Cliques and the spirit of Intensity

[odeon]

Like I said, I don't follow politics a whole lot, but that's also the type of thing that you can say after any major emotional battle- "It's better that it was this way." 

Excellent point. That means I should filter for bias; it may not actually be better this way. I think what would have been best is if Odeon had drawn a line for Cal in such a way that Cal didn't actually leave - though I'm not sure if the leaving was a necessary part of the process. I think what would have been best is if Cal had come back and faced the music - though he doesn't seem to be capable of that at least yet.

It's his choice. He wasn't forced to leave.

[ozymandias]

That should tell you something.  Plus, the number of people ignoring him has gone down.   

[Lucifer]

good point - i'll take him off ignore, as it's pointless ignoring someone who's not here. 

[Pyraxis]

It's his choice. He wasn't forced to leave.

You're right on that. I should have worded it differently.

"...he doesn't seem to be willing to do that, at least yet..."

[Pyraxis]

That's kind of what I was hoping for on Intensity - not the outgroupers perpetually moving on from site to site.

  Good point- I guess a lot of people never fit anywhere, or at least not for long.  :/

This is part of why I'm having this debate though - I don't like the idea of shaking one's head as if to say "that's just the way it has to be". I'm looking for ways to improve the system, so it doesn't have to be.

Well, my logic behind that hope is that if people focus less on people they consider to be tolls/spammers and more on people with whom they want to actually have discourse, the arguments that they'll have will be more liekly to be of higher quality.  (...)  Maybe the distinction I'm thining of is something like debate vs. squabbling.

It's possible. Though I think there's a place for both. The squabbling has a flow to it that it's harder to reach in a cerebral debate.

I'm certainly not going to object to more intelligent arguments, though.

[DirtDawg]

good point - i'll take him off ignore, as it's pointless ignoring someone who's not here. 

Precisely.

[El]

That's kind of what I was hoping for on Intensity - not the outgroupers perpetually moving on from site to site.

  Good point- I guess a lot of people never fit anywhere, or at least not for long.  :/

This is part of why I'm having this debate though - I don't like the idea of shaking one's head as if to say "that's just the way it has to be". I'm looking for ways to improve the system, so it doesn't have to be.

I agree that it's unfortunate that that's what keeps happening.  Can't seem to chalk it up as a learing experience either for the rejectees because they keep getting rjeected, almost universally, even in what should be "accepting" forums. 

Something you said in another discussion though- if I am remembering/interpreting correctly, you viewed tyring to be kinder/softer to someone without their asking for it as less than ideal.  Now, does tht hold true for the members how are universally rejected?  If we modulate our natural recations to others to be more inclusive, we stop being as genuine.  If we don't, we start seeming like bullies.  I do believe there's no forum where all people will be accpeted, and I do think that's the way it will always be, though I hate to say "has to be."  This, however, does not mean I think there are people who will never fit with anyone anywhere.  However, I am not sure if intensity is set up to be the place for that- it's a place for open debate and open forum, but the anarchy aspect also means it's a place where if somenoe pisses most of the other members off, they're kind of fucked.

I know the "Intensity is not a support site" issue had been done to death, but it seems like there would have to be more sturtcure and of a different kind if you wanted a board where people who are commonly rejected can be safe to express themselves and not get picked on/rejected/etc. or can debate, etc.; I don't think it's stuctured so it can handle that, even if such a sturcture exists.  Maybe you'd need a different set of memmbers, or a subfgroup with a different interest.  The closest we have come, to my mind, are subforums like the real problems forum (which I think is actually very well "unofficially member moderated" or however you'd say it. even sans rules and just running by norms- and I think that's a nice testament to the idea that there are decent people here), and maybe the forum where Randy got relegated once when he went spamcrazy awhile back (similar to blabberizing)- he didn't get kicked off, but he got quarantined.

[odeon]

We can't have structure here unless we moderate the place, but if we ever do that I'm pretty sure the place will die.

[Pyraxis]

I know the "Intensity is not a support site" issue had been done to death, but it seems like there would have to be more sturtcure and of a different kind if you wanted a board where people who are commonly rejected can be safe to express themselves and not get picked on/rejected/etc. or can debate, etc.

