Using forums

[Sailorasteroid]

We haven't visited this topic for a year and a half, but in that time I've visited a lot of other forums, and I feel I have something to add. We talked before of problems with users on forums, but I've seen some major trends in forum administration and rules that I'm not happy with. Some of this may contradict what I've written above, but I'm speaking with more experience and on different issues. I also think it's worth mentioning because most of these practices are not done here, and this forum is the friendliest and smoothest I'm on.

-No Politics and Religion rules. If you keep it in the proper sections, and if you watch that people don't stray off the point, good political discussions can result. But more to the point, in the forums specifically dedicated to politics and religion, members already have their positions and faiths, and the justifications therefore, and arguments tend to go in circles until fundamental points of faith and values are reached, and you can't really argue with those. Such discussions are most useful with people who are apathetic and are more likely to be prey to common myths. They can be educational.

-No Politics. . . except ours. It's one thing to ban political discussion on a forum, but then it should be all of them, and no exceptions for things that don't seem political. If someone comes out with, "I just lost a family member who was fighting in a war. I don't see how anyone can defend war; it's the worst thing in the world," it's just as political as if you posted supporting war. Banning one but not the other is hypocritical. And the most egregious example of this is. . .

-"Illegal Content" rules. You can think whatever you want about the right and wrong of downloading illegal files or buying bootlegged material, but when forum users can't even link to other sites, that's hypocrisy. There's nothing illegal about saying that such content is held at such and such site, and letting people decide whether they want to go or not. Now, if the site owner is afraid of reprisals from the government or from their host, I can understand that. If they genuinely feel wrong about aiding an activity they see as wrong, I can understand that too, but say it. Too many sites just say, "no linking or requesting files" and leave it at that. What this says to me is, "Anyone who even thinks about this being allowable is beyond the pale. If you can't see why it's wrong, you're just an evil person." And that's making a rule based on an opinion, not objective fairness.

No Rules Discussion. We have this topic here, and the whole Member Board, and there's lots of places where one could offer a reasoned opinion on why they don't like a given rule. It might not change anything, it might even be rejected out of hand, but it would be allowed to stand on the board. In Real Life (*shudder*), we have certain restrictions on speech: content speech, "Fire!" in a crowded theater, etc., but the one thing that is never restricted is discussion on what the laws should be. I'm perfectly free to say that I think yelling fire should be protected speech, no matter how ridiculous it seems. Similarly, I should be allowed to say on a board that they should allow unlimited signature size, despite the massive bandwidth issues.

Failing to Remember Who You Serve. If I go on to the Cartoon Network web site and they offer a message board, I see no problem with them restricting criticism of their versions of One Piece and Naruto. If it's a fan site, I want the freedom to go out there and lambaste CN for any flaws I see in the shows I'm a fan of, without being told to appreciate what I've been given.

And lastly, it does irk me a little that there's not a single forum I know of that operates on the free speech principle. I understand that forums are privately held, but there's not a single owner who holds that principle so sacred that he will offer his property up to it? I can go into New York City, stand in the middle of Central Park, and rant on whatever subject I feel like at the top of my lungs, no matter how disrespectful or inciting it is. I would like to be able to do that on line. I would like to see a forum where a user says, "The forum owner is an asshole and I hate him," and the owner says, "You have the right to say this here." What I would really like to see is a forum mutually paid for and owned by its members, each having the right of speech that any site owner would.

[Tiff]

I would like to see a forum where a user says, "The forum owner is an asshole and I hate him," and the owner says, "You have the right to say this here." What I would really like to see is a forum mutually paid for and owned by its members, each having the right of speech that any site owner would.

Well, to be quite frank, it's not like Dan, Bob, and I go around saying whatever we feel like, too. We're almost as constricted as you are. It's not like I make everyday posts stating which members I hate and which are assholes. We have to keep a level of professionalism, becuase while even though this is a free forum, it's still run and maintained by us. It's ours. And we want to remain respectful to our members.

Despite the fact that Dan pays for the space on these forums, he's just as limited in what he says or doesn't say. It isn't a matter of "OMFG THE MAN IS KEEPING YOU DOWN" it's a matter of tact and respect.

Do you know what livejournals and blogs are for? Exactly what you mentioned. YOU get YOUR own personal space, pay if you want special add-ons, and feel free to bitch and rant and rave to your hearts' content. That's equal to your central park comparison. Central Park is a public place, not owned by a single individual.

