online community dynamics: cruel v caring October 19, 2000 11:17 AM Subscribe
Jorn's proto-rant goes right to the heart of online community dynamics, though I'd offer that it's the intelligent cruel folks who are the most dangerous. I'm tempted to see the caring/cruel split in terms of the political left and right, though I know that's not at all fair. What do you think, is there any wisdom in Jorn's words? And what does all this have to do with James Joyce?
don't know that I had a question -- but thanks for answering it anyway! I really ought to read some joyce one of these days.
posted by sudama at 12:16 PM on October 19, 2000
posted by sudama at 12:16 PM on October 19, 2000
heh. Read the last two sentances of your post, sudama, they're both questions. :-)
I'm guessing they were rhetorical?
I don't know, there really doesn't seem to be much said on that page. Loud, obnoxious people with agendas dominant, calm thoughtful people retreat just about sums up what I got out of the page.
In my experience that's indeed accurate. The quiet intelligent type is more likely - in an online environment especially, as opposed to real life - to either sit back and form an opinion based on what's being said, occasionally chiming in with some facts they have access too, or their opion where it seems relevant.
Should the online enviornment turn hostile towards them, many just plain leave.
posted by cCranium at 1:04 PM on October 19, 2000
I'm guessing they were rhetorical?
I don't know, there really doesn't seem to be much said on that page. Loud, obnoxious people with agendas dominant, calm thoughtful people retreat just about sums up what I got out of the page.
In my experience that's indeed accurate. The quiet intelligent type is more likely - in an online environment especially, as opposed to real life - to either sit back and form an opinion based on what's being said, occasionally chiming in with some facts they have access too, or their opion where it seems relevant.
Should the online enviornment turn hostile towards them, many just plain leave.
posted by cCranium at 1:04 PM on October 19, 2000
question schmestion. i guess i meant i was just fishing for comments and not really sure if what i was asking made sense. here's a two-part question: when does a loud, obnoxious person become a troll, and what happens when the trolls set in on metafilter?
posted by sudama at 1:29 PM on October 19, 2000
posted by sudama at 1:29 PM on October 19, 2000
Theories abound that the trolls have already set in on MeFi (various MetaTalk threads I'm too lazy to link to, I'm sure you've read them).
I think online, a loud, obnoxious person becomes detrimental (I still disagree with the way "troll" gets defined these days, but it's a hacker/cracker distinction, of concern only to us "white-hat" trolls, I'm sure. :-) when they're able to turn a thread that's previously been just about debating a topic away from the topic at hand, and focus only on a comment they made.
Gah, bad english alert. Hopefully my thoughts will properly get past my stumbling fingers.
It also has to happen more than once. Bradmumblemumble's (don't remember the full alias, sorry) "silly bitches" comment is an excellent example of the harm a loud and obnoxious post can cause an online forum. He hasn't hit my radar screen since then though, and therefore (by my reckoning :-) he's not a loud and obnoxious person, he just made a bad post.
People should be allowed to make one mistake, at least.
I think each situation is going to require it's own analysation. Banning someone from MeFi won't work, because Matthowie doesn't want MeFi to be that kind of place, and it would probably be a bitch to implement, technically, anyway. User validation's a tricky thing to arrange.
The only thing that CAN be done is for the community to express their disapproval of any given post, then blatantly ignore subsequent repetitions. If you don't respect someone, and don't care about someone's opinions, let them know they don't meet your standards once, then don't let them bug you anymore.
Online bullies thrive on attention just as much as real life ones do, and when you remove the attention-drawing power they seek, they get bored and move on.
posted by cCranium at 2:54 PM on October 19, 2000
I think online, a loud, obnoxious person becomes detrimental (I still disagree with the way "troll" gets defined these days, but it's a hacker/cracker distinction, of concern only to us "white-hat" trolls, I'm sure. :-) when they're able to turn a thread that's previously been just about debating a topic away from the topic at hand, and focus only on a comment they made.
Gah, bad english alert. Hopefully my thoughts will properly get past my stumbling fingers.
It also has to happen more than once. Bradmumblemumble's (don't remember the full alias, sorry) "silly bitches" comment is an excellent example of the harm a loud and obnoxious post can cause an online forum. He hasn't hit my radar screen since then though, and therefore (by my reckoning :-) he's not a loud and obnoxious person, he just made a bad post.
People should be allowed to make one mistake, at least.
I think each situation is going to require it's own analysation. Banning someone from MeFi won't work, because Matthowie doesn't want MeFi to be that kind of place, and it would probably be a bitch to implement, technically, anyway. User validation's a tricky thing to arrange.
The only thing that CAN be done is for the community to express their disapproval of any given post, then blatantly ignore subsequent repetitions. If you don't respect someone, and don't care about someone's opinions, let them know they don't meet your standards once, then don't let them bug you anymore.
Online bullies thrive on attention just as much as real life ones do, and when you remove the attention-drawing power they seek, they get bored and move on.
posted by cCranium at 2:54 PM on October 19, 2000
This concerns me greatly. I used to be a regular contributor here, but I've cut WAY down. The abuse here really gets to me (even though MeFi is tame compared with many other online forums I've seen).
What really irks me is the amount of public humiliation here. Someone screws up and 10 (or more people) chastise him publicly. This embarrasses most people, and they get defensive, which leads to more angry words and assaults and counter-assaults, etc. Some people obviously enjoy these Jerry-Springeresque insult wars. I hate them.
