GameBanshee Forums

I was reading an article today about the nature of one online community, which can be found here

This led me to question whether GB could be considered a community in the sense of being "a community of interest." At one point, I thought this was the case. However, in the last two years or so I have noticed a gradual change in the dynamic that defines GB.

GB in its current form seems less of a place to hang out and exchange ideas and more of a forum where people have no compulsion about publicly expressing their opinions, no matter how toxic, despite the negative impact it might have on other members. In my mind, this argues against GB being a community of interest because in a true community, members moderate their behavior in order to achieve group goals, such as greater intimacy or a shared sense of purpose. The prevalence of rhetoric in some of the threads that can only be described as venomous (threads having to do with the Iraq war and the recent Regan threads come quickly to mind) serve as one example that members of GB apparently see no need to moderate their behavior and therefore do not see themselves as members of a community. And please, spare me the righteous invectives about censorship, since clearly what is being discussed is behavior generated from an inner locus of control.

To give a counter-example that most of us are familiar with, I do believe that the Dark Flames represent a community of interest. Based on the article listed above and my own experiences, the DF exist within a framework that characterizes the dynamics of a community. For example, there is a common history, networks of social interactions and hierarchies, friendships, and fictive kinships. Behavior is moderated by choice and the members have demonstrated a desire to address the issues that arise in maintaining a community, even to the point of offering RL support, processing, and problem-solving.

My question is this: is GB a community of interest or is it simply a pack of small (apparently warring) factions that give the appearance of a community? Put another way, is GB an authentic gathering of individuals who are willing to work at being part of a community experience or is it merely a pseudo-community, a hunting preserve dedicated to the care and feeding of the individual ego?

I've been here all of two weeks...and I've seen nothing more than a collaboration of people willing to help each other out no matter what, 99% of the time in a friendly, polite manner. I see mutual interests everywhere, it's an RPG forum after all.

Hmmm..co-operative, friendly folks, helping each other out, with mutual interests...

People, we have a community here!

*Raves*

[QUOTE=Psi_RedEye22]I've been here all of two weeks...and I've seen nothing more than a collaboration of people willing to help each other out no matter what, 99% of the time in a friendly, polite manner. I see mutual interests everywhere, it's an RPG forum after all.

Hmmm..co-operative, friendly folks, helping each other out, with mutual interests...

People, we have a community here!

*Raves*[/QUOTE]

Indeed... that is a reasonable first impression.. and because of the forum rules and the fact that GB is moderated, we are not as prone to the sheer ugly nastiness that is often present on other forums. But Thantor is right, over the past two years there has been an increased disregard for appropriate behaviour between what can certainly be termed 'warning factions.' If you want to see evidence of this, I suggest you do some searching under the terms Iraq and Reagan.... Debates went beyond heated, they became nasty, visceral and all too often... personal. In may cases, very little effort was made to employ tact or diplomacy, and frequently this resulted in tempers flaring... and many highly offensive statements from all quarters...

Which makes me wonder the same question that Thantor asks. Some time ago I posted a thread about net anonymity and expression, because so often people seem to think they can get away with callous disregard for the feelings of others when they post on the net. When I first joined GB, there was very little evidence of this sort of unpleasantness.. but that has changed.... the feeling of community that was so special to GB has, at the very least, become severely eroded....

I think the number one statistic attributable to than's feelings is the number of members. Back in may of 2001 when I joined, I was something like member 2050, right around there. GB is no longer a community, it is a city, with over 10,000 members, with fresh meat signing up daily. The smaller the membership base, the higher feeling of 'community' with exist. Growth breeds conflict.

More members, more personalities, more people to be visceral, more people to take it too personally. From now on, I'm visiting the forums only when I carry my piece with me. you've been warned. Have a nice day.

I don't know for sure

I think what have been said in this thread is all somewhat true.

I still think that there are communities here on GB, although it has split up into several smaller "cliques", like Thantor suggested with the DF-"group".

However, this also means that the community from 2-3 years ago doesn’t exist anymore as it did back then. Most of us came here solely for the RPG information (BG2 specifically for most), and found fun people to "chat" and joke around with, but over the times - as numbers has grown, but also as times have gotten darker - the fronts amongst people have become more clear.
I don't for one second doubt that the general "fear" in societies have spred somewhat into cyberspace as well, and also our little "community" here, which have pushed discussions towards more flammable topics. Terrorism, politics, religion and so on.

