NationStates Jolt Archive

Very abridged from this link (http://asia.cnet.com/blogs/rehashplus/post.htm?id=63001475)

Bullies, oligarchies and online forums

When the Internet became mainstream, innocents hailed it as the Equalizer. Where everybody would have a voice, where the meek could shine, where everybody ruled and nobody would be unduly silenced. The Democratizing Force.

Well, a decade or so down the road, these claims seem so naive to me.

On most of the forums I've visited, the SAME issue occurs. There is always one or a few powerful groups "ruling" over the forums, typically unduly hostile, as a group, to newbies and new usernames who:

1) Try to introduce any change even if it is for the better
2) Gain too much support and goodwill in the forum community
3) Try to correct errant behavior prevalent in the forums
4) Question the validity of unsupported assumptions done by the group or their friends
5) Contribute too much information

Where the oligarchs REALLY rule are forums where value judgments hold sway.

Though inevitable, how do we make sure such groups do not grow so powerful that severe injustice occurs?

To be honest, I've never really noticed group aggression here though I'm fairly new so perhaps I've missed previous era experience.

However, could also be that NS adheres somewhat to these:

In my years of experience, here are some suggestions:

1) Admins must separate their personal relationships from their fiduciary duties as forum administrators. If they don't, they should relinquish their administrative duties. Oligarchs can abuse power only if they have impunity--proof of sanctions. In any forum, access sanctions are the only thing which count against the oligarchs because community pressure will not work against the oligarchs if they are, indeed, enjoying power over the masses.

2) Evil thrives only when good men keep quiet--if you see injustice, speak up. Disregard the fact that the oligarchs will point their guns at you. There are many good men, but most of them are silent. Once some speak up, the others may gather enough courage to do so, too, and become true good men.

3) Punish errant behavior quickly. If it is clear that personal insults and slights are being performed, admins should step in immediately and SAY SO. That will not make the admin a popular person among the oligarchs, but he is doing the right thing. If an admin wants to "be one with his oligarch friends", then quit being an admin. It is better not to have an admin than have one who sides with his friends.

4) Have rational-thinking people who can reason well as one of the admins - people with legal training and/or of a really logical mind, with a good hold on the concept of morality should be appointed admins. These people see issues clearly and know right from wrong. Most importantly, they must express themselves clearly in a short message that captures the situation and the remedy.

5) Promote factual discussions and discourage unsupported assertions. For Man has only reason to sustain himself. Where lions have teeth and birds have wings, man has mind and reason.

6) Keep things transparent. Leave nothing connected to any ban as secret. Have clean hands. Don't ever, ever have closed committees who decide based on secret discussion. Publish the proceedings.

Ever been harassed?

Thoughts?

Comments from Mods more than welcome.

STFU you whinner. This isn't happy, fuzzy, everything is nice, stick your thumb up your ass and giggle land. This is Earth, and it is inhabited by humans; they suck.

People take online forums and life far too seriously to be entrusted with either.

STFU you whinner. This isn't happy, fuzzy, everything is nice, stick your thumb up your ass and giggle land. This is Earth, and it is inhabited by humans; they suck.

People take online forums and life far too seriously to be entrusted with either.

I want to have a threesome with you two. Posi would get to enjoy me most of the time because that comment was just made of so much win. Bann-ed, meh we can foreplay, your comment wasn't as pwnful as Posi was.

I want to have a threesome with you two. Posi would get to enjoy me most of the time because that comment was just made of so much win. Bann-ed, meh we can foreplay, your comment wasn't as pwnful as Posi was.

Thank god for that...*flees*

I feel your first quote applies here.

All to often I've seen "n00bs" shot down. Many new members try and assert points only to be jumped upon. I've seen it time and time again. "Serious" debate threads can kill a new member before they've even got going.

As for an "elite"? This forum most definitely has one a few posters who form a clique (maybe "clique" is too strong..."group" may be better...smunk, ruffy, darknovae, chandy, ifraenn, (wytyg?) etc.).

I feel your first quote applies here.

All to often I've seen "n00bs" shot down. Many new members try and assert points only to be jumped upon. I've seen it time and time again. "Serious" debate threads can kill a new member before they've even got going.

As for an "elite"? This forum most definitely has one a few posters who form a clique (maybe "clique" is too strong..."group" may be better...smunk, ruffy, darknovae, chandy, ifraenn, (wytyg?) etc.).

N00b! What the heck do you think we want with your opinion..? Really, just give it up. :mad:

Epic Phail.
Mucho-Failuro.

People take online forums and life far too seriously to be entrusted with either.Damn you for giving me a siggable quote so soon after I got my last one! *shakes fist*

Damn you for giving me a siggable quote so soon after I got my last one! *shakes fist*

Sorry. You can always put it on ice and save it for a siggless day.
Edit: Or you can do that...

N00b! What the heck do you think we want with your opinion..? Really, just give it up. :mad:

Epic Phail.
Mucho-Failuro.

Well, I had something in the region of 11-13,000 posts in my last incarnation, over 3 and a half years, so I think I'm qualified :p

Sorry. You can always put it on ice and save it for a siggless day.
Edit: Or you can do that...If I didn't, someone else might sig it, and it will be seen as trendy if I do it. I want to be the first to steal your quote!

Well, I had something in the region of 11-13,000 posts in my last incarnation, over 3 and a half years, so I think I'm qualified :p

Oh...*massive tone of voice shift* We could use a few new solid members for our cliq..er..cul...uhm..free-thinking sessions. Feel free to be assimi...er..join us. Freely.

If I didn't, someone else might sig it, and it will be seen as trendy if I do it. I want to be the first to steal your quote!

So true, you trendy thief you.

Oh...*massive tone of voice shift* We could use a few new solid members for our cliq..er..cul...uhm..free-thinking sessions. Feel free to be assimi...er..join us. Freely.

Er...no :p

So true, you trendy thief you.*cries*

Anywho, I have noticed a tendency for people to form into groups, but there's no particular reason to call any of the groups an "oligarchy".

Er...no :p

Dum n00bs. :rolleyes:

Dum n00bs. :rolleyes:

Hey! I've been posting here about 3 1/2 years longer than you (under one previous name, which was retired voluntarily).

If anything you're the n00b :p

Hey! I've been posting here about 3 1/2 years longer than you (under one previous name, which was retired voluntarily).

If anything you're the n00b :p

Well, I have been here since 2004. However, you still defeat me.
*is slain, gloriously*

People take online forums and life far too seriously to be entrusted with either.

True, and since you old-time bullies don't read articles since they interfere with your bully mission, another excerpt:

My experience here is with automotive forums--the non-technical ones, where cars are judged by subjective values like desire, reputation, branding, design and "butt feel". I was banned once when I raised the possibility that some of the people buying a premium brand of automobiles may be poseurs because their purchase made totally no sense, in fact, save that of showing off, and also questioned the integrity and intelligence of some of the oligarchs. A year later I entered the forum again using my colleague's account, tried to be quiet, but in the end was irked by the irrationality of some posts. And that thread exploded with personal insults and pictures of shit (literally!) being strewn about, until the admins closed that thread. Then later a mild rebuke was issued to the shit posters, I presume.

