Proposed Chat Guidelines.

[Mark Arbour]

I'm not so sure about raising the post requirement for members to join chat. There are games and threads that require no more than one word to be counted as an entire post... it would seem more logical to link this requirement to reputation-- then again, is that even possible?

 

I've joined chat on several websites, and fact of the matter is: people of certain ages act accordingly. As much as we youngins like to think that we are extremely mature, we lack a lot of experience in dealing with life situations. Life is a constant debate, and subject matter will vary depending on where or who you find yourself with. If the reputation system were to be used fairly, the most intelligent and the most popular posts would receive the most positive response... is 100% of GA's young membership popular and intelligent? No. Therefore even using the reputation system would be a bit of a hassle.

 

So, rant over... I think the only way to be sure that a member is ready for live interaction is to assess their posts on the forums (how they interact with other members and how intelligently they practice censorship). This would probably have to be done by the moderation team, which would be way too much work and would most likely cause too much drama. So all in all, I think closing chat was a good decision. As this is an ever-growing website, there will most likely be many more chat shutdowns due to similar reasons, which will give new members time to evaluate themselves and possibly discuss it with the rest of the community. As long as there are good mods keeping an eye on the members and ensuring the well-being of GA, things will be OK.

 

Begin rant: So often on this site, and in other venues, I've seen this assumed link between age and emotional maturity, and this assumed link between age and wisdom. I have seen no evidence to prove either of these as facts, but as common perceptions it is easy to assume that they are true.

 

My own experiences, anecdotal to be sure, have shown absolutely no relationship between age and wisdom or maturity. I've seen some older people on this site do some incredibly immature things, and I've seen some of the younger people on this site display amazing maturity. I've listened to some older people on this site say some of the most incredibly stupid things I've ever heard, and also heard some amazingly insightful things from our younger members. And in both of those situations, the opposite is true as well. My own personal conclusion is that maturity and wisdom are founded in the individual, not in an age group; and that these characteristics are also not universal to an individual. Sometimes a person can say really smart things, then that person can turn around and say really dumb things.

 

But a common axiom is that perception is reality. So when we see a young person say something inane, it is easy to discount that to the "crime" of youth. The sad news for those of us who are far above 30 is that when we say something inane, there's no convenient explanation, so people just think we're f**king stupid.

[Maddy]

That's a lovely idea, actually; but, at the same time, just because we don't portray ourselves as intelligent individuals all the time (or ever on the forums, if you're me) doesn't mean that we aren't, in fact, the most amazing people ever.

 

I don't think you got what I was saying... because in fact that's exactly what I'm saying. I'm not proposing any change to how the mods deal with chat mishaps... in fact I applaud what they did, and I'm fine with the system in place because of their ability.

 

Begin rant: So often on this site, and in other venues, I've seen this assumed link between age and emotional maturity, and this assumed link between age and wisdom. I have seen no evidence to prove either of these as facts, but as common perceptions it is easy to assume that they are true.

 

My own experiences, anecdotal to be sure, have shown absolutely no relationship between age and wisdom or maturity. I've seen some older people on this site do some incredibly immature things, and I've seen some of the younger people on this site display amazing maturity. I've listened to some older people on this site say some of the most incredibly stupid things I've ever heard, and also heard some amazingly insightful things from our younger members. And in both of those situations, the opposite is true as well. My own personal conclusion is that maturity and wisdom are founded in the individual, not in an age group; and that these characteristics are also not universal to an individual. Sometimes a person can say really smart things, then that person can turn around and say really dumb things.

 

But a common axiom is that perception is reality. So when we see a young person say something inane, it is easy to discount that to the "crime" of youth. The sad news for those of us who are far above 30 is that when we say something inane, there's no convenient explanation, so people just think we're f**king stupid.

 

That's a lot of exceptions. I'm assuming most of your experiences didn't involve the same person at different ages making the same decision, did they?

 

Let's see. While there are many definitions of wisdom, we usually link wisdom and learning. You will agree with me that even though not ALL individuals learn as they grow older, most do. You can be a relatively mature and wise 17 year old, but most likely you will be more wise when you are 30, and even more so when you are 35 (unless you've been living under a rock, in which case you will have learned very little). If given ample time to think a response to a crisis, a wise and mature 17 year old will most likely come up with something appropriate. If given 3 seconds to respond, a 30 year old who has most likely experienced that crisis (possibly repeatedly) will come up with a more appropriate response than a 17, 19, or 21 year old could in those same 3 seconds. So all in all, I think it's safe to say that maturity is enforced by experience, and experience is gained with time, as time is a continuum, so . I don't mean to belittle anyone: I've made plenty of rash and stupid decisions, some of which many of you are aware of... and I've always been told that I am very mature for my age. AND I never said that there were no exceptions to the rule, or that the youth of GA was incapable of giving well-thought-out responses... I'm just saying that if we gave new members time to acclimate to the rules and to learn how to interact with others on the INTERNET (specifically the forums) before letting them into chat (where things are usually immediate), things would be a lot less chaotic. BUT I also said that it would probably be too much work for the mods and that it would create a lot of bad feelings between new members and GA administration. I still applaud whoever made the decision to close chat for these past few days.

[Hoskins]

I haven't participated in chat here, as I haven't at any of the sites I participate in, since about y2k or so. I used to moderate chat rooms on AOL and on online forums. At any given time, I was moderating between 25 and 150 people in a room, and sometimes two or three rooms in a session.