However, it is also the "natural" progression of "relationships" as I see it. The more comfortable people get around each other, the more likely the serious issues are to be brought up. It is like dating - you don't pull out all your fears and worries on the first few dates

Add to this the absent of some of the more "noteworthy"/high profile members of GB, and it is clear that GB has evolved from what it once was.

But one must also remember, even though new members (flock) to GB, it means that the same old topics can't continue to sustain the community. Back when I joined up, much of the discussion was related to Baldurs Gate series. And as such games grow old and the community finds no new common ground to stand on, it also means that they will start to become much more different again. I doubt there has been a game that have "united" the GB community in a manner as Baldurs Gate 2. A great portion of the games listed on GB now I've never played and likely never will - and I would think this goes for many people. This means that the common denominator for GB as a community has started to fade away. Which again is a matter of "evolution", because we all know that things move forward for better or worse.

It still one of the absolutely best boards I've ever visited out here in cyberspace, and a large part of this goes to people being much more sensitive towards others, even though some recent topics have flamed up more then we are use to here. But as for being the best community ... well - that is hard to say, but I'll always remember how the board felt a few years ago. But then again - Nostalgia can make many memories much more pleasant then they truly were

Its no longer a community, its aegis fault.

No seriuously though... I see recent threads that are large debates and conflicts of opinion because well at least in the states were in that mood. Its an election year and everyones got a point. With the way the world is right now I doubt you'll find any boards willing to have topics like war, religion and such not without thier own sense of "loss of community" people are taking sides and opinions are strong.


Over all GB is a lesser community for me at least while I consider all friends those whom I spoke with regularly have taken sabbaticals.

Interesting topic, and certainly one that relates to how people behave here at SYM.

If we define a community simply as a group of people who has common interests and common goals, without regard for more complex or underlying dynamics, we could define SYM as a community inasmuch as everybody who posts here share the goal of communicating with others - otherwise we would not post at all, nor read others' posts. However, if we do not think the sole common interest of communicating with other SYM:ers is enough to define a community, but also take shared values, working for common goals and also underlying goals of the communication into account, then SYM has never been and probably will never be, a community.

[QUOTE=thantor3]In my mind, this argues against GB being a community of interest because in a true community, members moderate their behavior in order to achieve group goals, such as greater intimacy or a shared sense of purpose. [/quote]

I think no open, public internet forum would fulfil these critera for being a community (unless there is a very small group of members), since one cannot expect all posters to have a wish for shared intimacy or shared purposes of posting. I think a context such as playing an online-game is much more suited for larger communities to form. Here at SYM, I think it is very possible that the Dark Flames-group may provide a good example of an internet community since the DF:s (I assume) share the common goal of making a meaningful story together. They act within a framework with set rules (the story itself, the world it is set in and the AD&D rules or similar) and within the story, the DF:s also have many common goals such as solving problems and tasks. At SYM on the other hand, various groups or individuals may have different goals and I think Vondondu's previous post in the Net anonymity thread is a neat summary of such potential differences.

This leads us the the phenomenon of subgroups. It is part of human group dynamics that if a group is large enough, subgroups will emerge. Those different subgroups may agree to form explicit or implicit common norms and values that are far more specific than the whole-group norms, and they may develop a community in Thantor's sense. The Dark Flames is one example of a subgroup within SYM, but there could be subgroups based on shared political or religious affiliations, cultural background, shared interests in specific subjects or just personal liking. One subgroup may decide that they want to be friends, and strive for keeping and developing their friendship, whereas the SYM population as a whole may not be friends, or sought after making friendships. Whatever the incitament for a group to form, it is characteristic for groups that they stay loyal to each other, defend each other against what is perceived as outside threats and strive for minimizing tension and conflict within the group. Sometimes "outgroup-ingroup" dynamics will develop, ie the identification between the group members grows very strong into a "we"-sense, whereas other groups or individuals that do not meet the intragroup criteria, are conceptualised as "them", the others. This process serves to strengthen the intragroup bonds, and can often increase emotional attachment and loyality between group members.

These group-processes occur in all types of human socialisation, on internet or in real life, in private life as well as professional life. In a large, open and multifaceted system such as SYM, people will come and go, relationships between individuals and groups will change, and this process can be conceptualised in different ways. For instance, there have always been many referrals to "the good old time" here at SYM, when things have changed. This is a very common and natural reaction as a response to change. Also, there has been periods when different members and current world events have led to increased focused on certain issues, which may be more or less hot to different members.

Like Thantor and DW, I also think SYM has changed over time, and this I find inevitable. Individuals as well as groups, change over time depending on both internal and external factors. However, whereas Thantor and DW refers to "toxic", "venomous", "rhetoric" and "callous disregard", I view the changes differently.

