What should a community website be for?

[Robin Orton]

Admin's posting on the thread about the SE23 forum set me thinking:

People have very different views of what a community website should do. They range from being a beacon to uplift and improve the community (and that is the specific purpose of some around here). Others that it should reflect society 'warts & all' and challenge authority.

Trying to encompass both views has eluded me which is why an important group of people have decided not to post here. To accommodate them would mean losing another group.

To me the point of this site is that enables local people to talk to each other about what they want to talk about. They can pass on local news and information, argue about anything they want to argue about (whether local or not), get to know each other (that is why I think it is sad that so many contributors feel it necessary to use pseudonyms), support each other, gossip, exchange jokes (including rude ones), show off in a silly way, flirt (OK, perhaps not), engage in local politics, stir things up, 'challenge authority', take people down a peg if they think they are being pompous, try to convert them to weird religions and so on.

The point of the forum should not, in my view, be the po-faced one of 'being a beacon to uplift and improve the community', any more than that's the aim of the local pub. But it might well have that effect if it works properly. Because it would then be a conversation between neighbours, that is, people who live in the same place and identify themselves as being members of the same local community.

I agree with Admin that there are hordes of people who it would be great to have on this forum - not just the particular group who I suspect he is referring to - who would have interesting contributions to make and would enjoy discussing them with others. What puts them off, in my view, is the lack of courtesy and the violent aggressiveness (often using coarse and offensive language) which seems to characterize some of the exchanges on this forum. People seem to behave online in a way which would be quite unacceptable in a pub. (Again, anonymity must be a factor, surely.) Lots of potential contributors are just not prepared to be slagged off in public in this way. I myself have, on a couple of occasions, felt very hurt by things that have been said on this forum or on SE23.com (and I confess that I myself have occasionally said things which have obviously upset people and which I have later regretted.)

So I guess that if this forum is going to fulfil its potential, people have just got to show a bit more kindness, tolerance and courtesy to each other (and I am not talking about censorship). This should not preclude 'showing society, warts and all', or iconoclasm or satire or wit or banter or forceful argument. If, as Admin suggests, following these sorts of standards would alienate some existing users, that would perhaps be a price worth paying.

[CaptainCarCrash]

I suppose that one persons view of course and offensive language isn't necessarily another's, I think part of the problem depends where your moral threshold is. I don't like the idea of alienating people from a community website however self censorship is key to becoming a successful contributor. I think the balance of impartial interaction from the administrator and his approach to policing the site is pretty good tbf. If you look at the censorship thread in this section there hasn't been a thread deletion for quite a long time, I'm not sure if this is down to the fact that people here are quite well behaved or if thread/post censorship isn't being recorded on that particular thread.

I use my real name but not in full but if you are sometimes like me slightly controversial or may be a little antagonistic regarding certain political socio economic ideologies, the ramifications of such vocalism can and does cause disdain and in such a scenario I'd prefer to remain anonymous.

I think the most important part really should be respect which goes without saying, although some would argue that respect is earned.

Having said all of this there is something about having an audience that can lead you to a situation where, as you have rightly pointed out, leads the poster to portray themselves in ways that they would not present to others face to face in the real world.

In reflection of what this site offers me personally is the platform to chat to people because I'm quite a social person. I've made mistakes in the past but I've learned from them.

I don't really see how people can show compassion, tolerance and kindness at all times on a forum because there is an element of human nature which is dark.

[Tim Lund]

To me the point of this site is that enables local people to talk to each other about what they want to talk about.

Agreed, pretty well 100%.

I agree with Admin that there are hordes of people who it would be great to have on this forum - not just the particular group who I suspect he is referring to - who would have interesting contributions to make and would enjoy discussing them with others. What puts them off, in my view, is the lack of courtesy and the violent aggressiveness (often using coarse and offensive language) which seems to characterize some of the exchanges on this forum.