But what I hate even more is that no one tries to come up with ideas for making this community more harmonious. Here's an idea (it may not be perfect, but hopefully it's worth discussing and will spark other, better ideas):
Add a rule to MeFi that forbids members from publicly admonishing each other. So if someone links to their own site or posts something that's already been posted, you can't tell them what an ass they are. Instead, you can email the administrator, alerting him of the transgression. The admin can then contact the offender PRIVATELY. If forty people email the admin about the same transgression, the transgressor will only receive ONE email asking him to refrain from such posts in the future.
This will keep all posts centered on the subject-matter, rather than on etiquette and hurt feelings.
This is basically the same system used in most policing organizations. If someone steals from you, you don't break into his house with a dozen of your friends and steal from him. You contact the police and let them deal with it. Hopefully.
I fear that many will reject this system because they ENJOY being able to chastise offenders. If my system were enacted, you'd have to trust the admin to do the dirty work. You wouldn't be able to take revenge yourself.
posted by grumblebee at 9:41 AM on October 24, 2000
What really irks me is the amount of public humiliation here. Someone screws up and 10 (or more people) chastise him publicly. This embarrasses most people, and they get defensive, which leads to more angry words and assaults and counter-assaults, etc. Some people obviously enjoy these Jerry-Springeresque insult wars. I hate them.
But what I hate even more is that no one tries to come up with ideas for making this community more harmonious. Here's an idea (it may not be perfect, but hopefully it's worth discussing and will spark other, better ideas):
Add a rule to MeFi that forbids members from publicly admonishing each other. So if someone links to their own site or posts something that's already been posted, you can't tell them what an ass they are. Instead, you can email the administrator, alerting him of the transgression. The admin can then contact the offender PRIVATELY. If forty people email the admin about the same transgression, the transgressor will only receive ONE email asking him to refrain from such posts in the future.
This will keep all posts centered on the subject-matter, rather than on etiquette and hurt feelings.
This is basically the same system used in most policing organizations. If someone steals from you, you don't break into his house with a dozen of your friends and steal from him. You contact the police and let them deal with it. Hopefully.
I fear that many will reject this system because they ENJOY being able to chastise offenders. If my system were enacted, you'd have to trust the admin to do the dirty work. You wouldn't be able to take revenge yourself.
posted by grumblebee at 9:41 AM on October 24, 2000
The only thing that CAN be done is for the community to express their disapproval of any given post, then blatantly ignore subsequent repetitions. If you don't respect someone, and don't care about someone's opinions, let them know they don't meet your standards once, then don't let them bug you anymore.
I think that we see this already. Looking back at some of the members that have been accused of trolling, it seems that their subsequent posts and comments have become more civil. I don't know if this was due to the piranha mentality of ganging up on "trolls", or the fact that after two days or so, threads become buried and forgotten, and are no longer subject to group debate, or that they see their actions as being detrimental to conversation.
What really irks me is the amount of public humiliation here. Someone screws up and 10 (or more people) chastise him publicly. This embarrasses most people...
Agreed, though I had once done such a thing. <:(
It's difficult not to fall into that practice when you see others doing so. However, this can work in the other direction so that people can witness (for lack of a better phrase) "good deeds" on MeFi, such as the defense of a member who makes civil, though unpopular statements, and has become singled out in a nasty fashion.
Huh, I've come to the realization that I like MetaTalk (MeTa?) better than MeFi, because we discuss the basis of discussion and forming community.
posted by Avogadro at 7:08 AM on October 25, 2000
I think that we see this already. Looking back at some of the members that have been accused of trolling, it seems that their subsequent posts and comments have become more civil. I don't know if this was due to the piranha mentality of ganging up on "trolls", or the fact that after two days or so, threads become buried and forgotten, and are no longer subject to group debate, or that they see their actions as being detrimental to conversation.
What really irks me is the amount of public humiliation here. Someone screws up and 10 (or more people) chastise him publicly. This embarrasses most people...
Agreed, though I had once done such a thing. <:(
It's difficult not to fall into that practice when you see others doing so. However, this can work in the other direction so that people can witness (for lack of a better phrase) "good deeds" on MeFi, such as the defense of a member who makes civil, though unpopular statements, and has become singled out in a nasty fashion.
Huh, I've come to the realization that I like MetaTalk (MeTa?) better than MeFi, because we discuss the basis of discussion and forming community.
posted by Avogadro at 7:08 AM on October 25, 2000
Well, "of concern to us white-hat trolls", the distinction is still paramount. A troll is by definition a post that *sounds* like it came from a moron, but didn't.
They're mostly a filter. Those people who email you with a wink 'qualify'. Those who don't, or who rave away, reveal their true colors for all to see.
And that's the *point* of trolling, really; to expose low-profile idiots before they cause real damage.
:-)
posted by baylink at 10:49 PM on October 28, 2000
They're mostly a filter. Those people who email you with a wink 'qualify'. Those who don't, or who rave away, reveal their true colors for all to see.
And that's the *point* of trolling, really; to expose low-profile idiots before they cause real damage.
:-)
posted by baylink at 10:49 PM on October 28, 2000
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
I do agree with jorn that bullies have inordinate power in situations; people are reluctant to confront them for fear of becoming the brunt of their next outburst. in real-life situations you can deal with a bully by confronting them with their behavior in various ways, but this obviously doesn't work in usenet, where a filter is your only defense.
I've seen mailing list go from being focused and collegial to being unproductive and mud-slinging with the introduction of one individual with an agenda.
I've also heard that in a group, *one* competitive person will change the dynamic from cooperative to competitive.
I don't know exactly how this addresses your question, but there are some thoughts that seem to me to be related to jorn's premise.
rcb
posted by rebeccablood at 11:32 AM on October 19, 2000