Adversarial threads (or lack thereof)?

[h b h h]

After a couple of years of hopping from board to board to board, I've been thinking about the things that set this one apart. I don't think it can be narrowed down to one thing, since boards are dynamic and ever-changing, but I feel like this board has fewer adversarial threads than the others I've been on.

I'm referring to posts such as,

"Are you for or against ______?
"Do you agree with ______?"
"Why is _________ better/worse than _______?"
"Do you think that ______ is _______ or _______?"
"Was ___________ right/wrong to _______?"
"Are men are more/less _______ than women?"

and everyone's favourite:

"Should I see ______ or _______?"

Threads like these can lead to black/white and right/wrong thinking. It's a breeding ground for trivial arguments, which often turn personal. Add that up over a period of weeks or months, and these trivial arguments become ongoing feuds, often involving many people; sometimes these disputes even carry over to other boards. :

Pretty soon, even the most benign threads turn into popcorn-fests, and every post becomes a land mine. Best of all, it's (mostly) anonymous; you can be as rude and offensive as you want to, without any fear of real-world consequences. (That last statement applies mostly to hobbyists, we SP's don't have the same luxury.)

That's how adversarial threads tend to go - it happens on every board, over every conceivable subject. But it seems this board has more of a tendency towards open-ended questions, such as "What do you think about _________?" where people can express opinions without necessarily taking sides. Open-ended questions lead to more of a community-based dialogue, instead of a competitive one. That leaves more room for people to disagree without becoming disagreeable, and people seem less likely to hold grudges or resurrect old demons.

Anyways, it's just an observation on my part, and I could be totally wrong - does this make sense to anyone else, or am I totally out to lunch? :neutral:

 

[Meghan]

Great analysis Nikki.

 

[Desk3Bound]

I like popcorn :happy:

 

[Gep]

I've found that the recent discourse on the other board is only a step up from youtube comments (if even that).

 

[Dildo Gaggins]

Take your popcorn back to where you belong. I changed citinzeship for a calmer site. Popcorn attracts nastiness.

 

[serialmom12]

Hmm, maybe this is something we can quantify? (And by "we," I actually mean, "you" )

You did a fantastic job on the July Review Stats, and found that 86% of last month's reviews were positive. I wonder if there's an association between your findings and my hypothesis - is it possible that fewer adversarial threads correlates with a higher positive review rate? :angel:

It'd be interesting to look at - maybe you can put this idea in your "rainy day" pile? :great:

 

[Guy]

 

[xxx_wowz_xxx]

I don't cause any drama but it can be entertaining to follow while eating popcorn.

(BTW thnx for the warm welcome to massageplanet) :roll:

 

[Eva S]

Sometimes the drama is amusing, until it gets too mean. I think the mods here do a good job of stepping in when it's appropriate.

I do have a collection of perfectly-good BoyFight pictures just going to waste.

Popcorn is also fun to throw from the sidelines. :tongue:

 

[Nadica]

ding ding ding ding ........ we have a winner :

trolls need an audience
trolls seek boards with a larger viewership

Just a few trolls infesting a board can really bring it down

I suspect that will be the growing challenge for Dean and company in the coming months, but so far a tip of my hat to them.

 

[Artie]

There are different dynamics at work. The first is that human communication is far more complex that people think. We communicate with more than words, we listen for how something is said, not just what is said. We look for visual clues as well.

In a medium such as this, we have not evolved to communicate well or accurately. Misunderstandings lead to flair ups. There is not the dampening field of "social respectability" to cool hot tempers. There is a much greater likelihood of drunk posting.

Also, boards thrive on controversy. As posters have noted, the "popcorn" comes out. That drives readership, which gives a board good numbers.

I have no doubt that some adversarial threads are subtly encouraged in order to raise the entertainment value of the board. Which raises the readership, which raises the advertiser base which brings in more cash.

Having an open vs a closed question does not matter. Simply having a difference of opinion on a media that does not do a good job supporting communication is enough to ensure that sooner or later there will be fireworks and popcorn.

 

[Roxanne G]

As do I

 

[Crow]

I tend to agree with this analysis, however, Nikki's hypothesis can be fodder for guidelines towards fostering less adversarial discourse on this board.

There is though a friendlier attitude on this board to welcome reviews without attacking them (some trolls on that other board refer to this one as a shill board perhaps for that reason, but there's rules against shilling on this board).

 

[collette d]

Interesting responses everyone, thank you. Clearly, the role of the mods is key, since they shape the environment, by allowing or disallowing certain types of language. The role of the participants is important too, for they shape the board's boundaries by pushing them, and responding to the mods' decisions on what is or isn't appropriate.

It sounds like interactionism is at work here - the participants alter the environment with their posts, and the environment influences what people can or can't say in their future posts... which then alter the environment... which then influences people's future posts... ad infinitum.



Ugh, on one board I used to be on, the admin would do this all the time. Not even subtly, but blatantly trying to start fights between people, just to get the popcorn popping... that's the primary reason I left.

Is there a perfect ratio of mods-to-trolls? If there are too many trolls, the mods can't keep up; if there are too many mods, the boundaries become too constricting and people are discouraged from discussing certain topics. Also, there's an element of community policing on these boards, and other members will often speak out when someone crosses the line... of course, it's up to the mods to draw those lines in the first place, but the mods also react to the atmosphere, and have to gauge how certain statements might be received.



Is there a "critical mass" of viewership, where the audience becomes so large that the trolls are impossible to stop? Does appeal of a large audience attract trolls from elsewhere, or do grow from within, empowered by their reputation and an influx of sycophants? (I also tip my hat to the mods, they've done a great job so far, and I know they'll continue to do so.)

Connecting this back to my original question, I wonder if adversarial threads are an indication of increased troll activity... trolls seem to thrive on disagreements, insults and controversy, and adversarial threads will often have all of the above.

I can't reach any conclusions without analyzing the number of adversarial threads on all the different boards, relative to the size of their membership, and then comparing them to subjective or objective ratings of each board's positive atmosphere, such as elassowipo's amazing meta-analysis of the July reviews... but all of this would take way too much time, and I'm feeling really lazy today. :tongue:

Maybe I'm just seeing what I'm expecting to see - the confirmation bias at work once again?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment

 

[Arwen]

I must admit, I am with tourist and enjoy the odd pop-corn munching fest but like SG if it gets out of hand then I tune out.

I good argued debate without name calling and insults between two worthy combatants makes for good reading.

 

[Tiara A]

Well, I'll chime in here since I'm probably No.1 on any number of people's shit list.

I think what it boils down to is there are certain types that take it upon themselves to "police" the boards and go looking for trouble where it doesn't exist. Gen is a perfect example. She specifically said to me that " I believe I have as much right to call BS on your opinions as you have in voicing them". THAT is the most adversarial statement i've read.

I thought that one's opinions on a topic of a thread was what this and other boards were all about? SImply stating someone's opinions are BS simply because of WHO they are, well, you get where I'm going with this.....

Here are adversarial tactics that can get me, and others, going:
Comment on their comments as opposed to simply stating your opinion on the topic at hand.
Call someone a liar
Call someone names
Label someone
State your opinion on someone else or ask others for theirs in public (if you don't like someone, block them don't try to publically ridicule them).