...

if this forum is going to fulfil its potential, people have just got to show a bit more kindness, tolerance and courtesy to each other (and I am not talking about censorship). This should not preclude 'showing society, warts and all', or iconoclasm or satire or wit or banter or forceful argument. If, as Admin suggests, following these sorts of standards would alienate some existing users, that would perhaps be a price worth paying.

Here I start to disagree. Lack of courtesy, coarse and offensive language certainly are a problem, and they do put off many potential contributors. However, you seem to be suggesting Admin does more than he does currently to control it, but somehow suggest this is not censorship. I would say it is censorship, in the same way the relatively limited amount Admin already does counts as censorship, and the question is whether we do need more of it. I can remember one occasion - and there may have been a few more - when I complained to Admin about such behaviour - I don't know if he did anything about it. On another occasion he contacted me to suggest I tone down a thread I was posting in, which is how his light touch works. I suppose I still think Admin should on balance be a bit more censorious, but I don't think this is the main problem.

The problem - for those I sometimes call 'absent friends' - is, in your words, 'iconoclasm or satire or wit or banter or forceful argument'. When you and Admin allude to 'the particular group who I suspect he is referring to - who would have interesting contributions to make' I suspect you mean the same people, e.g. those who move and shake in the name of the Sydenham Society, and to a perhaps lesser extent the Sydenham Labour Party in the person of Chris Best. These people are toughies, who can perfectly well handle discourtesy, both receipt and delivery thereof. Others may not be so confident, but looking into some of the threads on this Forum will provide some lessons in how to deal with discourtesy - and in fact some posters who clearly relish a flame war, and have been banned from other Forums, adjust their style, and make interesting, entertaining contibutions. This isn't the place to elaborate how this happens - just let's agree its smarter than more censorship.

(I wrote that before Mike's post at 11.29 - and of course he was one of the people I referred to as relishing a flame war, but able to adjust their style. Pretty well exactly what he says of himself.)

For these other, largely absent toughies, discourtesy on this Forum is an excuse to ignore arguments made by others, and so undermine their case that their views are those of the area. This is a shame, because - IMHO - the Sydenham Society very often gets things right. People who only look on this Forum for local news are certainly the poorer for not being kept up to date by the postings of Nasaroc on the Sydenham Society site http://www.sydenhamsociety.com/ However, the SydSoc site does not accept argument - unless perhaps you are on the committee and demand that a different view is expressed, e.g. in this rare attributed contribution to the site http://www.sydenhamsociety.com/2011/02/ ... e-bullock/, and nor does it publicise arguments it makes in the planning process, even though these are in the public domain, and can be found - with some difficulty - on-line.

As such, the Sydenham Society - and everyone else - is the weaker, because what could be the real local 'Civic Voice' allows itself to be dismissed, if so desired, as narrow and inward-looking, and on other occasions used to tick the box for 'community consultation' when that is more convenient.

[Robin Orton]

However, you seem to be suggesting Admin does more than he does currently to control it

I'm not suggesting that at all. My remarks were directed towards those who post on the forum, not towards Admin.

[Voyageur]

I suppose it all depends to an extent on what the site owner is looking for, that and what the more prolific members steer the site towards.

I joined another local forum mainly in order to get to know more people locally - and it has certainly assisted in that respect. I also use it to get to know what is happening locally, to get involved in local issues that resonate with me and to - short - have a laugh and a bit of banter. Most people seem to use it for that purpose, although a minority are single issue posters intent on getting their message across.

The regular posters and the moderating style inevitably influence what the site becomes though. Certainly on the site I for which I currently moderate, a fair few members (and potential members) say that they are put off when prolonged, unpleasant arguments ensue, so we try and keep things relatively polite and good natured. It takes a little bit of effort here and there, but on the whole people appreciate the general tone of the site and things go swimmingly.

[Tim Lund]

However, you seem to be suggesting Admin does more than he does currently to control it

I'm not suggesting that at all. My remarks were directed towards those who post on the forum, not towards Admin.

Sorry - I can see I did misunderstand you.