The Clique, and other greivances

[Traitorfish]

This thread might be a bad idea, but if the alternative is unspoken resentments, I'm willing to risk it.



The Clique. Or, perhaps, "The Clique". The allegation that there are a certain group of posters who exercise disproportionate influence on the CFC OT board, and use this influence to unjust or unreasonable ends. It is characterised as operating through a combination of aggressive posting, coordinated or spontaneous "dog-piling", mutual congratulation, and sarcasm. It is attributed a broadly leftist or progressive political agenda, and a particular hostility towards those it deems sexist, racist or homophobic.

Who are this "Clique"? What are the grievances brought against them? What can be done about them?



The problem we've had in discussing this before is that it's hard to say anything meaningful without naming names, but extended discussions of individual posters have a tendency to overstep the forum rules. So, I'm introducing a thread specific rule, posters may only be discussed in relation to the The Clique if they opt-in to be discussed. (Starting this thread obviously counts as my opt-in.)

This thread is also Red Diamond (if that's still a thing?), so keep it civil and above the belt. Keep the discussion to the style, content and effects of user's posts, and away from speculation as to the psychology or motivations of the users themselves.


I don't know if this will go well, but let's give it a shot.

 

[useless]

The clique is anyone you wish to dismiss.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Or anyone that wishes that you're dismissed, and thus, irrelevant.

 

[Farm Boy]

Would it be fair to say that some posters share similar viewpoints on a variety of issues, share common or similar terminology, and may be construed as a clique to somebody of significantly different views who uses different terminology? I've been on the business end of TFs admonishments for specific language, and while it's not infrequently enlightening and it's possible to clear up if you keep hitting it hard enough, it's not usually particularly enjoyable.

Is there a specific thread or two that would be reasonable reading that you are allowed to reference that would have triggered your thoughts behind this thread? I'm probably less interested if they're from the World History area or the like.

 

[ArneHD]

Edit: Wait, red Diamond thread.

I don't really think that a clique exists on this board.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Far too simplified.

There are definitely 'cliques', but membership varies from topic to topic. Even I, who have not been around all that long, can look at a thread title and predict with some accuracy who will be on what 'side' when I open it...and there are certainly people who can often be counted on to be on the same side...not out of 'clique loyalty' but because they have mostly similar views, at least on the designated topic.

Since Traitorfish offered himself up as an example, I can say that there are posters who I would be really surprised to see disagree with him in a topic about social justice, and I am one of them. That doesn't make us a clique, it just happens to be something we seem to agree about more often than not. I'm not going to "back him up" if I don't think he's right out of some "clique loyalty", and I am pretty sure he knows that.

On the other hand, he may like mushrooms.

 

[Tigranes]

Don't we have Site feedback for this?

50% of content of OT is generated by dozen chain posters. They obviously invest a lot of time here. One would always feel dog piled if he cannot post as frequently as opponents. So guess it's a fair play. You invest time and effort in something here (vs RL), and something is getting done (vs. RL). I personally cannot be bothered by that. Create your own Counter-Clique I prefer Army of One format for myself

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Would it be fair to say that some posters share similar viewpoints on a variety of issues, share common or similar terminology, and may be construed as a clique to somebody of significantly different views who uses different terminology? I've been on the business end of TFs admonishments for specific language, and while it's not infrequently enlightening and it's possible to clear up if you keep hitting it hard enough, it's not usually particularly enjoyable.

Is there a specific thread or two that would be reasonable reading that you are allowed to reference that would have triggered your thoughts behind this thread? I'm probably less interested if they're from the World History area or the like.

See FB. There's the evidence of the clique...when you say 'TF' there are those who know who you mean, and those who don't.

 

[illram]

Moderator Action: This thread is problematic as it seems to be calling for grievances against a negatively defined group of posters. I am not sure how to alleviate this primary issue. Perhaps the OP can frame this in a way that does not call for negative responses about certain groups of posters. This thread is being discussed by staff so post at your own risk...

Elitism and personal threads
In the forums, we expect everyone to treat other posters equally and fairly. As such, threads that suggest that some members are better, funnier, more popular etc, and threads that discuss specific forum members, either positively or negatively are not allowed.

Periodically, threads that discuss forum members or attributes of forum members that are 'neutral' (neither positive or negative) may be allowed. An example from the past has been to post pictures that you associate with certain members. It is strongly recommended that you seek moderator approval before posting these types of threads. Moderators may make them 'conditional' (for example, that people have to give their permission before they can be discussed in the thread). Such threads will be closely monitored, and trolling and flaming are not tolerated in them.

 

[Gori the Grey]

I see how this could run up against that rule, illram, but I think TF is doing an admirable thing overall in trying to clear the air on this issue. I'm working out an idea, and it might have the effect of framing this up in the more neutral way you would like, but it will take me a while to work it out.

If this is to get closed, though, let me get in a quick comment, which is that Hygro said all that needed to be said when he drew the contrast recently between listening to and listening for.

