Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
Thinking a little further on this question of site control, it seems to me that a specialised site is in effect a tribal situation - the members will tend to know each other and are accordingly more reluctant to offend or upset colleagues than on a more catch-all site with a large population of relative strangers - there is also the factor of peer pressure to be considered which is always stronger in a smaller but tight knit group.
All this means that a minority interest site is capable to a large extent of being successfully self-policing.
Finally its a numbers game - in any open to all forum like Yahoo news report the loud mouthed bottom bonnets will dominate.
So I guess that means that Animotions rules - OK. _________________ A broken stereotype is a beautiful thing
Yeah, to an extent. There seems to be a break-point of numbers of active members where the influx of new immigrants who don't know the customs and "unwritten rules" builds faster than the responsible old timers can absorb them, show them the ropes, and weed out the unassimilatable.
There also seems to be a break-point where the site gets so big that a lot of the older and more responible "tribal members" don't feel comfortable with it, and they drift off to sites that have a culture closer to what they preffer. Leaving behind the "next wavers", who then become both the dominant site culture and the new "old timers".
I'm not sure what the breaking point as far as numbers is though. And other factors like how the site staff reacts to changes affect the transition also.
"Nettiqutte" is a slippery thing, also. Different internet cultures have differing ideas of what constitutes good nettiquette.
Nettiqutte originally evolved out of the basic structure of the 'Net - bulletin boards, ARPANET, UseNet, and DARPANET - which was structured as a conduit for the rapid and efficient dissemination of information and data flow. NOT as a social medium, even though the social medium grew up alongside the information conduit.
That's where the axiom "The 'net treats impediments to the information flow [censorship, censure, legislation, trolling] as damage and routes around them" comes from.
"Nettiqutte" originally evolved as a method of routing around impediments to the information exchange. NOT as a guideline to "politeness on the internet" as it came to be interpreted.
You might notice if you follow old usenet discussions that flaming someone who hijacks a discussion to a crisp and pissing on the burnt spot wasn't *always* considered "bad nettiqutte". That's because the discussion hijacker was impeding the information flow on that group, and the brief and intense flamefest was removing the impediment and routing around it so the discussion could continue.
Politeness didn't always have anything to do with it.
Once you realise that, and look at nettiqutte from that perspective... suddenly a LOT of the little odd axioms of nettiqutte that make for cute internet jokes make sense. They're oddities when viewed from a sense of lubricating social interactions, but they're perfectly logical when viewed from a sense of eliminating impediments to knowledge exchange. [Information flow]
That's where the "Wild West" impression of the 'net has its roots: that type of "gunslinger enforcement" of nettiqutte by internet members gives a strong impression of barely controlled chaos.
Meanwhile, as decades passed, commerce, communities, news sites, blogs, forums, political sites, activist sites, and personal web spaces got tacked onto the internet concept... and the understanding of "nettiquette" mutated to where instead of "eliminating and routing around damage", it came to be considered synonymous with "social politeness" and codes of interpersonal behavior.
All of that's not really a meaningless socio-historical digression: it impinges a lot on *why* we're seeing a lot of the current trends in internet behaviors. We're in a transition point between the remnants of the "Old 'Net", and evolving into whatever new culture is going to be dominant.
And the 'net hasn't found an equilibrium yet: new rules, codes, and methods of enforcement haven't caught up with the rapid influx of changes.
There may not be an equilibrium until the last of us old 'net wolves are gone. We're heavily resistant to a lot of the newer changes, and the influx of "rules" that comes with them.
'Til then... it's gonna be a really looonngg September. _________________ "I'd add a legitimate comment here, but that would mean reading everything, which I have no patience for." - Slynky
I think there is also a political dimension to the what you call impediments - knowledge is power after all.
I am ashamed to say I don't know any nettiquette apart from not typing in capitals all the time.Am I likely to come a cropper or should I not worry?
Also how do you hijack a discussion, is it posting too often or what?
I don't think you can have equilibrium in any living system, only change is unchanging if you permit the oxymoron.All we can aspire to is change for the better but maybe that is the triumph of hope over experience, she said dourly. _________________ A broken stereotype is a beautiful thing
I am ashamed to say I don't know any nettiquette apart from not typing in capitals all the time.Am I likely to come a cropper or should I not worry?
I wouldn't worry about it. We're not major on the finer points of nettiquette here. No ALL CAPS and no Spam posts, and follow the Terms of Service, and you're usually ok.
