GameBanshee Forums

[QUOTE=Lost One]E você tem orgulho disso?

translation: And you're proud of this?

Anyway, this is probably my last post on this. I guess it is only natural for small groups to take hold of small forums (this goes for chat rooms too) for their own use. You see it all the time. Like Thantor mentioned in the beginning of the thread, I do believe it does have something to do with 'feeding individual egos'.

And when threads come along like Luis Antonio's "CM Kingdom" or "Weasel embarks on his mission to lead..." which to my opinion, goes against rule #5 and #8 of the forum, in the sense that it is made for explicit spamming and does not have any useful content...I'm once again reassured that the moderators are lenient towards this because of the elitist groups that have liberty of what they do/say.

I think it's a shame personally. Anything discussed in a public forum like this one should not exclude other members...but as it does, you'll get what has been happening until now. Small-time posters like me coming up to post things and then being 'intimidated' or just simply put down by the elitist groups.

Anyway, now that I am officially the forum villain for saying all this, heh, I think I'll just go back to posting in the game forums where there are no preferential attitudes and everyone is pretty much equal.

I'm bad. [/QUOTE]

Actually not. But by sayin that, as you are doing, I might help this barrier to be lowered. I'm not quite the spammer nor the funnier, but Im sure things will work out if newbies and "external" people with different religions and other tendencies dont let things fall apart.

This is an ancient comunity. We have the COMM, the SLURR, the DF... and lots of others. I'm sure it is not as easy as pie to convince them to trust an outsider who may destroy the environment just when he comes by.

I'm not against you nor favouring you. I just thing you are overreacting on Mah and the rest of the guys threads. Well, at least sometimes. I'm sorry if my "CM Kingdom" is useless spam for you, but I might add that fun is part of the game, and you are being restrictive yourself, building a wall and not enabling people to express themselves. Man, I like your posts, but if I cant have some fun here, what is the purpose of this place? I mean, if asked to post seriously, I'd post seriously and apologize when I feel I'm wrong. But the only real interaction wich makes people closer to us here are product of spam.

I mean, I guess you are mad, and angry... relax, bro... relax.

I mean, I guess you are mad, and angry... relax, bro... relax.

Heh, tá na hora de curtir aquela onda 'relax' do cachimbo da paz. Só ficar na boa, viajando bastante e pensando na morte da bezerra. Já é.

Direct translation: Heh, it's time to enjoy that relax wave from the pipe of peace. Just stay in the good, travelling a lot and thinking on the death of the little sheep. Already is.

Hm......why do direct translations never make any sense?

Anyway, I have probably overstepped my bounds in going on about how there is differentiated treatment here. I'm sure everyone heard my opinions well enough the first two, three times. So, in case anyone got annoyed by my posts, enjoy the severe beating of Lost One:



PS: Just to say I'm not off-topic...I'd like to add that, hm...communities are like boxes of chocolate. You never know what you're going to get. Now pass me the dutch!

[QUOTE=dragon wench]Spam in SYM is therefore defined somewhat differently, as I understand it anyway. As an example, erm (sorry Aegis ) threads that are simply a successive listing of spelled out numbers designed to increase post counts.[/QUOTE]
I'll read up on everything past this comment DW made, when I have time, but...

No need to apologize, DW... Though, sadly, that's my claim to fame on these boards... Notoriously counting for no reason... BTW, You gave me quite a good laugh referencing it, thanks

I haven't spent much time analyzing what I think of this message board or what others seem to think of it. I did participate in a recent thread in which we discussed, in part, the reasons why people join message boards. I suspect that the reasons why people post are directly related to how they feel about the message board.

I have always had the feeling that other members regard GB as a "community", but I regard it "merely" as an internet message board. That's because I get out of it what I put into it, so to speak. I hope that none of you are put off by that. GB is my favorite message board, and I really enjoy posting and reading messages here. I can't say that I really "know" any of you beyond your posting history here, but I do have some idea of what to expect from a lot of you, and I do look forward to reading messages from just about everybody. Without going into detail, I don't think any message board has the necessary "structure" to meet the definition of a "community", but I won't deny it might feel like a community to some of its members. I don't feel like getting into that argument any further. But I will say that I am happy to be a member of this message board. Fair enough?