Now, in this case, I found that one of the members of the oligarchs was corresponding with other members of the group via a private mailing list, and was distributing my private messages via email to a mailing list, too. Not really different from the Wiki fiasco--but what this really shows to me is that the formation of powerful groups is inevitable.

Is he being an idiot for getting steamed over 'irrationality' or are the other's idiots for forming a group to hunt his posts down and distribute them?

Or is it all just too bizarre?

True, and since you old-time bullies don't read articles since they interfere with your bully mission, another excerpt:

:p
Is he being an idiot for getting steamed over 'irrationality' or are the other's idiots for forming a group to hunt his posts down and distribute them?
Yes to both.
Or is it all just too bizarre?
I'm not even sure what 'bizarre' is anymore.

Well, I have been here since 2004. However, you still defeat me.
*is slain, gloriously*

:cool:

Very abridged from this link (http://asia.cnet.com/blogs/rehashplus/post.htm?id=63001475)

To be honest, I've never really noticed group aggression here though I'm fairly new so perhaps I've missed previous era experience.

There's occasional group aggression, both in General and in the RP forums. It's not as pronounced here as on some other forums, but it exists.

And I notice that certain posters are much quicker to jump on me when I post under a different, little-known username. And other posters are more friendly. So I don't think being seen as a newbie is automatically a bad thing.

However, could also be that NS adheres somewhat to these:

That does help. I'm a big fan of transparency in decision-making and having the best people in charge while keeping them accountable.

Comments from Mods more than welcome.

I think there were some very good suggestions in the section you quoted.

But I'd also warn against going into a forum thinking you are God's gift to the community, or that you are the infallible arbiter of what's rational and good. You should understand a forum's community and system before deciding you know what's best for it. Different forums can have very different operating models that can be perfectly valid, depending on their size, poster demographics, and interpersonal relationships.

Just a general note.

I feel your first quote applies here.

All to often I've seen "n00bs" shot down. Many new members try and assert points only to be jumped upon. I've seen it time and time again. "Serious" debate threads can kill a new member before they've even got going.

I agree heaps.

Old posters starting again as puppets/nOObs only makes the matter worse. We get this idea that new identities are just throwaway jokes by someone who knows better ... when often they are surely good lurkers, quite sure about what they mean to say and with a lot of good thinking to contribute.

As for an "elite"? This forum most definitely has one a few posters who form a clique (maybe "clique" is too strong..."group" may be better...smunk, ruffy, darknovae, chandy, ifraenn, (wytyg?) etc.).

Think of them as your parents. Ignore them unless they talk to you. ;)

As for an "elite"? This forum most definitely has one a few posters who form a clique (maybe "clique" is too strong..."group" may be better...smunk, ruffy, darknovae, chandy, ifraenn, (wytyg?) etc.).darknovae?
chandy?

never heard of them.

I agree heaps.

Old posters starting again as puppets/nOObs only makes the matter worse.
Thanks :p


Think of them as your parents. Ignore them unless they talk to you. ;)

I've a feeling you may be confusing me for someone who hasn't posted here before :p

I've a feeling you may be confusing me for someone who hasn't posted here before :p

I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

:headbang:

It's a major game here, picking who is who. But I keep getting distracted by real political issues, and interesting stuff in links people post.

darknovae?
chandy?

never heard of them.

I have. They're nice gals, with good and interesting things to say a lot of the time.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

:headbang:

It's a major game here, picking who is who. But I keep getting distracted by real political issues, and interesting stuff in links people post.

Hang on.

Real political issues?

Interesting links?

On NSG.

Are you sure?

I have. They're nice gals, with good and interesting things to say a lot of the time.

I wouldn't go that far ;)

Oboy, you've hit a pet peeve...

Comments from Mods more than welcome.I'm not a mod here, but I am one on another forum.

Is he being an idiot for getting steamed over 'irrationality' or are the others idiots for forming a group to hunt his posts down and distribute them?

He's being an idiot for coming onto a forum, trolling unskillfully, and expecting anything good to come of it! Passing around the emails is also bogus and shows a lack of maturity on the part of the others, but after seeing what else the guy wrote in his little diatribe, he's got no high ground to look down on them from.

I was banned once when I raised the possibility that some of the people buying a premium brand of automobiles may be poseurs because their purchase made totally no sense, in fact, save that of showing off, and also questioned the integrity and intelligence of some of the oligarchs.

Well duh, of course they banned him for that--it's blatant trolling! What did he expect? A lot of forums do ban trolls right away (a lot faster than NSG does). And aiming the trolling for the people most likely to have modly sympathy speeds up the ejection even more.

Nothing "bullyish" about bouncing some n00b troll. Older members have no duty to put up with that joker and his psychological problems with their perceived "authority."

3) Try to correct errant behavior prevalent in the forumsARGH!! There isn't much that's as infuriating as some damned n00b showing up out of nowhere, onto a forum they know nothing about, and passing their holier-than-thou "value" judgments on the behavior of the regulars. Who's he think he is to decide what's "errant?!?"

Yes I have run into such creeps on other forums. They're not being "bullied;" they get banned for trolling.

1) Try to introduce any change even if it is for the betterSame response as above. Some n00b saying that his/her way is "better" before they've even been there for a while, is insulting and trollish to all the other members. If they don't like a forum from the start, they should go away! It's not up to the forum to change, to satisfy the n00b's overblown ego.

1) Admins must separate their personal relationships from their fiduciary duties as forum administrators.Apparently the guy hasn't managed to stay on a forum long enough to even know that rules enforcement is usually done by mods, not the admin(s).

Last one I'll address:
6) Keep things transparent. Leave nothing connected to any ban as secret. Have clean hands. Don't ever, ever have closed committees who decide based on secret discussion. Publish the proceedings.This is BULL. The troll wants this a lot, so s/he can play the membership against the mods and even the admin in a "court of public opinion"--as well as causing the membership to break into factions for/against the ban and sub-factions for/against a myraid of other punishments. It's a troll's wet dream to be able to con a forum into falling for that "suggestion!"

Hang on.

Real political issues?

Interesting links?

On NSG.

Are you sure?

Yeah. Sure you haven't misfiled NSG in your portfolio of trollable sites?

Some people here really do give a stuff. You'd notice them if your were looking for "real" and "interesting."

Yeah. Sure you haven't misfiled NSG in your portfolio of trollable sites?

Some people here really do give a stuff. You'd notice them if your were looking for "real" and "interesting."

Believe me, I have no "trollable sites"

I used to get deeply involved in debates here about many subjects. Gradually the subject range tightened, and gradually I came to realise that it was, mostly, the same people arguing over the same points.

Fergi America;13264141']*snip except...*This is BULL. The troll wants this a lot, so s/he can play the membership against the mods and even the admin in a "court of public opinion"--as well as causing the membership to break into factions for/against the ban and sub-factions for/against a myraid of other punishments. It's a troll's wet dream to be able to con a forum into falling for that "suggestion!"