But you wouldn't go into, say, a small coffee shop and start screaming yoru fool head off, would you? That's where places like our forums come in. It's an online COMMUNITY, and just as you would in a place of business, you practice common decency and respect.

[Butterscotch]

I run a forum of my own (in fact, just had a not very nice blow-up with one of my members), and am a member of several others.

It is very difficult to walk the line between enforcing the Rules and being the cool laid back admin.

If you enforce the Rules, you get called mean, told to lighten up, or even have members leave.
But if you are laid back, and never enforce the Rules, your forum becomes a spam-filled wasteland.

That said, here are some my forum pet peeves:

1) sigs the size of wallpapers; I have a fast interent connection, so loading isn't an issue, but I hate scrolling past ten miles of signature to read the next post.

2) "Sorry, but I can't help you" replies.
I see this all the time.
Member A: Hey, anyone know how to turn milk into cheese?
Member B: Sorry, I don't know.
Member C: Search Google.

Its safe to assume that if A is turning to a forum for help than he has searched Google >_>
grr

3) Bumping old threads!
On one board I go to, a girl bumped a year old-incomplete fan-fiction in the hopes that the author (who hadn't been on in months) might finish writing it!
?!?

4) Useless replies version 2:
"contributing to the conversation"
*in the above mentioned cheese thread*
D: I like cheese!
A so, can anyone help me? o.o
D: Cheese is good with crackers!
A:...yeah....
D: My favorite kind of cheese is cheddar, it tatses good

and so on. You just wanna club D with a Ham >_<

5) Starting threads in the wrong section
"Lesse, I wanna talk about Super Mario...what are my options? Hmm...Video Games? Nah, too obvious...Ooh! General! Yay! *makes thread*

You gotta wonder what makes people's minds work <_<;;;

6) disregard for staff.
You don't have to like the staff at a board, or even agree with them. But you DO have to respect them!

[Musashi]

I don't even ACT like a mod.
The forum I mod (The Team Rocket Fan-Club/ haha, I'm also on a French board. xD ... A French/English board anyway.) is the most peaceful forum I have /ever/ seen.
Granted, at the moment we've just got around 23 members or so. xD;

But there's one person, who I'll just call Ivycrap (it's really Ivytruffle or something...) who says the reason she left the forum before was because I was dogmatic or something and because of my 'relentless posting.'
What was that supposed to mean?! o_o; I hardly talk to this person!
Sheesh...
-thinks-
Yeah! There was one odd person who just kept yelling that he/she thought Jessie and Cassidy (Musashi and Yamato) were sisters and Giovanni (Sakaki) was their father.
She/he said it like: 'it was soooooo easy to figure out you guys that they're sisters and the boss is their dad!'
And when I and others explained to him/her that they are NOT sisters and he is NOT their father, although Musashi's (second) and Yamato's namesakes were sister BATTLESHIPS, that does not mean that the anime characters are magically sisters.
Gah.

And they wouldn't give ONE SHRED of evidence.
They just kept saying: whutever, don't believe, but its true. 9_9

Then they said it was in an episode. A banned episode.
Yeah, right. I've seen pretty much ALL the first series episodes.
I've only got four more to go.
And I've seen quite a few hoso and other specials.

Nice try.

Haha, Jez gave that thing a warning. xDD Good.

>>>Hell, i've even had people go as far as to build an Anti-Tiff site. I'm not joking. An actual, running, anti-tiff site.


...........................

[Sailorasteroid]

Do you know what livejournals and blogs are for? Exactly what you mentioned. YOU get YOUR own personal space, pay if you want special add-ons, and feel free to bitch and rant and rave to your hearts' content. That's equal to your central park comparison. Central Park is a public place, not owned by a single individual.

But you wouldn't go into, say, a small coffee shop and start screaming yoru fool head off, would you? That's where places like our forums come in. It's an online COMMUNITY, and just as you would in a place of business, you practice common decency and respect.

I think this is one of those fundamental values I mentioned. To me, individual rights are more important than community respect. And the essence of a right is that everyone else can hate you for excersing the right, want you gone, perhaps even prove the damage they've suffered because of it, but they all acknowledge that the right exists and they don't act to stop it. I can somewhat understand the opposite premise, where there are standards which no one person can fall below without causing chaos, but I can't feel that myself.

