Sensitivity & Big Dicks on Discussion Boards

[livius drusus]

I didn't want to derail this thread (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=17446#post17446) with exactly the kind of thing described in the first paragraph of Socratoad's post, but I think he raises some important issues and I'd like to address them as they pertain to FF and to forums in general.

Ya know folks, if there's one thing that both saddens and tends to frustrate me about boards in general s its tendency to be just a little bit toooooo debate focused and less conversational focused.. Its what I call the big dick syndrome.

I know what you mean, and I agree that it sometimes saddens and frustrates me, but I think calling it "big dick syndrome" is unfair. Some people might seek debate and genuine understanding and fear that a focus on emotional aspects would inhibit such discussion. They aren't asking everyone to pardon them while they whip this out (*thunk*), but are rather trying to share ideas in the best way they know how.

I imagine calling that desire a symptom of BDS could be quite hurtful to those people, in fact, and thus the wheel comes full circle.

Because of that tendency a good sensitive person seems to have left this very board perhaps permanently, and that is so very damned sad.

See, I don't think that's the case. I think a good sensitive person has been horribly hurt by an interaction which was not motivated by anything that could fairly be described as big dick syndrome. Sweetie is a good sensitive person too: she just gauged the delicate, personal, highly volatile situation incorrectly and now she seems to have left the board as well primarily because of her own horror at the way things turned out.

A few days ago you were not so far from her position yourself, Toad, so I think you know when you widen the field a little that it's not about big dicks. It's about human fallibility in a written word medium where recovery time can be as glacier slow as the damage is avalanche fast.

It's still sad as hell though, no doubt about that. :(

Is the human condition such that only the thick-skinned need apply because its just a matter of time before the most vulnerable and sensitive will fall by the wayside?

I don't know. I do think this medium tends towards the callous, but as I've been trying to indicate above in my endlessly prolix fashion, the thickness of skins is just as hard a thing to gauge as anything else.

Is there a way to minimize the tendency towards either flat affect or melodrama in a forum such as this? What do people do in real life to sort out these kinds of misunderstandings and missteps? Is there anything we can think of that might help advance conflict resolution in this medium?

Are we to become proud because we who remain know that no matter which gender we are we are genuine members of the big dick society?

Naw. See above.

Perhaps I too, under the cold light of day must question as to whether I just might be one of those that are too sensitive to sustain my participation on any board anywhere over the long term.

I think my answer to this is that we are all sensitive to something, that our sensitivities cannot be the sole reason we stay or go. I've gnawed my stomach inside out both as a regular poster on boards as a mod/admin. I'm a fiery Mediterranean type at heart, and I struggle to keep a hold of the bigger picture. I think the struggle is worth it because the big picture is. More than that, I just can't say.

I really like this particular board and the people responsible for its being here, but damn it I hardly know what to think, yesterday I witnessed more than just one example of all too human nature at work on this very board, to say that I feel somewhat numbed, having witnessed needless flaming combined by needless pain-causing rhetoric is rapidly pushing me towards seeking calmer waters.

I then believe you found them flowing between the judicial robes of Pythons in women's lingerie. :) What I mean to say is, I think there are calmer waters on the board itself, and even the most pleasantly room temperature reed pond will set to boiling sometimes.

Please forgive me for fragmenting your next paragraph, but it's dense with issues I'll like to try to unpack a little. Naturally you are as ever free to answer in great detail or not at all or anything in between.

Surely we cannot claim that we attract and support the very best on this board or any other

What do you mean by "the very best"? Do you mean people, discourse, both, something else? Technically speaking, I don't think anybody makes the claim that we attract them, although as admins we have tried to provide an environment which supports rich discourse, and hopefully draws the best out of everyone. I suspect those elements are very much secondary to the community itself, however.

if we, and I use the term "we" very loosely,

Do you mean that there is no one single collective voice here, or does something else inform the looseness?

if the very format that seems to develop no matter how good the intentions of board founders, firstly discourages the most vulnerable and the most sensitive among our fellow humans.

This is the crux of the matter to me. Does the format in fact discourage the most vulnerable and sensitive people from participating? Who are the most vulnerable and sensitive people? How can they be detected and supported? Do they deserve a special kind of attention that other people with fewer or less obvious vulnerabilities and sensitivities do not?

How about the strong, silent types? If we are careful and tender only with the people whose vulnerabilities are clear to us, are we shortchanging those who react to pain by masking it? Are we shortchanging the hair-trigger temper types? Just because someone doesn't show their pain, even in subtle ways, doesn't mean they aren't feeling it. Just because someone lashes out in pain, doesn't mean they aren't hugely sensitive.

Lest I begin to sound pompous and holier than thou , let me hasten to add that I too have taken the bull by the horns, so to speak, and cut some poor bastard to ribbons, who dared to piss me off, but friends I have always felt soiled by having subjecting someone to my acid tongue.

The inadvertent collision concerns me just as much as the acid tongue. The potential impact is maybe even more far-reaching. So what can we do, vm and I as admins, all of us as a community, to ensure that people are not trampled even as discussion remains unfettered?

Keep in mind, there are circumstances under which we might want to trample people. I am thinking specifically of certain interactions I had with a crypto-Nazi on HH who was intentionally masking his anti-semitic poison with vaguely pro-Arab humanitarianist fig leaves in order to ingratiate himself to the community. I am also thinking of trolls such as Genghis PWN who has made it a vocation to push people's buttons on any board which claims to support free thought and expression, sometimes in the slimiest, most appallingly cruel ways you could imagine.

Please excuse the vastness of this topic, but it's been on my mind since long before the FF opened and I'd very much like to hear everyone's thoughts on the matter now that we seem to have put down a few roots.

[Cool Hand]

Wow, excellent post, Liv.

It seems you have given this issue an awful lot of thought. Those are some terrific insights.

From an aesthetic perspective, I especially love your imagery and your deft use of language in this sentence.

It's about human fallibility in a written word medium where recovery time can be as glacier slow as the damage is avalanche fast.

I really enjoy reading highly skilled and artful writing. Yours is always a delight.

Cool Hand

[seebs]

I don't think we can prevent sensitive people from being hurt. I do think we can try harder to establish that we intend no harm.

[Socratoad]

Thanks Liv for such an erudite well crafted post. While you have taken considerable time to examine each point carefully, I on the other hand more or less in what I choose to call stream of consciousness writing just let it flow so to speak. It certainly sprung not from any attempt on my part to point fingers, but rather as a result of a certain feeling of pain and emptiness I felt upon awakening, and now dammit I may have played a considerable part in Sweetie having left the board. At the very least I certainly have made her feel guilty without actually having attempted to do just that. Oh my, what to do ...... I shall attempt to send her a PM.