While I also feel the writer of the piece is a little high on himself, his final point, I think, is a nod to this part of the article:

Bang Bang is a Wiki editor, a long-time contributor whom some other editors consider a positive Force in the Wiki, and wonderfully productive, too! One day, Bang Bang got banned by a super Administrator, Durova. The grounds: That Bang Bang was a troll, troublemaker, shit stirrer, gloats, nasty, abusive, and had the prime motive to destroy the Wiki.

Several other editors did not agree that Bang Bang should be banned, demanding Durova to explain. Durova insisted that the review of her ban should be handled by a closed door Arbitration Committee to protect the confidentiality of some "deep research techniques" used to investigate the matter. She asked readers to "keep faith" that her banning action was correct, without providing any evidence.

Someone couldn't take it anymore. So a user Giano posted a private email from Durova and revealed the names in a secret mailing list. This email revealed that Bang Bang was, indeed, wonderfully productive, but Durova said this was a pretend act so Bang Bang could gain sufficient reputation within the Wiki community to destroy the Wiki from within.

After the email was released, Durova unbanned Bang Bang (false positive), relinquished her admin powers, and the Arbitration Committee merely slapped her hand instructing her to exercise more care when banning users.

Full story here (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia_secret_mailing/)

From which, this interesting tidbit:

"The problem with Wikipedia is that, for so many in the project, it's no longer about the encyclopedia," Martin wrote in a recent blog post. "The problem is that Wikipedia's community has defined itself not in terms of the encyclopedia it is supposedly producing, but instead of the people it venerates and the people it abhors."

Actually, The Register article, just linked above, is way more interesting than the one I posted.

I'm not into Wiki's politics, so I can't make an opinion specific to them. From other experience, I do know that what's painted as "paranoid" may or may NOT actually be wacky, depending on the past of the particular forum (or other medium).

As for secret discussions, though, a big meh. Mods always find a way to talk among themselves. I suppose the big deal with the list is that Wiki's supposed to be "egalitarian" whereas some forums blatantly have a mod's-only area...

True, and since you old-time bullies don't read articles since they interfere with your bully mission, another excerpt:



Is he being an idiot for getting steamed over 'irrationality' or are the other's idiots for forming a group to hunt his posts down and distribute them?

Or is it all just too bizarre?Another "Honestly, what do you expect?" from Posi.

Fergi America;13264223']I'm not into Wiki's politics, so I can't make an opinion specific to them. From other experience, I do know that what's painted as "paranoid" may or may NOT actually be wacky, depending on the past of the particular forum (or other medium).

As for secret discussions, though, a big meh. Mods always find a way to talk among themselves. I suppose the big deal with the list is that Wiki's supposed to be "egalitarian" whereas some forums blatantly have a mod's-only area...

I've never really understood how having a Mods Only forum makes it not egalitarian. Having Mods in the first place seems to nullify egalitarianism before you ever get to the secret discussions.

There's occasional group aggression, both in General and in the RP forums. It's not as pronounced here as on some other forums, but it exists.

yeah, we're fairly low key about it, except in regards to our favored trolls/opponents and stereotypical noobs. nowhere near as bad as my old usenet haunts - once we chased out (or allowed, anyways) a new guy for being, in the words of a longstanding member of the group from edmonton, "so fucking canadian"

I've never really understood how having a Mods Only forum makes it not egalitarian. Having Mods in the first place seems to nullify egalitarianism before you ever get to the secret discussions.

unless said mods are directly accountable to the community in some realistic fashion (and not just love it or leave it, obviously)

yeah, we're fairly low key about it, except in regards to our favored trolls/opponents and stereotypical noobs. nowhere near as bad as my old usenet haunts - once we chased out (or allowed, anyways) a new guy for being, in the words of a longstanding member of the group from edmonton, "so fucking canadian"

*chuckles* That sounds like the internet we all know and love.

unless said mods are directly accountable to the community in some realistic fashion (and not just love it or leave it, obviously)

I've seen small, close-knit forums where the Mods were basically accountable to the community.

I'm just not sure what model would be effective for getting the same results on larger forums.

While I also feel the writer of the piece is a little high on himself, his final point, I think, is a nod to this part of the article:

*WikiP politics article*

Yeah, but ... wikipedia rocks!

I mean, it's astounding that the "free soapbox" model produces such a fantastic reference. It's not authoritative, fine ... but it's bloody brilliant anyway.

Some day it might start cashing in, like Google or Facebook are.

Tell me, Barringtonia: is this a personal gripe (you don't feel you get proper credit) or is it an idealistic complaint (forums are inherently unfair)?

Yeah, but ... wikipedia rocks!

I mean, it's astounding that the "free soapbox" model produces such a fantastic reference. It's not authoritative, fine ... but it's bloody brilliant anyway.

Some day it might start cashing in, like Google or Facebook are.

Tell me, Barringtonia: is this a personal gripe (you don't feel you get proper credit) or is it an idealistic complaint (forums are inherently unfair)?

:)

Neither, I have a google sidebar with news feature added and I cherry pick headlines to read - once in a while I'll throw it into a thread - this one had 'Online forums' in the headline so I thought it would be worth a thread after reading it.

Having said that, I 'am' surprised not to have received an email from Max Barry lauding my rational intelligence and offering me ownership of the site because, frankly, I know best.

On the subject, I'll try find a psychological experiment that was video'd called, something like, the Yellow Hat Gang.

Essentially they give 4 kids in a playground yellow construction hats and watch as those kids start to dominate, form 'things to do' and generally bully anyone who tries to join.

Another interesting thing is how you change personalities between being among friends and being among family - we assume roles in both and those roles may well be different. Tensions often appear when we try to break out from these roles, or feel our role is abused.

All fascinating stuff.

*...*

All fascinating stuff.

You might want to check out Blue Eyes. (http://www.janeelliott.com/)

You might want to check out Blue Eyes. (http://www.janeelliott.com/)

Totally.

γνωθι σεαυτόν

Very abridged from this link (http://asia.cnet.com/blogs/rehashplus/post.htm?id=63001475)



To be honest, I've never really noticed group aggression here though I'm fairly new so perhaps I've missed previous era experience.

However, could also be that NS adheres somewhat to these:



Ever been harassed?

Thoughts?

Comments from Mods more than welcome.

Yeah, I'd agree with all that. But that's all human nature. The forums are simply a microcosm of the society surrounding it.

I feel your first quote applies here.

All to often I've seen "n00bs" shot down. Many new members try and assert points only to be jumped upon. I've seen it time and time again. "Serious" debate threads can kill a new member before they've even got going.
I don't think I've noticed anyone being 'jumped upon' in any way because they're new. Now and then someone's post will get replied to by a whole bunch of people, but that's generally in serious threads with an uneven number of posters on either 'side'.

Take the creationism/evolution threads. Very few people actually post in support of creationism in these threads, relative to those who post in opposition to it. So one pro-creationism post will get a reply from almost everyone taking part in the thread. So, it's not because they're new, it's because they're outnumbered.


As for an "elite"? This forum most definitely has one a few posters who form a clique (maybe "clique" is too strong..."group" may be better...smunk, ruffy, darknovae, chandy, ifraenn, (wytyg?) etc.).
We've formed something of a group because we socialise off-site a lot. It's certainly not that we have any kind of power here. Though that would be somewhat awesome......:p
darknovae?
chandy?

never heard of them.