Let's see... how does one go about hijacking a thread... I'm almost ashamed to say that I was an expert at that, once. [Obviously, I've never been a stickler about following the finer points of nettiquette myself. ]
* Trolling: deliberately posting something that's designed to derail the discussion into a flamewar on whatever one posted, and then sitting back and watching the fun as the other posters devour their young...
Example: Going to a left-leaning political forum or discussion group, and posting a reasoned and articulate pro-Bush post in an anti-Bush discussion. Or going to a right-leaning forum and posting a pro-Gore post in a pro-Bush thread. Going to a gay forum and posting approving links to a Reverend Phelps site. Anything similar: a post that's designed to spark a heated and hostile reaction and divert the discussion away from the original topic.
* Non-sequiters: Entering a thread on a given topic a number of posts in, and making a post on something absurd that has NO relation to the thread topic, and possibly even no relation to anything in reality, and diverting the discussion onto a completely new subject.
Example: Entering a thread on character creation in 3DsMax about 14 posts in and posting "... I tried this technique once, and everything worked flawlessly until Bob Lazar's underwear came unglued, proving the Archimedes Plutonium theorem of Multiplicity to be axiomatic regarding coordinates in 3-dimensional space... ". usually followed by multiple exclamations of "Huh? HUH?!?"
* Off-Topic posts: Entering a thread on particle physics and diverting it into a discussion on your latest cat pictures. And your cat isn't named "Schrodinger".
Example: None needed, I think.
* Gibberish: Making certain that your post is in English and seems vaguely related to the thread topic at first glance, but upon careful examination, it's found that you've actually said nothing comprehensible.
Example: any three posts by several poserdom figures that I'll not name because it would be cruel.
* Godwinning: Creating a situation that's designed to invoke Godwin's Law - diverting the thread onto Nazi's or Fascism. You can cause someone else to Godwin if you're subtle about it.
Example: Relating the topic under discussion to elements of the Third Reich, or equating one of the other posters to a figure from the 3rd Reich. Works best in site policy discussions when you accuse or imply that some staff member has national socialist tendencies because they're banning postings of "Naked faeries", "Large Breasted Women", "Nude Males", or whatever the current controversy is.
There's really no set method for diverting a discussion. It's just a matter of imagination + observation + opportunity + warped sense of humour = Thread Drift. For example, I rather handily diverted this thread from a discussion on forum hostility into a discussion on thread diverting...
Here's a handy page filled with examples of usenet posts that probably thoroughly disrupted whatever topic was under discussion: Strange Usenet Posts Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.
You MUST promise that you'll use these newfound powers only for Good, or failing that, only for the Darkest and Blackest of Pure Evil.
And don't use them here: I'll know where you learned it. _________________ "I'd add a legitimate comment here, but that would mean reading everything, which I have no patience for." - Slynky
Heh. I wasted way too much time browsing those when I first found that site, and then going through various Usenet archives and finding more examples. ;]
Parts of that site are hilarious. _________________ "I'd add a legitimate comment here, but that would mean reading everything, which I have no patience for." - Slynky
Thereby causing the hostility by diverting the topic away from it's current trend...
No worries lecta, usually one of us olde tymers will let you know if you go too far.. or at least join in 8 )
Cheers _________________ For all the years I"ve watched them grow, I cant get over their spunk Prof. Kildare Ex-Mutants
Oh dear.
I seeem to have done many of the above already
AND THOSE I HAVEN'T I REALLY WANT TO TRY NOW!
Ethical considerations I leave to others, I shall be using my new found powers in the purest spirit of mischief.
I am sure with Ironbear and borkuu to keep an avuncular eye on things I won't be allowed to stray too far from the straight and narrow - or if I do I will be so subtle that even they won't notice.
Heh- heh. _________________ A broken stereotype is a beautiful thing
Heh. The Bear of Iron knows all, sees all, and--- Oh look! Shiny!
Umm... what were we talking about again? (00) _________________ "I'd add a legitimate comment here, but that would mean reading everything, which I have no patience for." - Slynky
All times are GMT - 7 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Profile
Search
Memberlist
Log in to check your private messages
Usergroups
FAQ & TOS
Log in
don't feel comfortable with it, and they drift off to sites that have a culture closer to what they preffer. Leaving behind the "next wavers", who then become both the dominant site culture and the new "old timers". 
]
