The Clique, and other greivances

[Zack]

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.)

Yeah, dogpiling was around 3000 (cough cough) times worse when certain problem posters were around. Arguments tend to be a lot less one-sided than they have been in the past.

 

[BvBPL]

The Clique. Or, perhaps, "The Clique". The allegation that there are a certain group of posters who represent the popular opinion on the CFC OT board, and ask that those of dissimilar opinions defend their representations. It is characterised as operating through organically organization discussion where members of the Clique build upon each other's arguments. It is attributed a broadly leftist or progressive political agenda, and a concern for future-orientated policy discussions.


And bunnies.

 

[Zack]

The Clique. Or, perhaps, "The Clique". The allegation that there are a certain group of posters who represent the popular opinion on the CFC OT board, and ask that those of dissimilar opinions defend their representations. It is characterised as operating through organically organization discussion where members of the Clique build upon each other's arguments. It is attributed a broadly leftist or progressive political agenda, and a concern for future-orientated policy discussions.

Not to be confused with the song by Kanye West. Although that is probably the better Clique. Plus its very existence isn't in question.

 

[gay_Aleks]

The Clique, or the song's existence?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

It would be rather beautifully surreal if this turned out to be a thread intended to debate the existence of a particular song.

 

[gay_Aleks]

And, arguably, much better than, say, hunting witches that not only don't exist, but are actually something else and might be even helpful.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

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.

This is a topic that really should have been posted in Site Feedback, in my opinion. It's a difficult topic to discuss, because of the danger of coming too close to PDMA and the differing perceptions of what constitutes trolling and what a clique is in the first place.

Cutlass, IALS is NOT a clique. It's a social group. There's a difference. I've seen cliques operating here (thank goodness those who were the worst offenders are no longer here), and it was very stressful for the people who were sometimes targeted, and it wasn't a fun thing for the staff to handle.

The members of IALS have a wide variety of interests and our political and religion-related opinions are equally varied. There is no groupthink there, and no "cult of personality" that the members rally around. If I disagree on a political issue in OT, that doesn't mean that once we get into IALS, I'm going to turn around and agree with the other person. The difference I've noticed, though, is that disagreements in IALS are generally much more polite than they are in OT.

 

[choxorn]

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.

I think it's likely that what triggered his thoughts behind this thread was the accusation of clique-ishness in the Gaming Journalism thread, starting with this post.

 

[Borachio]

I'll opt in.

But if any clique, or "Clique", counts me as a member, I'm stabbing it in the back, soon as.

Who's in "The Clique"? Mr Fish, obviously. Who else? Whizzy the Cheese? All the usual Marxist suspects?

I'm not really seeing it myself. There's a shifting pool of OT posters some of whom are vaguely left aligned and some further to the right. Some people have views on religion and philosophy. Others don't.

Take any two posters and they'll most likely disagree on something or other. Else there's absolutely nothing to be said.

 

[Mise]

I think that calling it a "Clique" is a red herring. It encourages us to debate whether or not there is a clique. It encourages us to discuss what constitutes cliquish activity. It encourages us to ask who is in the clique and who is not. It encourages all the wrong sorts of discussions.

We should be encouraging people to make better, more effective posts. We should be encouraging people to not be rude to one-another. We should be encouraging "listening to", not "listening for" (cheers Hygro!).

It's right to start off by discussing what's gone wrong. But at some point, we need to come up with a positive case for how to move forward, how to improve ourselves, and how to improve our forum. I would invite people, especially in the light of Illram's post, to focus on what we should do, rather than whether or not a clique even exists.

 

[El_Machinae]

There can be dogpiling on boards. Now, I don't get dogpiled here (and I'm weird) very often. There are some boards that I can get torn a new one. There's a maxim "to explain is to not condone" that some people can easily not remember. Explain some weird thing, and you've got 10 people explaining how you're wrong and stupid. Now at CFC, there are a few members here where I'll often disagree with and I think we get along famously; meeting in person would be a delight. There are some people who 'agree with me' that I don't really get along well with, but I tend to ignore.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Not as much a Clique as an occurance. Often I be replying just to read on in the thread and realise I could just have gone: What El Machinae and Mise said.

To answer the OP: what El Mise and Machinae said.

 

[Traitorfish]

This is a topic that really should have been posted in Site Feedback, in my opinion. It's a difficult topic to discuss, because of the danger of coming too close to PDMA and the differing perceptions of what constitutes trolling and what a clique is in the first place.

I did originally consider that, but it seemed to me that Site Feedback is usually about appealing to the administrators or moderators, and I really wanted this to be about posters addressing each other. As you say, this is a difficult topic to discuss and there's always the risk that it could turn ugly, but the hope is to diffuse some latent tensions, which I think(/hope) is better suited to the main OT board.

 

[Borachio]

It's right to start off by discussing what's gone wrong. But at some point, we need to come up with a positive case for how to move forward, how to improve ourselves, and how to improve our forum. I would invite people, especially in the light of Illram's post, to focus on what we should do, rather than whether or not a clique even exists.

How about just being aware of dogpiling (I'm not very sure it's a problem myself, but still), and if someone has posted a reply you agree with generally, back off until the OP has had a chance to reply to it?

Or... I really don't know what.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I'll opt in.

But if any clique, or "Clique", counts me as a member, I'm stabbing it in the back, soon as.

Who's in "The Clique"? Mr Fish, obviously. Who else? Whizzy the Cheese? All the usual Marxist suspects?