If GB has changed over the years, it hasn't really affected me. I've seen members come and go, but that sort of thing seems natural to me in Real Life, and I did not feel personally affected by it here.

Because my post count is high enough and I have enough name recognition, I don't feel like an "outsider" here. Nor do I feel like I'm a member of an "elite faction". So I don't think there's any reason to feel like it can only be one or the other.


[QUOTE=Lost One]...I think I'll just go back to posting in the game forums where there are no preferential attitudes and everyone is pretty much equal. ...[/QUOTE]
I guess the reason why I feel that "there are no preferential attitudes and everyone is pretty much equal" in ALL of the forums here at GB is because I'm interested in the game forums more than anything else.


[QUOTE=Lost One]...EDIT: I'd just like to add a PS...which is that I'm not particularly sorry for the dying of SYM as the vets are putting it. When you're not lenient towards new bloods or friendly towards them, then you are leaving the heart (the forum, in this case) to run on old blood which will eventually not prove sufficient...[/QUOTE]
I don't know if that's true, but that's an interesting point. IF it's true that GB participation is limited to just a few members, then this board will deteriorate when natural attrition takes place. I can't argue with that. But as I said, I don't know if that's the case here at GB. Maybe that's because there are plenty of newbies stumbling into the game forums asking new questions.

You've made a distinction that I would like to emphasize: even if SYM is "dying" as some people say, that doesn't mean the board as a whole is dying. That's important.


[QUOTE=Lost One]...your statement...seems to suggest you don't mind 'closing the doors to newbies'.

...I guess it is only natural for small groups to take hold of small forums (this goes for chat rooms too) for their own use. You see it all the time. Like Thantor mentioned in the beginning of the thread, I do believe it does have something to do with 'feeding individual egos'.

This is why in places of online chatting rooms, you have many, many rooms to choose from where you can speak socially...so that you don't come to the same 1 room that is commanded by the same group of people like what can be observed here. It's like I have only one option here, which is to suck up to the people in social groups so I can actually gain respect and feel more free to actually speak my mind...[/QUOTE]
In my experience, that is certainly true of online chat groups. Those do seem to be dominated by tight groups of people who positively enjoy intimidating newbies. I think some of that can be attributed to the fact that chat groups are interactive and responses are immediate.

On the other hand, I see much less of that at GB. For one thing, GB is not very interactive and responses are not instantaneous. But aside from that, I just don't feel that "vets" are ganging up on newbies.

In the game forums, the members are always happy to help newcomers and listen to their input. I have posted a lot of messages in SYM as well, and I had no idea it was so much different in SYM.

Maybe that's just a reflection on me. I'm not intimidated by other people on the internet. I post pretty much whatever I feel like posting, regardless of other people's reactions. Of course, I have the luxury of being right most of the time. --Ha, ha, just kidding. But as you can see, my ego is quite secure. If I feel like other people have more knowledge about a particular subject than I do, I either defer to them or just keep my mouth shut. I don't have a problem with other people knowing more than I do. Or I might tease them occasionally if the urge strikes me. The point is, I don't need anyone's approval to come here and post messages.

Since I like to help, here is a practical suggestion for anyone who feels intimidated in SYM and would like to have some "backup" whenever they post a message that the "vets" here do not accept. I call it the "sock puppet" technique. Just create a second user account, and whenever you make a post with your primary account, post another message with your secondary account saying how much you agree with your other post. It could do wonders for your ego.


[QUOTE=C Elegans]I agree with much of your opinions regarding how newcomers are treated here at SYM.[/QUOTE]
I did this just to quote you out of context. Sorry, I couldn't resist.

VonDondu wrote:<snip>
Since I like to help, here is a practical suggestion for anyone who feels intimidated in SYM and would like to have some "backup" whenever they post a message that the "vets" here do not accept. I call it the "sock puppet" technique. Just create a second user account, and whenever you make a post with your primary account, post another message with your secondary account saying how much you agree with your other post. It could do wonders for your ego.

<snip>

Very bad advice. Buck dislikes secondary accounts so much that it is a bannable offence if discovered. (allthough I suspect you are joking, I still feel the need to warn about it )

#6 - Registering and using multiple accounts is not allowed. If we determine that you have more than one account (by matching IPs, etc), all accounts will lose their posting privileges.