 

[JollyRoger]

I don't look at it as a clique when I am in a dogpile. I just assume I am a cult leader and my minions are following my lead. I am willing to have this notion tested in a way that fits within the neutrality cubbyhole posted above.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't look at it as a clique when I am in a dogpile. I just assume I am a cult leader and my minions are following my lead. I am willing to have this notion tested in a way that fits within the neutrality cubbyhole posted above.

What if you don't get there first?

 

[JollyRoger]

What if you don't get there first?

It demonstrates that some of my followers are devoted enough to correctly anticipate what I want them to do.

 

[Cutlass]

I'll bite (and opt in).

As to the cliques: I didn't hang out at fiftychat during the heyday of the 'fiftychat mafia'. As I understand it, that was a clique, and it often acted as such in OT. But that's past tense. First of all, there's really not much activity left at fiftychat. And what there is, I've never seen any activity towards dogpiling anyone. There is discussion of people who are not liked, or even of people who sometimes are liked, and sometimes piss people off. So as a vector for OT cliquishness, fiftychat is in the past tense. Feel free to stop by and check it out if you don't believe me.

Then there's my own person clique, IALS. Now I know that I didn't do everything right in the setting up and running of IALS. But there were well over 200 people active on OT at different times invited to IALS. That's a bit broad for a clique. And anything posted there was fully visible to all the moderating staff. So you couldn't really plot against people there, even if you wanted to. That's not to say that people in OT were never discussed. But it didn't happen a lot, because it wasn't allowed. And as to who got invited and who did not, the primary criteria was always who just aggravated me so much that I wanted some space away from them. And, in any case, some of the people who I think are recent victims of the dogpile were people who did get IALS invites. And then, finally, IALS is dead too. So nothing is happening there, so nothing which happens there matters to OT now.

As to doing this by PM, I've received 2 PM in August which were not infractions, and 3 in July. Despite my huge post count around here, not much of anyone really wants to talk to me. So my opportunity to plot for the downfall of my enemies is pretty limited.

So yeah, I think dogpiling has happened. And I think it has driven away people I'd rather not see driven away. But if it's organized, I'm not seeing any sign of it.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

It demonstrates that some of my followers are devoted enough to correctly anticipate what I want them to do.

I should have guessed that.

Oh.


Wait.

 

[JollyRoger]

So yeah, I think dogpiling has happened. And I think it has driven away people I'd rather not see driven away. But if it's organized, I'm not seeing any sign of it.

The most dogpiled I've felt was a small pack of Westies yipping and yapping at me, but it didn't feel all that organized.

 

[timtofly]

If dogpiling is not organized, is it subconscious?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I think the issue of "dogpiling" is most psychological; that is, people see multiple posters disagreeing with them in succession and feel ganged up on. It's an unfortunate side-effect of being such a large community where anyone and everyone can voice their feelings about something and receive equal space to anyone else. And we have a large community here on CFC, and even just in OT. Not since the days of #fiftychat mafia have I seen or even believed there to be a conscious and purposeful "gang-up" on someone, but even then, it was done purely for trollish purposes without any attempt to actually engage in meaningful debate. I don't think multiple posters, even if a PM was exchanged between them saying "hey come to this thread" counts as "dogpiling" if there's a real attempt to engage in debate.

At any rate, the dogpiled person is under no obligation to respond to anyone, much less everyone. When I feel like there are too many people for me to respond to [and at times I have felt overwhelmed by the size of the opposition] I simply stop replying to some of them, or sometimes leave the thread entirely. If you receive a PM [as many of you have in the past] from me continuing the discussion from a thread, that's probably what happened, and I wanted to continue talking to you absent from the chaos of the thread.

 

[jackelgull]

Seeing this thread makes me realize how old most people are in these forums and how much the definition of a clique has changed. As a high schooler and largely an outsider to the system, I can give a young un's perspective to the cliques nowadays.
Cliques don't "happen" nor is there any conscious effort to exclude outsiders. People just gather around a personality that they gel with and other people who gather around that personality happen to be people they can hang around. when people who they don't agree with appear, the group largely drives the outsider away through subtle or overt hints that they aren't comfortable. There is no active hive mind that tells them to be mean as possible. In fact sometimes when that person leaves because he has gotten the hint, he is not totally cut off from everyone, there may still be some contact with a few friends in that clique, but without a clique the options for a serious and long lasting friend ship are rather limited.
This can have good and bad consequences. In my school for example, 25% of the people are on weed. Most of them are seniors, simply because the clique leaders of the other grades are largely anti-drugs, having been successfully brain washed by the system( which I don't consider a bad thing, mind you). When the seniors leave, those numbers will likely drop to 10-15%.

That said, on these forums, there isn't a charismatic figure that people rally around, largely because it is hard to ooze charisma when you never meet people face to face. There are certainly dogpiles, but these are issue by issue, and often the participants of one side of an argument will be on opposite sides in a different thread.

 

[Ajidica]

I never really got the impression that there was much of a clique in OT. Sure, there were posters that were so extreme/abrasive that everybody found something to critique them on -starting a dogpile- but that doesn't seem like much of a clique.
(That's how I got my start in OT, dogpiling on one of the nutters.)

There was a sort-of-clique in WH, but with Dachs and Lord Baal gone any clique in existence has faded into the shadowy realm of making slightly snarky comments at really bad history.