[C Elegans]

Originally Posted by thantor3

If I am understanding you correctly, CE, you are saying that, at best, SYM can be a community in a limited sort of way. Fair enough.

I think you both understand and misunderstand my point. My point is 1. I think the nature of public internet forums is unsuitable for communities to form unless they are quite small, since it will have to be a special selection of people who share common goals etc.
2. This statement is value-neutral. I don't think it is good or bad that internet forums are less suitable for forming communities than other forms or human socialisation.

I will not speak for DW, but to clarify my own position, those adjective were referring to behaviors, not changes. Further, they refer to specific behaviors engaged in by some members under certain conditions and were never meant as a global condemnation of change itself within GB, which I also view as inevitable. If there is a change I am concerned about, however, it concerns the damage that such behaviors can do and the consequences of allowing such behaviors to continue.

I misunderstood your post then, I thought the negative adjectives were referring to change since you wrote:

Originally Posted by Thantor2

GB in its current form seems less of a place to hang out and exchange ideas and more of a forum where people have no compulsion about publicly expressing their opinions, no matter how toxic, despite the negative impact it might have on other members.

My bold, it was the use of the word "current" that mislead me to think you were discussing "current" as opposed to "past". But maybe you did refer rather to the future, or to any other point of time. However, to comment of the general issue, flaming between members have always occured occationally here at SYM like on most (all I believe) message boards, and I think they way to deal with it has been satisfying.

Since I did not participate in that thread, because my body armor was being dry cleaned, I will simply ask what norms are you advocating for SYM members?

Of course - if you read my posts in the threads I linked to above, Reagan's dead and Politics and sensitivity, it should be obvious what norms I advocate. In summary, I think the norms should be equal to the forum rules, and they should be equal for all posters regardless of background and opinions as long as ad hominems and discriminating content is present. Forum rules in turn, should (as they are) be based on general criteria, ie the same type of criteria as real life groups or societies. I don't believe internet socialisation differ in nature from real life socialisation other than the form of communication, and the form, although limited etc, does not call for any special norms that are exclusive to the online environment. So for instance, I don't think an open internet forum should have rules that are exclusive for it's specific members (ie you are not allowed to post rasict comments about ethnic groups who are present at the forum, but you are allowed to post rasict comments about ethnic groups who have no representation at the forum in question).

I don?t think there is anything inherent in people seeking community that differentiate them in terms of wanting guarantees for soothing, support, and other warm cuddly encounters. Like anyone else, most of them are seeking genuine experiences and not an escape into fantasy. To characterize them as needy and adolescent is an unfair exaggeration.

Where were these people characterised as "needy and adolescent"? I can't really comment upon that since I have no idea what you are referring to, but to stress my point: in general, I think it cannot be expected that everybody's specific goals or specific wishes regarding forms and content of communication, would be satisfied at a public internet forum. This brings me back to my main point, namely what I think it is realistic to expect from the medium in itself, an open internet forum where anybody could come and go and post whatever interest them at the moment. I don't think it matters whether people seek genuine experiences or escape into fantasy, and I don't think that is part of the issue either. I will take an example to avoid misunderstandings:

If you have an internet forum where it is defined that people should have certain characteristics, for instance a certain religious affiliation, then you have selected a group of people who share something they find of fundamental importance with no further selection criteria, these people will differ on other variables. For instance, they may have different goals with posting at that forum. So if you choose to become a member of this forum, it is realistic to assume that other members will share your religious views, but it is not realistic to assume that everybody will like you, share your taste in music, or share your goals with using the forum. The less selection criteria you apply, the more variation you will have among the members'. If people use SYM to cuddle up, to have intellectual discussions, to show off their collections of fantasy figures or to joke about booze, it's all fine - but my point is nobody can expect to control the information flow at a public forum in order to get their specific needs fulfilled.

I understand that it's neither called for, nor realistic, to create on-line communities out of public internet forums for you. The jury is still out on whether it is actually called for? or realistic. Ethically, it is up to the individual members of the community to decide what is appropriate or realistic, don?t you think? It is quite amazing to experience what the human mind can achieve, when properly focused.

Well, I thought you asked for opinion so I posted my opinion, or did you want us to post other person's opinions?

Well, the central part of my statement is public internet forum. I am convinced that it is both possible and perhaps desired to create communities out of internet forums (just like any other groups) where there is a context present that includes such things as working for common, shared goals etc. I assume many online RPG-worlds would provide such a basis, and I can also imagine internet forums with more specific contexts such a forum for Animal right's activists, or a forum for discussing Japanese film.

Let's assume that people at SYM decide that we should now create a community according to the definition in your first post. Then it would no longer, per definition, be an open forum, since in order to maintain the shared community goals, you can only include new members who share these goals and values, but exclude members who do not wish to participate in these shared goals or have different values.