| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Todd Lehman writes:
> This is ultimately a CFD (call for discussion) for a new newsgroup, but also
> asking what I think may be an important question. It's a taboo question, so
> do try to keep an open mind.
>
> The question is: Are we trying to be too nice to one another?
Yes.
> The question itself isn't too important, but how we approach the answer is.
>
> A related question: What are the larger psychological and sociological trends
> that emerge in an environment where everyone is expected always to play well
> with others -- expected in the ultra-polite sense? How natural is it to be
> polite all the time and what are the psychological side-effects of being
> expected to do so?
IMHO, it is right to expect polite behaviour in certain settings. Should a
child tell off their parents? Should you tell off the judge sentencing you?
Should you tell off your friend saving you a seat on the bus? Should you
tell off the stranger holding open the door for you when your hands are
full? Should you tell of the client you are trying to make a sale to?
I think LUGNET is one of those places.
> One trend I've noticed is that here (at the LUGNET discussion groups) people
> seem to get much more upset when someone acts "incorrectly" as judged by group
> norms than people did in RTL or than people do in other small communities.
> Oh, people screamed back louder in RTL than they do here, but I what I see is
> that people are actually more upset here when it happens.
LUGNET is not USENET. The environment of LUGNET is more secure than USENET
and more organized and behaviour out of the norm ("incorrect" behaviour,
that is) is not tolerated. Not just by you but all of us who have
"ownership" in this community. (Members and regular contributors; not to say
you don't own LUGNET, Todd)
> Assuming it is true, I doubt it is entirely because expectations or standards
> are higher. I think that's a large part of it, but I think it's also due to
> the fact that higher standards make it more pleasant for a larger and wider
> variety of people. For example, only stinky people show up or stick around
> in a stinky environment. But if someone makes a stink in a non-stinky
> environment, it really gets noticed -- not just because of higher standards
> but because the non-stinky place appealed to more people in the first place,
> so they stuck around -- and that makes for a greater percentage of people who
> can't or don't want to deal an occasional stink.
I think it is better phrased we don't want to smell the stink. But if you
stink the room, you will regret it. I would punch someone who farted in my
face, even as a joke.
> Now, don't get me wrong -- I think having higher standards and higher
> expectations is a Good Thing and the more people that show up to enjoy the
> site and share ideas, etc., the better.
That is right.
> But in our lofty goals of trying to set higher and higher standards, we
> mustn't lose sight of the fact that we're still only human -- we have
> emotions and we get angry and we need to vent and argue until we're red in
> the face sometimes before we can come back and look at something more
> objectively. It's not a pretty picture, but, for better or for worse, it's
> part of what we are.
We are human… but anarchy is not acceptable in society.
> Now let me switch gears.
Don't forget to clutch :-)
> Why is there an .off-topic tree of ng's here? Is it to encourage non-LEGO
> discussions? No, that's not what LUGNET is about. It's actually to give
> them a place to fall when they do come up, because they will _always_ come
> up. It's human nature to drift off-topic, and to want to talk about non-XYZ
> things from time to time even with XYZ-fan folks online. LEGO is just one
> common thing that unites pretty much everyone here, but there are an infinity
> of differences. So, more fundamentally, the .off-topic tree exists so that
> people don't have to feel bad when they want to talk about something non-LEGO.
> It's a place to go do that.
LUGNET would be incomplete without it.
> Along those same lines, why is there a .off-topic.debate group here? It's
> not to encourage debates or arguments, but to give debates a home when they
> pop up -- because they will always pop up. People can argue all they want in
> .off-topic.debate and they don't have to put pressure on themselves to avoid
> doing something that comes natural to them.
>
> Now... Even with the .debate group, which serves fairly well to get issues
> out into the open and worked through and -- most importantly -- for people to
> have a better opportunity to understand each others' viewpoints, even if they
> agree to disagree -- it still seems to me that .debate isn't quite enough.
