The Clique, and other greivances

[Zack]

If such a feature were used responsibly, it would be nice. But I've seen what happens when it isn't, and the result can be extremely detrimental to the social fabric of the forum, not to mention fostering ongoing ill-will among members that can last a very long time.

On a forum I used to belong to, one such instance of misuse of the reputation system resulted in one of the forum admins being stripped of his position and reduced to a regular member. Compared to that, the actions of the rest of his clique who engaged in targeted trolling might seem minor in a mathematical sense (ie. they hadn't misused the reputation system quite as badly), but they were no less despicable.

Well, the system I referenced has only positive voting.

 

[Rashiminos]

I used to defend this forum as different from the rest of the internet. This was the shining city on the hill, surrounded by the wild west that was the rest. That's honestly the phase the internet is still in right now, an unsettled frontier, still being explored and colonized, people are still figuring out how to interact and such. CFCOT, on the other hand, had found its place and was a respite from the cruelties and harshness of the frontier. We had rules in place, and a fantastic community that although debated and discussed, still respected one another, allowing for quality discourse to occur. We were the one settlement that not only had walls, but laws that helped keep things civil.

I'm not saying this has changed, but over the past year or so I have noticed a swing towards the darker side. People are becoming meaner, discussion snarkier and less meaty, and overall less civil. I don't want CFC to be like the rest of the internet. I've been there, it's not pretty, nothing gets done. This is not a fight where we dogpile on each other and duke it out. This is a community where we discuss and enjoy each other's company. And if you find that dry, or boring, then by all means, no one is keeping you here. It's the reason I stay here, and the reason I'm still here. I just hope that this storm will pass and things will go back to the way they used to be.

Hahhahahaha. Boy, are you in for an interesting surprise. Apply this train of thought on a larger scale, and make some mental notes on where you may like to be.

Well, the system I referenced has only positive voting.

You'd have two 'ends' of a scale in any case.

----

In a response to the OP: It was more like a group in magnitude than a clique.

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.

Spoiler :

Good riddance.

 

[GenMarshall]

I find that there is a distinct hidden clique going on in these parts. Have an unpopular view or opinion, expect to get flamed and dogpiled on. Not funny, popular, or witty? You don't go into the Popular/Cool kids of CFC.

 

[Masada]

I am not a member of the Scottish Ultra-Left Clique.

More seriously, you only have to like "racism is bad guys" to be labelled left-wing on OT by the Hard Right. It isn't my fault that says something about certain elements of the Hard Right and their thought processes. To paraphrase Traitorfish, if you find yourself agreeing a lot with Hitler you probably want to have a cold hard look at your views.

 

[Joecoolyo]

In other words: If you're going to poke fun at people, do it like Perfy, or JollyRoger, or Godwynn? In jest, not in a mean-spirited way?

Kind of, ish. As people pointed out, humor is tricky. But there is a way to do it in a light-hearted sense, where no one would come out angry.

Hahhahahaha. Boy, are you in for an interesting surprise. Apply this train of thought on a larger scale, and make some mental notes on where you may like to be.

I fail to see what you are getting at.

 

[dusters]

Are we trying to censor the censorship in this thread?

Censorship = bad, as long as it isn't profanities and stuff violating forum rules which are left uncensored.

 

[Borachio]

I fail to see what you are getting at.

Me, too. And I'm intrigued.

I wonder what he means. Is he talking about the real world outside the internet? Or the greater internet world? But then I'd have thought you'd be well acquainted with those already, so I don't have a clue. Perhaps he'll enlighten us both.

And what's this about "making notes on where you'd like to be"?

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

This forum desperately needs a "like" or "thanks" button. So instead of a bunch of people saying "yeah dude you're right," "this," or "lol," you can see a list at the bottom of the post that says "x, y, and z liked this post." edit: something like this

Or people could just restrain their need to post for a while if they're only affirming what's already been said. Asking whether your post is necessary in the first place is just as essential as making it decent.

 

[Rashiminos]

I fail to see what you are getting at.

Well, you did make the "shining city on a hill" comment.

 

[downtown]

I think you guys might be taking all of these a teensy bit too seriously.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Good thread start. I do think there is a "Clique". Not a formal one, but little group of white, heterosexual men who look after each other at the top of a hierarchy.

 

[JollyRoger]

Or people could just restrain their need to post for a while if they're only affirming what's already been said. Asking whether your post is necessary in the first place is just as essential as making it decent.

One should really be cautious about posting at all.

