Community Censure Among the Modless

[beyelzu]

alright, lots of shit has been swirling around in my head last couple of days as I read some threads here, one recent about all the ii mods that post hereour list of iidb mods former and current (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1643) and the last two threds that dave participated in: his goodbye thread (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1295) and the shitstorm that led to the goodbye (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1265&page=4&pp=25) .

We dont have mods and the admin's policy for intervention is shall we say "hands off" thus we are freethought. But rules still exist and community censure is a powerful force. In one of the early threads here various people asked what would happen if a neo nazi or pedophile posted here with the implication that the community would be powerless to actually counter such people, and to some degree those detractors had a point, there is little we can do about driveby postings of dipshits, However, communities can and do police themselves have we have seen on this board. It can be messy and ugly, but it works.

I dont want to argue the merits of dave's dipshittery and viciousness rather community censure.

[Farren]

I think ultimately it takes an enormous amount of personal effort to fight with the majority of people on a board all of the time, so on smaller boards like this simple community censure works quite well. If someone can't get along with the majority they simply leave. IMHO its not really persecution either. There's a free and fair exchange of ideas and no implicit threat of expulsion so it really comes down to someone discovering they are not in likeminded company and going elsewhere, which, I think, is fair.

Of course I think its less viable to be modless on larger boards. As soon as it reaches a threshold where there are simply too many people for the majority to rightly claim they "know" the rest of the majority, an event horizon is reached where the entire dynamic changes. This is because people can form opposing factions without sufficient discomfort to make any one faction feel compelled to acquiese, sincerely and respectfully agree to differ on controversial issues (for instance where there is mutual respect derived from consensus on other issues), or leave.

[Crumb]

I assume if someone came along that annoyed enough people, they would get ignored by so many that they would get bored and leave. Isn't that how this board is supposed to work. :shrug:

[beyelzu]

I assume if someone came along that annoyed enough people, they would get ignored by so many that they would get bored and leave. Isn't that how this board is supposed to work. :shrug:
in theory sure, but I am not the kind of person that would put someone on ignore. more of into the fray kind of guy.

[LadyShea]

Well, the way I see it, everyone has a number of options if "the community" seems against them.

1. Revise their position. "Hey, looks like most people disagree with me that all non-white races should be exterminated. Perhaps I should rethink that"

2. Defend their position

3. Change their style or wording if they feel their position has been misunderstood "Hmm, I meant X, but a number of people interpreted it as Y. I will try to phrase it differently"

4. Leave

5. Talk to themselves a lot

So it's not community policing so much as self policing.

[godfry n. glad]

I wondered how the obnoxious might be dealt with and figured, rather like Crumb, that if they got no response because so many placed the poster on ignore...they'd be talking mostly to themselves.

And, from what I've seen, Bub, most of the nazi wankers love it when they're confronted. I try not to give them a pulpit.

I think it would be highly effective if all, or the majority of posters, on the board, put the same jerk on "ignore"....

godfry

[Beth]

True, it is best to ignore, but there are times when one feels a moral obligation to speak against an idea, especially if they had not previously been on your ignore list. I really have nothing to add, but I think Brandi pretty much hit the mark.

[godfry n. glad]

True, it is best to ignore, but there are times when one feels a moral obligation to speak against an idea, especially if they had not previously been on your ignore list. I really have nothing to add, but I think Brandi pretty much hit the mark.

Understood... Please, fulfill your moral obligation, and then, if it looks like you're being used for the wanker's agenda, bail out and place them on ignore.

[pescifish]

I personally like the "ignore" action. But it doesn't always work, especially in a large and/or diverse group of people. The problem is that we don't all agree as to who is a jerk, so while I ignore the asshole, someone else engages or, even worse!, other people love the idiot and gives him/her attention and praise.

Do Not Feed
The JERK!

I really don't know why y'all are so fucked up as to not agree with me and all my attitudes about everything! :no2:

I do agree with Brandi that either online or IRL, in social situations, we ultimately have to count on individuals to police themselves.

[godfry n. glad]

I really don't know why y'all are so fucked up as to not agree with me and all my attitudes about everything! :no2:

I do agree with Brandi that either online or IRL, in social situations, we ultimately have to count on individuals to police themselves.

What?

You have something against peer pressure, small group intimidation and insidious tag-team confrontation?

[Ensign Steve]

I really don't know why y'all are so fucked up as to not agree with me and all my attitudes about everything! :no2:

What?! I've been your cheerleader all day! :cheer: :sadcheer: :cheer: :sadcheer: :cheer: :sadcheer: :cheer:

Oh, and plus I totally agree with you on this.

[Beth]

I really don't know why y'all are so fucked up as to not agree with me and all my attitudes about everything! :no2:

I do agree with Brandi that either online or IRL, in social situations, we ultimately have to count on individuals to police themselves.

What?

You have something against peer pressure, small group intimidation and insidious tag-team confrontation?*sigh* :chin: Guess so, but I've been guilty.

[Crumb]

/me studies up on his pescifishism tm

:read:

Now I see the great pescifish wisfom for what it is. :bow:

:D

[viscousmemories]

The problem is that we don't all agree as to who is a jerk, so while I ignore the asshole, someone else engages or, even worse!, other people love the idiot and gives him/her attention and praise.
The thing is, the people I tend to find the most annoying are those whose perspective, experience, beliefs or opinions drastically conflict with my own. And this conflict frequently results in my re-evaluating my own views, often to positive effect. I just seem to learn more from people that challenge me and piss me off than I do from people who agree with everything I say or tiptoe around my neuroses.

Which isn't to say I therefore elect to surround myself with people that piss me off. On the contrary I usually go out of my way to avoid interacting with such people. And of course I've been known to condemn people who are verbally abusive, for example. But I don't want anything to do with determining how people are allowed to speak to each other any more than I want someone to make that determination for me.

Farren's opinion is interesting and not at all uncommon, but I'm not convinced that there is a forum size at which moderation becomes necessary. I honestly think IIDB could tell the moderators to stop editing posts tomorrow and there would not have to be substantial problems with the quality or quantity of content. In my opinion the biggest problems would come not from the trolls but from the people who would feel a moral obligation to attack them. It just isn't possible for a troll to derail a thread on his own, he needs fish. (Not you, fish. :P)

One thing I've come to realize (which might appear obvious on its face) is that online communities are significantly different from real life communities. In my opinion the anonymity, lack of verbal cues, minimal repercussions for bad behavior, and numerous other qualities make it extremely difficult (if not impossible) to accurately judge someone's character. So I try pretty hard not to, concentrating instead on reading and responding to their comments on their own merits (or lack thereof) sans any personal judgements.

Obviously this isn't always possible since emotions get involved, but I just think it's the best way to go about it. So if you see me praising a jerk the odds are the jerk said something I agreed with, found amusing, or for some other reason appreciated at face value. And if that same person says something jerklike I'll likely respond to it accordingly.

And naturally we all begin to get a basic picture of someone as we read their posts over time and it becomes somewhat easier (or at least more tempting) to come to some conclusions about the quality of their character. But even so I think we do so to our own detriment sometimes. It just seems too easy to formulate an erroneous impression of someone and run with it, often resulting in disruption to the community that could be avoided by simply ignoring the person or reading and responding to his/her posts at face value.

At any rate this is pretty much just my stream of consciousness ramble on this subject as my opinion stands today. I'm always open to the possibility that I could be completely wrong about any or all of this, and I'm always looking to hear other opinions and ideas on the subject.