A series of posters attempting to explain to me what debate is, on the other hand, could be seen by some as leaning toward condescention.

No, that would be cross-posting. Happens all the time.

However, I stated up front what I was bringing

I freely admit I missed the original post. As I think I got the content, I'm not that concerned, but it serves me right for skipping when I should have skimmed.

You say you didn't mean to appear snotty? Fine, I accept that, although I think my point still stands -- if you want people to be nicer to one another here, charity begins at home. It's not impossible to be pleasant to people we disagree with -- the very existence of this board supports that premise.

I actually do think newbies should think twice before posting an unpopular opinion. Not that they shouldn't do it, but they should think twice. Because we do take shit seriously, and we also are a community. Shit, I don't know, can someone just Nilly poor Wolfram's brouhaha? All of this was said then.

Yes, I'm too lazy to do it, but it might be helpful.

The problem a newbie has is not just asserting the historical creds to criticize the community (in this case), but acclimating posts to conform with the community. And this works both ways.

The newbie learns how to post in our special style without sounding obnoxious or patronizing. The community grows accustomed to the newbie's posting style and can better tell the tone that the newbie is trying to convey.

Often these adjustments take time. Some of us learn it the hard way.

original point sufficiently burried now as to have become mostly moot.

Your original post: Rafmun "Bureaucracy 2: Like Sartre, Only Longer" Mar 30, 2004 6:05:11 am PST

"PREFACE: The following is offered as observation, and in the spirit and tone of academic discussion.

It is also offered from the perspective of an outsider who has lurked for a fairly long time now, and who felt both piled upon and marginalized with his first offer of perspective in this thread - so it is unavoidably influenced by that experience.

OBSERVATION I don't think that newbies are particularly targeted or treated differently than long term posters.

I don't think newbies are piled upon by 'most of the board'.

DIME-STORE ANALYSIS After watching for a good time now, it seems from my perspective that there exists on this board a very large group of happy posters who go about day to day business on the board without involving themselves in bureaucracy or other threads/issues of controversy. 99 per cent of posters at this place are the most friggin' awesome group of intelligent, humourous and caring people found just about anywhere online.

But overshadowing the majority of posters is a very small group of activist posters who make it their business to involve themselves in most issues. These posters are currently directing the direction of the board by sheer pressure of persistence. These are not necessarily the board moderators, but rather, they are the proverbial squeaky wheels. These activist posters' points are not necessarily stronger in any given debate, and there are even a few posters who will persist in misdirecting debate away from actual points (i.e., the recent discussion over tone evolved without taking into equal consideration the points being forwarded).

It seems from an outside perspective that it has become more important to a small minority of posters to impose their feelings on the board than make the board better for the group.

This has not been specifically directed at newbies or at long-termers, but rather it seems indiscriminate - though it does seem like a few long-termers are being specifically singled out by a few of the activists.

There seems little question that this situation has alienated - at least to some degree - both newbies and long-termers. Some newbies simply leave while others accept the artificial hierarchy of culture. Some veteran posters have been marginalized and driven away from posting by this same situation. Others simply go on with their posting, but have given up trying to offer constructive input because they don't wish the long and largely fruitless debate to follow.

Anyway, this seems to be the way most boards drift over time - even the excellent ones. It seems partly a product of human nature, and partly a result of boards lacking a defined benevolent authority structure.

Let me reiterate - the above is the simple observation of a single person. It is offered only to the extent that the perspective of a lurker and newbie may be valuable in some way. If it is not valuable, useful, wanted or welcome, then please feel free to ignore.

In the interest of total sincerity, I will acknowledge that it is also offered with the smallest hope that it may play a wee part in the effort to bring out or bring back input from that 'silent majority' who are still around, and who were instrumental in making this one of the strongest, most enlightened, accepting, tolerant and tightest knit communities anywhere on the web.

We are STILL talking about a small group of posters waving their magical aggressive wands at the board and controlling all discussion and decisions.

I for one have moved from looking at your post thoughtfully and saying "yes, this does sometimes happen" and "I may be that person sometimes" to getting bothered with you for accusing teh collective us of ignoring you and getting sidetracked and being so easilyt walked over by these powerful posters.

I have a question that is potentially even MORE flame-baity, but I think it needs to be asked in the open:

Is it that people honestly feel their opinions are being dismissed and ignored, or is it that people are unwilling to accept that their opinion isn't the one that was chosen to prevail? Because that isn't asking for more compassion or less harshness, that's sulking and slightly passive-agressive.

This statement:

A few posters are definately quite selfish and unwilling to accomodate the wishes and needs of others, and instead persistently require others to accomodate there wants and opinions.

is quite possibly true. But you know what? I bet if it came down to naming names, very few people would agree on who are the posters doing that.

And maybe a conscious effort to return to the congenieal roots of the board - the openness and tollerance I heard so much about for so long - might not be a bad idea

This is what I just. don't. see. Maybe I'm blind or oblivious or both. How much has the entire board shifted from its "congenial roots"? How many newbies are chased away on a regular basis or how many long time posters leave simply because of what is being posted--NOT because of other reasons? I don't think ANYONE no matter how long they've been at this board could quantify these.

I'm not in denial, I'm just saying that people tend to look at the past through rose colored glasses and when things seem particularly harsh, dream about the "good ole days".

I just lurked at WX and can't even tell you how long I've been an "active" poster at b.org but I can't see the shift from "openness and tollerance [sic]" to unduly harsh and dismissive.

So glad you made the effort, Wolfram! You are such an integral and valued memeber of the community I had almost forgotten the, um, episode.

So glad you made the effort, Wolfram! You are suce an integral and valued memeber of the community I had almost forgotten the, um, episode.

Thanks, that really means a lot to me, Scrappy.

(Actually it was episodeS but who's counting.)

I noticed all the new posts over here and perhaps this explains why natter is so slow today. Too many posts to read and see what is going on, but I declare the issue over and wish all natter posters to return to natter and entertain me since writing tests isn't very interesting. Gudanov has spoken.

I had almost forgotten the, um, episode.

He had a SODE.

One other thing, from Rafmun's original post:

This has not been specifically directed at newbies or at long-termers, but rather it seems indiscriminate - though it does seem like a few long-termers are being specifically singled out by a few of the activists

That doesn't sound like the board becoming less compassionate or more dismissive. That sounds like people not getting along, or people getting cranky because not everyone agrees with them. Which is, for better or worse, a side-effect of social interaction.