Liv, dear Liv, I'm becoming frighteningly aware of the limitations that my hermit-like life and poor health is placing upon my abilities to keep abreast as to what is going on both here at FF and in life in general. Example: I rushed to Beth's defence automatically because after have read her journals my heart reached out to her. The problem is/was that I felt the need to defend her against hurt without having followed that thread concerning abortion, and so I in my zeal to defend her and try my little bit to lessen her pain was not-so-blissfully ignorant of the discussions between Beth and Sweetie.

Now just what can Toad do to help remedy this situation? (reverting to first person) I can stop fooling myself into thinking that I can keep up with others as I once could do, and thus lessen the chances of causing you or others here more pain than I am curing. No No, this does not in any way indicate that I too may leave this little home I have found, either in a petulant huff or because it simply would make my life less complicated ..... I shall stay and support your board in any way I can, within my limited abilities.

Time for somewhat painful revelations: Liv, you have dissected and answered my somewhat flowery post point by point, and I recognize that each of your points should be answered, alas here is my dilemma .... I really am incapable of doing that, and this is something I cannot explain. Its as if I have had strokes rather than heart attacks. My mind just is no longer able to function in that manner ...... sure, once in a while there are tiny flashes of brilliance, but often they disappear just as fast in mid-sentence.

Another example of this, and I hope he reads this, is a brilliant heartfelt post by Nil yesterday. I feel so bad about him being sent away by so-called military justice and other things happening in his young life, that like you I said I would post something much more in depth later. The difference is you did get back to him, while I seem to be completely incapable of doing same. So I cover up all this debilitating shit by from time to time blithering away like this and call it stream of consciousness when truth be know, my mind has lost all ability to sustain any discipline.

Then damned if I did not just promise another friend that I would start a blog on her site when I cant even hope to finish a book that for which I received a somewhat hefty advance. And so dear Liv, and you too vm, I realize all too well that I have taken up far too much of your busy lives here on FF with my dysfunctional horse-shit. I really do not relish the limelight and yet I certainly must be beginning to appear like an attention seeker of great renown to many many people.

So I shall continue to post, but hopefully by trying to keep well within context, and for the most part staying well clear of political issues because such things are just too damned hard on my ticker.

PS: I've tried too hard to retain my once spontaneity which has I'm afraid has now appeared to be little more than flippancy. Perhaps seventy years olds in lousy health should recognize their own rapidly diminished role and quit trying to fool themselves. Writing this post has not been easy, especially after my royal fuck-up just a few short days ago.

PPS: I too dislike the term "big dick syndrome" and have no idea why I chose to use it as it is not usually a part of my vocabulary :(

[pescifish]

I am not going to try to engage in the full topic of the OP for a couple of reasons. For one thing, I don't have the time right now and two, I have been really very very frustrated with some of the types of squirmishness that have come up lately. Ones where I really wish I had the time and the "oomph" of my past to make any coherent sense in a bulletin board type communication. Maybe one of these days I can catch liv or vm in the chatroom and I can do it in dialog fashion.

However, I'd like to comment on a part of your p.s., Socratoad:PS: I've tried too hard to retain my once spontaneity which has I'm afraid has now appeared to be little more than flippancy. Perhaps seventy years olds in lousy health should recognize their own rapidly diminished role and quit trying to fool themselves. I've been struggling with this dilemna relative to my own bulletin board activities for the past year. The fact is, for all the difficulty my own lost capabilities give me throughout the day, especially with focusing on computer screens, it's just stupid for me to keep trying to keep up, even on the small boards.

Still, I just keep dropping my expectations for myself and only engage about 10% of the time I normally would in the controversial and emotional situations. I try to just read what I can and post things that are quick and innocuous. As I have mentioned in the past, I find this level of interaction nowhere near as satisfying as I would like. And often this translates to frustration and increases my own feeling of being 'out of it' (which can translate to pain).

Not that an ol' fart 46 year old has any real advice/thoughts she can offer to you, but I can at least tell you that you aren't alone in this particular aspect.

[Adora]

Since I don't read anyone's journals or articles around this place, does anyone want to fill me in on what happened with the Beth/Sweetie thing? Just for conversation's sake and all...

[livius drusus]

I'd prefer to keep this thread on the general discussion terms of my OP, Adora. If you search for recent posts from either of them you should be able to zero in on the issue fairly easily without drawing this thread any further into it.

[Socratoad]

I am not going to try to engage in the full topic of the OP for a couple of reasons. For one thing, I don't have the time right now and two, I have been really very very frustrated with some of the types of squirmishness that have come up lately. Ones where I really wish I had the time and the "oomph" of my past to make any coherent sense in a bulletin board type communication. Maybe one of these days I can catch liv or vm in the chatroom and I can do it in dialog fashion.

However, I'd like to comment on a part of your p.s., Socratoad:PS: I've tried too hard to retain my once spontaneity which has I'm afraid has now appeared to be little more than flippancy. Perhaps seventy years olds in lousy health should recognize their own rapidly diminished role and quit trying to fool themselves. I've been struggling with this dilemna relative to my own bulletin board activities for the past year. The fact is, for all the difficulty my own lost capabilities give me throughout the day, especially with focusing on computer screens, it's just stupid for me to keep trying to keep up, even on the small boards.

Still, I just keep dropping my expectations for myself and only engage about 10% of the time I normally would in the controversial and emotional situations. I try to just read what I can and post things that are quick and innocuous. As I have mentioned in the past, I find this level of interaction nowhere near as satisfying as I would like. And often this translates to frustration and increases my own feeling of being 'out of it' (which can translate to pain).

Not that an ol' fart 46 year old has any real advice/thoughts she can offer to you, but I can at least tell you that you aren't alone in this particular aspect.

Hi out thar in Bumblestumbleland :wave:

In a feeble attempt to inject a tiny ray of levity on the subject allow me to drag out a rather ancient chestnut: "When you're up to your chin in you-know-what, its always a little comforting to be able to look around and see others in the same state of affairs." :hugsmile:

[Adora]

*has read, now sees teh issue*

Warning: Long-Ass Rambly-As-Fuck Post. Read At Own Risk of Death by Boredom (tl;dr replies will be totally valid and loved by me forever :D ).

It seems the reason was more the opposite of Big Dick Syndrome (Little Pussy Syndrome?). Ie- too much emotional involvement & conversation, not enough objective debate, on both sides. I blame the full moon. It's giving everyone a little loony-moonyness at present.

Seriously, we have a mixture of people here. Some are not as... philosophical as others. Some are not as scientific-minded. Some are more emotional naturally. Some place more investment in the posts and interaction here. This is the nature of this board. I have to say, it's one of the most open-topiced forums I've ever been to. Most forums I have visited in the past have had an actual theme to them, whether they're connected to another site or are a specific-themed forum all on their own. This one doesn't, and no, "Freethought" doesn't count, because it covers practically everything anyone ever thinks.