That's cos you're not in The Clique :cool:


:p

Is/are The Clique the jocks or the nerds, or just the cool kids?

I've seen some harassment and bullying, and every time the really ancient ancients start reminiscing, I get the impression that pre-mods, the site was the Wild West reborn (I'm not saying I believe them :D).

But at least on this site bullies can be made to stop, which doesn't happen as much in the real world.

Groupings form, too, but since it's an internet forum membership depends a lot on how you handle words. Seems to me that makes them less clique-y, because a newcomer with a gift of the gab can be instantly in, regardless of their experience here or in real life. A couple of players say they're socially inept or downright anti-social RL, yet they're people I think I'd like and respect if I ever met them.

The odd thing for me about forums like this, though, is the mix. There are people from professions that don't usually talk to each other much, and students at all levels -- and probably behind some nation name there's a sociologist who's using all this uninformed speculation as raw data. Or maybe we're already someone's PhD topic.

What surprised me, when I got modded, was how constantly I have to think about the ethics, as well as the practicalities, of the job. It didn't seem to come up as much modding on offsites. (Not that I agonise over the ethical implications of telling someone to go play in traffic, so ner!)

I guess it's that constant feeling of being accountable. In lots of jobs, once you've been there long enough, you run your own little show; you're only ever called to account for your actions if things go wrong.

But here anyone can call any mod, or admin, on anything, and does; not just "I think you shouldn't have done X", but more "Is that the only way to do X? Do you think this would work better?"

Sort of constant peer review and constant brainstorming, which is fun.

"This isin't the Wild West! Hell, the Wild West wasn't even the Wild West!"

A free Internet to whoever ID's the quote.

Is/are The Clique the jocks or the nerds, or just the cool kids?
We're the coolest of the cool :cool:

I've seen some harassment and bullying, and every time the really ancient ancients start reminiscing, I get the impression that pre-mods, the site was the Wild West reborn (I'm not saying I believe them :D).
I hear that back in the day, a young Eut would ride into General on a dinosaur, steal the women, and flee back to his cave.

But at least on this site bullies can be made to stop, which doesn't happen as much in the real world.
RL needs banhammers *nods*

Groupings form, too, but since it's an internet forum membership depends a lot on how you handle words. Seems to me that makes them less clique-y, because a newcomer with a gift of the gab can be instantly in, regardless of their experience here or in real life. A couple of players say they're socially inept or downright anti-social RL, yet they're people I think I'd like and respect if I ever met them.
That's the interwebs all over. If you can type good then you am good.



What?

The odd thing for me about forums like this, though, is the mix. There are people from professions that don't usually talk to each other much, and students at all levels -- and probably behind some nation name there's a sociologist who's using all this uninformed speculation as raw data. Or maybe we're already someone's PhD topic.
That would be tremendously awesome. Someone do a PhD about us!

What surprised me, when I got modded, was how constantly I have to think about the ethics, as well as the practicalities, of the job. It didn't seem to come up as much modding on offsites. (Not that I agonise over the ethical implications of telling someone to go play in traffic, so ner!)

I guess it's that constant feeling of being accountable. In lots of jobs, once you've been there long enough, you run your own little show; you're only ever called to account for your actions if things go wrong.

But here anyone can call any mod, or admin, on anything, and does; not just "I think you shouldn't have done X", but more "Is that the only way to do X? Do you think this would work better?"

Sort of constant peer review and constant brainstorming, which is fun.

If we don't constantly criticise you, then how will you ever learn? ;)

Very abridged from this link (http://asia.cnet.com/blogs/rehashplus/post.htm?id=63001475)



To be honest, I've never really noticed group aggression here though I'm fairly new so perhaps I've missed previous era experience.

However, could also be that NS adheres somewhat to these:



Ever been harassed?

Thoughts?

Comments from Mods more than welcome.
My thoughts are, some people take internet forums waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too seriously.

What the posts in the OP describe is basically the exact same phenomenon that has been seen in high school lunch rooms for generations. There's cliques and groups and "cool tables" and "outcasts" and all the same self-generated stratification that happens when large numbers of social primates are in the same place at the same time.

So?

Let's not be melodramatic about it. Talking about standing up to "evil" in this context, and painting cliques as "oligarchies," is lame. It's like all those movies about nerds who decide to strike back at the jocks: cliche and self-pitying. Even more so, in this case, because truancy laws make it mandatory for kids to be in school, while no law requires anybody to participate in this forum.

I read the article, and all I got out of it was "Waaahh, I keep getting banned for trolling/flaming; the Mods are such fascists cause I'm not one of the cool kids!"

Hey! I've been posting here about 3 1/2 years longer than you (under one previous name, which was retired voluntarily).

If anything you're the n00b :p

if you dont say who you used to be, it doesnt count.

until then you are just a newbie.

I read the article, and all I got out of it was "Waaahh, I keep getting banned for trolling/flaming; the Mods are such fascists cause I'm not one of the cool kids!"seconded.
I didnt even read the article and I was sure it was about that.



Groups attacks -sometimes- happen when you uphold unpopular views.. It is part of game (Politics debate Forum).
The internet is somewhat democratic, and in a Democracy, majorities are stronger.

You might want to check out Blue Eyes. (http://www.janeelliott.com/)

They did that on Oprah once. Then they had a woman (I think it was Jane Elliot, but I don't really remember) complaining that we're racist because of the way maps look.

Apparently, no one ever explained to her what happens when you try to put a map of something that is essentially spherical onto a flat surface.

You know what else was an Oligarchy.........






SPARTAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://z.about.com/d/comicbooks/1/7/8/D/FCJG300-0088.jpg


In conclusion...Interwebs = Sparta
http://youtube.com/watch?v=eZeYVIWz99I&feature=related

You know what else was an Oligarchy.........
SPARTAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://z.about.com/d/comicbooks/1/7/8/D/FCJG300-0088.jpg
http://youtube.com/watch?v=X8TNCRzkvug

:D

The internet promises you a the option of voice, nothing more.

Whether people give two hoots about it is their porogative - In the same way that if you feel you want to leave and become an oligarchist of your own forum so people listen to you and all your whining then that is your porgogative...

Don't bitch about things that you don't have the ability to change. You are but a child's piss streak in the ocean of adulthood and opinion...

PS. No one cares.

I feel your first quote applies here.

All to often I've seen "n00bs" shot down. Many new members try and assert points only to be jumped upon. I've seen it time and time again. "Serious" debate threads can kill a new member before they've even got going.

As for an "elite"? This forum most definitely has one a few posters who form a clique (maybe "clique" is too strong..."group" may be better...smunk, ruffy, darknovae, chandy, ifraenn, (wytyg?) etc.).
I'm not even going to deign the last part with a response.

