Am I the Only One That Feels This Way?

[Timezkware Tim]

Originally Posted by wwhopper

Maybe as a group we can work on making this a more positive place, and one that encourages particiaption, and not the negative debates that leave people cold.

I don't think the intent of a public bulletin board format is to have everyone be "positive" and "encourage participation". If people want to be negative about a subject, that points to free speech. If others are turned off by this they simply won't respond to the negative person's posts. If people ARE responding to the negative one, then that's a debate.

If we're all supposed to suppress any negative feeling on a subject and only show up when we have something "positive" to say, then the site doesn't reflect te real image of the average poster and becomes a structured, censored scam.

Real bulletin boards have a spectrum of opinions that reflect the society of their membership. As long as people follow the terms of service/guidelines/forum rules and don't curse or have sexual content, or flame etc., they should be able to express their opinion. The suggestion, William, that everyone show up in a certain mood is exclusive, elitist, and cliquish.

This isn't a private chat room, it's a registered discussion site open to anyone who follows the posted rules. A place where people should be able to voice their feelings without being coerced into getting along with a certain group and their opinions.

JMHO.

Tim

[quade]

Originally Posted by Timezkware Tim

I don't think the intent of a public bulletin board format is to have everyone be "positive" and "encourage participation".

I agree with the first but have to by definition disagree with the second.

If a person wants to write and post on the internet without further commentary, well, he can make a newsletter or blog I suppose. People might respond to it but then he's under no obligation to reprint that feedback so that others can read it.

Forums by design encourage participation. Every one can post on the topic. Further, a "positive" discussion doesn't necessarily mean everyone has to agree with everything said or speak as if they're writing scripts for children's television. Forcing everyone to always agree absolutely stifles the exchange of ideas.

[KSagal]

I agree that there is a certain self preservation need for a forum (or any other group) to encourage participation. If encouraging people to be civil to one another or to be helpful to newcommers is part of that encouraged participation, all the better...

A positive and constructive attitude are not the same. A person can be constructively negative. Showing the other side of the coin is good for anyone who wants to know that it is a coin. To deny the other side or another perspective that contradicts, is what turns a discussion into a lecture, turns a debate into a propaganda piece.

And, let's not forget the question of the original poster. This was not a comment or complaint against negativism. This was a comment that there are lots of inside jokes, and puns that you have to be on the inside to get. This is not about debate, nor negativism, it is about being able to understand what is posted, without a scorecard. It is about not being reminded that there are those who know and keep it secret from the rest.

I feel that this is becomming far more a place of personalities, of associations, and of having to have the favor of the powerful few than ever before.

In times past, the separations were often made based on experience, or technical knowledge. Those who did not know, posted questions. Those that knew, posted answers, and sometimes others disagreed, and whatnot. New discoveries were posted and debated.

THat still happens but to a lesser degree. Now, the separations have been made clear regarding who is your friend? Do you get along with this one, or that one. Do you have confidence that you can speak your mind, or will you get stepped on?

I am not speaking about being civil. We should all be civil. I am speaking about how is fine to insult this one, but not that one. I am speaking about how it is often very subjective as to how and to what degree each poster will be dealt with...

This observation from the original poster was dead on! He posted a very good point, regarding how this place is, and how it looks to a person who is not involved in some of the political posturing.

One of the problems with his post, however, is that while a certain attitude is encouraged and is required to stay, introspection of this forum is not allowed, if it exposes the fact that not everyone has the same rules.

That, at least, is how I see it.

[CovRob]

Originally Posted by KSagal

...I feel that this is becoming far more a place of personalities, of associations, and of having to have the favor of the powerful few than ever before...

...I am speaking about how it is often very subjective as to how and to what degree each poster will be dealt with...

One of the problems with his post, however, is that while a certain attitude is encouraged and is required to stay, introspection of this forum is not allowed, if it exposes the fact that not everyone has the same rules.

That, at least, is how I see it.

and as a relatively recent browser of this forum from outside the US, I agree. I have commented so in the past.

[pam]

I find it interesting that you both are saying introspection about the forum is not allowed, but you both are actually doing it - or have done it in the past.

A certain amount of introspection is allowed. Disruption of the forum is not. (Which I bet is not dissimilar to something you might say as a B&B owner, Rob.) There's a degree issue.
Pam

[polo_pro]

Originally Posted by pam

I find it interesting that you both are saying introspection about the forum is not allowed, but you both are actually doing it - or have done it in the past.

A certain amount of introspection is allowed. Disruption of the forum is not. (Which I bet is not dissimilar to something you might say as a B&B owner, Rob.) There's a degree issue.

Pam, the fact that the thread got off the OP point shows you that there's more to this than just "cliques", "inside jokes" and "exclusiveness". Why else would terms like "terms of service" and "introspection" be woven into the thread?

There's an elephant in the corner of this chatroom, and we're not allowed to talk about it. Heck, by just making this veiled reference to said elephant, I may have gone too far and crossed the line.

[pam]

Indeed, on any chat site, the terms of service are those that are agreed to either implicitly or explicitly, by every member. If they don't, it's like walking into a bed and breakfast and saying "I know I"m a guest here, but I don't like the way the furniture is arranged and I insist that you change it to suit my taste. And I'm going to stand here in the middle of the living room and talk about it until you do it my way."

