01-14-2011, 05:10 PM
quote:I agree with KonaDave, and Rob knows that I do. We've discussed this difference in opinion before. Of course it is ultimately Rob's forum and Rob's call.
Originally posted by konadave
While I agree with most of what is being said here, I have a little different take about things.
I believe that the "Personality" of the board is a direct reflection of the moderator(s). If the moderator(s) is going to allow threads that attack other users, you are going to get attack threads. If the moderator allows bullies and bullying then you are going to get that type of post. It is all really up to the moderator(s). Let's face it, the moderator(s) only decide what is right and what is not right for this forum. The moderator(s) are in complete control. They make the rules and they enforce them as they decide to do. They allow this type of behavior and they allow the people who are doing it to stay. I believe by allowing such type of postings they are actually encouraging it. JMHO []
Wherever the civility line is drawn on a forum by the moderator(s), people learn to respect that line. If the line is not clear or not enforced, people will bully and hurt. Then they will say that you need a thick skin to be on the internet.
I don't believe that is true, although it's certainly true in some forums. I participate in a few forums where the civility code is enforced regularly, usually by volunteer mods. I have been a moderator on such a board. It is absolutely possible to have a forum where people can participate who don't like or tolerate name-calling, insults, passive-aggressive attacks, personal vendettas, flaming, and trolling.
I don't think that an unmoderated environment really does reflect the overall personality of the community. Punaweb unmoderated will not reflect Puna. All the gentle people will not be able to handle being called names and attacked. The bullies will be meaner than they would be face to face, in most cases. Moderation is needed to counter-balance the fact that people are able to operate with less of a filter, or no filter, on the internet.
I've quit a few times now. I've also made people upset, in almost all cases unintentionally. It actually takes a whole lot of pressure (insults) for me to let fly with something that I mean to be upsetting or sarcastic. It's hard to counter sarcasm with non-sarcasm. I could be really sarcastic. I've written satire/sarcasm for other sites as humor. I hold that impulse back here. It's one thing to write lampoons, create cartoons, be witty, with respect to politics, entertainment, issues. It's another to let the knife loose on a community member.
My favorite rule of debate and civility, which I've seen work very well on other forums, is that disagreement is welcome with respect to the idea, the opinion, the facts. Attacking the person is over the line.
1) I don't agree with your political philosophy, religion, educational philosophy, position on drugs, etc.. -- instead I believe .... Fine. This is free speech.
2) Of course you think that way, because you're a stupid ____ who has a superiority complex, victim complex, believes it's all about you, and so forth. Not fine. Attack.
A pattern I've seen many times here, is that I disagree civilly with someone's position, or express my own position, and the person returns with a personal attack. They don't even see that their reply was an attack and my comment was civil. A person can be so attached to the position that any disagreement, civil or not, feels like an attack, so they feel justified in retaliating with an insult.
Sometimes people get all defensive and perturbed because they say something and the respondent doesn't take their hand and go rah rah rah. That's not reasonable either. There is no rule that everyone in a community will be supportive of your plans or ideas. It doesn't make a person mean if they tell you that they think you may be making a mistake. It's mean if they tell you that using insults, name-calling, and pseudo-psychoanalysis to belittle you.
Having someone tell you they think you are making a mistake may be a great kindness. There are junctures in my past where I only wish more people had pointed out, politely, the possibility that I was about to step in a gigantic pile of crap, or burn a bridge I needed, and so forth. For this reason, I am not so sympathetic to people here who complain if everyone is not supportive at all times. There are indeed a lot of viewpoints here, and it would be unrealistic to expect support from everyone in all that you do.
I think what matters is whether the other person crosses the line of civility and getting too personal when they respond.
One of the great advantages of an actively moderated forum with a civility guideline is that the members get to see the moderator make calls that point out where the post veered off into personal attack -- and where it didn't. After a while, people get it. Those who are incapable of getting it leave or get banned.
One forum I belong to, I've been part of it for ten years. For the first year, the place was an absolute battlefield. It was horrible, the cliques, the passive-aggressive crap, the bullying, the planned attacks. The moderators instituted the rule I've described. At first, they had to work to keep things in line, and yes it tried their patience. However, for the last seven years, the place has run itself pretty much. The core group all knows where the line is; the people understand what is an attack and what is a disagreement.
However, it didn't get to that place of autonomy without moderators who were willing to tell people to chill out, to ban people who were repeat offenders.
Asking people to ignore being attacked is dicey. Do you tell a wife to ignore being hit and not respond, because it just encourages her husband to hit harder? Do you tell her to develop thicker skin? Do you tell your child that who is being hit by a school bully? Shouldn't there be a solution that doesn't involve passively letting people throw punches and taking them in silence because that proves who is the adult? Is it really the role of an adult to be passive when someone is disrupting the community?