At the heart of message board discussion is conflict & disagreement. Whenever two or more people get together to express their opinions, debate is likely.

Message board conflict also drives traffic.

Bias is also innate to message board discusssion. People are more likely to overlook behavior in posters they agree with on an issue.

Do we, as the AA.org community, make a deal with the devil by allowing members who contribute topics that draw interest & drive traffic to behave outside of the scope of :

The Rules

quote:

Intelligent - do posts contribute to greater understanding about the issue being discussed? This does not mean that every post has to agree with your opinion (or mine), it just means that posts and opinions should be construed to be a part of an intelligent dialog about an issue.

To be sure, disagreement and debate - even of a vigorous and passionate kind - has a home here. Nevertheless, it is entirely reasonable to expect that kind of opposing discourse without succumbing to personal attacks and needlessly inappropriate language. Those things are not welcome and will not be permitted.

Black - is a post in any way relevant to the African American community? Of course, our interests are - and should be - broad and wide.

Community - this is a broad "catch-all" criteria that basically asks if a member is contributing to building the kind of community that we hope to establish here? In addition to those attributes in our "mantra", characteristics of AfricanAmerica.org include adjectives like Afrocentric, smart, warm, curious, respectful, supportive, funny, committed, helpful, friendly, etc. Behavior that is in any way inimical to "Intelligent. Black Community." and adjectives like those listed here are not welcome.

Question:
Currently, do you believe frequent poster contribution on AA.org merits "leeway" in how one interacts with other posters?

Choices:
Yes
No
Unsure

Question:
Should frequent poster contribution on AA.org merit "leeway" in how one interacts with other posters?

Choices:
Yes
No
Unsure

Question:
Currently, do you believe contributions in Issues & Politics are deemed more important than contributions elsewhere on AA.org?

Choices:
Yes
No
Unsure

Question:
Are "cyber-fights" part of the appeal of AA.org for you?

Choices:
Yes
No
Unsure

 

Note:

This is a legitimate poll, not a poster-specific shot. I placed it in the The Big House because it didn't seem to be a good fit elsewhere. I'd really appreciate the focus staying on the questions at hand with mimimal attacks on any individuals.

Comments are welcome though.


Thanks in advance-

This message has been edited. Last edited by: ddouble,

------------------------------
R.I.F. (Reading IS Fundamental)...



"There are five dangerous faults which may affect a general:
(1) Recklessness, which leads to destruction;
(2) cowardice, which leads to capture;
(3) a hasty temper, which can be provoked by insults;
(4) a delicacy of honor which is sensitive to shame;
(5) over-solicitude for his men, which exposes him to worry and trouble."
-Sun Tzu

An online community would seem to be very similar to any human community. Based upon their contributions and roles, certain people develop more stature than others. That stature would seem to earn them what you're calling "leeway". If msprettygirl, for example, went over the line, then that would seem to have more weight than if Michael Lofton did. But Michael Lofton would have more "leeway" than a Stormfronter coming to disrupt things.

Your question would seem to be based on individual context and history. We all have the potential to lose our cool every now and then (well, except maybe for brother Kresge!). But if Kresge lost his cool and went off on someone, I would think he has earned enough "leeway" for it to be ignored. If he has a lobotomy and becomes a raving lunatic, then that "leeway" would run out at some point and then he would probably then be booted.

Where are you going with this? Are you suggesting that some people here need to be banned? Who decides that? MBM? Do we do a poll? Should we have a thread about it? You must have an opinion about this since you started the thread.

My solitary opinion should never dominate how AA.org is run. This question is about how we perceive the current culture in this online community and whether it's in keeping with the mission statement of Intelligent. Black. Community.

The poll questions are about much bigger issues than "Should poster x be banned?" or who decides that.

I don't know if anything should or will change as a result of this poll. It just happened to be what was on my mind this morning.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: ddouble,

------------------------------
R.I.F. (Reading IS Fundamental)...