>
> I am wondering what people would think if there were a group
>
> lugnet.off-topic.debate.flame
>
> where, basically, anything goes: rudeness, complete gruffness, even
> profanity. (When I say anything, BTW, I mean anything but copyright
> violations or other illegalities, etc.)
I am absolutely opposed!!! If people want that, they can go to USENET. When
I joined LUGNET it was under the expectation that the standards would be
kept higher than USENET. True, you made no promise of this but the Terms and
Conditions imply that these standards are here and will be enforced.
IMO, it is not the mandate of LUGNET to provide this service. LUGNET exists
because it was needed to provide a more structured environment for LEGO fans
than both RTL and ATL were providing. Todd, you took the bull by the horns
and created this major hub in the online LEGO community. You have created
off-topic groups to serve a purpose in the dynamic of LUGNET. But now you
are proposing something that you will isolate from the rest of LUGNET to do
something I feel has no place here.
> It would have to come with certain technical restrictions on it whereby you
> couldn't crosspost to it or post replies to or from it -- something relatively
> isolated from the other groups but where people could completely let loose and
> speak their minds. Because it's natural to do so, and unnatural not to.
>
> So the purpose of this group would not be to encourage or foster flamewars,
> but to give them a relatively isolated place to occur -- and as we all know,
> they do come up from time to time, even here in our friendly little corner of
> the online universe.
>
> My ultimate concern here, thus, is that by all of us always trying to be so
> nice to each other and always feeling like we have to watch what we say, that
> creates stress on us which builds and builds (pun unintended :-). Finally
> when it reaches critical mass, things get messier than (I think) they would
> have been if we didn't feel we always had to be so godforsaken polite.
You are right in that we may be to sensitive to one another's feelings when
we post but I would prefer that to a flame group.
> I'd like to hear your thoughts.
>
> But before you answer, think about it for a day or two.
I waited.
> I mean really think about it.
I did.
> Think about why the .off-topic.debate group exists and how LUGNET would be
> different without it. Pick any group and think about how LUGNET would be
> different without it. See if you can come up with three reasons for and
> against a .off-topic.debate.flame group. Certainly it's not a win-win, but
> I'm looking for a cumulative-effect improvement.
For:
1. We have a place to take jerks so we can hang them out to dry.
2. We can use more four-letter words that begin with "f".
3. The pressure can be let out when we get cathartic.
Against:
4. Jason Wilson would have probably left if we had the flame group when he
was caught up underfoot. And it would have been our loss. (I am trying to
look at it from his perspective)
5. Look at all the non-flame posts that have happened in the last few days
that have been about what we really are... LEGO Fans around the world.
6. At least one *member* would have to reconsider keeping a membership here.
> --Todd
Todd,
You are not responsible for the actions that brought on the whole Moulton
situation, neither am I. He is. I am glad to see that you want to continue
to improve things but I really think you cannot go down this road. If I feel
I am always at risk of being flamed by people without reason, I will feel
less welcome. Imagine how a lurker sees it.
I would not want to be in the position of being attacked like I was and it
would be allowed. Imagine the comments we would see about people's sites if
it were a free for all. You would be allowing for destructive behavior, and
believe it or not you would be encouraging it. O-t.fun tells me I can put up
something that is both off-topic and fun. O-t.debate tells me I can start a
non-LEGO debate. O-t.flame tells me I can be cruel and rude, that sounds
like someone you called "persona non grata". What is next? Will I be allowed
to post links to pornographic material? Or how about white supremacist
material on my member page?
The slope is very slippery. Don't do it! Please, don't do it!
Respectfully submitted,
Jude
To everyone else,
All opinions expressed here are my own and if you agree or disagree please
do so in a constructive manner so that Todd can make an educated decision.
Speak up please, because LUGNET is changing and if you contribute it will be
for the better.
Jude
Lugnet Member #549
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
| (...) I'm not sure I understand... such a "vent" group would be like any other newsgroup - you only read it if and when you want... moreso, it will not appear in any of the brief views, and cannot be xposted to or from... if it bothers people, they (...) (24 years ago, 26-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
61 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
