Subject:
|
Re: Are we all too nice?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 26 Oct 2000 19:49:47 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
315 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Todd Lehman writes:
> The question is: Are we trying to be too nice to one another?
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 others, it's useless noise.
I also think that's part of what makes the article rating system so good. If
you want to say "Great job!", all you need to do is select 'highlight' or
'spotlight', and the poster's been congradulated.
I think what would be great to see is more constructive criticism. "I liked X,
but I didn't like Y. Have you thought about trying Z?" Again, see Eric's post.
> 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?
In direct answer to your question, I think the result is a society in which
feelings are repressed and hidden. Take, for example, the aristocracy in...
well... probably any country in the renaissance. You get an uptight community
wherein emotions are forbidden.
However, this environment in drastically different. We don't live in it 100% of
the time, and we're not forced to cork emotions, since we have outlets other
than Lugnet to express our feelings. But as a result, I think it has the
potential to make a more elitist society. Anyone who doesn't fit the norm is
out. Hence, those members of the Lego community who aren't always polite are
forced back into places like RTL, whether it be by force or by overwhelming
persuasion.
I suppose that also works with the aristocracy example. Commoners simply
weren't allowed-- and even if they were, they wouldn't stay too long. Does that
mean that the overwhelming hordes of the 'lower classes' will come and
overthrow Lugnet in response to our "let them eat spamcake"? Probably not.
However, it does pose a question. Are we limiting ourselves by not allowing or
disliking these less polite people's presence on Lugnet? Could we benefit by
welcoming them rather than turning them away? Is there anything to be lost by
including them?
Personally, I'm at a loss on that question myself. I want the answer to be that
we can include and benefit from those who don't fit in, but lose nothing in
the process. After all, one of the reasons (I think) for founding Lugnet is
that people were in opposition to all the noise and impoliteness of RTL. That's
part of what has made Lugnet such a great place for so many. If we allow for
things like impoliteness, vulgarity, insults, etc., we run the risk of
excluding the many people who simply don't want to deal with it. And the last
thing I want, after all, is to further exclude people.
> 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.
>
> [snip]
>
> I'd like to hear your thoughts.
>
> [snip]
>
> 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.
Let's see...
Reasons for:
----------------------------
1. It provides a place for flame.
Flames do happen. Emotional, non-polite outbreaks occur and people will express
their opinions violently on Lugnet whether or not this group is created. But
from now on, instead of needing to reprimand someone for not being polite and
generating even more ill-will on our part (those who might reprimand), we could
simply say "take it to .flame, please". It generates less noise when an
outbreak happens, and allows a place for it.
More on that: We could say 'take it offline' at present, and perhaps that's a
way to do it, but I think we can also examine that in the negative. Imagine if
we didn't have an off-topic.debate group. We could just as easily say "go take
it offline" or "take it to usenet.philosopy" or something when a non-lego
discussion came up, but I personally like the idea of having an
off-topic.debate group. I might want to post my ideas in a public forum for
critisism, etc. Same with a flame/vent/etc.
2. Expressing emotions is important.
We can vent to others offline, but it's not always quite the same. For
instance, if I'm mad at someone or something in the Lego community, I could go
vent to my NLSO, who would listen to me intently, but not really understand the
issues at hand. However, if I vent at someone IN the Lego community, they can
actually provide me with useful input. Could I vent offline via email? Sure,
but then I'm limiting myself to who I vent to. It could be someone I've never
met or had dealings with has something to contribute and could help me through
my venting. Hence, it helps to have a place to do that with people who
understand.
3. It welcomes the 'non-elite'
For those members of the Lego Community who have felt restricted or rejected by
Lugnet in the past, this would provide a place to come and actually start
participating here. Does it mean they'll be welcomed with open arms? No.
Actually, my hope is that with experience, those people who are used to
expressing themselves emotionally and unpolitely can get that experience and
participate elsewhere in Lugnet with the .flame as a fallback in case they do
start to slip.
4. It may increase the existing civility.
It might actually help tone down the negative posts that we DO get here on
Lugnet. Once people get used to having a place where they can vent, etc.,
they'll be less inclined to start mini-flames elsewhere on Lugnet, and instead
FUT them off to .flame. (the opposite could also be argued, but we'll save that
for the reasons against)
5. We can ignore it.
For those of us who are happy with Lugnet the way it is, this theoretically
offers no change. That's part of what makes Lugnet a great place. If you want
to only read stuff about Aquazone and Znap, you can. If you want everything but
CAD stuff, you don't have to. And if you don't want to bother with .flame, you
still don't have to.
Reasons against:
---------------------------
1. We're happy being elitist.
Let's be honest. By saying elitist, we're implying that those of us who aren't
among the 'elite' are impolite, occasionally rude, and emotional. We're not
saying we want to discriminate against people who like Town Jr. or something.
And it's human nature to want to be around people like yourself. That's why
we're all here, after all-- we like Lego, and we want to be around people like
us. Do we really want people who haven't learned to be polite, calm, and
respectful to be here? Or would we rather say that we only want them here when
they're willing to concede and actually BE polite, calm and respectful? These
people shouldn't be allowed in until they've learned that such attitudes and
behaviors are unwelcome here and no longer exhibit them.
2. We have other means of expressing unpoliteness, etc.
RTL still exists. We're not doing any damage to these people by not letting
them post on Lugnet, nor are we limiting ourselves because we can express
ourselves there. And even if we don't have access to RTL, we've still got the
basics of email if we get into an argument with someone directly, and we can
also vent offline if need be. If we need to vent, fine. That's human. But let's
keep the face we show online civil and polite, and express these opinions and
emotions elsewhere.
3. It may encourage degeneration elsewhere.
By allowing ANY impoliteness on Lugnet, we have the potential to encourage it
to spread to other newsgroups. After all, how many off-topic debates get
started elsewhere and only later are directed to the right place? We could
likely see the uncivil bug infest other areas of Lugnet making it a place where
we don't want to be.
4. It could go against Lugnet's long term goals.
Lugnet's goals (as I read them) are to make a place that's open to children,
families, and even open to corporate support (Yes, I know. But let's not start
that debate yet. It's not entirely the issue here [this means you, Scott! :) ])
By allowing profanity and having an 'anything goes' environment, we've
developed an environment that we don't want to have the wrong people exposed
to. If we're talking about children, we don't want them to see us swearing
(alright, SOME of us don't want that). And likewise if it's TLC. If Lugnet is
to be a professional organization, impolite behavior isn't welcome. After all,
how well would TLC function if they had people swearing all over their site? Or
any corporate organization for that matter?
=======================================================================
I think that's it for now... I'll also say that for now I'm leaning towards
creating the new group; although perhaps we can name it something than
lugnet.off-topic.flame or lugnet.off-topic.vent, since those kinda have
negative connotations. Perhaps lugnet.off-topic.other?
If we decide to go through with it, though, it has the ability to change Lugnet
greatly. Will that mean it will change for the worse? Perhaps. Perhaps not.
But hopefully I've given some of you a little more to chew on...
$.02,
DaveE
> [and the first person who replies is a poopy head. :-]
(Whew!)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Are we all too nice?
|
| (...) Not true. I do a lot of my reading from nntp. I don't see the ratings (nor can I make them). I pretty much ignore the rating system (I haven't seen any proposals of how it would be used which would really be effective, one problem is not (...) (25 years ago, 27-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
|
|
|
|