*shrugs* What're you gonna do about it? See, even sites like HH, which are independent forums from any other site, still have a theme and connection about them. You can't be a HH member without being a non-theist, and it still has strong ties to other forums, such as II. I'm a long-time member of a forum that's been through different stages of development, starting as a forum for a webcomic, until it got kicked by the creator, but since all the members were still so close we decided to set up our own forum with the same kinds of themes and style as the original webcomic.

FF doesn't have any of this yet, for a lot of reasons. It's far too young, for one thing. Forums develop over time. Good forums are like good wines- they've matured, weathered storms, developed a character. Another reason is the diverse range of characters we have here. We all come from different walks of life, even if the geography is predominantly North America.

And yeah, for me, the biggest reason is the fact this forum has a "theme" that is almost too free. We're pracitcally open to talk about anything we want, let the scientific intelligesia battle it out with URLs and statistics, discuss our favourite recipes, post when you're high (until now, I have to admit, I'd only ever encountered drunken posters on forums), etc etc. This is one of the reasons I'm keeping myself distanced to a degree from the goings on around here. There's too much potential for serious shitfights (though I think the reactions to the certain thing that stuff happened in were a bit over the top), especially without mods. Unless you have a bunch of people with a focused interest in something - a strong united community - you need some form of policing. The wider the diversity, the more the potential for stuff to go wrong, and the more you require mods, even if they don't do much. Just the threat of what could happen if you step out of line can work.

I think it's a complex issue - especially regarding the diversity and theme - that would have to be worked out by those most invested in this community.

Anyway... OP replies (so I can say I'm at least partially OT).

Is the human condition such that only the thick-skinned need apply because its just a matter of time before the most vulnerable and sensitive will fall by the wayside?

Wee, see me open another can of worms...

It is when the human condition is dominated by the masculine gendered aspect. Aggression, strength, intellect over emotion, ability to fight physically and mentally, competition, etc etc. Of course the sensitive, nurturing, thin-skinned, emotive and "vulnerable" are going to be lost. And the internet is like this as well. There are a growing number of female "spaces" online, but they are usually specifically created and not spontaneous, unless created so through social desire (and so not really spontaneous at all). In a lot of places- forums, mailing lists, discussion boards - men tend to dominate, simply because they are more drawn to the topics in the communities, or because the women can't be bothered/are afraid to speak up. Honestly, when some of the more philosophically inclined fellas start up around here, it reminds me far too much of II and I go into tl;dr mode (too long; didn't read). I was once chastised for doing this on a board (and mentioning that I did this) by a group of mods, who said I was "neglecting my community duties". I didn't hang around there much longer, as you can guess.

BUT, that's not to say there are female-dominated forums, boards, MLs, communities etc that do not require thick-skin. Frankly, I think a lot of women who open up on such boards, who do reveal personal details in their communication (a feminine trait in society) and who do manage to hold decent conversations are damn thick skinned, and very strong people. It's more a matter of the way they're handled in said communities, rather than the actual acts of being emotional/revealing personal details, which tends to be more on the... sensitive side by the community, because of gender issues.

My stupid-ass-opinion on this forum? It tends to be gendered more towards the masculine than the feminine. Both because it appears to have more male than female active members in threads, and because of the sort of hangings-on we still have towards philosophy, science, intellectual debate, etc that still remind me of II/HH (in a good way, though, as well as the tl;dr way). Me? I've always played ball with the big-dicks, so I really don't give a fuck. I'll be a drama queen, a diva, a pain-in-the-arse-royale in threads, but no-one I've had rather passionate discussions with in the threads on this board do I truly hold anything serious against. Seebs is a hilarious fucker and still one of my favourite posters, even after our wank. Dan makes me giggle like a schoolgirl and want to hug him and feed him cookies (which I think I mostly blame on him using one of my favourite avatars in the whole set), and I always find something interesting in most of Cool hand's posts, even if I'm never going to try and engage him in debate simply for reasons of sanity (which is actually more reflective of my own issues than his, as I'm sure you can all see). That's just me though, because of the way I am through my upbringing and life, and the way I interact and invest in this forum. Not everyone's going to be like that, obviously.

As for the sensitive ones? Well, I think there are a lot of sensitive and issue-laden people here who are able to post successfully and interact on this forum quite well. And I'm not saying "the chicks" or anything, because that's not it. The people know who they are.

As for, Beth and Sweetie, they seemed to be fine before the serious personal issues came up in the debate, and I think that's more the reasons the problems occured- it was a debate, and not just a discussion or a conversation. As soon as someone mentioned personal experience with the topic, it crossed the "too close" line for a decent debate. Maybe the whole thread was started because of Beth's own experience in the topic. If so, then okay, but I think that was playing with fire when encouraging a debate, especially one that mixes personal with political/legal. Obviously though, it was more than just this that caused the kerfuffle.

Honestly, I have no idea how you would go combating these issues. As mentioned, I think they are caused by the openness the "theme" of this board encourages, among other things. It brings the good things, like open discussion of certain aspects of society that otherwise are taboo (but not much around here, since we're not really that deviant), but on the flipside, it can bring things detremental. I'd say mods would be handy, but that's another can of worms, popularity fights, censorship rants, and other such things I've seen people react to even when I've been a mod/admin at forums. It's a shitty job, but sometimes, someone has to do it. It's up to you guys to decide whether we need the job to be done, though. Frankly, I think you're doing a great job filtering out the insaneo-fuckwits that we could have around here (you let me slip through the net though, tsk tsk) with such an open name as "Freethought". And I greatly admire that. *tips hat*

I think I've run dry of freethoughts related to the topic now, so I'll just mention the disclaimer...

My 2c, EXCHANGE RATES VARY GREATLY!

And if you've read this far... wow, what are you on?

[Corona688]

And here I thought this thread was about someone's avatar...

I'd agree there's a tendency sometimes to turn everything into a debate. It's hard to see words on a screen as friendly chat. It's the more chat-oriented stuff here that's attracted me to this place.

[Socratoad]

And here I thought this thread was about someone's avatar...

I'd agree there's a tendency sometimes to turn everything into a debate. It's hard to see words on a screen as friendly chat. It's the more chat-oriented stuff here that's attracted me to this place.

Ah, you have nailed it for me. I'm much more at ease with either chat (conversation) and/or exchange of ideas. Debate has a tendency to become heated too easily ....... but then thats just the perception of Toad.