[QUOTE=Xandax](allthough I suspect you are joking, I still feel the need to warn about it )[/QUOTE]
Well, if you think that somebody might take my advice seriously, then it's wise of you to warn everybody it's against the rules.

VonDondu wrote: In the game forums, the members are always happy to help newcomers and listen to their input. I have posted a lot of messages in SYM as well, and I had no idea it was so much different in SYM.

I think "help" forums will always be different in tone than discussion forums, or even more specific, "help" threads will be different than discussion threads. Remeber when technical support was a part of SYM, you could then se the same helpfulness in those threads as you could in the game oriented ones. I think its just that in any discussion (SYM or otherwise) people will only show "positive attitude" towards input that is meaningsfull and sensible to them. Not neseccary in agreement with their view but it has to make sense on some level. There are bound to be confllicts on both types of forums as well, but the importance of politics is generarly greater than the importance of game features, and so debates are more likely to be heated there.

This however is not a problem imo.

I have always had the feeling that other members regard GB as a "community", but I regard it "merely" as an internet message board.

Agree very much with this. Seeing it as a message board helps to escape a few unrealistic ideas of what one should expect when posting here.

[QUOTE=VonDondu]Well, if you think that somebody might take my advice seriously, then it's wise of you to warn everybody it's against the rules. [/QUOTE]

Well - we'll likely not know - but better safe then sorry imo

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.

C Elegans wrote:How strange. I obviously misunderstood it since I found to be very out-of-context

Yes, when I asked about my birth once, my mother made the same comment. *deep sigh*

Do you often make off-topic comments that do not refer to anything?

lol! Touché.

The statement did have a purpose, just not the one you anticipated.

However, I thought you had read the Reagan-thread since you referred to it, and in that thread and the following one, there was some strawman discussion about censorship going on, so I wanted to make sure that you didn't read only a few posts and then assumed that censorship and free speach had been used in order to defend the position that critisism of Reagan could be posted.

That’s reasonable.

You comment "please, spare me the righteous invectives about censorship" sounded to me as if it referred to something specific … I thought the use of the article "the" such as in "spare me the righteous invectives..." implicated it was a specific referral, whereas the wording "spare me righeous invectives..." or "spare me any righteous invectives" would not refer to anything specific. If some native English speaker would enlighten me I'd appreciate it.

Well there, little lady, yer in luck ‘cause I just happen to be yor basic native Engleash speaker right here.

To go right to the source (i.e. The Chicago Manual of Style, 15th edition): An article is a limiting adjective that precedes a noun or noun phrase use to indicate something definite (the) or indefinite (a, an)… The definite article points to a definite object that (1) is so well understood that it does not need description… (2) is a thing that is about to be described… or (3) is important. My usage is in line with number (2) in this instance. I could have used the words “your” or “any”, but notice how this subtly changes the meaning. The use of “the” in this context is somewhat idiomatic because, in English, there are phrases like “spare me the happy horse****” and so on that have a particularly ironic intent. That was the feeling I was looking for in this sentence. I hope this brief exercise has empowered you in your usage of the word “the.”

Don't worry, I'm not so upset so you need to take my personal feelings into account

*wipes forehead* Whew. Dodged a bullet there..

So my point is: as long as communication can flow in a way that people find interesting, I dont' think it matters whether SYM is a community or not.

I’m fine with that. However, because of my own personal interest in and exploration of what defines community, I do think it matters. Because in a community, people have a sense of personal ownership that allows certain experiences to manifest. There are levels of growth and lines of communication that are accessible to a community that are not available to a crowd, mob, or other forms of non-community. So I am curious to learn if the other members here feel the same way.

Chanak wrote:Interesting topic, Than. Btw, good to see you.

I’m glad you approve. Good to see you as well. Where is that bottle of Turkey you promised me?

To me, the threads represent such social circles, and the involvement of a poster in a thread symbolizes how one might approach such a social circle and become a part of the dynamic.

That makes sense to me.

In all cases - on SYM, or at a reunion - the conduct of a group is dictated by the consensus of the majority, be it spoken or unspoken. Behavior which deviates from what is viewed as acceptable by the group is frowned upon, and continued activity in such a fashion ultimately results in the rejection of the individual(s) in question from the circle.