[Tiff]

I think this is one of those fundamental values I mentioned. To me, individual rights are more important than community respect. And the essence of a right is that everyone else can hate you for excersing the right, want you gone, perhaps even prove the damage they've suffered because of it, but they all acknowledge that the right exists and they don't act to stop it. I can somewhat understand the opposite premise, where there are standards which no one person can fall below without causing chaos, but I can't feel that myself.

*Shugs* Just as individual rights in the real world are governed by rules, so are the individual rights on a forum. Sure, you have the right to go into central park and rant. But say you do it naked. Or waving a machine gun. Or while throwing rotten tomatoes at people. If you do that, the only rights you'll have will be to remain silent or the right to an attorney.

So in essence, you can post what you want..but people may hate you, people may want you gone, and you may end UP gone becuase you're breaking the rules of respect, just as you break the rules of assault, disturbing the peace, and indecent exposure if you try the things I listed above. Despite the fact that we have individual rights in the real world, there's always a risk in exercising them.

[Starscream]

To me, individual rights are more important than community respect.

Then what business have you in a setting wherein the primary importance IS on community respect?

[Tiff]

Then what business have you in a setting wherein the primary importance IS on community respect?

You know, I was wondering the same exact thing.

[Sailorasteroid]

To me, individual rights are more important than community respect.

Then what business have you in a setting wherein the primary importance IS on community respect?

Believing in individual rights doesn't mean you cloister yourself, any more than believing in community respect means you spend all your time in crowds. You use the settings you may not completely agree with to get what you want. You may express your own ideas in order to gain respect. I respect people in order to have a forum for my ideas.

*Shugs* Just as individual rights in the real world are governed by rules, so are the individual rights on a forum. Sure, you have the right to go into central park and rant. But say you do it naked. Or waving a machine gun. Or while throwing rotten tomatoes at people. If you do that, the only rights you'll have will be to remain silent or the right to an attorney.

So in essence, you can post what you want..but people may hate you, people may want you gone, and you may end UP gone becuase you're breaking the rules of respect, just as you break the rules of assault, disturbing the peace, and indecent exposure if you try the things I listed above. Despite the fact that we have individual rights in the real world, there's always a risk in exercising them.

Of course you can't assault people while speaking. And I don't claim that free speech should extend to hacking the code of the boards either. Assault and disturbing the peace are physical crimes--they involve property damage and bodily image. Sticks and stones. But ideas don't do anyone any harm, so unfettered communication should be allowed.

In the public square, you can say anything. In the private, you have to accede to the standards of the owner. All I'm saying is that my standards are identical to the public one: say anything. Come into my home and insult me, disrespect me, heap any sort of malediction on me, and I won't throw you out, I'll just argue my side of it. That's the consecration for free speech I would like to see others have. But I don't say that it's morally required--it's completely a matter of choice.

[Starscream]

To me, individual rights are more important than community respect.

Then what business have you in a setting wherein the primary importance IS on community respect?

Believing in individual rights doesn't mean you cloister yourself, any more than believing in community respect means you spend all your time in crowds. You use the settings you may not completely agree with to get what you want. You may express your own ideas in order to gain respect. I respect people in order to have a forum for my ideas.

I agree with your first line completely; however, community respect means, quite obviously and literally, that you RESPECT the COMMUNITY. That means, first and foremost, sacrificing your "rights" if your need to exercise those rights violate the rules established by the community. And I'm sorry, but I cannot say that "using" others and your environment to "get what you want" would EVER foster any sense of community. You can discuss your ideas in a decent, respectful manner, but you will have to sacrifice some of your "rights" in order to do that; you cannot have "free speech" in a setting where the rules state that you must maintain yourself in an orderly manner.

Case in point:

Come into my home and insult me, disrespect me, heap any sort of malediction on me, and I won't throw you out, I'll just argue my side of it. That's the consecration for free speech I would like to see others have.

You are always - ALWAYS - going to have at least one or two people in a community unwilling to participate in discussion of topics - especially of topics as sensitive as politics and religion - if discussions break down into arguments involving "insults", "disrespect", and "malediction". Thus, in order to allow a greater amount of discussion to be had, rules need to be set in place that prevent decent into acerbic arguments. Does this limit "free speech"? Sure, but that doesn't necessarily mean that topics cannot even be broached. For example, again using religion as an example, discussion can be had about the legitimacy of religion, its role in the modern world, etc., without having to resort to name-calling or outright insults against religious organizations or their members. Granted, there might be a user or two that have HIGHLY polarized opinions about religion in this regard, but discussion won't occur if these users decide to voice these opinions in a way that will surely insult anyone else (and again, I speak for both sides of the argument, because I can easily see how an atheist would be offended for someone slamming his beliefs). If all a user desires is to stand on a soapbox and let loose with all they feel about anything and everything, without regard for the feelings and respect of anyone around them, then an online community is NOT the right place for those opinions. One's own personal judgements and feelings about various topics CAN provide to community devleopment, however, if the user realized that they would have to curb the tone of their arguments, and choose their words carefully, before becoming involved in discussion.

