| | Congrats on the birth of your new blog-- I look forward to seeing what topics you're interested in.
Whenever I go "check out" a forum (and this is a habit I've learned over 10 years of forum/mailing list/public activity--- I remember debating religion back in 1999 and using IRC in 1997) I stay silent for a little bit, I read as many posts as I can, and I determine the vibe, the behavior, the leanings, who posts a lot, who doesn't, who gets kicked out, why, etc. and one can learn a helluva lot from doing this. I do notice that a forum is someone else's "turf" but I also know that it's not a one-way street of them accepting me, it's also whether *I* accept *them*.
It's not that I don't support banning, because it is useful for getting rid of verbal abuse, threats, and other such behavior. I also support that a moderator can do what he/she wants on their own turf. How and why they do so is, however, under the scrutiny of individuals' judgement.
I also try to see trends, such as who changes over time, especially in relation to how they deal with others' posts. I see how people treat each other, especially in debate, because it's a clue as to how I will be treated and what I could expect.
If the change is in a negative, destructive direction, I leave it and move on. If there are multiple forums I enjoy for different reasons, different people, different vibe, I'll divide my time when I have it. If there's an influx of people that I know I'll find not much connection with that changes the vibe in a direction I disagree with, I'll leave. If the rules are ridiculous, or inconsistent, my effort will be minimal if not zero. If the majority of replies are ridiculous (no matter how intelligently stated) and it's expected that I memorize and regurgitate, I won't be staying.
I try to check out why people leave, and what they leave behind for clues as to why they'd leave or become sparse. Besides the obvious topics, i.e. "this list is for the purposes of talking about clinical depression" (which was a list I was on briefly in 1999), I look at *how* people talk about the topic and *why*. It is the *how* that determines whether I choose to stay for awhile or just drop it. Does everyone agree and the one who disagrees gets ganged up on? What's the line for when someone is banned-- is it clear or muddy or whimsical or consistent? What is that consistency? How do people deal with disagreement? Can ideas be fully explored? What do I think?
"And we know that as long as [we] are free to ask what [we] must, free to say what [we] think, free to think what [we] will, freedom can never be lost..." --J. Robert Oppenheimer
|
|