During my most active posting period, ie middle of 2001-2002, I remember many discussions about potentially "hot" topics such as religion, international politics, abortion, euthanesia or cloning. In those discussions, you could see a broad variety of conflicting opinions and arguments at many different levels. In some debates, it seemed that the only agreement that existed, was the acceptance of disagressment at that discussion could have a value although you had opposing views. Ad hominems (personal attacks, flames of other members) were moderated and viewed as unacceptable, as were all sorts of generalised discrimination such as rasicm, but I don't remember anything close to the idea presented in the recent Reagan-thread, that opinions about politics or a public person should not be posted if they may hurt other members personal feelings. So if this is now a norm at SYM, it is a principal difference to previously, and I view such norms very negatively which should be obvious from my posts in
this thread.

So, in summary: I have never viewed SYM as a community in the way Thantor defines it above, and I don't think it's neither called for, nor realistic, to create on-line communities out of public internet forums. If people want a guarantee for getting a friendly and supportive environment where everybody agrees with your opinions and you get emotional, personal confirmation and soothing, posting at a public internet forum is not a realistic way to achieve this, since there is always the possibility that other members posts may upset you.

[quote="RandomThug]With the way the world is right now I doubt you'll find any boards willing to have topics like war"]

Personally, I think it is in times of war and unrest, that communicating with people with different views is most interesting. Not because you have the aim to change other people's views, but because it is a good learning experience to get the opportunity to expore and investigate how people think and how their opinions are formed. The world will always be full of people who have views that are totally opposite to your own, and exchanging arguments about a topic is one of the best ways to learn to understand the human mind and the state of our world.

Oh, and an off topic note:

[quote="Thantor3]And please"]

This comment I found very out of place. Could you please explain what it referrs to? I haven't posted in any other thread than the football thread the last 2 weeks or so, but I just read up a bit and I found nothing at all about censorship except a note from T' in the Reagan is dead-thread that "If it's that big of an issue or you feel that censored then feel free to contact Buck about it" and my reply that "it is not an issue of feeling personally censored" and a referral to Dottie's Sensitivity or not in politics-thread where I discuss equality issue that is the focus of my critisism (that is where I take Fas, Morlock and the thousands of South American civilians whose families were killed or who where jailed and tortured as examples of people's whose personal feelings obviously don't count as much as the Reagan-admirers' feelings.). In the same thread, Gwalchmai posted "How is this censorship? How can this be an assault on free speach?". However, it is unclear what these questions refer to (or maybe they are not meant as a comment to what somebody else posted) but please note that nowhere have I found any post who has referred to censorship or free speach in relationship to somebody critising that the Reagan-admirers personal feelings should have priority over for instance the Contra's victims personal feelings. If you have found any such referrals, please cite it, because I am under the impression that this censorship-issue has grown into a strawman argument. You and DW have mentioned some things you view negatively in discussions here at SYM, and I will also mention something I view as the single most negative feature in any discussion, and that is not being able to discuss a topic with arguments about the topic, but instead using fallacies such as strawmen (ie claiming the opponent said something he didn't and critisise this as if the opponent said so) and ad hominems (personal attacks such as name calling and personal accusations).

I have been a member of one internet "community". It too began from a gaming forum. So my experience is limited. But reading this thread has me thinking on a certain track. The fact is most gaming forums combine many members with only one single thread in common: the game. Many people may actually share much more in common, and they inevitably form their own circle of friends, but the "community" as a whole is joined by the game. Off-Topic discussion happens frequently, but it is generally only joined by those with positive things to say. The majority of the discussion certains around the game and people, who all like to talk and hear themselves talk, get most of their fill of "talking" in the framework of the game.

Perhaps as people play the game less and less, as it gets older, the old thread unravels. People have been coming to this forum for months, maybe even years. But no longer for the same reasons. With them no longer talking about the game mostly, but still coming here for the same reason one stays with a lover for to long, simple familiarity, people are forced to find common ground on other important issues.

If this were not the internet but real life, you would talk about mutual friends, love, work, etc. But this isn't. Inherently the internet is less practical (work, love, the "real" world) and much broader/philosophical (politics, religion, philosophy). Since these are subjects which people wildly diverge on and tend to have little to no experience talking about, differences of opinion are typically poorly handled.

This idea isn't very well thought out, and I apologize, I am presenting it off-the-cuff with no experience in this particular "forum" really. But it might be something to consider.