Fortunately there is much more conversation and information exchange here than on so many other boards .......again perceptions of a Toad

[viscousmemories]

I'm gonna hijack liv's thread a bit here…

Maybe one of these days I can catch liv or vm in the chatroom and I can do it in dialog fashion.
Would you be interested in participating in a planned chat night with anyone else here who wants to discuss these issues, or did you have something more "intimate" in mind? Either way works for us. :)

Seriously, we have a mixture of people here. Some are not as... philosophical as others. Some are not as scientific-minded. Some are more emotional naturally. Some place more investment in the posts and interaction here.
Thanks for your long and thoughtful post, Adora. I think you made a lot of really good points, such as the above. You're right that the diversity of the membership makes for really interesting discussions, but the social dynamics created present a lot of unique challenges, too.

FF doesn't have any of this yet, for a lot of reasons. It's far too young, for one thing. Forums develop over time. Good forums are like good wines- they've matured, weathered storms, developed a character.
I agree. We tried as hard as we could to imbue this forum with as much character as possible when we built it, but of course we expected it would continuously evolve. So far I'm very pleased overall, despite being very unhappy about some aspects of it.

And yeah, for me, the biggest reason is the fact this forum has a "theme" that is almost too free. <snip> This is one of the reasons I'm keeping myself distanced to a degree from the goings on around here. There's too much potential for serious shitfights (though I think the reactions to the certain thing that stuff happened in were a bit over the top), especially without mods.
I think it's completely reasonable to keep your distance in an unstable environment, and I agree that the potential is great for firestorms far worse than the few we've seen yet. I don't know if moderators are a solution to that problem, but livius is by far the more wise and knowledgeable on that subject. I have far too many problems with authority to be much of an authoritarian myself.

As for, Beth and Sweetie, they seemed to be fine before the serious personal issues came up in the debate, and I think that's more the reasons the problems occured- it was a debate, and not just a discussion or a conversation. As soon as someone mentioned personal experience with the topic, it crossed the "too close" line for a decent debate.
I think that's a really good point, although I suspect that even if it were a discussion it would've gone awry because the deeply personal stuff simply wasn't a discussion Beth wanted to have. I misread the situation at first – thinking it was first and foremost a difference of opinion on appropriate debate tactics – and tried to mediate a resolution amenable to both Beth and Sweetie.

In retrospect I probably should've either stayed out of it or encouraged them to drop it. I realize that was what MinorityReport was trying to accomplish by telling Sweetie to stop, and perhaps I should've supported him on that. I didn't at the time because I felt like his comments put all the blame for the conflict on Sweetie, and I thought that was unfair. Maybe the fact that I put reason and fairness to both women before Beth's feelings is a flaw in my character. Obviously MinorityReport and probably others think so. I'm not sure.

[beyelzu]

And if you've read this far... wow, what are you on?

quality post btw. I dont like classifying reason and intellect as masculine themes however. Although, I know that modern feminists sometimes do that, I think of how appalled people like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B Anthony would have been to here their intellectual progeny mouth the same words that men used to rationalize not alllowing women to vote.

[Socratoad]

vm, do'nt beat yourself up on whether you should or should not have had the insight that minoroityreport had during that debate. Hell man, I think of myself as being ultra-sensitive, and yet not a day goes by without me totally missing one sign or another that someone is really hurting quite badly or that someone has totally misinterpreted a point that has been made.

I really do not think that this forum needs mods, although my hats are off to most of them, I really believe that threads such as this one are adequate to sort troubled situations out. I just do not like the arbitrariness of modding of threads. Your type of forum gives us all a chance to grow and to come to the support of others, albeit a bit too late in the case being discussed. In hindsight, after reading the thread in discussion I wish the hell I had been there as I would have shouted lay off as long as was needed to bring attention to what was happening. No one, I repeat, no one was at fault there, it was just a very unfortunate chain of events.

As for having a chat-room meeting about such matters, I wish you all well, Toad is just far too slow to be able to keep up in such a fast moving format, unless of course sometime voice actuation becomes available.

[livius drusus]

It seems you have given this issue an awful lot of thought. Those are some terrific insights.

Thank you, Cool Hand, and for your kind words about my writing as well. vm and I have given a lot of thought to how best to encourage a positive environment for discussion. As Toad points out, threads like this is one way. Ripping off everyone else's ideas Community brainstorming is central to that.

Many thanks for your response. :yup:

[livius drusus]

I don't think we can prevent sensitive people from being hurt. I do think we can try harder to establish that we intend no harm.

I agree, although of course this assumes that on an a case by case basis we have the desire or will to clarify our intent. That's not always so, in my experience, particularly when the blood is up.

[viscousmemories]

vm, do'nt beat yourself up on whether you should or should not have had the insight that minoroityreport had during that debate. Hell man, I think of myself as being ultra-sensitive, and yet not a day goes by without me totally missing one sign or another that someone is really hurting quite badly or that someone has totally misinterpreted a point that has been made.

I really do not think that this forum needs mods, although my hats are off to most of them, I really believe that threads such as this one are adequate to sort troubled situations out. I just do not like the arbitrariness of modding of threads. Your type of forum gives us all a chance to grow and to come to the support of others, albeit a bit too late in the case being discussed. In hindsight, after reading the thread in discussion I wish the hell I had been there as I would have shouted lay off as long as was needed to bring attention to what was happening. No one, I repeat, no one was at fault there, it was just a very unfortunate chain of events.

As for having a chat-room meeting about such matters, I wish you all well, Toad is just far too slow to be able to keep up in such a fast moving format, unless of course sometime voice actuation becomes available.
Thanks, Socratoad. :yup:

[JoeP]

Adora: long, rambly and delicious post! You even took a few words out to explain 'tl;dr'. Again. The regular Adora's welcome back here anytime too. :tongue3:

I hate point-by-point responses so I'll pick on one point that I perceived to be your main one: this forum suffers, or will suffer, because it doesn't have a theme. My reaction to this is that won't be a problem. But you have something; maybe having been here from the start I see it as an extention of GH/HH. And maybe I see "free thought" as a stronger theme, just a more open version of "heathens". Of course it's not really that.

I like to think the board is already developing a character, but it's hard to say where it will end up (or go) yet. Even in the past month I've seen a deepening of debate - not just bigger, longer and unmoderated flames, but several introspective threads on the nature of debate and this board (like this one).

Yes in a way to the intellectual/philosophical flavour. But have you visited Ebla? It's nothing compared to that. :einstein:

You highlighted the lack of mods: do you think moderation is necessary? Liv and vm make it pretty clear they want to avoid it. I wasn't sure if you were giving an opinion there.

Wait ... of course there's a unifying theme ... :dragon:

[wildernesse]

What ways can we advance conflict resolution without the use of mods?

Since the mod-lessness of the board is one of its key features, I think that the suggestion of mods as a viable solution jumps the gun a bit and may be ignoring the actual problem. If not ignoring, sidestepping a bit. Especially since on boards with mods I haven't seen anything that would suggest that conflicts exactly like the one which lost our community two members would be prevented or actually resolved differently.