Spoiler :

I think we are just going to have to trust the moderators here. The Red Diamond concept and other measures being taken are designed to get OT to a certain place and I am here to be a part of the change they want. We should put much thought into our posts and fully explain everything. We should be careful about quoting other posters and if we dare address a post, we should be very careful not to address a poster. It is even better not to address a post just so that it does not get construed as addressing the poster. Certainly, you should not attempt to impeach the credibility of a poster, even with their own words. We should assume that a poster's credibility will speak for itself and that having the ability to test credibility is just not a proper tool for debate, even in a non-RD thread. We should treat each post as if it is in a RD thread and be very careful. Better yet, you may want to run a post past a mod via PM (or maybe all the mods) and not post until you get a thumbs up from each of them. We cannot have OT descend into something that might offend the delicate sensibilities of the delicately sensible. If you do not have anything nice to post, you should not post at all. If there is a post you want to counter, you should wait at least 24 hours and make sure there are plenty of posts that have been made since then in the thread. Then you should make a post that makes your points but not in a way that would clue in anyone that you are addressing the post you disagreed with. That kind of posting just leads to strife and probably kills a few butterflies along the way. If you disagree with what someone posts, you should consider that they are right and you are wrong and once you realize the error of your ways, you should post a post that agrees with that post, but in a way that does not indicate that you were ever in disagreement with it. You should be very careful that your sincerely serious posts cannot be construed as some sort of sarcastic underhandedness. If you have a history of posting sarcasm, you should accept your fate that your history is your future and you should report all your posts to the mods with a recommendation of how many points they should give. You should probably accept at least a three day ban for every post that you make. That will slow down the debate enough so that things do not get overheated. If you have a history of disagreement, you should be careful in "what's your favorite cola" threads and the like. If you have posted in disagreement with another poster before and you see that they like pepsi, it could be considered as trolling if you select coke or as biting sarcasm if you select pepsi. It is best not to even open the thread so as to not alert a poster that is paying attention to what you are viewing that you may be considering either disagreeing with them or sarcastically agreeing with them. If a thread has a Red Diamond on it, you should concede that the opening post likely adequately covers the subject and any post whatsoever would be a rude attack on the opening post. There are so many ways to screw up a post, that posting should not even be attempted in a Red Diamond thread. If you are thinking about starting a Red Diamond thread, you should reconsider, because someone may disagree with your opening post and you put them in the uncomfortable position of either having to risk responding or letting something stay posted on the internet without opposition. You should probably browse the forum in invisible mode. If someone sees that you are on the forum, they may fear your disagreement with them and feel trolled by your mere presense. We have only 14 moderators here, so we should try to keep the number of active posters during any 24 hour period under 14 so that things can stay properly monitored. Just remember, we are trying to build a community here that is what we want. Downtown started a thread on the subject and it is frankly disappointing that the things leading that poll are actually things we do not want. Anyone who voted improperly in that thread should at least receive a warning and be told what they want so they are clear not to make the same mistake in the future. I probably should not have called out Downtwn there for staring that thread. It can either be construed as criticsm of Downtown or of promoting elitism. For that I apologize and if a mod wants to delete his name from this post, no hard feelings from me. To stop before I ramble on too much, just be careful out there on what you post - remember, if you don't post anything, it is more likely than not to improve the forum over what would have resulted if you did post something.

 

[Borachio]

<nvm>

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

One should really be cautious about posting at all.

Don't know what the majority of those has to do with what I said. I am addressing repetition of points, not people getting offended.

 

[JollyRoger]

Then I took your advice by not repeating your point.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I don't think repeating a point is a counter-argument to said point, but okay. Still wondering why you quoted me when you're not addressing my point.

 

[Zack]

Good thread start. I do think there is a "Clique". Not a formal one, but little group of white, heterosexual men who look after each other at the top of a hierarchy.

group of white, heterosexual men

So, 90% of CFC-OT?

Spoiler :

or is that the joke?

 

[Joecoolyo]

Well, you did make the "shining city on a hill" comment.

I thought it went well with the frontier image I was trying to paint.

I wasn't entirely sure of its Christian origins, but I have heard it being used in reference to the early settling of America by religious colonists at the time.

 

[bhsup]

I always equate that particular phrase with Reagan. *genuflects*

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I mainly post because I wanted to congratulate Gory on his analysis. I found it enjoyable and smart. However; I think I am also biased because it favors the side I see myself more on than I do see myself on the other.

"Clique" is an imperfect term. I see ways in which it fits, and ways in which it can not convince. What it comes down to is that it is lend from a bundle of very different social situations with very different social dynamics. I suggest we just don't concern ourself with the word and focus on the phenomena it was supposed to describe. And I do see such a phenomena. I don't experience it like a plague or anything, but more an occasional flashing, whereas it is most often so dim to not be that or at all noticeable.

Personally I don't really mind that phenomena as such. It could get on my nuts in a particular feminism-thread - but in general I find opposition stimulating. And as said I don't experience it as being that big to begin with. What I mind and what got on my nit in a particular feminism-thread is IMO more specific but clearly related to the phenomena. A certain self-righteousness, where one is so convinced to be on the "right" side and so morally disdainful of the other side that it almost necessarily concludes in unfairness and unproductive resentments.

For instance

More seriously, you only have to like "racism is bad guys" to be labelled left-wing on OT by the Hard Right.

edit: Though I want to emphasize that self-righteousness is naturally not an exclusive or always present attribute of whoever is part of the phenomena. Every "member" is also known to simply make good arguments and I have been self-righteous on more than one occasion myself (and it also did not tend to improve my posts). It is a big word, what I aimed at was to highlight its particular manifestation in the discussed phenomena. Not to construct a stereo-type where "they" are the self-righteous.