Seriously? You've been here "three and a half years" and you've seen this...:

On most of the forums I've visited, the SAME issue occurs. There is always one or a few powerful groups "ruling" over the forums, typically unduly hostile, as a group, to newbies and new usernames who:

1) Try to introduce any change even if it is for the better
2) Gain too much support and goodwill in the forum community
3) Try to correct errant behavior prevalent in the forums
4) Question the validity of unsupported assumptions done by the group or their friends
5) Contribute too much information

... "again and again"?

That's funny. I don't recall any of those things happening here with any regularity at all (in fact I don't remember them happening at all but just on the off chance that someone can dredge up a post I'll take the caveat).

When has General ever been hostile to new posters who make reasonable posts?

Do you get mocked if your posts read like a 12-year-old typed it as a text message? Yep. Do you get ridiculed and your posts ripped apart if you post "GAYZ are sick lozers :upyours:!" Very much so.

Is any of that dependent on if you're a new poster or an old one? Uh... no.

The fact that it's very disproportionately more new posters who do that only tells you that the ones that do either shape up quickly or disappear.

I have. They're nice gals, with good and interesting things to say a lot of the time.

Thanks. :)

We've formed something of a group because we socialise off-site a lot.

Yes, this. :)

I feel your first quote applies here.

All to often I've seen "n00bs" shot down. Many new members try and assert points only to be jumped upon. I've seen it time and time again. "Serious" debate threads can kill a new member before they've even got going.
I've been on this forum for over a year. I've seen lots of n00bs come and go. It's the veractiy of the argument, not the post count/join date that really counts.

If someone comes on here and makes a YouTube- esque comment, they are going to be ignored or get a snarky comment back. Back when I joined, I read all the sticks, lurked a bit, then made my first post. I never got any crap just because my join date was recent and my post count was in single digits.

As for an "elite"? This forum most definitely has one a few posters who form a clique (maybe "clique" is too strong..."group" may be better...smunk, ruffy, darknovae, chandy, ifraenn, (wytyg?) etc.).
I'd disagree. This is a huge forum and people who hang out on more community- like sub-forums or talk frequently on IM are more friendly with one another, just because they know one another.

I wouldn't go that far ;)

That's freaking rude.

I've been on this forum for over a year. I've seen lots of n00bs come and go. It's the veractiy of the argument, not the post count/join date that really counts.

If someone comes on here and makes a YouTube- esque comment, they are going to be ignored or get a snarky comment back. Back when I joined, I read all the sticks, lurked a bit, then made my first post. I never got any crap just because my join date was recent and my post count was in single digits.

D'oh, I totally forgot that part in my post. I was going to say the same. I've seen forums where when a new person comes in they're total outsiders, not in on any of the "inside jokes", etc. Usually small forums.

This is absolutely not the case here. More often than not when a new poster makes a thoughtful first post people will specifically remark on that and say "Good first post" or "Good start" or something.
Yeah, really hostile...

Maybe to some degree some of the assertions of the OP are true... but I don't think it's really that clearly organized.

There are a few old posters that everybody knows of who are like forum celebrities, true.

But then, not all new posters are given a hard time. If their posts are excellent right off the bat, then often it's the opposite, they're immediately well liked by most of the forumites.

Then, there are also old posters (such as myself) who despite their age are known of less than some newbies, ha ha. The forum can't be that much of an oligarchy for this to happen.

As to the mods being in cahoots with the "oligarchs," I don't think that is really true here either. The mods have banned popular posters before, though at times they have been slow to do so.

I've seen forums where when a new person comes in they're total outsiders, not in on any of the "inside jokes", etc. Usually small forums.

This is absolutely not the case here.

myrth!

*chuckles* That sounds like the internet we all know and love.

yeah, there was just something beautiful in watching our resident canadian flame the fuck out of a guy for being canadian.

:fluffle:

Feel the love, flakes, feel the love!

myrth!

Oh, of course there are always things that new posters won't know about because they happened before they were on the forum. Jesussaves's parrot comes to mind, too.

But there are hardly ever any things that are actual "inside jokes" in terms of small groups of posters referring to things the others don't know about because they came up in off-forum conversation, for example.

I've never been bullied, but sometimes I've been on a small forum, made some unfortunate blunders, and I never got the feeling anyone liked me.

Oh, of course there are always things that new posters won't know about because they happened before they were on the forum. Jesussaves's parrot comes to mind, too.

But there are hardly ever any things that are actual "inside jokes" in terms of small groups of posters referring to things the others don't know about because they came up in off-forum conversation, for example.

wouldn't the latter just be an even more inside joke than the former, with the in-group even more restricted than 'nsg forumites'?

from what I've seen of the forum it seems to be a friendly place all views are welcome so newbies like me feel less exiled

I've never been bullied, but sometimes I've been on a small forum, made some unfortunate blunders, and I never got the feeling anyone liked me.

You could've just made a new account.

from what I've seen of the forum it seems to be a friendly place all views are welcome so newbies like me feel less exiled

^hey guys! see this? this is the kind of newb we like, he (she?) spells words and doesn't use animated smileys and stays on topic and has something to say.

welcome.

also, I am totally not in a "clique" why does everyone say that? what else did they call me before? "royalty"? something about spam?

hmph.

Bulling is rabbit on these kinds of websites.

Bulling is rabbit on these kinds of websites.

http://www.tapirback.com/tapirgal/gifts/friends/hoofed/bull-texas-longhorn-plastic-f812.jpg
bull?
http://www.thereddragonhood.com/images/rabbit.jpg
rabbit?

:confused:

also, I am totally not in a "clique" why does everyone say that? what else did they call me before? "royalty"? something about spam?

hmph.

I agree, Your Majesty.

http://www.tapirback.com/tapirgal/gifts/friends/hoofed/bull-texas-longhorn-plastic-f812.jpg
bull?
http://www.thereddragonhood.com/images/rabbit.jpg
rabbit?

:confused:

I concur with the :confused:

You could've just made a new account.

Why would I do that?

^hey guys! see this? this is the kind of newb we like, he (she?) spells words and doesn't use animated smileys and stays on topic and has something to say.

welcome.

also, I am totally not in a "clique" why does everyone say that? what else did they call me before? "royalty"? something about spam?

hmph.

I'm a he so you know and thanks for the kindness

I'm a he so you know and thanks for the kindness

*adopts you into non-existent clique*

*Waves secret hand signs*

Fnord

if you dont say who you used to be, it doesnt count.

until then you are just a newbie.

It started with an "N" apparently. I'm not terribly interested, to be honest. New Birds is a fluent poster who's OK so far, the name doesn't look like it's built to last ... so why play the "look at me, I'm interesting" game, at all?

================

They did that on Oprah once. Then they had a woman (I think it was Jane Elliot, but I don't really remember) complaining that we're racist because of the way maps look.

Apparently, no one ever explained to her what happens when you try to put a map of something that is essentially spherical onto a flat surface.

Actually, it's not a trivial point. All two-dimensional maps are a "projection" of one sort or another, and they all have deviations from the actual proportions and arrangement of the real globe.

The "racism" is understandable. The map we usually use, the Mercator projection, was considered the most reliable for seafaring, seafaring enabled huge empires to be built, and that installed the Mercator projection as the "standard" one. Likewise, the dominant cultures of the last few thousand years are in the northern hemisphere, it is entirely understandable that they drew maps with themselves on top.

