Interesting topic, and certainly one that relates to how people behave here at SYM.
If we define a
community simply as a group of people who has common interests and common goals, without regard for more complex or underlying dynamics, we could define SYM as a community inasmuch as everybody who posts here share the goal of
communicating with others - otherwise we would not post at all, nor read others' posts. However, if we do not think the sole common interest of communicating with other SYM:ers is enough to define a community, but also take shared values, working for common goals and also underlying
goals of the communication into account, then SYM has never been and probably will never be, a community.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by thantor3 In my mind, this argues against GB being a community of interest because in a true community, members moderate their behavior in order to achieve group goals, such as greater intimacy or a shared sense of purpose. |
I think no open, public internet forum would fulfil these critera for being a community (unless there is a very small group of members), since one cannot expect all posters to have a wish for shared intimacy or shared purposes of posting. I think a context such as playing an online-game is much more suited for larger communities to form. Here at SYM, I think it is very possible that the Dark Flames-group may provide a good example of an internet community since the DF:s (I assume) share the common goal of making a meaningful story together. They act within a framework with set rules (the story itself, the world it is set in and the AD&D rules or similar) and within the story, the DF:s also have many common goals such as solving problems and tasks. At SYM on the other hand, various groups or individuals may have different goals and I think Vondondu's previous post in the
Net anonymity thread is a neat summary of such potential differences.
This leads us the the phenomenon of
subgroups. It is part of human group dynamics that if a group is large enough, subgroups will emerge. Those different subgroups may agree to form explicit or implicit common norms and values that are far more specific than the whole-group norms, and they may develop a community in Thantor's sense. The Dark Flames is one example of a subgroup within SYM, but there could be subgroups based on shared political or religious affiliations, cultural background, shared interests in specific subjects or just personal liking. One subgroup may decide that they want to be friends, and strive for keeping and developing their friendship, whereas the SYM population as a whole may not be friends, or sought after making friendships. Whatever the incitament for a group to form, it is characteristic for groups that they stay loyal to each other, defend each other against what is perceived as outside threats and strive for minimizing tension and conflict within the group. Sometimes "outgroup-ingroup" dynamics will develop, ie the identification between the group members grows very strong into a "we"-sense, whereas other groups or individuals that do not meet the intragroup criteria, are conceptualised as "them", the others. This process serves to strengthen the intragroup bonds, and can often increase emotional attachment and loyality between group members.
These group-processes occur in all types of human socialisation, on internet or in real life, in private life as well as professional life. In a large, open and multifaceted system such as SYM, people will come and go, relationships between individuals and groups will change, and this process can be conceptualised in different ways. For instance, there have always been many referrals to "the good old time" here at SYM, when things have changed. This is a very common and natural reaction as a response to change. Also, there has been periods when different members and current world events have led to increased focused on certain issues, which may be more or less hot to different members.
Like Thantor and DW, I also think SYM has changed over time, and this I find inevitable. Individuals as well as groups, change over time depending on both internal and external factors. However, whereas Thantor and DW refers to "toxic", "venomous", "rhetoric" and "callous disregard", I view the changes differently.
During my most active posting period, ie middle of 2001-2002, I remember many discussions about potentially "hot" topics such as religion, international politics, abortion, euthanesia or cloning. In those discussions, you could see a broad variety of conflicting opinions and arguments at many different levels. In some debates, it seemed that the only agreement that existed, was the
acceptance of disagressment at that discussion could have a value although you had opposing views. Ad hominems (personal attacks, flames of other members) were moderated and viewed as unacceptable, as were all sorts of generalised discrimination such as rasicm, but I don't remember anything close to the idea presented in the recent Reagan-thread, that opinions about politics or a public person should not be posted if they may hurt other members personal feelings. So if this is now a norm at SYM, it is a
principal difference to previously, and I view such norms very negatively which should be obvious from my posts in
this thread.
So, in summary: I have never viewed SYM as a community in the way Thantor defines it above, and I don't think it's neither called for, nor realistic, to create on-line communities out of public internet forums. If people want a guarantee for getting a friendly and supportive environment where everybody agrees with your opinions and you get emotional, personal confirmation and soothing, posting at a public internet forum is not a realistic way to achieve this, since there is always the possibility that other members posts may upset you.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RandomThug With the way the world is right now I doubt you'll find any boards willing to have topics like war, religion and such not without thier own sense of "loss of community" people are taking sides and opinions are strong. |
Personally, I think it is in times of war and unrest, that communicating with people with different views is most interesting. Not because you have the aim to change other people's views, but because it is a good learning experience to get the opportunity to expore and investigate how people think and how their opinions are formed. The world will always be full of people who have views that are totally opposite to your own, and exchanging arguments about a topic is one of the best ways to learn to understand the human mind and the state of our world.