I think that building a strong community away from "debate" type threads is essential to creating a board without moderation. Within a strong community, community pressure/displeasure with the state of events really can prohibit escalation if X or Y is told to cool it by someone they like/respect/etc. In real life, it's how firestorms don't erupt at family gatherings every time Uncle Zeb and Cousin Bob start talking politics--the subject is changed, the two are given significant cues by their wives/mothers/partners/etc to shut up, and they cool down. Note that this is not necessarily the free exchange of ideas--but the purpose of the family gathering is not the free exchange of ideas, but to gather together with people that you love (ideally ;)).

So, in close everyday communities, I think there are community moderators who aren't "official", but who's notions carry a lot of weight. I think this is already operating in this community, since I know that I've stepped out of conversations here due to the influence of other posters. I wasn't happy about it, but it ended an unproductive series of events. I think that Minority Report was doing the same thing in his/her posts, but I don't know him, and I doubt that Sweetie did--so why should we care when MR says cool it? You have to have the respect of the community before you can walk into a thread and stop it--and there are several people here whose "stop this" would curb my posting. But the community has to exist before the (unofficial) authority and technically official clout comes about. (And even then, what do you do with people who don't care about the community but just want to make their point and have a combative attitude? In off line life, most people leave the room (Ignore)--but sometimes there are people who are able to end the rant and punish (perhaps admins could meet this need, since it would only be necessary in severe cases--think about needing to call the po-lice to the family reunion))

I think it's inevitable in communities that there will be people who end up having more clout than others, and who can choose to use it in a way that benefits or harms the community. In a forum without mods, this is perhaps less of a "chosen few" atmosphere surrounding those individuals, since their authority is granted by the community consensus, even if unspoken. Yes, it's a type of popularity contest, but we're humans and I don't think we'll escape the hierarchical ordering of relationships anytime soon--but neither am I suggesting that there will be one person whose opinion will matter to everyone.

However, even with these unofficial mod-type relationships, you have to ask if that's what this board is all about? This is a freethought forum--where you can think what you like, say what you think. In that regard, it's really more of a situation where if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. No, it doesn't feel like that here, but I think that's the underlying idea. (And I may be wrong.) So should we even have this conversation about how to resolve conflicts? There's nothing about feelings in the board's purpose--no one promises you protection, and no one offers it to you. If you get burned by someone--tough toenails. It sounds cold and doesn't seem to me that it matches up with the board's reality--but I don't know that anyone could complain if it turns out that way. It's just the nature of the beast. Can you have a freethought board with civility conventions?

In my mind, the issue comes down to the nature of the board--is this going to be a board where any idea can be hashed through, no matter what and no matter how, feelings be damned? Or is this going to be a board for the purpose of a community who are pretty much comfortable talking about a variety of ideas, with sufficient openmindedness to explore those ideas in a manner that is broader than most everyday exchanges? Are there other possibilities bridging the gap between these two scenarios?

I think that the course of the board has already been set--most people here seem to know each other fairly well--for instance, I've interacted with many of you for years now, and what many, if not most, of you say and think about my responses and interactions does have a big impact. I'm not interested in the hammer and tongs aspect of ripping apart whether it's moral to buy apples from Chile or New Zealand, or if the real issue is the store I'm buying them from. I like being able to talk about food, current events, everyday life, etc. in the company of people I respect and enjoy. That seems to be the case for most posters here as well--and many express the desire for continued community building. So where does the freethought come into play--especially the "say what you think" part?

Ok. That's one long post from someone who often implies she's a kickboxing monkey, and it may not either make sense or be relevant to anything in particular since I'm really tired.

[LadyShea]

It was an excellent post Wildy, thank you.

[Socratoad]

Well said Wildernesse, I like the idea of community especially. And this board actually feels like community. Although I have only been here a short time, in fact have only been posting on these types of boards for approx three or four months, I have already developed a loyalty to this board to the point that I have no desire exhibit disrespect towards any members here. Combine that with the feeling of being free to start threads on any given subject and I'de have to say I've found a winning combination.

As you indicated there is no need to have official mods here, in fact that would be a regressive step. We are all adults here, even me occasionally, and so in the interests of the community and the respect for each other we can police ourselves, as witnessed by this very thread plus one or two similar ones.

Did I mention that I'm not in favour of have mods here?

[Corona688]

I think that building a strong community away from "debate" type threads is essential to creating a board without moderation. Within a strong community, community pressure/displeasure with the state of events really can prohibit escalation if X or Y is told to cool it by someone they like/respect/etc. In real life, it's how firestorms don't erupt at family gatherings every time Uncle Zeb and Cousin Bob start talking politics--the subject is changed, the two are given significant cues by their wives/mothers/partners/etc to shut up, and they cool down. Note that this is not necessarily the free exchange of ideas--but the purpose of the family gathering is not the free exchange of ideas, but to gather together with people that you love (ideally ;)). Then I'm lucky to have gotten in on this board before the cliques solidify inpenetrably. It's nice to feel welcome at a place, instead of just looking in the windows and passing letters through the mail slot.

Firestorms don't erupt at family gatherings(well, not often), but then, perfect strangers are seldom welcome at family gatherings either. I know such organizations are inevitable, but I don't feel they're a thing to be praised or depended on in a board intended to be public.

Maybye that's the key, and the reason why boards keep popping in and out in different forms... after a while, the inertia needs to be broken to start over and include new people?

[Socratoad]

One f the things I appreciate about this board and am also fascinated by, is the many different facets or angles that a given concept can generate, however I do'nt think cliques are likely to become an issue. I mean. what the hell .... a closed membership in fact but, but not by image, methinks not :D

But just because I'm paranoid does not mean they're not out to get me :eek:

[wildernesse]

As the board exists now, Corona, how many people end up here being perfect strangers though? I know almost everyone from somewhere else, and even those who I don't know off the top of my head, like Minority Report--actually may be someone I know quite well, but not in their current incarnation. (Like I know Monkeybot is here somewhere, but I cannot for the life of me remember her name here. This has been irritating me this afternoon.)

I think that new people to the board are exactly like girlfriends/boyfriends/neighbors/etc. who do tend to show up often at family gatherings and often acclimate to the group. Families aren't static either, but that doesn't mean there aren't authority figures in place (or that authority figures don't change over time as generations mature).

But that also goes to what is the point of this board? Is it a public board where anyone can show up and think all over the place? Or is a community of people who like to chat around with each other? Can it be both? Can it be both successfully? I don't know. What do you think?

oof. Monkey brain needs something other than ribs to think on. :sammich:

[Adora]

I dont like classifying reason and intellect as masculine themes however.
Honestly? I don't agree with the way certain aspects of human society are gendered by certain consensuses (is that what the plural of consensus is? o.Ò). But they are, unfortunately.