I like the Peters projection slightly better than the Mercator. It looks a bit unfamiliar and it's not much good for seafaring, but it shows all the countries of the world in roughly the right relative size on the one map. The shape of the countries is wrong, compared to a globe.

I don't think it's a huge deal, really. There are more important battles to be fought and a globe is always going to be more accurate than any world map.

================

*snip*

also, I am totally not in a "clique" why does everyone say that? what else did they call me before? "royalty"? something about spam?

hmph.

Well, you rarely reply to me when I reply to your posts. I get the strong feeling you don't actually read much of what I write, or any other poster who expresses themselves at length. You don't seem to read links when you ask for information and it is offered. You seem busy, a bit pressed for time (OK, that's probably good not bad, but)

In all those respects, you are not a good poster. Yet I have a lot of respect for you because you offer us good stuff. You're bright and honest and very much really there. You have ups and downs and you share them, and seem quite genuinely interested in other people's opinions.

I think that's why so many other posters like you. There are probably posters who resent that, wonder why you get told "you rock" and "my favourite ex-christian" when they don't, despite working so hard on being right and having good etiquette.

I think the "clique" thing is because people who socialize off-site have a familiarity with each other (get each other's meaning even when its scantily expressed) and this maybe comes through as "hidden meaning" or some kind of coded discourse.

Also, it's easy to be paranoid about the forum. It's complex and we don't have the usual conversational clues. It doesn't bug me too badly ... and if it did, I'd use PM's to try to work out what was happening.

I see most of this reply is obliquely addressed to New Birds, I hope they read it.

Smunkee is the first person I got into a debate with in my first thread I posted in on NSG. It was a thread about Michael Moore's assertion the people that flew into the WTC had military training. So if she'll respond to a poster in the single digits that's never stepped foot on NationStates, she'll respond to any post she has a comment on.

I think that's normal for everyone. Not everyone has a comment on every single post.

Bulling is rabbit on these kinds of websites.

Bulling = making stuff up OR getting angry.
Rabbit = a vibrator ? A nympho? Cheap food?

Whatever your point was, I don't think you've made it. Big picture spam notwithstanding.

Smunkee is the first person I got into a debate with in my first thread I posted in on NSG. It was a thread about Michael Moore's assertion the people that flew into the WTC had military training. So if she'll respond to a poster in the single digits that's never stepped foot on NationStates, she'll respond to any post she has a comment on.

I think that's normal for everyone. Not everyone has a comment on every single post.

Other pathetic specimens like myself will jump on any sign of attention and go into blog mode.

*restrains self*

Bulling is rabbit on these kinds of websites.

Bulling = making stuff up OR getting angry.
Rabbit = a vibrator ? A nympho? Cheap food?

Whatever your point was, I don't think you've made it. Big picture spam notwithstanding.

= "Bullying is rampant on these kinds of websites", rampant having been mixed up with rabid.

Well, you rarely reply to me when I reply to your posts. To be fair, generally speaking, your posts are often kinda hard to reply to. More often than not, they're halfway between The Brevious and Cameroi. Which makes them, well, kinda hard to reply to.

When people say they "socialise off-site", I sometimes get slightly jealous of those of you who can actually, say, sit down and have a cuppa together. I socialise off-site with people by chatting on offsites.

Other times, I'm glad I can sit around looking messy in my messy house and don't have to look anyone in the eye.

But I can't tell from posts whether someone has actually seen the person they're talking to, unless they say so. I mean, a bit of group membership comes through, but not whether the group is online or RL.

I guess if you know each other RL, bullying or harassment would be easier to do and harder to stop, but it would still be NS. So (staggering back to the OP) I haven't experienced or seen any of that.

To be fair, generally speaking, your posts are often kinda hard to reply to. More often than not, they're halfway between The Brevious and Cameroi. Which makes them, well, kinda hard to reply to.

I know what you mean. I like both of those posters so I won't take offense, but I'm aware of the problem.

I find posting a bit like golf: when the big drive is working nicely, the chipping game goes to hell. If by some miracle they're both working nicely, I start producing six-putts ... and the end result is a huge number of words when four or five would do.

It started with an "N" apparently. I'm not terribly interested, to be honest. New Birds is a fluent poster who's OK so far, the name doesn't look like it's built to last ... so why play the "look at me, I'm interesting" game, at all?


im interested if it turns out that its someone that i liked. im not fond of the "i know you but you dont know that you know me" game. *shrug*

in truth i tend to forget who is who far too quickly in the best of times.

do people here really socialize with each other off forum?


i try to respond to newbies if they have put forth a reasonable post that i have some interest in. i think all long timers should do that. if we dont welcome new people why would they stay?

When people say they "socialise off-site", I sometimes get slightly jealous of those of you who can actually, say, sit down and have a cuppa together. I socialise off-site with people by chatting on offsites.

I know a poster from the region my nation is parked in. We're good friends in real life but all that invading and recruiting just seems like real work for no wages to me. NSG seems like a total wank to them.

We're barely even civil to each other online. Ha ha!

im interested if it turns out that its someone that i liked. im not fond of the "i know you but you dont know that you know me" game. *shrug*

in truth i tend to forget who is who far too quickly in the best of times. Nadkor, I suppose. I'd rather I'm wrong, though.

This is absolutely not the case here. More often than not when a new poster makes a thoughtful first post people will specifically remark on that and say "Good first post" or "Good start" or something. Yeah, really hostile...

It really says something about the internet when we end up congratulating people for not going down in flames on their first post.

Other pathetic specimens like myself will jump on any sign of attention and go into blog mode.

*restrains self*

And, when the doctor said I didn't have worms any more, that was the happiest day of my life.

im interested if it turns out that its someone that i liked. im not fond of the "i know you but you dont know that you know me" game. *shrug*

in truth i tend to forget who is who far too quickly in the best of times.

do people here really socialize with each other off forum?

Well, there's the get-togethers. Unless they're completely faked, (no!) they are meat-space get-togethers. Most posters have had a PM link to their name at some time, and there are probably more who only invite PM's by TG.

I find the idea terrifying really -- there's a paradoxical safety in speaking publicly. It's not so much what others might say in private, it's rather that the forum protects one's own words from misinterpretation.

And that's not even approaching how nervous I feel about meeting people in the flesh, who I like as posters. Almost panicking at the thought. :eek:

i try to respond to newbies if they have put forth a reasonable post that i have some interest in. i think all long timers should do that. if we dont welcome new people why would they stay?

I completely agree. The existing talent leave or simply have less time for NSG, and it's the genuine noobs we need if the place is going to even continue, let alone improve.

I'm probably not the best person to encourage noobs. For one thing, I'm easily swayed by pretty wording, and sometimes encourage posters who turn out to be dreadful bigots. The other thing is that even if I'm trying to be encouraging my posts are quite ambiguous.

And, when the doctor said I didn't have worms any more, that was the happiest day of my life.

Worm games are banned, remember?