I'm not really seeing it myself. There's a shifting pool of OT posters some of whom are vaguely left aligned and some further to the right. Some people have views on religion and philosophy. Others don't.

Take any two posters and they'll most likely disagree on something or other. Else there's absolutely nothing to be said.

It's strange that people feel that TF and I are the masterminds of some vast left-wing conspiracy to smite the Righties, when I feel like in threads it's usually he, I, and a great mass of people with whom we disagree at various levels, unless Aelf or RT show up (and even then, the four of us often argue amongst ourselves just the same...).

 

[warpus]

There is a poster, let's call him sixty, who I always used to think was a self-pompous elitist who got off on the fact that he had followers who cared who he is and what he says. He's not a poster anymore really, as far as I know, and it's not easy to figure out who I'm talking about, given the censorship of his username, but I always found the clique that tended up to build up around him as silly. The chatroom that built up around this was usually full of cool enough people, so I'm not talking about any of you, just the blind followers. I don't think they really affected the forums negatively though, not that much.

So is there a clique there, or just the "cool" posters who I interacted with? Maybe those blind followers never existed? I wouldn't know who they might have been, there was just always an impression that they existed and exerted a small amount of influence on the forums.

Aside from that all I see is just what usually happens on a forum that's around for a while - regulars. Regulars aren't necessarily a part of a clique, although it might appear that they are.

Moderator Action: Please don't flame other members. Your 'attempt' to disguise the name doesn't really cut it.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Phrossack]

First, I want to say that this thread is a good idea. We do need to resolve these issues, and it's good to have a place where we can address them with one another.

It's not going to be easy, though- it could very easily slide into namecalling- but it's definitely worth a shot.

I've already said my piece about the behavior of "the clique" in other threads. Since reposting them here might be seen as dragging posters who haven't opted in into the thread, and since I think most of us know which post(s) I'm talking about, I won't put them here.

It's strange that people feel that TF and I are the masterminds of some vast left-wing conspiracy to smite the Righties, when I feel like in threads it's usually he, I, and a great mass of people with whom we disagree at various levels, unless Aelf or RT show up (and even then, the four of us often argue amongst ourselves just the same...).

I don't think it's any kind of conspiracy, just a clique. It's by definition an informal, undeclared group. People just naturally tend to gravitate towards like-minded people, and it's so natural they tend not to notice that they appear to outsiders as a group. I think it's fair to say that you and TF tend to agree, at least publicly, on most issues, that you are both prominent and generally respected posters in OT and WH, and that you have a number of posters who agree with you on most things and support you in most discussions. You don't publicly disagree on much, and when you do it's usually in a fairly friendly way without much infighting. When you guys disagree with others, though, it's usually with, well, not a little snark.

There was one post in particular made two years ago in WH that first helped me realize this was going on, though it is almost certainly PDMA and so I can't mention it here.

 

[Borachio]

This is worrying (or it would be, if I were the worrying sort). It's been a sore point for at least two years, you say?

Right! *rolls up sleeves*

Whom do I sue?

 

[Joecoolyo]

I don't think it's any kind of conspiracy, just a clique. It's by definition an informal, undeclared group. People just naturally tend to gravitate towards like-minded people, and it's so natural they tend not to notice that they appear to outsiders as a group. I think it's fair to say that you and TF tend to agree, at least publicly, on most issues, that you are both prominent and generally respected posters in OT and WH, and that you have a number of posters who agree with you on most things and support you in most discussions. You don't publicly disagree on much, and when you do it's usually in a fairly friendly way without much infighting. When you guys disagree with others, though, it's usually with, well, not a little snark.

There was one post in particular made two years ago in WH that first helped me realize this was going on, though it is almost certainly PDMA and so I can't mention it here.

Yes, there's a lot of assumption here that the clique would be something organized, like the mafia, where attacks are planned out and dogpiles executed.

It's an informal thing that, those who are a part of that certain clique (gasp, there might be more than one!) might not even realize they are a part of it. Generally one poster (there are no leaders since it isn't organized) will make a generally thought out post as a response a topic. The other clique members, with their work done for them, can simply agree with that poster and instead post something funny, or snarky, or sometimes even something mean because the onus of making a position has been lifted by the previous poster.

This seems to happen a lot, and the only solution I can encourage is to only post if you have something to truly contribute, or make your own fleshed out post even if it is repeating what someone else said. Support can be nice, but I don't think most posters here require it to continue their discussion with those who disagree with them.

 

[Zack]

It's strange that people feel that TF and I are the masterminds of some vast left-wing conspiracy to smite the Righties, when I feel like in threads it's usually he, I, and a great mass of people with whom we disagree at various levels, unless Aelf or RT show up (and even then, the four of us often argue amongst ourselves just the same...).

Should this thread be labeled Red Diamond, or Red Scare?

Yes, there's a lot of assumption here that the clique would be something organized, like the mafia, where attacks are planned out and dogpiles executed.

It's an informal thing that, those who are a part of that certain clique (gasp, there might be more than one!) might not even realize they are a part of it. Generally one poster (there are no leaders since it isn't organized) will make a generally thought out post as a response a topic. The other clique members, with their work done for them, can simply agree with that poster and instead post something funny, or snarky, or sometimes even something mean because the onus of making a position has been lifted by the previous poster.

This seems to happen a lot, and the only solution I can encourage is to only post if you have something to truly contribute, or make your own fleshed out post even if it is repeating what someone else said. Support can be nice, but I don't think most posters here require it to continue their discussion with those who disagree with them.

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