To start off, I'm honoured it's no longer Weasel's fault, and that I'm the culpret

Anyway, speaking as one of the few remaining original active members (there are some who were around when I was, just not as active), I think I'm safe in saying I've watched this forum grow, as well as the people who post here.

I think that both CE and Than are right in what they are saying, though, its not so much a lack of community, or the presence of. It's more the illusion of a community, held together by basic agreeances. IF anything, and I've said this before, GB, specifically SYM, has become quite clique-ish, in that it is difficult for new comers to break into this 'community', because the groups that have formed have become so tightly knit. So tightly, in fact, that even some people who have been around for sometime fail to fall into one of these groups (to name two, Xandax and myself).

I think we just have to take GB at face value: It's an online forum, which many of us go to have fun, get some insight on world politics/news, and kick back. With that in mind, we have to understand that this is leisure time, so while we may have differing views, we don't want to be accosted by such opposite views, presented in a displeasing manner. As has been mentioned, net anonymity is a key factor in this. That doesn't mean we should try and get along with everyone. I mean, I make it no secret that RT and myself do not get along for the most part, but we've also settled into a mild sort of truce, where we tolerate and accept each other, rather than flame each other openly. This sort of relationship is common, and needs to be accepted, but it also shows good tact, that is shown in real life, and should, hopefully, be shown online, as many people on this forum do, whether they have amicable relations, or mutule tolerance.

[QUOTE=Aegis]I think we just have to take GB at face value: It's an online forum, which many of us go to have fun, get some insight on world politics/news, and kick back. With that in mind, we have to understand that this is leisure time, so while we may have differing views, we don't want to be accosted by such opposite views, presented in a displeasing manner. As has been mentioned, net anonymity is a key factor in this. That doesn't mean we should try and get along with everyone. I mean, I make it no secret that RT and myself do not get along for the most part, but we've also settled into a mild sort of truce, where we tolerate and accept each other, rather than flame each other openly. This sort of relationship is common, and needs to be accepted, but it also shows good tact, that is shown in real life, and should, hopefully, be shown online, as many people on this forum do, whether they have amicable relations, or mutual tolerance.[/QUOTE]

I think this speaks to some very important points. It is all about how views are presented. I think diplomacy, tact and sensitivity are key. This does not mean you have to be soothing or agree with everybody, it just means phrasing your posts in a way that is not so offensive that they become confrontational, venomous or just plain rude.

C Elegans wrote: If we define... <snip> ...then SYM has never been and probably will never be, a community.

If I am understanding you correctly, CE, you are saying that, at best, SYM can be a community in a limited sort of way. Fair enough.

I think no open, public internet forum would fulfil these critera for being a community (unless there is a very small group of members), since one cannot expect all posters to have a wish for shared intimacy or shared purposes of posting.

I disagree with you, both in what is possible in terms of community and that a community does not require all members to move in lock step with each other in order to be a community. To be fair, I am not suggesting that an online community might take the place of RL intimacy… only that an online community can offer a shared experience that can be of value to its members. However, I am open to the argument that this may not be possible on a site whose primary purpose centers around gaming.

I think it is very possible that the Dark Flames-group may provide a good example of an internet community

I agree.

Like Thantor and DW, I also think SYM has changed over time, and this I find inevitable. Individuals as well as groups, change over time depending on both internal and external factors. However, whereas Thantor and DW refers to "toxic", "venomous", "rhetoric" and "callous disregard", I view the changes differently.

I will not speak for DW, but to clarify my own position, those adjective were referring to behaviors, not changes. Further, they refer to specific behaviors engaged in by some members under certain conditions and were never meant as a global condemnation of change itself within GB, which I also view as inevitable. If there is a change I am concerned about, however, it concerns the damage that such behaviors can do and the consequences of allowing such behaviors to continue.

Ad hominems (personal attacks, flames of other members) were moderated and viewed as unacceptable, as were all sorts of generalised discrimination such as rasicm, but I don't remember anything close to the idea presented in the recent Reagan-thread, that opinions about politics or a public person should not be posted if they may hurt other members personal feelings. So if this is now a norm at SYM, it is a principal difference to previously, and I view such norms very negatively which should be obvious from my posts in this thread.

Since I did not participate in that thread, because my body armor was being dry cleaned, I will simply ask what norms are you advocating for SYM members?

So, in summary: I have never viewed SYM as a community in the way Thantor defines it above, and I don't think it's neither called for, nor realistic, to create on-line communities out of public internet forums. If people want a guarantee for getting a friendly and supportive environment where everybody agrees with your opinions and you get emotional, personal confirmation and soothing, posting at a public internet forum is not a realistic way to achieve this, since there is always the possibility that other members posts may upset you.

