What I'm discovering is that the board is much more like a close knit
community with all the advantages and the baggage that comes with it. So
theoretically it would be nice if everyone could say whatever they wanted
as long as they did it with respect and civility. In actuality, every post
is judged based on how long you've been here, what your contributions to
the community/fandom have been, how much of an effort you've made to
befriend other members etc.
Dude. What did you think it was, if not this?
Announcing bannings isn't airing dirty laundery. It's letting the community know about the resolution of a situation that effected almost everyone.
I believe Wolfram is coming at this from a utopian ideal of equal voices for all, regardless of community capital for good or ill. We have government in this country because communities do not always act for the common good and interpersonal relations are not always the best basis for making decisions. History shows that lots of people who have long relationships with each other do not necessarily have the best interests of other people in mind.
So if, say, Jon B advocates a change it's different then if I advocate the same change. Jon has been here for years and his opinions don't rankle like mine do.
My feeling is that there's a difference between suggesting and advocating. If anyone suggests something, it'll probably be at least considered. What gets frustrating to me is when people who've been around for awhile and have experience in how the dynamics of this community work say, "That might work in other situations, but it would create more problems than it would solve in this community," and someone who hasn't been around for too long and therefore doesn't know as much of the history and culture of the community keeps arguing that it should be done.
{{{Wolfram}}} If I may interject, I kind of had a quicker awakening than you did, I think, when I came in posting like I owned the place at the very beginning. Reality is, if I were Rio when I did that, it would have been cool and wonderful and awesome, but I wasn't. It wasn't. After being hurt and unhappy about it, I tried to look at it from everyone else's perspective. Just because I'd been all stalking and lurkery and liked everyone and I am, of course, a wonderful, kind, adorable and sexy person whom everyone should know and love, doesn't mean anyone else saw me that way (no, they didn't. I don't understand it still).
Since Firefly died, I don't think I've seen you post anywhere but here, asking why things are the way they are, sounding like, whether you intend it or not, as if you want to make everything uniform -- hyperbole, forgive, please --maybe better to say as if good enough isn't good enough, instead of building relationships outside this thread. Maybe you've been posting elsewhere and I haven't seen it. If so, my apologies, but I think the point still stands. I don't think a lot of people have seen it, seen you, outside this thread.
I want to see you in another thread. I want to know how you feel about the fact that your wife will be having a little wolfie in June, and whether or not you're prepared to name him Buffistino Monkeypants Wolfram. I want to know if you like practicing law and what kind you practice and whether or not you give change to bums on the street. I want to get to know you outside of preferential voting or revisiting old issues.
I think that in the case of your posts it's more a case of --"Okay, here's how I think you want to structure the board." And when folks say, "Well, we already structured the board the way we all wanted it and it took a lot of work." Your response is "But I think you should make it be *this* way." When people tell you that your suggestion was considered and rejected, you want to consider it AGAIN.
Scrappy, what you are describing is not the way I post, but how you interpret my posts because I never said those words you quoted. If you read my posts from back then you'll see that I didn't accept what people said as the "end-all, be-all" because there were other people who said otherwise and the discussion was open. In the future, I'll pay more attention to
who
is saying that they disagree.
See, you say that as if it's a bad thing. I think our sense of community is one of the strongest things about this board, and I wouldn't change it for the world.
Me neither. I just understand it better.
Dude. What did you think it was, if not this?
I thought it was a place where everyone could say whatever they wanted as long as they did it with respect and civility.
I believe Wolfram is coming at this from a utopian ideal of equal voices for all, regardless of community capital for good or ill.
Naive right? But that's past tense, I get it now.
...someone who hasn't been around for too long and therefore doesn't know as much of the history and culture of the community keeps arguing that it should be done.
Yeah, I could see how that can be damn annoying. Now I'm starting to piss myself off.
In all seriousness, I'm glad that we're having this discussion. And I hope that other newbies learn from my mistakes, because I have been talking out of turn. And to paraphrase what Kat (I think) said, in this thread it's easier to lose social capital than to gain it.
cereal: put me in the post to press corner.
I thought it was a place where everyone could say whatever they wanted as long as they did it with respect and civility.
It's that too. Nobody's told you to stop posting. Not once.
I thought it was a place where everyone could say whatever they wanted as long as they did it with respect and civility.
To a large degree, it is that kind of place. The difference is in how other people react, no? I think everyone's had the experience of having a brilliant idea that no one else thinks is brilliant, and that's just kind of the way it goes. (Seriously, for a good time, ask Lyra Jane about the first time she proposed a Natter thread.) I just think you've had that experience more often than most people, and I can see where it would drag a person down.
