMO far more hostile than anything posted here in recent time that I have read. Chanak even suggests that "there was a time when such unpleasantness was dealt with, and removed promptly".
This is an example of an old discussion between two users:
How dare you make such a sweeping (and condescending) generalization about the motivations of the other 190 nations on the planet. Don?t presume to speak for the US either. I, for one, am embarrassed to share this country with someone willing to voice such ugly xenophobic comments and wallow in such holier-than-thou ignorance.
Theatrical and meaningless insults aside, what exactly are you disputing in my statement?
You know, I believe you sincerely don?t understand what I find so offensive. To me, it just further underscores your pathology. I?m all for debate, but not with the willfully ignorant.
