Subject:
|
Re: Are we all too nice?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 26 Oct 2000 17:57:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
343 times
|
| |
|
|
Ok, I've thought about it for a couple of days.
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Todd Lehman writes:
> 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.
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 the best interests of a given newsgroup/group of newsgroups. If I think
someone is an annoying wanker, I'll flame at him just to have some fun, but
that shouldn't be taken as an indication that I'm really upset about something,
because in all likelihood I'm not.
To put it in more concrete terms: I didn't engage Matt Moulton directly while
he was in the process of stirring up trouble initially- I figured him for a
troll and let him go to it. What I *did* do is post something to admin.general
(I think) calling for him to be booted. Why? Because I knew engaging Matt
would be fruitless. If this had been Usenet, I would have posted nothing at
all, because there is no one who is in a position to make Matt go away, and
feeding a troll is only going to ensure it stays.
(note that I didn't post asking for Matt's removal just because he said Jude's
site was lame, and that I didn't *really* get dragged into it until people
seemed to be debating whether Matt should stay or be banned, and *why*, which
was much more important to me than any of the rest).
*That*, I think, is why it seems people get more upset. Because the people who
*are* really upset have a reason to post and say they are.
But that's just my opinion.
> 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.
To once again discuss this in concrete Lugnet terms, I really don't think that
we have such a non-stinky environment as you might think.
*While people posted to say that Matt was a butthead for being rude about
Jude's site, it was pointless and non-constructive criticism, and deserved to
be decried as such.
*Witness the NELUG age limits thread. No one seemed to have any problem
casting all kinds of aspersions at NELUG, and no one called for any of those
people to be banned or what have you.
*Witness the ongoing "class warfare" type threads, which crop up from time to
time, in which people flame each other for having more money to burn on LEGO
than one another, or more luck in finding sets, blah blah blah. It's
essentially an ongoing theme.
I'm sure there are more points that could be made as well. I think that Lugnet
*does* have higher standards, which keep these threads from devolving into
pointless name calling (for the most part), but I don't think the air here is
pristinely unstinky, either.
> Now let me switch gears.
Okie, me too.
> 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.)
Oh. Oh, my. Well, I have no problem with it, unlike some other folks. I
don't personally think it's totally necessary, but if you think it's a good
release valve, then by all means install it.
> 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.
A couple of thoughts on the "technical restrictions" above:
You can't make posts that go there unrepliable. It's just not fair. If
someone flames me, I'm going to flame them back, even if it means copying and
pasting thier text into a new message.
On the other hand, I agree that things shouldn't be crossposted to there (ie,
if a post goes there it goes there alone). Further, I think it shouldn't be
possible to follow up *from* the flame group *to* any other group- once a
thread goes there, it stays there until it dies.
And I think that "dots" going there should be suppressed on the web interface.
You should have to go looking to read the flame group, not stumble across it
while reading another thread (especially if profanity/vulgarity is going to be
allowed). Everything possible should be done to ensure that if you're reading
a post to the flame group, it's because you specifically thought "Hey, I want
to read some flames".
eric
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
| (...) I think this should be user configurable. It could be handled like the skip filters, except default to being filtered out. This also leads me to something that I've been thinking would be valuable. I wish the dots were colored or shaded or (...) (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
|
|
|
|
