Subject:
|
Re: Community Policing is a Good Thing(TM) (Was: Re: Do you think there is a market)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Jan 2002 09:42:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1336 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Frank Filz writes:
> Kyle Beatty wrote:
> >
> > In lugnet.admin.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > In lugnet.admin.general, Tim Courtney writes:
> >
> > > Yes indeed. We all have a right and a responsibility to work to make LUGNET
> > > a better place. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
> >
> > This sentiment is not friendly. It is arrogant and has a stink of
> > martiality. It really bugs me, I'm sorry to say. I am unlikely to do any of
> > the above.
>
> It may be bluntly stated, but frankly, if you are not here to work with
> all the members and users of Lugnet to make Lugnet a better place, I
> think you are in the wrong place.
But does blunt arrogance make Lugnet a better place?
>
> Take a look at the Lugnet plan for some of Todd's and Suzanne's original
> ideas:
>
> http://www.lugnet.com/admin/plan/
>
> > There has been insufficient restraint so far in the cause of 'correction'.
> > The initial 'correction' (re ™) that caused the current brouhaha comes off
> > frankly oafish. I don't mean to be rude, but that was my reaction. (A crash
> > course on when assertion is really necessary might be in order.)
>
> Are you implying Larry is wrong to do as the law requires and protect
> his (and his associates) property?
No one is saying that. Where Larry was wrong was to ask for respect, when he
was failing to do so for others – respect is a two way street. It was 1st
rate hypocrisy. Nothing less. It can not be justified.
> Do you feel a trademark is not
> something to be protected? Trademarks have been lost because they were
> allowed to become common terms. Perhaps Larry is sometimes too blunt,
> but sometimes bluntness is necessary (and Todd can be more blunt than
> Larry when he needs to).
>
> > <snip of examples of other instances of problems magnified by clumsy
> > 'correction'>
> > >
> > > But I have zero interest in hearing from those that think that any community
> > > guidance is too much. Zero.
> >
> > This is not a constructive, useful attitude. It might be true but
> > advertising it, wearing it on your sleeve, is not fun for others to watch.
> > Are you Robert Blake? Is there a battery on your shoulder? Is one supposed
> > to be impressed by _attitude_?
>
> Lugnet is attempting to be the kind of place where people can come and
> relax and share their passions. This is best done in an environment
> where the prodding is gentle and not overly authoritarian. This is best
> accomplished by everyone taking a role in guiding the community down
> constructive paths. If everyone was doing this, there would be no need
> for such blunt words and "attitudes" because folks would see someone
> asking nicely that some unacceptable action not be repeated, and would
> say to themselves "yes, I agree, the original action was uncalled for
> and the gentle prodding was appropriate" and the issue quietly dies, or
> the transgressor doesn't understand and either continues the same action
> (and gets asked again, perhaps by a different person, perhaps eventually
> by an administrator with authority) or enters a dialogue to understand
> why their action was considered inappropriate (I would see nothing wrong
> with a sequence something like:
>
> Fred posts to lugnet.trains: "Metroliner for Sale!"
>
> Bill responds: "Theme groups are not considered appropriate
> places to conduct advertise items for sale or trade"
>
> Fred responds: "Why? Wouldn't my post be more efficiently
> considered when viewed just by train fans?"
>
> Jane responds: "Well, that might seem reasonable, but in
> fact most of us already have a Metroliner (you see
> Shop at Home recently re-released the set) and those
> who might still be looking for one know that there is
> a central place for want adds. .trains is a place
> for us to talk about our latest creations, speculate
> on what sets TLC might release next year, and otherwise
> further our understanding of LEGO trains."
>
> Of course if this is the third theme group such a conversation has
> occurred after one of Fred's posts well, then it may be time for less
> gentle discussion with Fred.
>
> Unfortunately, this is not how Lugnet has been running. Some of us have
> felt that no one has been at the helm recently, though we think we
> understand some of the reasons for that. In any case, since we have
> perceived a degeneration of Lugnet we are concerned, and concerned
> people sometimes use stronger and more blunt language than might be
> optimal. Many of us have invested a lot of time and some to a lot of
> money because we hope to create a place which is easy and fun to
> participate in.
>
> I have a hard time trying to explain what community means to me, and
> what community building is, but I do know that Lugnet is central to the
> LEGO toy fan community and that mostly online community is every bit as
> real as the mostly face-to-face community I experience at my church and
> related gatherings. Lugnet is not the only online community I have
> participated in, I have been participating in online community for about
> 15 years (and I'm sure some here have participated longer).
