Yeah, exactly.

Exactly exactly.

I had a situation recently where someone didn't respect this rule, and went to Other Person with the stuff I was venting about, and it's basically ruined that relationship, because I don't trust this person at all now. And I couldn't quite verbalize why I was telling this person stuff about the Other Person situation in the first place, and Betsy puts it nicely.

There are always gonna be back-channels. When I see Jesse or msbelle, if the board comes up and we talk about what's going on, that's a backchannel. When I talk to amych about my sister's wedding and I tell her about the ridiculous things that the relatives she's met and no one else here has did, if the board comes up, that's a back-channel. Back channels are a normal part of friendships that have an online component, and I've never seen them be detrimental to a virtual community's health except in situations where all the former community "leaders" (most visible posters) stop posting except in back channels. And even then, sometimes, new communities form where the old ones were.

Of all the things that annoy me about bulletin boards, it's the idea that we have a groupthink and act in concert.

I ran into this a lot on the Time Faith board. Someone would appear to present his/her detailed argument as to why WE WERE ALL GOING TO HELL!!!, attract a number of counters (with varying degrees of civility), and then there would be complaints about groupthink and mob mentality.

Ok. The guy in that case doing most of the complaining was insane. (Seriously, I think he had certain mental illness problems.) Problem is, I have a few thoughts that go through my head:

1. Everyone has a right to respond if they want to, and people responded independently of each other. This is no more mob mentality than if you took a poll of your town and found that 65% of the populace like vanilla ice cream. Conversely, if one person attracts a large number of complaints independently of one another, then maybe the problem ain't everybody else.

2. But then, the people making the complaints were generally long-timers, and even if it they responded independently, they would've had a pretty good idea that their position was a safe one within the community. Did that encourage complaints?

3. But then we factor in the point that there's a written etiquette for this place, and complaints (such as they are) are made in terms of said etiquette. Is not the point of such a policy to make people feel safe here? This makes the community principle-driven, not cliquish... right? Or has the recent attention to said policies just increased sensitivities?

4. So then we ask whether the policies are being applied fairly, and this to me is the hardest issue to decide. Problematic, as it's also an important issue, and it seems to me that positions thereon appear more often as premise than conclusion. I'll react differently with people I know fairly well compared to those I don't, and most people will. Sometimes that's appropriate, sometimes it isn't. Concerning treatment of others, I think the best labels I can give here are Allyson's comment that everyone deserves respect as a human being, but props are earned. (Without adding some content to these notions, it probably isn't too helpful in a practical sense. And I'm not sure I'd want it to be.)

5. There are points of etiquette that are technical in nature (our spoiler policy, for instance, isn't the sort of thing people would be expected to work out for themselves). It's always going to be a good idea to read said etiquette guide. And there are different standards, levels of moderation, policies etc between message boards; it's sensible too for anyone to check out what the etiquette guide says about that. Not that it'll stop conflict, not that it probably should. The etiquette guide was itself crafted through long and involved debate.

Eh. So I guess I don't really have a position to contribute to the discussion.

The problem is that we---those of us that were here before the Firefly Population Explosion---are on the defensive with everyone. I don't think any of the new members are really getting the kind of welcome that they would have gotten if they had shown up before Firelfy aired or if they had shown up on Worldcrossing.

And I tend to agree with askye. I mean, yes, it is a different experience to have people trickle in a few at a time, as opposed to finding that in the space of a few weeks the number of people who were present on WX are now outnumbered by newbies. It's only natural that it should cause concern. But just as a series of complaints don't in and of themselves imply a mob mentality, nor do a large number of registrations at one time. Each person coming in is doing so individually. (Incidentally, I originally turned up on TT, not individually, but as part of a named group, and we were treated with some suspicion. So I guess this isn't some universal comment.) There's a disconnect there. A person comes in as an individual, and discovers we're worried about a horde.

Anyway. We haven't been swamped. We may well have attracted many more lurkers. (Hi lurkers.) We've picked up a few new regulars, each of whom (AFAIK) arrived as an individual. There've been issues and spats arising with regard to a few others, who also (AFAIK) arrived as individuals. All in all, I feel much like I did after Y2K: we may have destroyed the files of Paraguay's secret service, but basically fears have not come to pass. I think we can afford to react accordingly.

unless their inaugural post was a masterpiece of snarky, pedantic analysis.

Speaking of which, whatever happened to the person whose inaugural Buffy post was an absolutely brilliantly funny anya?

billy deserves a hug. I apparently have vouchers for several.

Perhaps I'm all Allyson and stuff, but I never felt all "one of us! one of us!".