Now, to take the opposite stance, a community might establish rules and warnings wherein the use of acerbic and insulting speech is permitted; in this case, the creator of the community is sacrificing a wide audience in order to foster a kind of "discussion" that suits his needs in regards to the language that can be used in his forum. As you said, everyone has the right to run their property and the rules established in their property as they see fit, and that right is no greater than the right someone has to express their opinions in a public forum.

Having said all this...I'm actually a little confused at what seem to be two contradictory points in your first argument on this page. You seem to "see no problem" with the way message boards restrict certain kinds of speech, and yet you are "irked" that no forum operates on the "free speech principle". Can you elaborate on this a bit? Also, keep in mind that "free speech", as dictated in the US, states that the GOVERNMENT can make no law imposing on an individual's free speech; government and private companies are two different entities (without splitting hairs), and the concept of free speech championed by so many is only maintained as a "principle" with respect to the former =P

[Sailorasteroid]

Having said all this...I'm actually a little confused at what seem to be two contradictory points in your first argument on this page. You seem to "see no problem" with the way message boards restrict certain kinds of speech, and yet you are "irked" that no forum operates on the "free speech principle". Can you elaborate on this a bit? Also, keep in mind that "free speech", as dictated in the US, states that the GOVERNMENT can make no law imposing on an individual's free speech; government and private companies are two different entities (without splitting hairs), and the concept of free speech championed by so many is only maintained as a "principle" with respect to the former =P

There is no one best way to run a forum. Every owner must judge by his own standards. What I spoke of irking me is that there seems to be no owner I know of who holds a standard equal to that of the public forum.

You're absolutely right on government versus private property, but when a privately held community becomes large enough, I think it's worth questioning whether the best thing is to keep the restrictions that brought people in, or whether it's to confer additional privileges to the existing members.

And I'm sorry, but I cannot say that "using" others and your environment to "get what you want" would EVER foster any sense of community. You can discuss your ideas in a decent, respectful manner, but you will have to sacrifice some of your "rights" in order to do that; you cannot have "free speech" in a setting where the rules state that you must maintain yourself in an orderly manner.

It does engender community in the same way commerce builds that sense in the real world. You buy from a store, you're using it to get what you want. You don't have to respect them. Consider the case of Wal-mart. Some people hate them for driving out smaller business, not giving workers enough, etc. They protest and write to the editors of newspapers. But they can still shop there. Now draw that analogy to a message board. Some people don't like others on the board, and post to that effect. Each has the ability to say what he wants and that keeps them drawn to the community.

Consider a standard by which any post that is not incomprehensible gibberish or an attempt to overload the board with content (e.g. 5000 repeated lines or a large, completely white image file) is allowed and it's up to the people who are offended to ignore the posts and posters they don't like. Wouldn't that help create community? Community is not tantamount to harmony, and in some cases, I'm willing to sacrifice harmony for inclusiveness.

For example, again using religion as an example, discussion can be had about the legitimacy of religion, its role in the modern world, etc., without having to resort to name-calling or outright insults against religious organizations or their members. Granted, there might be a user or two that have HIGHLY polarized opinions about religion in this regard, but discussion won't occur if these users decide to voice these opinions in a way that will surely insult anyone else (and again, I speak for both sides of the argument, because I can easily see how an atheist would be offended for someone slamming his beliefs). If all a user desires is to stand on a soapbox and let loose with all they feel about anything and everything, without regard for the feelings and respect of anyone around them, then an online community is NOT the right place for those opinions. One's own personal judgements and feelings about various topics CAN provide to community devleopment, however, if the user realized that they would have to curb the tone of their arguments, and choose their words carefully, before becoming involved in discussion.

But what is the standard of tone? Is there really a difference between, "My religion holds that all non-believers are immoral, are doomed to eternal torment, and have no rights" and, "OMFG YOUR ALL GOING TO HELL!!11@2! SHUT UP!"? The same belief is held by the poster, and that belief is what the community must choose to allow or disallow.