But, you're right, Steve, that's not what this thread is about. It's about one person's feeling excluded because of perceived in-jokes and puns. Personally, I think the inclusion of the word puns meant that it was alluding to a series of posts that were recently added where people where "punning." And since this thread is not about the Segway in general, it's going to be moved to the community feedback forum, which is where it belongs.

Pam

[RAG1247]

Originally Posted by polo_pro

Pam, the fact that the thread got off the OP point shows you that there's more to this than just "cliques", "inside jokes" and "exclusiveness". Why else would terms like "terms of service" and "introspection" be woven into the thread?

There's an elephant in the corner of this chatroom, and we're not allowed to talk about it. Heck, by just making this veiled reference to said elephant, I may have gone too far and crossed the line.

polo - in all forums which have been in existence for many years, cliques, inside jokes, and exclusiveness are always going to exist often between early and late adopters. Such occurrences do not have to be negative by themselves. This forum consists of members who have known each other personally for many years and numerous others who wouldn't know each other if they were standing next to one another on the same street. Newer members in time will learn the lay of the land and will then be better able to determine which members they think are more credible or not. Personal meetings between members may also better allow such members to become better acquainted.

Everyone is entitled to voice their opinion as long as they voice their opinions according to the general rules of the chat and that such posts IN THE SOLE DISCRETION OF THE MODERATORS, MET THE INTENT OF SC AND DO NOT HAVE A DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON SC. HOWEVER DIFFICULT, THEY MUST USE THEIR JUDGMENT. Ever member will not always agree with them, and I suspect moderators at times might not agree with each other, relying on a consensus. A member as I see it can argue their case or thoughts with any moderator regardless of whether such member was involved in the controversy or strictly a bystander.

SC is not a public bulletin board but a privately owned entity with rules and with certain individuals administering those rules to the best of their ability, experience and knowledge. SC is not now and I suspect will never be a democracy.

I suspect differing points of view are always welcome up until they become personal attacks and/or involve areas that might be detrimental to SC. I for example may be a republican and another member a democrat. There is nothing wrong with each side posting their beliefs and why they believe them. but when it becomes personal and the point is to try and force someone else's values on me, that is wrong and not in the spirit of the chat.

I personally don't see any elephant in the corner of this chatroom at all. I do seem to get the feeling that there are members who feel if they sign a petition or hold an election, that possibly the alleged elephant might be invited back or that such vote or petition is going to change the rules of SC. Again, SC is not a democracy, but that doesn't prevent members from communicating with moderators to espouse their views in a civil manner. Overtime, we all get to see who we feel are credible, who are pot stirrers, who look to increase their post count at every opportunity, etc. ------- just a few of my comments based on my opinion

[KSagal]

Richard,

I respectfully disagree with some of what you say...

I too, have met many here, and I too have been here for a while, and I too have experienced much on these boards...

I will also admit that I have never joined a forum before this one, and am also quite the novice to the workings of on line forums, since my primary experience is with this one...

Maybe we are all bringing our own shading to this topic. I saw the original post as being about elitism, and about insiders and keeping others outside... I expressed this by saying that I am aware of the same rules being applied differently to different people.

Others have seen the topic as a veiled cover for some particular event, or a particular series of events relating to one topic.

And still others have said that the original poster did not understand puns. Or maybe that puns and inside jokes are completely normal and should be expected, and that spending more time here will make you understand them more...

I believe that there is a clear undercurrent about not just topics or attitudes that are acceptable, but who is acceptable and who is not. Some of us carry this the extream of being banned, and others stay and are abused over and over. Still others are fed up and just leave.

Then there are the others who stay for a while, and then move on. Every person who is here is not part of any particular clique, and every person who leaves is not banned. The vast majority are just everyday people who come when interested, and leave when bored. It is just that simple...

Lastly, while some say that it seems to be a bad thing to increase their post count, and I understand that some of that may be addressed to me, or not, I do not understand that reference at all. No one should give more value to a post than another, unless they know the source...

I can easily understand that some people may want to consider a high number of posts some sort of status, and therefore make posts intended to just increase that count, but I do not understand any value being assigned to that effort.

I am clearly not capible of understanding this whole topic of post counts... I can easily find dozens of references to people artificially inflating their post counts... All of those references were from people who stated that it was a bad thing, and all of those complaints about people inflating their post counts had their own post counts increased by virture of their complaint.

Of course, people can not know if they are new to this forum who to listen to and who not. If they read various posts, they will learn but if they do not have time, they have to take their chances...

So, I would love to have someone explain why having a post count is somehow a bad thing, as I do not understand.

[quade]

Originally Posted by KSagal

So, I would love to have someone explain why having a post count is somehow a bad thing, as I do not understand.

I personally like the Jane English translation of the Tao te Ching and in particular chapter "5".

Or perhaps you like Shakespeare? In Hamlet, Lord Polonius says, ". . . brevity is the soul of wit . . . "








(Ok, maybe -that- was a bit of blatant one-upsmanship on my part. )