Most posters have had a PM link to their name at some time, and there are probably more who only invite PM's by TG.
Wait, I thought when you said PMs you meant TGs (as a name for personal messages in general). So what's a PM now? *confused*

Well, there's the get-togethers. Unless they're completely faked, (no!) they are meat-space get-togethers. Most posters have had a PM link to their name at some time, and there are probably more who only invite PM's by TG.

I find the idea terrifying really -- there's a paradoxical safety in speaking publicly. It's not so much what others might say in private, it's rather that the forum protects one's own words from misinterpretation.

And that's not even approaching how nervous I feel about meeting people in the flesh, who I like as posters. Almost panicking at the thought. :eek:


i havent met anyone from NSG but i have met online friends before. its far more fun than it should be. after you get over the ordinariness of people you admire you just settle in to enjoying their company.


I completely agree. The existing talent leave or simply have less time for NSG, and it's the genuine noobs we need if the place is going to even continue, let alone improve.

I'm probably not the best person to encourage noobs. For one thing, I'm easily swayed by pretty wording, and sometimes encourage posters who turn out to be dreadful bigots. The other thing is that even if I'm trying to be encouraging my posts are quite ambiguous.

theres a problem with being a bigot? those sincerely prejudiced people make for good debates dont they? its the stupid trolls that i hate that kind of debate with; they are not amenable to reason. (as if i ever debate OR use reason)

Well, you rarely reply to me when I reply to your posts. I get the strong feeling you don't actually read much of what I write, or any other poster who expresses themselves at length. You don't seem to read links when you ask for information and it is offered. You seem busy, a bit pressed for time (OK, that's probably good not bad, but)

In all those respects, you are not a good poster. Yet I have a lot of respect for you because you offer us good stuff. You're bright and honest and very much really there. You have ups and downs and you share them, and seem quite genuinely interested in other people's opinions.

I think that's why so many other posters like you. There are probably posters who resent that, wonder why you get told "you rock" and "my favourite ex-christian" when they don't, despite working so hard on being right and having good etiquette.

I think the "clique" thing is because people who socialize off-site have a familiarity with each other (get each other's meaning even when its scantily expressed) and this maybe comes through as "hidden meaning" or some kind of coded discourse.

Also, it's easy to be paranoid about the forum. It's complex and we don't have the usual conversational clues. It doesn't bug me too badly ... and if it did, I'd use PM's to try to work out what was happening.

I see most of this reply is obliquely addressed to New Birds, I hope they read it.
I rarely reply to a lot of people, it's not just you, and despite my post count I don't have much time to hang around (especially lately) so it's kinda hit and miss. I haven't really been in debate here in like 6 months or more....so don't take it personally.

As far as socializing off-site, I do. I have friends, we "hang out" other places where we can do things that aren't appropriate or allowed on NSG, I didn't think it would make me an outcast, seeing as how I was trying to keep General spamless (or nearly spamless) and trying to follow the rules set out by the dear sweet (sucking up here) mods.

Wait, I thought when you said PMs you meant TGs (as a name for personal messages in general). So what's a PM now? *confused*

When I say TG, I mean Nationstates Telegrams. Ridiculously low-tech though they are, I like them 'cos they keep me focussed on NS. I need some sense of clique I guess.

By PM I mean Skype and MSN and IRC and the plain old telephone. Anything that's one-to-one ... though you are correct that TG's are a kind of PM.

i havent met anyone from NSG but i have met online friends before. its far more fun than it should be. after you get over the ordinariness of people you admire you just settle in to enjoying their company.

I guess I'm not very good at that in real life. Perhaps I idealize people rather than seeing what's really there.

theres a problem with being a bigot? those sincerely prejudiced people make for good debates dont they? its the stupid trolls that i hate that kind of debate with; they are not amenable to reason. (as if i ever debate OR use reason)

You're right. Apparent bigots becoming more reasonable is a joy to behold, too.

When I say TG, I mean Nationstates Telegrams. Ridiculously low-tech though they are, I like them 'cos they keep me focussed on NS. I need some sense of clique I guess.

By PM I mean Skype and MSN and IRC and the plain old telephone. Anything that's one-to-one ... though you are correct that TG's are a kind of PM.

Ah,okay.

When I say TG, I mean Nationstates Telegrams. Ridiculously low-tech though they are, I like them 'cos they keep me focussed on NS. I need some sense of clique I guess.

By PM I mean Skype and MSN and IRC and the plain old telephone. Anything that's one-to-one ... though you are correct that TG's are a kind of PM.

For me it's mostly on GM and MSN.

I rarely reply to a lot of people, it's not just you, and despite my post count I don't have much time to hang around (especially lately) so it's kinda hit and miss. I haven't really been in debate here in like 6 months or more....so don't take it personally.

OK. I know some of the reasons for that and totally respect them.

By contrast, I'm rather obsessive about posts. I'll keep going back and reading over an exchange, trying to work out what people are really saying. Loose ends bug me more than they should.

I don't like "debating." It takes me back to when I was a vicious young cur and constantly criticized everyone for everything. I don't like to go back there because ... basically ... I was very unhappy then.

As far as socializing off-site, I do. I have friends, we "hang out" other places where we can do things that aren't appropriate or allowed on NSG, I didn't think it would make me an outcast, seeing as how I was trying to keep General spamless (or nearly spamless) and trying to follow the rules set out by the dear sweet (sucking up here) mods.

It doesn't make you an outcast. I also wasn't saying you make spam or break any other rules. I meant rather "being well-informed and courteous is not enough to be a great poster" ... it's hard to get around the fact that some posters are easier to like than others, it's just personality.

Actually, it's not a trivial point. All two-dimensional maps are a "projection" of one sort or another, and they all have deviations from the actual proportions and arrangement of the real globe.

The "racism" is understandable. The map we usually use, the Mercator projection, was considered the most reliable for seafaring, seafaring enabled huge empires to be built, and that installed the Mercator projection as the "standard" one. Likewise, the dominant cultures of the last few thousand years are in the northern hemisphere, it is entirely understandable that they drew maps with themselves on top.

Her argument was that Greenland and other Northern countries being big and African countries being small on the map was "racist."

But, as you point out, it is a product of the Mercator projection. The North and South poles are at the top and bottom, with the rest laid out on the map. Because the poles have to be stretched in this projection, land masses at the poles appear larger. This isn't because of racism any more than the fact that African countries tend to be closer to the equator is "racist". It's just a product of that particular projection.

Her argument was that Greenland and other Northern countries being big and African countries being small on the map was "racist."

But, as you point out, it is a product of the Mercator projection. The North and South poles are at the top and bottom, with the rest laid out on the map. Because the poles have to be stretched in this projection, land masses at the poles appear larger. This isn't because of racism any more than the fact that African countries tend to be closer to the equator is "racist". It's just a product of that particular projection.

Yeah, calling it "racist" is dumb. It's not consciously racist, it never had the intent to oppress anyone or to perpetuate eurocentricity (is that even a word?)

And what kind of moron really cares if their country looks huge on a map? The Mercator projection is quite misleading as to the size of Iceland, Canada and Siberia ... but they don't really matter much to anyone. ;)

The history of maps is the history of travel. They're drawn by explorers but used by traders. Even today, there is the land beneath the ice of Greenland which hasn't been mapped. It just doesn't matter enough to anyone to do it.