This has been my experience as well.

The causes for this erosion I have seen on SYM are manifold, but share a common root. I feel DW hit the nail on the head in regards to internet anonymity...and how this may encourage callous disregard for others in those who already may be predisposed to such behaviors, but repress them otherwise.

Doesn’t it also work the other way? Doesn’t it also allow for positive self-expression? I am thinking here of people who have come to SYM and have been able to engage in discourse that they may not be able to with their peers. Many of these people have expressed how helpful this was to them. So the second part of the question would be: does anonymity, as a whole, work more in the direction os callous disregard or positive self-expression in your view?

The facelessness of the internet may urge such individuals on to experience the thrill of psychotic freedom and the removal of inhibitions, which can easily become addictive and also insiduously subtle in onset.

Having worked with many psychotic people, while there may be the removal of inhibitions, I do not think they or their families would characterized what they experience as freedom. I hope none of that is going on in SYM.

I think Ned makes an important point too - new meat.

Ned is kind of the ultimate carnivore, isn’t he?

As in, the volume of newly registered members has increased, resulting in a greater variety of posters visiting SYM. Considering the rather depressing frequency of callousness that goes on across the internet in the various chatrooms and message boards, it's not surprising that we see more of that seeping into SYM.

I see your point.

Sinkholes, however, lurk beneath the surface...and it usually takes many years until their presence is known...and by then it usually too late to do anything about it.

I am hoping this thread may help address that behavior, if indeed it is happening at the rate you imply.

thantor3 wrote:I’m glad you approve. Good to see you as well. Where is that bottle of Turkey you promised me?

Ummm, you know, funny you should ask about that. You see, my uncle Eulard came into town just last week...

Doesn’t it also work the other way? Doesn’t it also allow for positive self-expression? I am thinking here of people who have come to SYM and have been able to engage in discourse that they may not be able to with their peers. Many of these people have expressed how helpful this was to them. So the second part of the question would be: does anonymity, as a whole, work more in the direction of callous disregard or positive self-expression in your view?

The facelessness is in and of itself, morally neutral. Like most things, it's what a person does with it that matters. I think just as many opportunities exist to positively express oneself as there are to flame wantonly. Overall, I view the internet as a means to reach beyond my locale and my own carefully constructed world, and touch others I may have never known otherwise. You pose a difficult question, and I really can't give an honest answer which favors the positive or the negative here. As is the case with most, perhaps it is the negative that makes the biggest impression upon me, overshadowing the positive I have seen and experienced. I would say it roughly evens out, Than.

I am hoping this thread may help address that behavior, if indeed it is happening at the rate you imply.

I'm glad you started it. Why, it feels like group therapy here. May I?

Hi, I'm Chanak, and I am hopelessly addicted to striking CM with a variety of injurious objects.

@Everybody but primarily Thantor: I'd very much like to reply since I find this topic interesting, but I have been working all night and in a couple of hours I leave for China for 1 month, so I will just make some fragmented, very sleep deprived comments. I assume this topic will be long dead when I return, but if there is anything that calls for a more elaborate reply, please don't hesitate to PM me or bump this thread later on.

In brief though, I do think the "openness" versus "ingroup-outgroup" attitudes is a general human phenomena at internet forums (here and elsewhere) and in real life. Whereas it is impossible to have a perfectly "osmotic" and penetrable line between a group of people who already know each other (such as "old members" at this forum) and newcomers to this group, I certainly think it should be strived for if it is an open forum we want. That's why I oppose strivings for a community - it is contradictory goals IMO, as long as we define a community as a group who share the same values and work for the same goals. Such a community can only recruit new members who share the groups goals and values, or are willing to conform to them.

Regarding the "needy and adolescent" interpretation, the characteristics I described, "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" is not to me a question of maturity. I view it as a set of personality traits, different people will be at different points at continuum ranging from totally asocial and detached to having a great need for social confirmation. People's tolerance for conflict, aggression, critisism etc also vary a lot, between individuals as well as differ due to life events and circumstances. In short, what I mean is that I think there is a lot of room for variation at many variables without having to characterise a person as immature.