I don’t think there is anything inherent in people seeking community that differentiate them in terms of wanting guarantees for soothing, support, and other warm cuddly encounters. Like anyone else, most of them are seeking genuine experiences and not an escape into fantasy. To characterize them as needy and adolescent is an unfair exaggeration.

I understand that it's neither called for, nor realistic, to create on-line communities out of public internet forums for you. The jury is still out on whether it is actually called for… or realistic. Ethically, it is up to the individual members of the community to decide what is appropriate or realistic, don’t you think? It is quite amazing to experience what the human mind can achieve, when properly focused.

C Elegans wrote:.This comment I found very out of place.

Really? Perhaps if I had placed it further up in my post….

Could you please explain what it refers to?

It doesn’t refer to anything. It was simply any attempt to preclude what I felt could be a distracting foray away from the topic at hand.

I haven't posted in any other thread than the football thread the last 2 weeks or so, but I just read up a bit and I found nothing at all about censorship except a note from T' in the Reagan is dead-thread that "If it's that big of an issue or you feel that censored then feel free to contact Buck about it" and my reply that "it is not an issue of feeling personally censored"

I’m sorry. Do you often feel that comments made to the community at large refer specifically to you?

but please note that nowhere have I found any post who has referred to censorship or free speach in relationship to somebody critising that the Reagan-admirers personal feelings should have priority over for instance the Contra's victims personal feelings.

I have not read the totality of the Regan thread and my comments on censorship were not referring to that thread, as I referenced above.

If you have found any such referrals, please cite it, because I am under the impression that this censorship-issue has grown into a strawman argument.

Yes, I can see that you are quite upset about this issue but I assure you that the focus of the comments in my original post were not specifically centered on you.

You and DW have mentioned some things you view negatively in discussions here at SYM, and I will also mention something I view as the single most negative feature in any discussion, and that is not being able to discuss a topic with arguments about the topic, but instead using fallacies such as strawmen (ie claiming the opponent said something he didn't and critisise this as if the opponent said so) and ad hominems (personal attacks such as name calling and personal accusations).

Are you implying that DW and I colluded to create this thread in order to somehow persecute you? If so, let me again assure you that this was certainly not the case. As to strawmen and personal attacks, I believe that all of my posts in this thread have been respectful and on-topic. If you feel otherwise, please let me know so that I can address this publicly.

thantor3 wrote:If I am understanding you correctly, CE, you are saying that, at best, SYM can be a community in a limited sort of way. Fair enough.

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.
2. This statement is value-neutral. I don't think it is good or bad that internet forums are less suitable for forming communities than other forms or human socialisation.

I will not speak for DW, but to clarify my own position, those adjective were referring to behaviors, not changes. Further, they refer to specific behaviors engaged in by some members under certain conditions and were never meant as a global condemnation of change itself within GB, which I also view as inevitable. If there is a change I am concerned about, however, it concerns the damage that such behaviors can do and the consequences of allowing such behaviors to continue.

I misunderstood your post then, I thought the negative adjectives were referring to change since you wrote:

Thantor2]GB in its [b]current[/b] form seems less of a place to hang out and exchange ideas and more of a forum where people have no compulsion about publicly expressing their opinions wrote:
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.

Since I did not participate in that thread, because my body armor was being dry cleaned, I will simply ask what norms are you advocating for SYM members?

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. 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. I don't believe internet socialisation differ in nature from real life socialisation other than the form of communication, and the form, although limited etc, does not call for any special norms that are exclusive to the online environment. So for instance, I don't think an open internet forum should have rules that are exclusive for it's specific members (ie you are not allowed to post rasict comments about ethnic groups who are present at the forum, but you are allowed to post rasict comments about ethnic groups who have no representation at the forum in question).

I don?t think there is anything inherent in people seeking community that differentiate them in terms of wanting guarantees for soothing, support, and other warm cuddly encounters. Like anyone else, most of them are seeking genuine experiences and not an escape into fantasy. To characterize them as needy and adolescent is an unfair exaggeration.