I'm guessing Stanton and Anthony were US Suffragettes or something? I understand what you're saying about "intellect", but it's a matter of gendering and imbalances. If masculine aspects are placed higher than feminine aspects, then it doesn't matter what aspects they are (inellect or emotion) they'll be used in such kinds of arguments. It's more a matter of the imbalances at play & the values and meanings people place on themes, rather than the associated themes themselves. It's the fact that some people think Intellect > Emotion that is the root problem, rather than intellect or emotion being gendered certain ways (though I don't agree with certain genderings either... but that's another issue).

BTW- Most modern theory on heterosexual masculine gender and the way it impacts the world around it is written by men, who usually identify themselves as "pro feminist" rather than "feminists" themselves. So *shrugs* make of that what you will.

The regular Adora's welcome back here anytime too.
*chucks a tanty*
You're not my real dad!!
*slams door, turns music up*

Regular enough for ya?

But have you visited Ebla? It's nothing compared to that.
Yeah, that was one of the things that turned me off that board. It was just too... cold.

[Corona688]

As the board exists now, Corona, how many people end up here being perfect strangers though? It's difficult to be sure. It is possible to be well-known yet still an outsider, besides.I think that new people to the board are exactly like girlfriends/boyfriends/neighbors/etc. who do tend to show up often at family gatherings and often acclimate to the group. Families aren't static either, but that doesn't mean there aren't authority figures in place (or that authority figures don't change over time as generations mature). This place doesn't strike me as having solidified families yet. If they exist, they're not obvious to me anyhow. There are plenty of good friends, but friends are abit more mutable. Families do change, but more slowly than friends, and more painfully.But that also goes to what is the point of this board? Is it a public board where anyone can show up and think all over the place? Or is a community of people who like to chat around with each other? Can it be both? Can it be both successfully? I don't know. What do you think? It seems to be doing well at both, for now.

[livius drusus]

Time for somewhat painful revelations: Liv, you have dissected and answered my somewhat flowery post point by point, and I recognize that each of your points should be answered, alas here is my dilemma .... I really am incapable of doing that, and this is something I cannot explain. Its as if I have had strokes rather than heart attacks. My mind just is no longer able to function in that manner ...... sure, once in a while there are tiny flashes of brilliance, but often they disappear just as fast in mid-sentence.

Point by point dissecto-responses are not always necessary or desirable, Toad. I like to see genuine reactions and input upon reflection; the form it takes on the page is entirely up to you. Whatever you're comfortable with is what I want.

Maybe one of these days I can catch liv or vm in the chatroom and I can do it in dialog fashion.

As vm said, we're definitely up for it if you are. Would you object to us posting any pertinent chat transcripts?

[wildernesse]

This place doesn't strike me as having solidified families yet. If they exist, they're not obvious to me anyhow. There are plenty of good friends, but friends are abit more mutable. Families do change, but more slowly than friends, and more painfully.

Just a note, because I do agree with your points--I'm speaking of the entire board and its population as one family. Not as multiple families. I think that within a family, there are different groups and different leaders within those groups--but that everyone is in it together and the differentiations (or cliques) are not necessarily entrenched (the kids do eventually grow up and have kids of their own, even if they still have to sit at the card table).

[Clutch Munny]

This is probably just gilding liv's lily, but I think it's important to separate the sensitive/insensitive divide from the debate/conversation divide. There need be little overlap, provided folks can distinguish having their views challenged from having their moral worth challenged.

[beyelzu]

And here I thought this thread was about someone's avatar...


yeah, for a second I thought liv was calling me out. :D

[Socratoad]

And here I thought this thread was about someone's avatar...


yeah, for a second I thought liv was calling me out. :D

:roflmao: :roflmao:

[beyelzu]

I cant remember if I said it in a post or a pm, but I find myself engaged in self moderation a good bit more here than I did at II. Although, I still shoot from the hip almost all the time, I avoid seriously going off most of the time. I have avoided turning up the heat on several occassions and although some people may not think so, generally I have tried to be respectful to my fellow ff members. (that was a respectful fuck off, adora, just so you know) :D

On the subject of community building, I find myself participating in alot of threads that I wouldnt have even read at II, because I give a shit about the people here. In fact, I really do read just about every thread. I have also tried to welcome new members; liv of course does this much more consistently then I do. I think that it is possible to be open and welcome to new members even as our sense of community grows. In fact, I believe that our community is based on such openness to newcomers just as much as familiarity with long time posters.

[Farren]

Wow thats thats cool to read. I also restrict myself to very specific topics on other BBs (like Politics on II). I can't say I read every thread here, but there's no specific topic that keeps me coming back, just a sincere interest in the actual people that post here.

[pescifish]

Maybe one of these days I can catch liv or vm in the chatroom and I can do it in dialog fashion.As vm said, we're definitely up for it if you are. Would you object to us posting any pertinent chat transcripts?I hardly think we can assume I've got anything particularly enlightening or pertinent worth posting, but I'd say "Sure." Regarding vm's question, I admit that I have a selfish desire for a private audience, but that's just because I probably couldn't keep up or be heard in a large crowd in chat. However I think a scheduled chat session with the specific question of the OP would be awesome.

wildy's post and the resulting discussion hits many of the points I struggle with in trying to deal with IRL and online communities. I'd love to see us flesh those issues/questions out as a group. The key to a self policing community is a strong mutual understanding between members regarding acceptable behavior. How do groups, IRL or online, establish those understandings about what is appropriate and what isn't?

In the burgeoning personality of this particular board (interesting discussion plus social stuff), I think Clutch's statement distills the goal quite well:
This is probably just gilding liv's lily, but I think it's important to separate the sensitive/insensitive divide from the debate/conversation divide. There need be little overlap, provided folks can distinguish having their views challenged from having their moral worth challenged.
Bold emphasis mine. This last bit is the tough thing, really. Just who is at fault when an individual feels that his/her moral worth was being challenged when s/he used personal experiences to make a point in a debate? Also, I hate debate and I love to hear other people's opinions. Is there a way we can differentiate between the two types of conversation?

[JoeP]

And here I thought this thread was about someone's avatar...


yeah, for a second I thought liv was calling me out. :D
No, the word 'sensitivity' should have clued you in. :P

[JoeP]

The regular Adora's welcome back here anytime too.
*chucks a tanty*
You're not my real dad!!
*slams door, turns music up*

Regular enough for ya?