And that's my dilemma. Ironically I pushed the creation of the WP haven with the same motivations that I push Intensity. Then, I thought benevolent and personalized moderation was the key to safety; now, I've been advocating a free-for-all; but the truth is, the people who get in trouble the most need both. At the same time. Which is an awfully careful balance, one I've set out to learn, but I only know it on a one-on-one basis, which isn't terribly useful for shaping a group.

Anyway, I have a lot to learn about group politics, and I probably won't be able to apply it fully until my head's on straighter. How to create a system that reflects what I already know on an individual basis.

[Phlexor]

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the idea of this place was that you were free to be a twat, but just remember that people are going to call you on it. And if you cant handle it, there's the door, it's your own choice.

Express yourself all you want, it just mean everyone else is going to express themselves right back at you.

All I see the latest kerfuffle is about is that Calendale wanted more more restrictions for those in charge, less restrictions for the users, and when he didnt get his way after harping on about it for ages, he got ignored and then sulked off like a little bitch.

He either wanted the changes, or he wanted those in charge to do something drastic because of his behaviour so he could be a martyr.

I don't see where the problem is.

To me, this place is about honesty. You can act how you honestly feel, but you are going to get an honest reaction out of everyone else. To make it a safe haven for the rejected would be to lie to them, just like every other place that has rules on attacking other members. And that is what will kill this place if, in the unlikely event, that something like that ever goes through.

Yes the ignore mod can make some member live in a fantasy world as they perhaps ignore the truth of what people are saying to them, but it stops members leaving while still giving them the freedom to say and act how they please. And if you still cant handle it here under those conditions, then you have some serious problems that an online internet forums is not going to solve.

[Lucifer]

 

cor!   

[Eclair]

I actually don't like speaking about people when they aren't around to discuss an issue.  But, in the case of Cal I will because it's not bitching about him. 

In my opinion, for what it's worth, Cal really wasn't the same person he was 12 months ago when he introduced me to this site.  I do believe his mental health has gone downhill in some ways over the past year, for whatever reasons, whether it was abusing alcohol or lonliness or whatever.  And of course, I could be wrong, but that was just the feeling I got and on a personal level, I do feel sad that things went the way that they did.  Towards the end I actually avoided interacting with him, after a few discussions where I felt he was drowning in his own murk and didn't really care about anything anymore.

Re the topic of cliques, yes people gravitate to, and interact with, people whose ideas and personalities they can identify with.  There have been incidents where I think people have agreed with others for the sake of it and attacked others without really trying to understand and I know it happened to me a few times earlier on.  In saying that, I have spent more time away from the site if I felt stressed out about something....and Cal's circular arguments not only exhausted me, I actually felt if I agreed with someone on a topic, he'd start attacking and it would just kill a valid discussion, so I wouldn't even have the desire to post sometimes.  In actual fact, he was trying to create the very thing he accused everyone else of.

I choose not to really particpate in discussions like this anymore because I come to just enjoy the site, not kill it by overexamination of it.

It's the same reason I don't like long discussions after good sex.

(Sorry, had to use that analagy, since I've been accused of being purely only interested in those whom I can flirt with or post in threads so I can talk about sex    Glod bless Cal )

[Callaway]

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the idea of this place was that you were free to be a twat, but just remember that people are going to call you on it. And if you cant handle it, there's the door, it's your own choice.

Express yourself all you want, it just mean everyone else is going to express themselves right back at you.

All I see the latest kerfuffle is about is that Calendale wanted more more restrictions for those in charge, less restrictions for the users, and when he didnt get his way after harping on about it for ages, he got ignored and then sulked off like a little bitch.

He either wanted the changes, or he wanted those in charge to do something drastic because of his behaviour so he could be a martyr.

I don't see where the problem is.

To me, this place is about honesty. You can act how you honestly feel, but you are going to get an honest reaction out of everyone else. To make it a safe haven for the rejected would be to lie to them, just like every other place that has rules on attacking other members. And that is what will kill this place if, in the unlikely event, that something like that ever goes through.

Yes the ignore mod can make some member live in a fantasy world as they perhaps ignore the truth of what people are saying to them, but it stops members leaving while still giving them the freedom to say and act how they please. And if you still cant handle it here under those conditions, then you have some serious problems that an online internet forums is not going to solve.

I agree with your analysis, Phlexor.  That's the way that I see Intensity as well.

I think that it's impossible to make Intensity a safe haven for all those people who have been rejected by other fora, simultaneously.