Where were these people characterised as "needy and adolescent"? I can't really comment upon that since I have no idea what you are referring to, but to stress my point: in general, I think it cannot be expected that everybody's specific goals or specific wishes regarding forms and content of communication, would be satisfied at a public internet forum. 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. I don't think it matters whether people seek genuine experiences or escape into fantasy, and I don't think that is part of the issue either. I will take an example to avoid misunderstandings:

If you have an internet forum where it is defined that people should have certain characteristics, for instance a certain religious affiliation, then you have selected a group of people who share something they find of fundamental importance with no further selection criteria, these people will differ on other variables. For instance, they may have different goals with posting at that forum. So if you choose to become a member of this forum, it is realistic to assume that other members will share your religious views, but it is not realistic to assume that everybody will like you, share your taste in music, or share your goals with using the forum. The less selection criteria you apply, the more variation you will have among the members'. 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.

I understand that it's neither called for, nor realistic, to create on-line communities out of public internet forums for you. The jury is still out on whether it is actually called for? or realistic. Ethically, it is up to the individual members of the community to decide what is appropriate or realistic, don?t you think? It is quite amazing to experience what the human mind can achieve, when properly focused.

Well, I thought you asked for opinion so I posted my opinion, or did you want us to post other person's opinions?

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 assume many online RPG-worlds would provide such a basis, and I can also imagine internet forums with more specific contexts such a forum for Animal right's activists, or a forum for discussing Japanese film.

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.

OT continued

thantor3 wrote:It doesn?t refer to anything. It was simply any attempt to preclude what I felt could be a distracting foray away from the topic at hand.

How strange. I obviously misunderstood it since I found to be very out-of-context, ie to me it seemed like a sudden off topic comment in the middle of a coherent reasoning about something else.

I?m sorry. Do you often feel that comments made to the community at large refer specifically to you?

I have not read the totality of the Reagan thread and my comments on censorship were not referring to that thread, as I referenced above.

Do you often make off-topic comments that do not refer to anything?
Seriously though, no, I rarely believe things posted at public forums are directed to me unless they are direct replies or referrals to something specific I posted. 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. You comment "please, spare me the righteous invectives about censorship" sounded to me as if it referred to something specific, as you were expecting something specific, and the Reagan thread was the only mentioning I could found about censorship. Now, my English is obviously not as nuanced as the native speakers, but 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.

Thantor3]Yes wrote:

Don't worry, I'm not so upset so you need to take my personal feelings into account It may seem overly picky to want to clarify those simply mistakes, but misunderstandings early on in discussions can often lead to people ending up not discussing the same topic, which of course ruins the discussion.

Are you implying that DW and I colluded to create this thread in order to somehow persecute you? If so, let me again assure you that this was certainly not the case. As to strawmen and personal attacks, I believe that all of my posts in this thread have been respectful and on-topic. If you feel otherwise, please let me know so that I can address this publicly.

What? No, certainly not, it is confusing and surprising to me that you suggest the possibility of interpreting this thread that way. I mentioned you and DW in the same sentence, "You and DW have mentioned some things you view negatively in discussions here at SYM because you had both in your posts mentioned some things that you viewed negatively. Then, in turn, I wanted to mentions some things I view negatively.

Strawmen and ad hominems have been frequent in serious discussions here at SYM, and let me in turn assure you that my mentioning of factors I find negative and destructive for communication, was not in any way directed to you. Instead, let me illustrate with some examples:

Not fully in the only country that counts. To summarize things as they apply to the US...

Oh please, are you trying to p*ss me off? Are you trying to get me to post stuff that will get me banned? You're heading in the right direction. That is the only reason I see for posting this provocative material.

You tell everyone why middle eastern cultures are as good as the west so we can all have a look or a laugh. Lets just see how many people will agree with you.

NN...I had you pegged as smarter than this...

The above examples illustrates ad hominems, discriminating statements and mind-reading in the form of "begging the question". I have choosen very old examples so that no current user will feel personally accused. However, they all illustrate types of discussion behaviours that I find very destrucive and negative to communication. I believe the factors I find negative, has little or no association the issue of whether a group is a community or not, instead it is an issue of discussion methods. 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. Here at SYM, I personally think this should be the only common goal, and if somebody would want a more community-like atmosphere with extended shared goals to work for, I think they either can choose to create one such subgroup (maybe the DF:s is an already existing group with those characteristics?) or discuss the issue with Buck since GB is his site and it is ultimately he who must decide what SYM should be and not be and what rules we all should follow.

Interesting topic, Than. Btw, good to see you.

I have observed, as well, a general erosion of the sense of community that once seemed to permeate GB in the past; in particular, SYM. I refer to SYM specifically because the mechanics of this forum and purpose of being in many ways mirrors a communal gathering of sorts one might find at a park, party, reunion, conference, etc. At such gatherings, one would find circles of individuals engaged in discussions or activities of infinite variety; in one larger circle, people might be laughing at the raucous jokes of a manic prankster; in another, less numerous group, a more subdued, intellectual sort of discussion might be going on. 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.