We tend to think of sea captains as the explorers, like Magellan or Cook. They were obviously outstanding at navigation, but in reality not all captains were that good. Hence the need for a map which wasn't too tricky, where a minor booboo wouldn't leave all your crew to starve on the high seas.

We got the Mercator projection. If there was a perfect alternative, I'd say go for it, but as it is ... meh.

Oops, my posts are getting long aren't they?

Posting more than I'm reading, that's never good.

Have a nice weekend everyone. I need a break.
(still gonna lurk, though. Test of will for me.)

I have. They're nice gals, with good and interesting things to say a lot of the time, and in no way elitist.

[Moar] Wisdom added.

Oh, and also? Welcome back, Nadkor.

.. and..

The people who bitch and moan about the "cliques" are silly. It's not like we try to exclude you. Honestly, get over it or break the social ice.

Oh, and also? Welcome back, Nadkor.

.. and..

The people who bitch and moan about the "cliques" are silly. It's not like we try to exclude you. Honestly, get over it or break the social ice.

*wields an ice-pick as though a fearsome Norse Warrior*

*wields an ice-pick as though a fearsome Norse Warrior*

*points out that you're already in Ruffy's royal grace*

I haven't seen any bullying since I've been on NSG. I started out on the RP forums before moving here. I haven't posted on II in ages - I come to NationStates solely for NSG.

This is a friendly enough forum, at least in the "social" threads. The political threads do turn into semi flame wars, but that's because people get revved up about politics.

Here's the thing - I have never seen a newbie get bullied solely because he's a newbie.

*points out that you're already in Ruffy's royal grace*

*plucks at coarse serf clothing*

*bows deeply*

*plucks at coarse serf clothing*

*bows deeply*

*can see your undies*

*can see your undies*

*can't afford any, what with the feudal taxes and all*

I haven't seen any bullying since I've been on NSG. I started out on the RP forums before moving here. I haven't posted on II in ages - I come to NationStates solely for NSG.

This is a friendly enough forum, at least in the "social" threads. The political threads do turn into semi flame wars, but that's because people get revved up about politics.

Here's the thing - I have never seen a newbie get bullied solely because he's a newbie.

I must agree. I've dropped the hammer on a newbie or two - but only because of what they said, not because they were newbies.

And I found I was made welcome here right quick.

I didn't really feel discriminated against as a noob, got a couple "You'll do good" posts on my first couple. Then again I've tended to avoid the nastier political debates, as I don't have the time or inclination.

I can't say I disagree with Michael Tan's (the article writer) assessment. I certainly can't apply Tan's observations here (for the most part, anyway), and I do agree with the idea that a few of you have raised in that one shouldn't join a forum where your ideas would be considered "hostile" to that community (such as an atheist posting in an Evangelical forum), but "bullies" and "oligarchies" are things I've seen elsewhere online, especially when the board is (essentially) unregulated. Granted, Tan doesn't say how he approached his topic at that car board (who knows if he actually *was* hostile and thus a troll), but they're certainly not unquantified observations.

I must agree. I've dropped the hammer on a newbie or two - but only because of what they said, not because they were newbies.

And I found I was made welcome here right quick.

I've done the same, but also purely based on content. When someone starts their career out with:
BURN IN HELL U DONT KNOW WHAT UR TALK A BOUT LOL.:sniper::upyours:

It's kind of hard not to reply with snark.

Very abridged from this link (http://asia.cnet.com/blogs/rehashplus/post.htm?id=63001475)



To be honest, I've never really noticed group aggression here though I'm fairly new so perhaps I've missed previous era experience.

However, could also be that NS adheres somewhat to these:



Ever been harassed?

Thoughts?

Comments from Mods more than welcome.

Problem with oppressive groups controlling forums?
That's why Rebel Leaders (http://redwing.hutman.net/%7Emreed/warriorshtm/rebelleader.htm) exist.

Believe me, I have no "trollable sites"

I used to get deeply involved in debates here about many subjects. Gradually the subject range tightened, and gradually I came to realise that it was, mostly, the same people arguing over the same points.

You claim you're looking for real debates and you made a list of spammers and social posters who you think are the oligarchy here. Your claim is laughable. If you were focusing on who is most involved in debating (and I consider in your list friends, so no insult intended), you'd not be focused on the people you listed or not on most of them, at the very least. Or are you just noticing that after half a decade or thereabouts a bunch of people who have similar interests became friends?

This sounds more like sour grapes than anything else.

Or perhaps you were kidding?

I haven't seen any bullying since I've been on NSG. I started out on the RP forums before moving here. I haven't posted on II in ages - I come to NationStates solely for NSG.

This is a friendly enough forum, at least in the "social" threads. The political threads do turn into semi flame wars, but that's because people get revved up about politics.

Here's the thing - I have never seen a newbie get bullied solely because he's a newbie.

I have. And it shouldn't happen. But I've just as frequently seen people jump on something Fass says just because he's Fass or say the mods shouldn't be allowed to express an opinion or any of a number of irrational responses to arguments.

When people say they "socialise off-site", I sometimes get slightly jealous of those of you who can actually, say, sit down and have a cuppa together. I socialise off-site with people by chatting on offsites.

Other times, I'm glad I can sit around looking messy in my messy house and don't have to look anyone in the eye.

But I can't tell from posts whether someone has actually seen the person they're talking to, unless they say so. I mean, a bit of group membership comes through, but not whether the group is online or RL.

I guess if you know each other RL, bullying or harassment would be easier to do and harder to stop, but it would still be NS. So (staggering back to the OP) I haven't experienced or seen any of that.

LIke the NS meetups, it's a little of both. Fortunately Ruffy didn't show up except in pictures that mysteriously ended up on the bottom of tables and on motivational posters in hotels.

Nadkor, I suppose. I'd rather I'm wrong, though.

It's hard for me to imagine Nadkor criticizing people for forming a group of likeminded people that tends to flock together since I've seen Nadkor do the same with some of the same people who also frequent GM. I could be wrong, but it's hard for me to imagine that.

It's hard for me to imagine Nadkor criticizing people for forming a group of likeminded people that tends to flock together since I've seen Nadkor do the same with some of the same people who also frequent GM. I could be wrong, but it's hard for me to imagine that.
Well, I've already voiced my similar feelings elsewhere, but sig color, mentioned age of original nation & voluntary leave & post count, use of Darknovae instead of Pancake & dissing of the same, and the thread about Gabbly all suggest differently. *shrug*

Well, I've already voiced my similar feelings elsewhere, but sig color, mentioned age of original nation & voluntary leave & post count, use of Darknovae instead of Pancake & dissing of the same, and the thread about Gabbly all suggest differently. *shrug*

If it is Nadkor it's completely irrational to criticize the things criticized by New Birds, unless Nadkor was hoping we'd all forget history.

Maybe I should do that. I'll make a puppet and then complain about people writing posts that are too long and defending their points too vehemently. I'll also criticize joining offsite gaming groups and talking on IM. Yeah, take that.