"There are five dangerous faults which may affect a general:
(1) Recklessness, which leads to destruction;
(2) cowardice, which leads to capture;
(3) a hasty temper, which can be provoked by insults;
(4) a delicacy of honor which is sensitive to shame;
(5) over-solicitude for his men, which exposes him to worry and trouble."
-Sun Tzu

No, no, no, and hell no!

One thing about 'The Rules' is that it doesn't encompass the factor of positivity.

To me, any poster that generates more negative feedback than positive comments (or even no comments at all) directed towards/about them would not be contributing in a good way to the overall perspective of what an Intelligent.Black.Community should be all about.

Disagreements in a community setting are a given. And healthy debate, I think, is a good thing. So, there's nothing wrong with a misunderstanding here and there between two or more posters. And everybody has a bad day every once in a while where they may go off the deep end and say something crazy or use some "obscure" language now and again. We're all human (and some of us get PMS! )

But, when there's pretty much a consensus that any one particular poster is so disruptive so much of the time that nobody even wants to dialog with him/her or when what is said by/to a particular poster is primarily of a negative nature a majority of the time ... then no matter how many times or how much that poster contributes ... it is still not adding to a goal of fostering a positive community environment.

Now, again ... maybe "positivity" is not an important aspect here, although it does seem that a majority of the members here try to follow along that path, seeking more to uplift rather than to tear down. But, if it does carry any weight, and a clearly negative entity is allowed to constantly insert itself into the mix, then the overall goal of community itself is being sabotaged.

IMHO of course!

quote:

To me, any poster that generates more negative feedback than positive comments (or even no comments at all) directed towards/about them would not be contributing in a good way to the overall perspective of what an Intelligent.Black.Community should be all about.

What if the negative feedback is simply the result of a poster's ideology/lifestyle? For example, would a self-acknowleged "Black Conservative" be welcome here? A gay Black male?

quote:

Originally posted by ddouble:
What if the negative feedback is simply the result of a poster's ideology/lifestyle? For example, would a self-acknowleged "Black Conservative" be welcome here? A gay Black male?

Well, I think 'negative feedback' of one's ideas and negative feedback of one's persona are two different things.

I may not want to discuss a gay black male's lifestyle with him, but that doesn't mean he would have to be rude or nasty about putting forth his perspective on the way he lives, either. I may not agree with what he does/how he is, but that shouldn't have any bearing on the way he and I discuss the subject. It just means that we wouldn't/couldn't come to agreement about it. Agree to disagree.

Or, a Black Conservative coming here and trying to push his views here would probably have a much harder time here, because of his/her same views not being widely held. But, I don't think that a differing opinion on political viewpoints necessarily has to mean that that person can't bring a positive argument of his way of thinking to the table and discuss the issues on their merits.

The kind of negative feedback I'm talking about is where it is overwhelmingly agreed that a certain poster is being arbitrary, argumentative, condescending, irrational, non-productive, showing little to no intellectual honestly, is clearly not open to debate or discussion, or just has nothing relevant to say (except, maybe having brief, intermittent bouts of intelligent thought) a majority of the time or by a majority of the people.

And it's not like there are a lot of posters that fit into that category. Indeed, it only takes one or two bad apples to ruin the whole bunch! But, by the same token, their distinction makes it very easy to see where that rot permeates from. And digging it out to stop it from spreading before it goes to far should be a consideration for the good of the community itself.

Let me just say it for you ER. CF has got to go!

I personally won't even put people that irritate me on my ignore list because I feel like I would be sensuring myself from opposing opinion. Although I think folks like CF have a right to their opinion/belief system, like ER said, it is the way he communicates with others that is so disturbing.

I'm kinda' torn about being of the actual opinion he should be booted, even though I would have no control of such an action,... but he definately isn't 'contributing' to 'community' in any shape or form.

Personally, I would be more comfortable if he crawled under a rock and died somewhere or fell off the end of the earth. For some reason I am unconfortable with censuring him on a forum. Go figure...

Any poster that draws constant attention is "good for business"...

Let's back away from CF for a second. The tactics used by the aforementioned poster are commonplace on this board. On a daily basis, posters mock & debase each other, misrepresent/misquote other posters & argue against opposing thoughts with strawmen and ad hominem.