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.

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. 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. I see this as the chief catalyst behind the erosion of the community both myself and others once felt on SYM. It is healthy for us as human beings, I think, to let go of our inhibitions once in a while. However, some of these inhibitions also serve a purpose in a social sense, enabling us to establish relationships with others and maintain lasting friendships. Case in point, callous people do not endear themselves to others. The narcissistic outlook which seems to reinforce arguments to the contrary only encapsulates what is so very wrong with SYM these days, and why many older members have either permanently left, or rarely visit the board.

I think Ned makes an important point too - new meat. 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. Some posters feel no compunction in publishling their views, since they are, after all, faceless. Others seem to have an agenda they pursue doggedly, sliding around the forum rules in clever ways that inflict maximum damage, again encouraged by the safety buffer of distance, and the anonymity of the internet. In "real life" they don't behave this way at all towards people they aren't very familiar with, because the consequences of their behaviors would surely result in rather unpleasant confrontations with their victims.

However, the presence of new membership alone does not explain this erosion, for there was a time when such unpleasantness was dealt with, and removed promptly (we all remember AR). I more refer to the latter sort of poster I describe above as being a crucial cause of the breakdown. SYM has weathered it's share of storms; their approach is obvious, and rememdy immediate. 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.

EDIT: I would be remiss, Than, if I did not add my agreement towards your example of the Dark Flames as being a bona-fide community in the truest sense of the word. Though naturally personality conflicts arose in the course of events amongst our membership, these things were dealt with and worked on in order to achieve the harmony which a community of human beings strive for. Compromise is naturally a part of this process, for we all have to give something to the group in order to make it work, and work it has. Again, narcissism by it's nature is the very antithesis of the cohesiveness which binds a group of people together, for it involves no compromise, no caring beyond the concerns of self.

robnark's sleep-deprived rambling

damn, Chan. that's one spectacularly depressing post you've got there...

but regarding the topic. a lot of this comes down to semantics and how one would define a community. okay, a group of people with common interests would fit, especially in the gaming forums (fora? meh), but SYM is a little trickier. if you take the most prolific posters or those who have been here longest, maybe it is a bit more of a community, with people who actually know each other a bit. not just avatars.

recently, an appreciable amount of topical discussion threads seem to concern topics that, while open to comment from anyone, tend to bring out strong feelings in pretty much everyone, longtime members included. now, this may help accessible serious discussion, but it hardly fosters the creation of a close-knit community.

oh, and I do not really feel that there is some sort of outbreak of ill-defined coarsening of the board to be explained by the net anonimity buzzwords being bandied around. if anonimity is playing a role, all it is doing is making people more sensitive to comments by people they don't know much about. dammit, the stuff regular posters can say because we know they don't mean it. when you first post, everyone on the board is more or less anonymous, so it's not always easy to judge how others will take your comments, especially if you aren't regularly involved in online discussion.

there have been some members who probably say what they say because they can - they are anonymous and unaccountable - but a lot of comments could also be because the audience is unknown to the new member. it works both ways.


anyhoo, if you want a sense of community, make one. we've all been here long enough, so maybe we should all take a little responsibility in whatever this place is like right now.

well, that's my limit on coherent thought for 3am. g'night.

Well, I'm going to give my personal opinion of why the community here (SYM) has "eroded". Take it with a pinch of salt, if you will.

I'm not much of a big poster, but when I joined in 2002, I realized that people were a lot friendlier to generally, everybody. This was mostly because most of the posters were still rather new to the forum, weren't so close-knit in a social circle, and thus were willing to make new friendships.

Coming back after 2 years of not posting, I start speaking my mind (just like I did 2 yrs ago, taking care to censor myself) and start seeing my posts being picked apart by moderators and veterans alike. 'Picked apart', in the sense that any miniscule thing, be it an opinion not agreed upon, a slightly spam post on my part or just a small error in information or misinterpretation of my body language (through emoticons) will result in a pouncing.

I just did a quick scanning through other threads to see if I'm right about this, and I've noticed that the lightweight posters (those with less than 500 posts, say) are subject to a lot of veteran hostility, sarcasm, irony, scrutiny or simply too much criticism, which is a hell load to support when you're trying to integrate yourself into a new community.

