| |
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Now let me switch gears.
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.
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.)
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.
I'd like to hear your thoughts.
But before you answer, think about it for a day or two.
I mean really think about it.
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.
--Todd
[followups to lugnet.off-topic.debate]
[and the first person who replies is a poopy head. :-]
|
|
Message has 17 Replies:
 | | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
| (...) In un-moderated usenet newsgroups, most people just skip over flame wars, trolls and spams because they get used to it. Compare with RTL, Lugnet is lightly moderated and you need to register before you can post. The registration is already a (...) (24 years ago, 25-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Are we all too nice? (new name)
|
| (...) I would like to politely offer another suggestion for the name of the group lugnet.vent I poffer this alternative because it is my opinion (and I am not attempting to foist my own humble opinion on anyone) that Lugnetters will, at times, need (...) (24 years ago, 25-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
| OK I think its time to give Todd some real feedback on this so I will get it started... (...) Simple answer... Yes! A simple answer doesn't tell Todd what he is looking for so read on. (...) Well I am not a psycologist or a sociologist but my (...) (24 years ago, 26-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
| (...) Todd: I'm really against the idea of a flame-dedicated newsgroup. IMO, that would be stooping to the lowest common denominator. Civility, politeness, good manners, and measured social restraint are virtues which are seldom practiced, but which (...) (24 years ago, 26-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Todd Lehman writes: [snippage throughout] (...) No. There is no such thing. Eric Kingsley took this completely in the direction of constructive criticism toward creative works. And he's right that the only valuable (...) (24 years ago, 26-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
| Ok, I've thought about it for a couple of days. (...) I don't know about that. Here's why: If something on Usenet truly offends me, I tend not to complain about it. Why not? Because there is no Usenet admin who can be expected to be looking out for (...) (24 years ago, 26-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
| (...) I don't think so, no. More below, obviously. (...) I don't think this is an issue - or shouldn't be, anyway. No one is (to my knowledge) plugged into Lugnet 24 by 7, so the constraints Lugnet imposes are not inherently carried over into other (...) (24 years ago, 26-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
| (...) I would argue yes. I think that's been made self evident; see Eric Kingsley's post. "good job", "me too", etc., are all great to hear when you're the one getting the praise, but: A. it doesn't help you, save your ego perhaps. B. to many (...) (24 years ago, 26-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
| (...) Yes. (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 26-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
| Well, I have read all of these latest developments with some concern and thought that a few comments were in order. For the most part I am a little below the radar for the off-topic/debate crowd but I still read a pretty fair percentage of the posts (...) (24 years ago, 26-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
| (...) OK, I have given this a while to percolate. I admit I am ambivalent. There are good (but not stunningly great) arguments advanced for, and against, the idea of a ventilation group. I won't do the three reasons exercise as I think all of mine (...) (24 years ago, 27-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
| Todd Lehman wrote: <snip> (...) <snip> Todd, of course you have the rule, and it will be your decision at the end but since you asked for opinions, I go for a very strong NO! You have reasons to consider for doing such a thing but I don't believe it (...) (24 years ago, 27-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
| (...) <snip> I've been hanging around RTL and Lugnet for years now. When I first heard about Todd's plan to create Lugnet I was extreemly happy, thinking foolishly that the kind of flamewars people engaged in would stay out of this place. Sadly, I (...) (24 years ago, 27-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
| <snip an interesting idea> Well, here's my $.02. I think there are enough catagories/groups already. I don't see how another one will do any good. How does *.debate not fulfill this already? Want to put flamewars in perspective? Try the forums over (...) (24 years ago, 27-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Todd Lehman writes: <major, indiscriminate snippage> (...) Well, having thought about this long and hard (and having been digging around in the dusty back halls of Lugnet today), I think that an off-site solution already (...) (24 years ago, 27-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
| (...) Okay, I read it and left it for a few days. I'll be honest that I didn't really think about it that much in that time. But here's my thoughts. (...) Nothing wrong with being "too nice". But there is also nothing wrong with being politely (...) (24 years ago, 29-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
| (...) I'm against it, but to fulfill the request Reasons For a Flame Group 1) Could be the "Soup of the Day" in terms of hot topics 2) You could really hurt someone if you wanted to 3) Good place to send the undesireables Reasons Against a Flame (...) (24 years ago, 30-Oct-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
61 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