Regarding my comment that "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" I was obviously unclear here. What I meant was not the same specific criteria as in any specific culture, what I meant was the "type" as in category. The category I was referring to here was general criteria that is connected to values, not to specific individual needs. A general criterium such as the not posting discriminating statements has a much higher chance of leading to equal treatment for all members, old or new, than regulations that are based on the value's of a specific person or a specific culture. If we shall abstain from expressing opinions about a certain politic ideology because an individual members gets upset by this, then we must abstain from expressing any politic opinions that any member, or any individual at all could get upset by. It is of course up to the person who administrates the forum at hand to decide what rules s/he wants to have, but my opinion is that the most open climate and the most newcomer-friendly (and thereby most dynamic) rules are those based on general critera. Again, if a person needs to be protected from other people's opinions about politics, religion, science, art or other broad topics (as opposed to personal attacks), then that person would fare better not discussing topics that are sensitive to you at a public internet forum.

Finally, @Thantor, thank's for the English lession, I had no idea the article "the" could be used as referring to something you are just about to say...and I have never heard the expression "spare me the happy horse****". Idiomatic expression, metaphores and other nuances where a more abstrace level than the "lexiographic" meaning of a word is implicated, is usually something you will never grasp fully when a language is not your mother toungue. One of my British colleagues who works with epilepsy, once described a certain type of language deficit to me as "they (the patients) speak like English were their second language", ie they have an intact vocabulary, but they loose tonality in the spoken language, and they loose ability to pick up irony, jokes and metaphores unless very obvious.

Now I must pack - the bad thing with combining a hiking holiday with a congress, is that I need two sets of clothes...I am generally an impolite person, but not so impolite so I'm going to a congress where I'm an invited speaker in my muddy hiking boots and smelly fleece shirt

I felt this thread deserved a timely bump... and let's make an effort to keep it open rather than having it locked.

*places a few restraints on own temper*

[QUOTE=dragon wench]I felt this thread deserved a timely bump... and let's make an effort to keep it open rather than having it locked.

*places a few restraints on own temper* [/QUOTE]
Out of curiosity, what do you expect to come out of this thread?

edit: apart from pointless drama, that is.

I felt, Vicsun, that after all the nastiness, it might be an idea if people could explore some of the issues that rose to the surface yesterday in a more constructive setting.

Clearly, I was wrong however.

[QUOTE=Vicsun]Out of curiosity, what do you expect to come out of this thread?

edit: apart from pointless drama, that is.[/QUOTE]
We don't need the snide remarks, Vic. DW is at least trying to fix some tempers and ill will that occured yesterday. Instead of dismissing it right away, maybe it'd be better off to give it a chance, and check the acidity of your remarks.

Apologies if any offense was taken, DW. None was intended.

I just thought that the best way of fixing tempers is to let the wounds heal for a while. As egos are still sore more discussion at this point in time would be the equivalent of prying a closing wound open again

Personally I think it would be more interesting to explore questions such as what different members expect and wish from SYM and how such wishes should be achieved, by starting a new thread with no specific view as starting point. I may be slightly Aspergic, but I did not at all understand that this thread was bumped in relationship to yesterdays discussion about characteristics of the former and the current SYM. This thread was focused on the question whether SYM is, or should be, a community, and it contains a lot of definitions etc, regarding the community concept. The first posts in this thread also contain many references to the conflicts that arouse at SYM following the death of Ronald Reagan, so this particular thread is IMO a bit too specialised to make it obvioius that a general discussion related to yesterdays discussion, was the aim. (If that indeed was the aim.)

I was not at all angry or upset over yesterdays discussion, and I think it's a generally interesting question what different members perceive SYM has been and should be like, and I also find the issue of expectations versus what actually happens quite interesting. I'm a shrink so that's is a type of question that interest me in general, although in a more theoretical perspective. However, since it seemed like some members were angered by my posts on this topic yesterday, I believe it is better that somebody else start such a thread.

[QUOTE=C Elegans]
I was not at all angry or upset over yesterdays discussion, and I think it's a generally interesting question what different members perceive SYM has been and should be like, and I also find the issue of expectations versus what actually happens quite interesting.[/QUOTE]

That was what I tried to make, but... well, I'm really not gifted with words.