What a veteran can say here that is likely to be forgiven or viewed in a positive light, a lightweight poster has to tread on the tip of his toes so as to not to 'offend' the veterans or alert the moderators. Now, this is what I call favouritism or elitist behaviour for a public forum. You have the big posters in their social ring keeping the young posters away at an arm's length...showing cold politeness, but not friendliness. Take a look at the thread starters, and they are generally veterans. Take a look at those who command the flow of discussion in the threads, and it is the same faces once again. When young faces pop in to say something, if there is anything perceived as wrong in their posts (language, content, validity, relevance) it will be picked apart remorselessly. I can provide many examples from other threads if you wish.

Thus, the reason why I think this community has grown stagnant, to put it crudely, is because there is an elitist group of big posters who keep the young ones at bay.

[QUOTE=thantor3]
GB in its current form seems less of a place to hang out and exchange ideas and more of a forum where people have no compulsion about publicly expressing their opinions, no matter how toxic, despite the negative impact it might have on other members. In my mind, this argues against GB being a community of interest because in a true community, members moderate their behavior in order to achieve group goals, such as greater intimacy or a shared sense of purpose... Behavior is moderated by choice and the members have demonstrated a desire to address the issues that arise in maintaining a community, even to the point of offering RL support, processing, and problem-solving.

My question is this: is GB a community of interest or is it simply a pack of small (apparently warring) factions that give the appearance of a community? Put another way, is GB an authentic gathering of individuals who are willing to work at being part of a community experience or is it merely a pseudo-community, a hunting preserve dedicated to the care and feeding of the individual ego?[/QUOTE]
Hmm... this definition of community sounds like a communism to me, though thats not a bad thing at all. Communism is a great system (if only everyone were such good samaritans).
Has the problem that if people moderate their ideas toward the "greater good" of the "online community", then will ideas and free posting be stifled? Will people regulate their own ideas and not post potentially exciting and intriguing thoughts because they don't want to hurt other users or damage the "spirit" of the community?
This seems to be one of those "are we willing to give up our individual freedoms for the greater good of the people?" questions.
Personally I'm moderate, I believe that freedom of "posting" could be limited a little to cultivate the "community", though I hesitate to ask how much the limitations would possibly be, as this brings up all sorts of problems that could eventually lead to the collapse of the said "community" (governmental type control in the forms of fascism, etc.)
As for social circles and pouncing, thats bad but people should try to make their posts as inoffensive as possible while still conveying their message right? I mean, what's the cost of doing that?

[QUOTE=Ekental]Hmm... this definition of community sounds like a communism to me, though thats not a bad thing at all. Communism is a great system (if only everyone were such good samaritans).
Has the problem that if people moderate their ideas toward the "greater good" of the "online community", then will ideas and free posting be stifled? Will people regulate their own ideas and not post potentially exciting and intriguing thoughts because they don't want to hurt other users or damage the "spirit" of the community?
This seems to be one of those "are we willing to give up our individual freedoms for the greater good of the people?" questions.
Personally I'm moderate, I believe that freedom of "posting" could be limited a little to cultivate the "community", though I hesitate to ask how much the limitations would possibly be, as this brings up all sorts of problems that could eventually lead to the collapse of the said "community" (governmental type control in the forms of fascism, etc.)
[/QUOTE]I think you may looking too deep into this, trying to tie it into a political theory, especially one as complex as communism

As for pouncing, as brought up by Lost Soul, he's very much right. There is a lot of criticism that is brought down by the more established posters on newer people, and that can very much be intimidating, and annoying in some cases. 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. As I recall, I was shot down horribly on the idea, though. Anyway...

touching on the subject of testing the waters. Now, it's good common sense, socially and otherwise, to go into something with your head up, and wits about you. With that in mind, it's generally a bad idea to try an establish a presence, anywhere, by starting off with something incredably edgey and iffy in the long run. It's better to test the waters, and ease in slowly (as almost everyone who isn't a first gen SYM'er has done). Racy, strong political sidings and comments, and attempted, good humoured flames are generally not a good idea until people have a good understanding of you. Some people do these things, while some do not. Those who don't (until established and known) tend to last longer around here. The others tend to go away because of the backlash, of which I think most vet's of the boards are guilty of doing. This, again, leads back to an elitest mentality.

I think we used to be a good, tight knit community, but over the years, many people have drifted into specific groups, in which tend to associate only with others in the group, and loosely outside of it. It's too a point where in certain discussions, some people won't even have their posts acknowledged, because the primary members of the discussion are not part of your group, or you are not part of their's (or any, in some cases). This is often regardless of the validity of the comment made. We've established some pretty open biases and expectations of people, and as open as we all claim, I don't think many of us are friendly and open as we were two or three years ago.