:wave:
But ... :iamdad:

[JoeP]

Great post, wildernesse. Somewhere in between kickboxing and cheerleading! :dancmonk:

I like the idea of community-accepted members who have moderating powers by practice and no by diktat. There's something in that. However, I immediately want to know who they are (am I one? Hardly) ... there will still be a risk of people assuming authority, or even having it stated by some, and then appearing to impose it on people who are ranting or whatever, and alienate them. Someone vulnerable or sensitive could see someone using ephemeral community authority in a mild way as being a big dick regardless. We can't solve everything and what we can solve still takes time.

joe

[Cool Hand]

It seems you have given this issue an awful lot of thought. Those are some terrific insights.

Thank you, Cool Hand, and for your kind words about my writing as well. vm and I have given a lot of thought to how best to encourage a positive environment for discussion. As Toad points out, threads like this is one way. Ripping off everyone else's ideas Community brainstorming is central to that.

Many thanks for your response. :yup:

You are very welcome. (insert smilie here)

Another very cool thing about this forum is having access to cool features like strikethroughs for clever jokes like yours. Now, if only I had a clue as to how to use more than a handful of the bazillion features you, VM, and whoever else did technical work on the board (thanks!) have put into it...

Cool Hand

[Clutch Munny]

In the burgeoning personality of this particular board (interesting discussion plus social stuff), I think Clutch's statement distills the goal quite well:

This is probably just gilding liv's lily, but I think it's important to separate the sensitive/insensitive divide from the debate/conversation divide. There need be little overlap, provided folks can distinguish having their views challenged from having their moral worth challenged.

Bold emphasis mine. This last bit is the tough thing, really. Just who is at fault when an individual feels that his/her moral worth was being challenged when s/he used personal experiences to make a point in a debate? Also, I hate debate and I love to hear other people's opinions. Is there a way we can differentiate between the two types of conversation?

My position is an unhelpful platitude, I'm afraid: there are cases and there are cases. Sometimes a person explains her disagreement with a view in a way likely to make the view-holder feel attacked. Sometimes the view-holder feels attacked just because the view is challenged. There's too many instances of both kinds on most boards.

But I do suspect that we're all especially bad -- whether we say we don't want a debate or not -- at just saying things like "You know, I wrote that without really thinking very carefully, and your critique has merit. Let me just retract that for now, and if I can make better sense of it I'll try again later".

That is, whatever we tell ourselves and others about how we're just conversing, or brain-storming, or floating opinions... we tend not to act as if that were true. Lots of people who profess (on an occasion) to be hey, just talking end up trying to bullshit their way out, or otherwise reacting defensively, when someone else's opinion amounts to an expression of disagreement with theirs. Which has the effect of inviting a debate.

[Socratoad]

Ya know, I just thought of something .... the preceding posts on this thread suddenly brought it into focus. When My friend Lisarea first suggested I try this board as she was concerned about just how much the cut and thrust of political threads over at II were having on my health I started posting here in the same mode that often left me feeling so damned drained there. This is in no way meant as a slap at II, I have since learned that I have to be very very careful when entering political frays. Where was I? So I entered here at FF with the same rather frenzied state of mind and just the smallest chip on my shoulder ..... like a rather insignificant bull in a china shop. I know that I preformed a not so subtle hatchet job on one member here ..... really quite pleased with myself, only to learn upon a little deeper probing into the posts of same member that just like me he is fallible, but a hell of a nice guy just the same.

I guess that what I'm trying to say is that I've never seen an interactive arena quite like this one anywhere else on the net, so I guess this is what building a community is all about ..... taking the time to to get to know other posters just a little better before jumping to conclusions either one way or the infamous "other". I'm well aware that from time to time I will cross swords with others here, for not to would just be way too boring and treacly, and the board would die of diabetes related causes. But I, and I hope that others will continue to note that we are all mere humans here, well except for one toad, and not the dreaded "other" which always lead to hurt feelings and some one inevitable slamming the door from one side or the other.

Mehopes the above does not sound too Pollyanna-ish , as I know I was trying to make a point somewhere in that forest of words.

PS: didja notice I got all the way through that piece of drivel without once using the word basically

[pescifish]

Socratoad, I basically :wink: agree with all your posts in this thread and there is one part of your post I'd like to take advantage in my attempt to hear comments on one aspect of 'community':so I guess this is what building a community is all about ..... taking the time to to get to know other posters just a little better before jumping to conclusions either one way or the infamous "other". One of the biggest problems I have when something comes up (shitfest or misunderstanding or...) on bulletin boards is that getting to know someone also means the group ...uh... knows that person. The individual establishes history and a certain style within the community. This means we can be sensitive to a certain individual's vulnerabilities (and of course, take advantage of them in the heat of the battle), but it also means it is hard to take an objective, impartial view of any given situation when it occurs. Don't we end up jumping to conclusions based on the knowledge we've gained?

IMO this might be a major factor in how perception of the Beth/Sweetie situation could vary between the members here. Some of us have known Beth/blondegoddess for a while while Sweetie didn't have that advantage. This factors in in a huge way to how I felt about vm's intervention following Minority Report's "Stop it!", to which vm has expressed some doubts in retrospect. I'm not sure if my prior knowledge (or lack thereof) of either member should factor in on the basis of fair, objective treatment.


FWIW, I appreciated vm's comments in the thread. I felt they were a fair and objective viewpoint of the situation without undue regard to history and/or personalities involved.

[HelenM]

IMO this might be a major factor in how perception of the Beth/Sweetie situation could vary between the members here. Some of us have known Beth/blondegoddess for a while while Sweetie didn't have that advantage. This factors in in a huge way to how I felt about vm's intervention following Minority Report's "Stop it!", to which vm has expressed some doubts in retrospect. I'm not sure if my prior knowledge (or lack thereof) of either member should factor in on the basis of fair, objective treatment.

In general and not necessarily with reference to that thread:

I would say that prior knowledge can be helpful, but when it leads people to take sides with the person with whom they have prior knowledge and against the other person, that is unfair and a problem.

If people are able to use prior knowledge to clarify/explain something without embarrassing the person they know more about and without appearing to side against the other person, then it seems to me that would be a good thing.

Imo - when you know and like someone and sense that they are getting upset by what is being posted to them, and you don't know the other poster(s) well, it's easy to find yourself taking sides and being upset with the poster causing your friend to be upset.

But if the poster doesn't have your prior knowledge, perhaps there's no reason to expect them to have avoided whatever minefield they walked into.

Helen

[Socratoad]

IMO this might be a major factor in how perception of the Beth/Sweetie situation could vary between the members here. Some of us have known Beth/blondegoddess for a while while Sweetie didn't have that advantage. This factors in in a huge way to how I felt about vm's intervention following Minority Report's "Stop it!", to which vm has expressed some doubts in retrospect. I'm not sure if my prior knowledge (or lack thereof) of either member should factor in on the basis of fair, objective treatment.