Um. Me either. I won't say that I felt unwelcome when I started posting here but I certainly don't recall that welcoming of a reception. But, then again, my tenure here started under much the same "people who are not us are talking about and linking to us" cloud as the community is experiencing now.

Also, regarding backchannel discussion, I'm all for it and not just here. On every board/community I frequent. There are times when I will speak up and say, "Okay. You said XYZ and it bothered me because ABC." But most of the time, it's a lot easier to just let it roll off my back and vent to one of my friends on IM.

I've already done the fighting in the trenches thing. I was a Bronzer and fought long and hard because I loved that community and felt it had given me so much. And, at the end of the day, I got ripped to shreds and almost gave myself a nervous breakdown and it wasn't worth it.

So yes. I'm all in favor of the backchannel.

Victor said:

There've been a lot of changes here lately. I'm okay with all of them. I'm still okay with everybody. But I really think people need to relax a little, remember that, on occasion, people are going to be jerks and to not let themselves get caught up in it. Because a few people really DO stir up a pot, but only you can let them get to you.

Worth repeating.

Although to get back to what MM said earlier about there being a double-standard, I hope that anyone who sees that sort of thing being implemented (by which I mean a newbie being stomped for behavior that is accepted from a veteran) would speak out.

In other words, the civility level of this community is derived entirely from the committment of each individual member to maintain it. We can't leave it to ita or John or Jon to do our policing, that's neither fair to them nor appropriate, given the consensus-building we've done here.

Funny how subjective experience is. I did not feel immediately welcomed with warm, fuzzy hugs when I first posted. I didn’t feel alienated either, but I certainly felt new and, more than occasionally, I felt like I was interupting things. Or I would post and then realize that I had no idea how I was coming accross, and then I would wonder if I sounded like a pompous windbag. It took me a while to feel a part of the community. And even now, I am very aware of different levels of intimacy between me and other Buffistas. That’s just how it is.

And as with any community, I *do* think that some people can get away with more than others. Or maybe it’s just that some people just get away with more than I like, and unlike ita I don’t necessarily feel comfortable calling them on it. But I wouldn’t call it hypocrisy, only because I’ve never seen a completely transparent community of complete equals. It would be hypocrisy if we explicitly stated everyone was free to come here and wave his dick around, but we don’t.

I could reiterate my position again, but I think I've either made it and it's being ignored, or it won't be gotten.

Why do you think your position is being ignored?

One last thought: Perhaps the photos at WX allowed us to more quickly and easily put a face to the poster & made integration easier.

billy deserves a hug. I apparently have vouchers for several.

Hee. Well, I was typing that up listening to Carole King. I've now put on Oasis, and will no doubt be back shortly to rip yez all a new one.

I hope that anyone who sees that sort of thing being implemented (by which I mean a newbie being stomped for behavior that is accepted from a veteran) would speak out.

I still believe that the double-standard is acceptable. i.e, if i call ita a low down dirty ho in conversation, vs someone who has never before posted calling ita a low down dirty ho.

Because, as ita is my example girl here, ita KNOWS i lurve her, and don;t actually believe that, and it's ribbing between friends.

Kristen and I are family. The Kristen and Allyson Show is another example. Kristen can say, "back away from the computer and paint your toenails or something." And I know her well enough to back away from the computer and paint my toenails or something, because she knows me better than anyone else on the board, and can see where my limits are.

If Hec says the same thing, and i'd go postal.

That's a double-standard, and it makes complete sense, to me.

But I wouldn't come into Bureaucracy and scream about it, and I would be upset and embarrassed if a dozen or so other people chimed in with "Yeah, let's GET HIM!"

(I'm not only responding to this quote; this is just the one that jumped out at me on the topic.) I just did a search, and the first time Schmoker's name was mentioned in Bureaucracy was after he posted here about why are standards are different for people on the show than for people on the board. So he kind of started the discussion on himself.

I tried to type up something responding to the discussion in general, but then realized that i'm not entirely sure what's actually being discussed. Pretty much: I've seen boards go up in flames before. It's not pretty. But the one I remember most pretty much self-destructed when two long-time posters got into an argument and dragged everyone else into it with them. It's not always newbies who "don't get it" who bring boards down.

Also: I think the fears of being overrun have been a bit overdramatic. We haven't been swamped. We've had a bunch of new posters. There are some that I like more than others, but there are some old people that I like more than others. I don't think we've been picking on new people for being as snarky as old people (and if we have, I'm sorry.) I think that most of the issues stem from the fact that the board really serves two purposes: it's for talking about the shows, and it's a community. Snarkiness, analysis, and whatever about the shows is welcome from everybody, and always has been. Most of the issues that I see coming in are from when people are trying to figure out their place in the community, and that takes time, simply because that's how people work.