I get that, but, again -- and I'm being serious, not snarky -- beyond acknowledging that yes, some people feel steamrolled over and less likely to speak up; yes, some people are too aggressive; and yes, it's important to make an effort to play nice and be thoughtful before hitting "Post," what else can we do?

Oh, and calling people on their bullshit when you see it.

eta: And instead of agonizing over this forever, changing a diaper and kissing a booboo before posting, I could have just waited for Kat and said, "what she said."

Though I have to admit taking offense on behalf of other people is a dicey proposition, because....what if *they* aren't offended? Or, as (I think) Micole put it yesterday, "Stop putting words in my mouth."

Reposting the whole thing since I think it's important.

First point, I don't think there's another thing to be done. That's it. I'm also not sure any of us can point a finger and say Poster X is too aggressive. It depends on context, on emotional investment, on a lot of things, and Poster X's identity changes daily. There are a number of people on the board who have a more aggressive personality than another number of people on the board. That's just the way it is.

Since Allyson doesn't seem to mind being used as an example, I would have thought she was "too aggressive" when I first read some of her posts. I would have been wrong. We have different types of personalities, different issues, but I bet if Allyson said something that I found personally hurtful and I said so, she'd address that, one way or another, and eventually we'd reach some understanding. (And if I'm wrong and she does mind, I bet she'll speak up and I'll edit this right out.) If, during the addressing of it, I left the board for awhile, that's my choice. She could have maybe been nicer. I could have not taken it personally. We'll get around it, eventually.

I was startled that not everyone agreed that an apology was warranted when they'd offended someone. If I state something that offends, I always apologize because, even though I believe what I said to be true, I never intended offense. If I offend, then I haven't said what I meant to say successfully. That's my personality. It's not for everyone, and I value the people who disagree with that (even though they're wrong!).

I do think there are personality frictions on this board, and I don't like that because I want us all to love one another in a cotton candy colored world. But nothing works like that, ever. We know that. What we've got is, I think, the closest we can get.

I believe it was Kristin who said in Minearverse that it is a difficult concept to accept that not everyone loves her. Plenty of people chimed in that they felt the same way about themselves. While I know everyone loves me, I do wonder if, somewhere out there, there isn't a strange creature who thinks I'm a waste of space and time. I can't imagine it, but it could be true.

Second point, you're absolutely right, and really, I've found for myself, that it never ends well when I get offended on someone else's behalf. I either don't know the whole story, or the other person wasn't offended at all, or they get over it... Any number of bad things can happen, including escalating something minor to a major kerfuffle.

From this board, I've learned to actually have a (infinitesimally) thicker skin instead of thinking 'I need one of those, how do I get it?' That's not a bad thing at all, imo, and it's been as painless as possible. I try not to fight other people's battles anymore. When I forget, I often get my nose bopped.

So, the most important thing to me, is that there are things to do on both sides of this equation.

Make the effort to play nice, deal with things as they happen, try not to take offense for others, try to speak up when you're offended, spend time building relationships with people who accept you as you are and try to see the valuable in personalities completely unlike your own.

And I'm trailing off in indecision because I'm not sure I made a worthwhile point or just took up bandwidth.

First point, I don't think there's another thing to be done. That's it.

It seems that way to me, too, but I wanted to ask it explicitly, in case there were some people who DO feel more can be done. So thank you.

And I'm trailing off in indecision because I'm not sure I made a worthwhile point or just took up bandwidth.

Worthwhile, in my book.

Worthwhile, bless your spicy brains and beautiful heart.

Marvelous post, Deena.

As for the social capital issue, not to dig up a horse that's been buried, but there's one more issue there. As acknowledged previously, social capital is transient, and can be accrued and spent in a variety of ways.

But it's also -- and I think this is key -- not an absolute across the community. For example: Member A may think Super Porny Pants is fabulous, and thus when Trudy trips into the guacamole, A picks her up and hoses her off. Whereas Member B may find SPP to be a little too risque for her taste, and is just as happy when Trudy trips into the guacamole; in fact, B takes offense to Trudy's guac-ing, and asks for an apology in thread.

(Just a for-instance, Trudy, I'm absolutely making this up.)

There may in fact be social capital, but a pecking order is too defined for what we have here, and implies that there's a certain amount of power associated with high status. When in fact the only power associated with social capital is that given to you by other board members -- the willingness to be convinced, the willingness to cut you some slack on a bad day, the willingness to hear you out without taking offense.

Any single board member can negate another individual's social capital any time they like. I can log on tomorrow and decide that everything Allyson says is flame-baity and horrible. Nobody can prevent me from doing so, and all the social capital in the world can't prevent that, so long as I comply with the community standards.

I may have a gazebo, but I think everyone who looks at my gazebo sees something different. For myself, I think it's a tin-roofed shack on the edge of a swamp, and the alligators are snapping at the door.

Human beings form clusters, form communities, but the communities are flexible and fluid, changing and overlapping. The only constant is change.

As for the back-channel issue, those of us who have LJs and blogs and AIM and IRC and mailing lists don't all run in the same circles any more than those of us who live in geographic proximity see each other every week. And that's okay. Let's not propogate this concept that there's an invisible cabal of people out to run the board/community/fandom. Ain't true, and it makes me grind my teeth and invoke Snacky's Law, and no good can come from it.

just as happy when Trudy trips into the guacamole

No, we're just happy when Trudy trips naked into the guacamole.

No, we're just happy when Trudy trips naked into the guacamole.

I'm not. I hate guacamole. It is unworthy.

I don't know what Snacky's Law is but it's making me hungry.

Nutty mentioned it in Nutty "Bureaucracy 2: Like Sartre, Only Longer" Mar 30, 2004 9:28:07 pm PST

(Still catching up, determined to neither skip nor skim a single post)

[Edit: x-posted with Suela who had real knowledge. Now back to catching-up]

Wolfram, Snacky's Law, coined by our very own Snacky.

Whenever two (or more) groups of people are arguing, anywhere on the web (usenet, mailing lists, message boards, blogs, etc.), inevitably, someone on one side of the argument (regardless of age or gender) will compare the group on the other side to "those bitchy girls who made everyone's life hell in high school."

Additionally: When this happens, if the person who made this comparison is validated with tales of "just how mean the bitchy girls were to ME in high school," the argument is over, and the side making the comparison has lost.

Q: Oh yeah? You're just like the stuck-up bitches who wore Gap jeans and looked at me funny! A: Snacky's Law strikes again.

I don't know what Snacky's Law is but it's making me hungry.

I have that effect on people.