Now, to take the opposite stance, a community might establish rules and warnings wherein the use of acerbic and insulting speech is permitted; in this case, the creator of the community is sacrificing a wide audience in order to foster a kind of "discussion" that suits his needs in regards to the language that can be used in his forum. As you said, everyone has the right to run their property and the rules established in their property as they see fit, and that right is no greater than the right someone has to express their opinions in a public forum.

Precisely. And in that case, it *is* the place for a user who wants to stand on the soapbox. Far better, IMO, to have designated places for them rather than having them show up on the more harmonious boards. Better for the other boards, and better for the ranters as well.

[Starscream]

Asteroid, I'm cutting my quotes in order to keep the post as concise as possible ^^

There is no one best way to run a forum. Every owner must judge by his own standards. What I spoke of irking me is that there seems to be no owner I know of who holds a standard equal to that of the public forum.

You're absolutely right on government versus private property, but when a privately held community becomes large enough, I think it's worth questioning whether the best thing is to keep the restrictions that brought people in, or whether it's to confer additional privileges to the existing members.

My feeling, honestly? "If the shoe fits, wear it." If people, in general, seem happy about the way a forum is run, then I don't see a need to change things in that regard. "Enhancements" such as larger avatars, more space for signatures, and other such perks are fine, but if the rules are set up to restrict language such that things are kept in a calm and civil manner, I see no need to change them.

It does engender community in the same way commerce builds that sense in the real world. You buy from a store, you're using it to get what you want. You don't have to respect them. Consider the case of Wal-mart. Some people hate them for driving out smaller business, not giving workers enough, etc. They protest and write to the editors of newspapers. But they can still shop there. Now draw that analogy to a message board. Some people don't like others on the board, and post to that effect. Each has the ability to say what he wants and that keeps them drawn to the community.

1. Yes, but in this example, you don't (indeed, cannot) walk into Walmart and accost the workers and management because of the way you feel about their business practices and what goes on "behind the scenes"; performing such an act would be disturbing the peace, and the owners are within their right to have you arrested or removed from the building for doing so. You can complain all you like, just not on their property.

2. I personally see something hypocritical in vehemently hating the way something is run, yet continuing to patronize that company or message board, for example. Please note that I'm not calling you out for that, nor would I judge anyone who does feel that way; I, personally, would not feel right with myself if I were to abhor a community's rules yet would continue to patronize it, and I guess I project that to others whenever I see someone complaining in this way.

Consider a standard by which any post that is not incomprehensible gibberish or an attempt to overload the board with content (e.g. 5000 repeated lines or a large, completely white image file) is allowed and it's up to the people who are offended to ignore the posts and posters they don't like. Wouldn't that help create community? Community is not tantamount to harmony, and in some cases, I'm willing to sacrifice harmony for inclusiveness.

In my opinion, community IS fostered when a sense of harmony is established ^^;; And, unfortunately, while it would be nice to ignore such nonsesne posts, the real world does not work on the principle of "ignore the trolls and they'll go away." I've seen it far too often on 4chan, and far too often on sucks.com; when people are allowed to do what they want, when they want, disrupting threads and being a nuisance for no good reason, things fall apart.

But what is the standard of tone? Is there really a difference between, "My religion holds that all non-believers are immoral, are doomed to eternal torment, and have no rights" and, "OMFG YOUR ALL GOING TO HELL!!11@2! SHUT UP!"? The same belief is held by the poster, and that belief is what the community must choose to allow or disallow.

There might not be a difference in the INTENT behind both comments, but don't you agree that the first is much more conducive to discussion than the second? If an atheist were to walk up to me and start talking, I would be more willing to talk about religion if he said "I don't believe in god, and cannot understand why you would; it seems illogical" than if he were to scream "LOL J00r brainwashed anD a SHEEP WHO BELIEVES IN A MAJIK GOST!" Again, it's not so much about the intent, but the delivery of that intent that would more likely foster discussion, which, again, I believe, is the foundation of a good community.

Precisely. And in that case, it *is* the place for a user who wants to stand on the soapbox. Far better, IMO, to have designated places for them rather than having them show up on the more harmonious boards. Better for the other boards, and better for the ranters as well.

We agree on something XD My point is, however - and I still feel strongly about this - that posters who feel more at home in a "soapbox"-styled forum would not be as satisfied in a "community-harmony"-styled forum, yet I feel that there is both a legitimacy and a need for both to coexist on the internet. Different strokes for different folks =P