Is it more about what's said or how it's said or who says it?

Well, thank you, OA! Although I will admit that CF was not the only "apple" I was referring to.

quote:

Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
For some reason I am unconfortable with censuring him on a forum. Go figure...

I truly believe herein lies the biggest issue (problem(?)). I, myself, don't have a stronghold on the issue of 'freedom of speech" to the point where I think you have to accept anything said by anybody. And I know that I'm definitely in the minority when it comes to that train of thought. And so, I'm not even trying sway anybody over to my way of thinking ... just giving my own personal opinion on the subject.

I don't see the sensibility in allowing one person the right to trample over a majority of people's rights. I don't see it as productive and certainly not fair. Moreover, if it tends to kill the positive vibe of something you would like to have a positive vibe in ... then why shoot yourself in the foot for someone who's probably not even appreciative of your sacrifice ... and, in fact, will taunt you as a cripple after the fact?

It's like in hip-hop music ... to say that having 5 and 6 year-olds running around repeating curse words and derogatory remarks and perpetuating negative stereotypes (about themselves, no less) is damaging ... yet with the same breath you praise those who are making and teaching that music as artists and successful entertainment but you won't condemn them for making that crap ... by the same token, you don't go out and support (buy) that music either so that you can say that you're not contributing to the madness ... I mean, I don't understand that??

To me, it's much more black and white. If something is crap, it's crap. And unless you're a crap lover ... you put a stop to crap happening to you!! There is nothing wrong with doing whatever it takes to avoid it, condemn it and stop it from happening including putting a stopper in the crapper itself!! You don't say, "Well, this person has a right to crap on me" and then let him do it ... let alone fight with him and for him and make it easy for him to do it!

So, if there is somebody that nobody likes to talk to, wishes they weren't here, refuses to read their posts, (whether they put them on ignore or not) doesn't think they positively impact communication and even goes so far as to consider their communication "negative" ... then just what is the point of them being here?

And would there really be any damage done if they weren't? I mean, somebody you don't talk to anyway is not longer here to talk to ... are you really missing anything in that case?

ddouble ...

I respectfully ... and (un)inflammatorily disagree with you!

Point taken. Daily is likely hyperbole on my part, but it happens enough to consider it a chronic occurence IMO.

Thanks to everyone that has voted & responded so far!

Ddouble ...

I'm not sure that I understand your reference to "chronic" occurrence.

Are you saying that you see this behavior happening all the time? And do you see this happening in many people? As in a bunch of different people? Or that this is something you see in a small number of people, but happening all the time?

How do you see this as a chronic occurrence?

Ddouble ... where u at?

Many of us do it occasionally & some of us do it frequently. A lot of it is also deliberate. In the end, it happens enough here to be part of the community norm, IMO.

The written word from a stranger is ripe for misinterpretation. Unfortunately, I think many of us assume the worst rather than the best when the meaning is in doubt. This leads to a lot of the drama that occurs.

A very timely in light of current forum activity.

Being a newbie myself and coming from a highly conflicted type of board, I am hoping this one will be one in which people are not attacking others. The survey was interesting btw. Not sure what you mean by giving leeway, but I think that if someone is too overly oppositional the "elders" of the board should feel free to boot them off. I'd welcome being somewhere I can give an opinion, and if it differs from others', I am not attacked for my race, ideals, or whatever else people go off about.

Point taken. Daily is likely hyperbole on my part, but it happens enough to consider it a chronic occurence IMO---ddouble

I have come to consider the phenomenon to be the 'nature of the beast'.

You deal with it as long as you can...then you leave it alone.

Maybe I post this site in a Faustian rationale.

I have visited a few other sites, and found them to be 'high energy' with very low resolution.

There is typically a lot of 'Yes, but...' discussion, over, and over, and over, and over.

(FOW-stee-uhn) Faust, in the legend, traded his soul to the devil in exchange for knowledge. To “strike a Faustian bargain” is to be willing to sacrifice anything to satisfy a limitless desire for knowledge or power.

I post on this site because it has the least of this I have found.

Resolution frequently occurs.

PEACE

Jim Chester