The Cellar - View Single Post

Undertoad · 02-24-2002, 11:57 AM

Maybe a little history.

The mid-80s. Back in the day there was KAOS, a GBBS Apple ][ system with a 2400 baud modem.

It was as rudimentary a setup as you would find anywhere. You'd call into this thing, validate, and you'd have four areas to post in. While you were dialed into this system, nobody else could get in, you see - the modem was busy, and it was a single-user system.

This little community attracted a ton of people, albeit with that limitation. You'd get in, read, post, and get out so the next person could do the same.

Now, this was before the introduction of ANY of the Internet society. But the group was remarkably similar to everything you see today, in terms of the personality types that would show up.

Then an interesting thing happened: the sysop moved out of the house where the system lived. So suddenly there was nobody in charge.

Now the community had to aggressively self-police, because while this rudimentary software had some means to detect whether someone was abusing it, it couldn't tell if someone was being intolerably irritating. And there was no sysop around to manually remove the offending users.

The result was that the community developed tactics to deal with disruptive people.

Then as now, the most common irritating personality was the attention-seeking troll. Without the reward of a hundred other communities to disrupt, trolls could be more devastating to KAOS. The group came up with PISS - the "passive ignorance silence strike" I believe it was. Invoked on such a personality, it was deadly: everyone merely agreed not to respond to ANY of that person's posts, in ANY way. Once the attention of the group was gone, the troll had no reason to post. It was remarkable how well and how quickly it worked. It was as if the trolls said "that's it, they're onto me" and within a few days they would leave.

Now, having said all that, I have to say that I am NOT running this as a sociology experiment!! I just enjoy thinking about how the sociology works, that's all.

Anyway, it occurred to me that, oddly enough, for a strong community, and for a certain kind of community, the best sysop was in fact no sysop. Not a sociology experiment, but an anarchy experiment.

While we all want to play with the rules to see what would result, the funny thing is that you can probably get the result you want in other, simpler ways. Since the community takes its direction from itself, the easiest way to sway the community in your direction is to post, and moreover to start threads. If you think someone is being a dick, ask them publically to not be. Even start your own section and ask them publically not to read it. The judgement of the community is more powerful than any rule we could come up with.

And to go a step further, our best bet - always! - is to learn to get along, rather than to restrict everyone, or to kick offenders out.

If you feel that rules are what makes a place what it should be, how do you know that the rules won't eventually work against you? (My own personal qualifier in deciding whether to participate in a community is this: if I will ever be censored in any way, I won't post. Why waste my time?)

Well, I'm babbling, and I'll stop now.

02-24-2002, 11:57 AM	#11
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Maybe a little history. The mid-80s. Back in the day there was KAOS, a GBBS Apple ][ system with a 2400 baud modem. It was as rudimentary a setup as you would find anywhere. You'd call into this thing, validate, and you'd have four areas to post in. While you were dialed into this system, nobody else could get in, you see - the modem was busy, and it was a single-user system. This little community attracted a ton of people, albeit with that limitation. You'd get in, read, post, and get out so the next person could do the same. Now, this was before the introduction of ANY of the Internet society. But the group was remarkably similar to everything you see today, in terms of the personality types that would show up. Then an interesting thing happened: the sysop moved out of the house where the system lived. So suddenly there was nobody in charge. Now the community had to aggressively self-police, because while this rudimentary software had some means to detect whether someone was abusing it, it couldn't tell if someone was being intolerably irritating. And there was no sysop around to manually remove the offending users. The result was that the community developed tactics to deal with disruptive people. Then as now, the most common irritating personality was the attention-seeking troll. Without the reward of a hundred other communities to disrupt, trolls could be more devastating to KAOS. The group came up with PISS - the "passive ignorance silence strike" I believe it was. Invoked on such a personality, it was deadly: everyone merely agreed not to respond to ANY of that person's posts, in ANY way. Once the attention of the group was gone, the troll had no reason to post. It was remarkable how well and how quickly it worked. It was as if the trolls said "that's it, they're onto me" and within a few days they would leave. Now, having said all that, I have to say that I am NOT running this as a sociology experiment!! I just enjoy thinking about how the sociology works, that's all. Anyway, it occurred to me that, oddly enough, for a strong community, and for a certain kind of community, the best sysop was in fact no sysop. Not a sociology experiment, but an anarchy experiment. While we all want to play with the rules to see what would result, the funny thing is that you can probably get the result you want in other, simpler ways. Since the community takes its direction from itself, the easiest way to sway the community in your direction is to post, and moreover to start threads. If you think someone is being a dick, ask them publically to not be. Even start your own section and ask them publically not to read it. The judgement of the community is more powerful than any rule we could come up with. And to go a step further, our best bet - always! - is to learn to get along, rather than to restrict everyone, or to kick offenders out. If you feel that rules are what makes a place what it should be, how do you know that the rules won't eventually work against you? (My own personal qualifier in deciding whether to participate in a community is this: if I will ever be censored in any way, I won't post. Why waste my time?) Well, I'm babbling, and I'll stop now.