I know that Happeh was before you joined here, but he was a guy who thought that we all were on the spectrum because we wanked too much.  He was kind of entertaining for a while, but if we had made Intensity a safe haven for him, then pretty much everyone else would have left.  If Happeh wants a safe haven, then he can post his wanking nonsense on his own forum.

I think that one of Calandale's core problems is that he can't trust anyone, so he's convinced that everyone else is just as rotten and corrupt as he believes himself to be.

 

[Christopher McCandless]

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the idea of this place was that you were free to be a twat, but just remember that people are going to call you on it. And if you cant handle it, there's the door, it's your own choice.

Express yourself all you want, it just mean everyone else is going to express themselves right back at you.

All I see the latest kerfuffle is about is that Calendale wanted more more restrictions for those in charge, less restrictions for the users, and when he didnt get his way after harping on about it for ages, he got ignored and then sulked off like a little bitch.

He either wanted the changes, or he wanted those in charge to do something drastic because of his behaviour so he could be a martyr.

I don't see where the problem is.

To me, this place is about honesty. You can act how you honestly feel, but you are going to get an honest reaction out of everyone else. To make it a safe haven for the rejected would be to lie to them, just like every other place that has rules on attacking other members. And that is what will kill this place if, in the unlikely event, that something like that ever goes through.

Yes the ignore mod can make some member live in a fantasy world as they perhaps ignore the truth of what people are saying to them, but it stops members leaving while still giving them the freedom to say and act how they please. And if you still cant handle it here under those conditions, then you have some serious problems that an online internet forums is not going to solve.

I agree with your analysis, Phlexor.  That's the way that I see Intensity as well.

I think that it's impossible to make Intensity a safe haven for all those people who have been rejected by other fora, simultaneously.

I know that Happeh was before you joined here, but he was a guy who thought that we all were on the spectrum because we wanked too much.  He was kind of entertaining for a while, but if we had made Intensity a safe haven for him, then pretty much everyone else would have left.  If Happeh wants a safe haven, then he can post his wanking nonsense on his own forum.

I think that one of Calandale's core problems is that he can't trust anyone, so he's convinced that everyone else is just as rotten and corrupt as he believes himself to be.

 

He is totally right not to. Unless you have something on someone, then trusting them is tantamount to burning your own fingers. Big time.

[Callaway]

I actually don't like speaking about people when they aren't around to discuss an issue.  But, in the case of Cal I will because it's not bitching about him. 

In my opinion, for what it's worth, Cal really wasn't the same person he was 12 months ago when he introduced me to this site.  I do believe his mental health has gone downhill in some ways over the past year, for whatever reasons, whether it was abusing alcohol or lonliness or whatever.  And of course, I could be wrong, but that was just the feeling I got and on a personal level, I do feel sad that things went the way that they did.  Towards the end I actually avoided interacting with him, after a few discussions where I felt he was drowning in his own murk and didn't really care about anything anymore.

Re the topic of cliques, yes people gravitate to, and interact with, people whose ideas and personalities they can identify with.  There have been incidents where I think people have agreed with others for the sake of it and attacked others without really trying to understand and I know it happened to me a few times earlier on.  In saying that, I have spent more time away from the site if I felt stressed out about something....and Cal's circular arguments not only exhausted me, I actually felt if I agreed with someone on a topic, he'd start attacking and it would just kill a valid discussion, so I wouldn't even have the desire to post sometimes.  In actual fact, he was trying to create the very thing he accused everyone else of.

I choose not to really particpate in discussions like this anymore because I come to just enjoy the site, not kill it by overexamination of it.

It's the same reason I don't like long discussions after good sex.

(Sorry, had to use that analagy, since I've been accused of being purely only interested in those whom I can flirt with or post in threads so I can talk about sex    Glod bless Cal )

 

You are probably right, Eclair.  I don't know for sure if Calandale actually changed or not, but the way he came across certainly changed.

Toward the end, it was as if he felt compelled to get attention by any means necessary.  I think that he actually wanted to be banned if Intensity was not going to change to suit him because he thought that it would prove that he was a martyr and get him more attention.

About cliques, I think that people tend to agree more often with someone they can identify with, but I don't think that implies that they agree with them about everything.  I think that for every two people here, whether they are friends or not, they will agree about some things but disagree about others.