In general and not necessarily with reference to that thread:

I would say that prior knowledge can be helpful, but when it leads people to take sides with the person with whom they have prior knowledge and against the other person, that is unfair and a problem.

If people are able to use prior knowledge to clarify/explain something without embarrassing the person they know more about and without appearing to side against the other person, then it seems to me that would be a good thing.

Imo - when you know and like someone and sense that they are getting upset by what is being posted to them, and you don't know the other poster(s) well, it's easy to find yourself taking sides and being upset with the poster causing your friend to be upset.

But if the poster doesn't have your prior knowledge, perhaps there's no reason to expect them to have avoided whatever minefield they walked into.

Helen

Well Helen, what can I say, except that one should endeavour to have enough empathy to go very easy on newcomers, to walk that extra mile, so to speak (trolls excluded). I learned that here from experience: When I made a damned fool of myself here on FF and hurt people in the process, many people sprang to my aid, and others forgave me. We all need to factor that into any equation. We were all newbies once, even those that have known one another for years.

[HelenM]

Well Helen, what can I say, except that one should endeavour to have enough empathy to go very easy on newcomers, to walk that extra mile, so to speak (trolls excluded). I learned that here from experience: When I made a damned fool of myself here on FF and hurt people in the process, many people sprang to my aid, and others forgave me. We all need to factor that into any equation. We were all newbies once, even those that have known one another for years.

Absolutely.

[beyelzu]

And here I thought this thread was about someone's avatar...


yeah, for a second I thought liv was calling me out. :D
No, the word 'sensitivity' should have clued you in. :P
cold man.

funny as hell but cold


:D

[livius drusus]

I'd like to compliment Adora on a most thoroughly fabulous post, but of course, it was way too long so I didn't read it.

Sorry, Adora. It the best I could do. Looks like you'll have to deal with actual responses instead. I apologize in advance for mine.

And yeah, for me, the biggest reason is the fact this forum has a "theme" that is almost too free. We're pracitcally open to talk about anything we want, let the scientific intelligesia battle it out with URLs and statistics, discuss our favourite recipes, post when you're high (until now, I have to admit, I'd only ever encountered drunken posters on forums), etc etc. This is one of the reasons I'm keeping myself distanced to a degree from the goings on around here. There's too much potential for serious shitfights (though I think the reactions to the certain thing that stuff happened in were a bit over the top), especially without mods.

In your experience, have restricted topic ranges, enforced behavioral requirements, and clear as a bell unifying themes successfully contained shitfights? Are we more at risk of blow-ups here than at HH? There have been some pretty horrendous fights there, both under vm and my tenure and subsequent admins', and there are no behavioral rules to speak of there either.

Unless you have a bunch of people with a focused interest in something - a strong united community - you need some form of policing. The wider the diversity, the more the potential for stuff to go wrong, and the more you require mods, even if they don't do much. Just the threat of what could happen if you step out of line can work.

It can, sure, and I've certainly seen effectively moderated boards, but as you mention below, moderation causes problems of its own - not just cries of censorship, but also a sense that conflict resolution is best achieved with the threat of power, with silencing rather than discussion. Traditional moderation relies, in the end, on people doing what they're told, and even if that works (which it often does not, in my experience) it's a principle that I find personally distasteful.

My stupid-ass-opinion on this forum? It tends to be gendered more towards the masculine than the feminine. Both because it appears to have more male than female active members in threads, and because of the sort of hangings-on we still have towards philosophy, science, intellectual debate, etc that still remind me of II/HH (in a good way, though, as well as the tl;dr way).

I can see that. I would submit that there is also a large emotional and social component to threads here, however, even the intellectual debatey threads, both because certain topics of debate trigger emotional reactions, and because participants seem to want to work those aspects out instead of bypassing them to get to wrestle on abstractions.

Me? I've always played ball with the big-dicks, so I really don't give a fuck. I'll be a drama queen, a diva, a pain-in-the-arse-royale in threads, but no-one I've had rather passionate discussions with in the threads on this board do I truly hold anything serious against. Seebs is a hilarious fucker and still one of my favourite posters, even after our wank. Dan makes me giggle like a schoolgirl and want to hug him and feed him cookies (which I think I mostly blame on him using one of my favourite avatars in the whole set), and I always find something interesting in most of Cool hand's posts, even if I'm never going to try and engage him in debate simply for reasons of sanity (which is actually more reflective of my own issues than his, as I'm sure you can all see). That's just me though, because of the way I am through my upbringing and life, and the way I interact and invest in this forum. Not everyone's going to be like that, obviously.

This paragraph is just greatness. You're way cool.

It's up to you guys to decide whether we need the job to be done, though. Frankly, I think you're doing a great job filtering out the insaneo-fuckwits that we could have around here (you let me slip through the net though, tsk tsk) with such an open name as "Freethought". And I greatly admire that. *tips hat*

Thank you, but I don't think we can quite take credit for that yet. We'll see what happens when Genghis or one of IIDB's pet Nazis get wind of us. Meanwhile, we'll just have to practice our insaneo-fuckwit wrangling techniques on you.

Thanks for a great post, Adora; I'm sorry it took me so long to answer it. Stupid interfering life.

[JoeP]

Valueless off-topic derail making fun of liv experimentally posted here.

[Adora]

In your experience, have restricted topic ranges, enforced behavioral requirements, and clear as a bell unifying themes successfully contained shitfights?

Depends. All member's investment in boards are different. Most of the shitfights I witnessed at HH were around obvious right-wing crazies infiltrating the board and heir particular brands of prejudice being appreciated. Then again, I wasn't there long. Also, HH is pretty loose. I mean, they say "No theists/atheists only" and that's it. You can be a conservative non-theist, a non-theist from a culture completely removed from the US, or a non-theist that's still religious, so conflicts are still possible.

Sites I've been to where the topic is firmly set and the forum was made specifically to discuss that topic (entire forums that are similar to the subforums around here, as an example) tend to avoid this better. Y'know, parenting toddler forums, yaoi (:D) forums, CG forums, etc etc.

The only sites that I've been a part of that have been able to have very open forums and yet avoid serious shitfights are those that have existed for years and have built strong relationships between the members. A certain to-remain-un-named forum I belong to was once the Sexylosers forum, and a lot of us were there for at least 2 years before Hard kicked us off the site. Even before this though, the forum was kind of a forum where we all hung out and were basically a bunch of people like Hard depicted in his comic (don't look at me like that). Even when we got kicked, and we were no longer connected to the site and found a new place of residence, even though the topics for discussion cover a wide variety of things, we're all pretty close and relatively similar in mindsets (eg- left wing, very open sexually, all either very mature teens or overage etc) so serious & real shitfights are extremely rare.

Are we more at risk of blow-ups here than at HH?

Currently, I'd say the evidence speaks for itself.