TAY Atmosphere

So let's make this really explicit. Are some of you suggesting that if some "harder play" in the form of name-calling, claims about the intelligence/competence/intentions of others, etc. leads to some long-time members of TAY to bail and prevents some lurkers from diving in, that this is just fine and should be considered "acceptable cost of business on the interwebs?" Is that really what I'm reading?

As your post comes on the heals of mine, I'll comment even though I don't feel singled out.

yes and no.

Just like how Web 2.0 changed the way that brands interact with consumers by giving individuals a voice, communities are effected too. Thinking that you can control something like this is wishful thinking. You can guide it, nurture it, and provide a positive example and hope for the best (sort of like raising a child), but in the end the user group/audience is going to determine in part the end result. All shapes, colors and sizes. You don't always get to choose who your neighbors are going to be.

I think that everyone is responsible for being good citizens, and otherwise following rules of fair play and decent interaction. What I am saying is that people and personalities come in all shapes and sizes, from different backgrounds and different environments. As an example, some people have social skills that are less refined, therefor they may come across as less than civil. this is (and I think Oft also made this point quite well) how the world operates, and as fellow citizens we can CHOOSE to take things personally and lash out, or we can CHOOSE to ask for clarification, to understand what is really going on behind a post. In the end, we share a responsibility in how we respond in these interactions.

I buy all of that. And I truly think diversity is a good thing. I think sharing divergent POVs is super important, and I get great benefit from it when it doesn't degrade into mostly noise.

When someone crosses "the line of civility" I don't think "lashing out" is terribly useful. I do think that calling the line-crossing out, however, in as respectful a fashion as possible, is an example of the way a community defines its norms, and it seems to have some effect. I've gone on record above saying that I'm not sure increasing moderation to in essence "have more control" will yield a great result. But does that mean we just roll over as a group on this?

I don't really see an answer to my question. I'm still left wondering if folks think it's just OK to see some community members pull away because some other members are unwilling to try to share their POV w/o making it personal, or if it would be better to try to shift the tone a bit in a more positive direction (and I'm wide open to constructive and specific suggestions of what might work).

Whose 'line of civility'?

It's too bad some members pull away, but that's their choice. None of us can control how others behave. We can only control our own behaviors. To try to suggest that the majority measure their tone to some undefiniable line in the sand in order not to offend a few with soft underbellies seems to be going in entirely the wrong direction.

I feel badly that they're offended, but I'm not willing to be constantly worried about offending the most easily offended. That makes for a pretty dull conversation.

When someone crosses "the line of civility" I don't think "lashing out" is terribly useful. I do think that calling the line-crossing out, however, in as respectful a fashion as possible, is an example of the way a community defines its norms, and it seems to have some effect. I've gone on record above saying that I'm not sure increasing moderation to in essence "have more control" will yield a great result. But does that mean we just roll over as a group on this?

I don't really see an answer to my question. I'm still left wondering if folks think it's just OK to see some community members pull away because some other members are unwilling to try to share their POV w/o making it personal, or if it would be better to try to shift the tone a bit in a more positive direction (and I'm wide open to constructive and specific suggestions of what might work).

I don't believe the line is as undefinable as you make it out to be. Am I alone in this regard? Anyone? Bueller?

As I think about this discussion, I'm coming to the point of believing that, outside of pretty wildly clear abuse, the only "control" that should be exercised is "self control." But I'm fine with "influence from other community members, including but not limited to the moderators."

I'm coming to the point of believing that, outside of pretty wildly clear abuse, the only "control" that should be exercised is "self control."

This...

And, if others choose to stay away, for better or worse, I'm not sure that there's a much that can be done about that in any way that might not have further reaching, unforeseen impact. As an example, if one chose to moderate and exert more control in an effort to bring those members back in, the resulting environment my cause others to leave, possibly in greater numbers. End result, success or failure? Who's to say?

I don't believe the line is as undefinable as you make it out to be. Am I alone in this regard?

No, not alone.  

In a previous post, gravitymk wrote, "I think it's a stretch for anyone here to expect someone to change their personality to suit someones sensibilities."

I don't think anybody expects people to change their personalities. What we're asking for is for people to moderate their behavior. Moderating one's behavior happens all the time in public spaces. TAY is effectively a public space (for the sake of this discussion).