There are people who view this community as there own personal sandpit. When
others start playing in the corner without them, or they don't like the game
they are playing they start kicking the sand about.
Scott A
>
> > > > If it is negative, copy
> > > > admin and solicit the backup of an authority (by crossposting, not
> > > > necessarily by directly prompting an admin).
> >
> > This is a key behavior that amplifies small hiccups in the social agreement
> > into brawls. Some zits need to be left alone. Don't pick at it or it'll
> > never heal.
>
> I think the problem is not the initial "policing" post, but the
> follow-up brawl.
>
> > > > Another thing I note is it is not socially acceptable to the general LUGNET
> > > > populus to accept correction from another LUGNET member. A far cry from the
> > > > beginnings of LUGNET, where most everyone knew each other and took
> > > > correction graciously if it was made politely. Now, no matter who issues a
> > > > polite correction, they almost certainly backlash 'I don't care who you are,
> > > > you can't tell me what to do, I'll only listen to an admin.' This is a very
> > > > destructive attitude, and it harms the sentiment of a community here. How
> > > > to deal with this problem?
> >
> > Every failure to acknowledge correction is not inherently an act against the
> > community. If the shouting is likely to wake up the innocent neighbors, I'm
> > likely to blame both loud parties, right, wrong or indifferent. Being in the
> > right is no excuse to act wrongly. If the nudge toward 'correction' is
> > really polite ( and not just pro forma polite) and the reaction is negative,
> > it's time to step back and reassess whether further 'correction' is needed
> > or will just be seen as bullying.
>
> True, the jerk yelling at his neighbor to turn down the radio may be
> worse than the loud radio. On the other hand, I know I have silently
> applauded when someone has gone to the neighbor and asked them nicely to
> turn it down. And I know I have sympathized with the person yelling
> "shut up" when the transgressor is a repeat offender who has refused
> polite requests to be considerate of his neighbors.
>
> When a negative reaction to a polite request occurs, you are right, one
> does need to step back and examine the situation. However, if the
> request is made in the right spirit, a negative reaction suggests
> someone either doesn't understand why they have done wrong or someone
> who just doesn't care. Someone who doesn't understand needs and deserves
> education. Someone who doesn't care should be shown the door. Would you
> put up with a drunk at one of your parties who cusses people for asking
> him cool it?
>
> > > This really is the crux, I think. No matter how polite you are in your
> > > request, if the twits come swarming out and interfere, it is difficult to
> > > make forward progress.
> >
> > Then progress in a different direction and Let. It. Go.
>
> So we should just Let It Go and let Lugnet become like RTL? We should
> let folks fill lugnet.trains with announcements of their eBay auctions?
> That's what you're asking for.
>
> > > But every time we go through this cycle of twit response followed by
> > > discussion hopefully it will get better. Most of the community WANTS that
> > > the entire burden of helping LUGNET(tm) be a more pleasant place NOT be on
> > > the shoulders of just Suz and Todd or even on just all the admins.
> >
> > > As for those community members that do *not* want it, that instead
> > > apparently want to drive Suz and Todd to nervous breakdowns from overwork,
> > > or who (worse) want LUGNET to be an anything goes place... well, I would
> > > question whether they really are worthy of being a part of this community.
> > > That's not the LUGNET I signed up for.
> >
> > There are going to be blotches on the face of any forum. The instances will
> > increase in frequency as the forum grows, but that doesn't mean that the
> > forum has suffered some kind of fatal breakdown. And it really doesn't mean
> > that it's okay to maybe put on hobnail jackboots for just a little while
> > until things settle down.
>
> Yes, there will always be blotches, and the number will increase as the
> number of users increases. Some of us are seeing a very disturbing trend
> at Lugnet. We are seeing it not just be a little more blotchy, we are
> seeing it be a lot more blotchy.
>
> Of course Todd and Suzanne have been doing one thing which helps keep
> the problem down. The breaking up of Lugnet into more and more
> newsgroups serves a purpose of keeping the number of users of any one
> group to a manageable number. It is probably getting to be time for
> .trains to split a little bit. .castle and .space are also candidates.
> The Technic and robotics groups may need some splitting also.
>
> > Our visions of Lugnet are not absolutely aligned, but they are mostly the
> > same. The key is to be able to disagree without getting wrapped up in a knot.
>
> You are right, it is important to be able to disagree without getting
> tangled, but it is also important that everyone realize they need to
> play a part. And part of that part they need to play is to ask
> themselves if a complaint is valid. If they are not willing to do so,
> and especially if they repeatedly do so, it is right for the rest of the
> community to ask they be removed, or at least be given a stern warning.
>
> Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
83 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
|
|
|
|