 

The one core principle I stuck to as a mod was that I expected people to respect the people and the room. If you badmouthed somebody, you got kicked. If you smarted off, you got kicked. If you isolated people or "picked" on them, you got kicked. Clique-ish behavior counted as isolating.

 

When young people graduate from high school and again from college, they begin to realize that cliques and clique-ish behavior is childish. While I understand there are people under 18 here, the older people here should know better, and should BE better than to be childish. Cliques are so...highschool.

 

Maybe, just maybe, the GA chat room could be a place where you practice NOT being in a clique, and instead, offer a welcoming presence to the people around you, with the end result that everyone has a better time.

 

And now I will bow out, because I have no dog in this fight, but I sure do hate cliques.

Edited February 12, 2010 by Hoskins

[myself_i_must_remake]

my new stance is that of an asshole.

 

i say: if there is a problem in chat, suspend all people involved from it for, say, two days, regardless of who started what. repeat offenders will be handled appropriately. with these kinds of strictures in place, people will mess around less.

 

why such a militant approach to chat?

 

well: we're not entitled to it. it's a private site. they can enforce things as arbitrarily as they'd like without any threat greater than the loss of a member, and i don't think it would ever really come to that anyway. (if it did, chances are that person was bad for the community.)

 

all talking about the issue seems to have done is created more contention. babbling over the "should be" and "this is how it is" and "i hate cliques" has produced exactly two things: another argument and a four-page topic.

 

i'm willing to hand over a lot of power to moderators because if i get kicked out, i'll do the homework i'm supposed to be doing while i'm on chat anyway seriously, what is really at stake if people who participate in problems get temporarily restricted privileges?

[Aeroplane]

I agree, the chat has a tight knit of friends, all who defend each other at the slightest, but it never seems to be with each other, more with newbies who don't understand how close we are.

 

Mark, Rob is not trying to come off the way he seems to be. A lot of the chat regulars have been talking and we want to be able to set guidelines for OURselves more so than the newbies, learning from our mistakes, and trying to keep from dragging a mod in every day. Self moderation really

 

Yeah, that is what I mean by clique. In chat we are all friends, almost without exception. As a general rule we don't exclude anybody, unless they repeatedly make an ass of themselves so showing by their actions that they don't want to participate in any meaningful way.

 

I am trying to come off the way I seem to be - life is a harsh place and chat is a hazy reflection of life, and I'm not afraid to say that.. I think that sugarcoating what is the truth is not constructive and never leads to any real solutions.

 

You are right though, these are more for us than the newbies. If people read the two sections of my guidelines, the section aimed at newbies is more a heads-up, telling them what to expect when they come in to chat, and what we expect of them. Namely, to be nice and polite. We all generally do that anyway, its just that some people need a little reminder. Still others need a big kick up the backside, but we get rid of them quite quickly.

 

The section aimed at established members is much more a list of what to do regarding new users - don't make your disputes public, be nice to them, ignore them rather than starting an argument. Its all basic stuff. I think that as established members we almost have a 'duty of care' and I tried to reflect that in my two sections. This is why I made two sections to begin with - established members have a responsibility to keep chat safe and sane for everyone, new members don't.

 

 

Then make chat peaceful and fun through your actions. Not through some arbitrary set of guidelines that create two separate classes of chat participants. Like I said I don't find fault with your want to create guidelines. I find fault with the "Newbies" vs "Regulars" approach. If you can come up with a set of guidelines that can unilaterally cover all members I am all for it.

 

However, I do believe we have a set of those already. But maybe we need to find a way to make them more clearly visible to people entering chat.

 

Yes, two sections is not ideal, but I think we can't expect new members to adopt any responsibility until they find their place in chat. We should all stick to the same basic rule [dont be an ass, in public, to anyone], but established members need to be aware that they are the people who should make that extra effort to make chat a good place for all.

 

 

Not saying this site is dull I'm saying it would be if more rules and restrictions come up. I was on this fan site where they were extremly strict on grammer and if you didn't spell there name right, and you couldn't miss spell you were banned. You got two warnings and that was it. I don't like sites that get that extrem over rules. Just saying relax a bit and let the place be fun and enjoyful for all members with rules that are necessary. I think the forum should be for all members that's how you get your reputation isin't it?

 

Nobody is suggesting that we become some sort of site which goes nazi on minor infractions. I don't want anything I've suggested to become any kind of rule or restriction, just a guide to how to behave because some people need reminding from time to time.

 

 

Arrogant much, Pasta?

 

You're on the mark about the Established User rules but those for beginner are...well....a bit harsh to read.

 

You are quite free to think I am being arrogant. I am just setting the scene as I see it. The newbie 'rules' are just life. If you make friends with an established group, would you expect to be immediately accepted as a member of that group absolutely equally and without prejudice?

I certainly wouldn't. It takes time to build friendships, and I don't see how that is different on the internet rather than in life.

 

But seriously, P&C's guidelines seem to be just a written form of how chat already works. Personally I haven't seen much hate towards new members, albeit some reluctance to accept them(Which is completely normal in ANY tight-knit community). My opinion maybe be biased though, apparently I'm one of those special exceptions; no one has ever treated me badly in chat or even said a bad thing about me(to my knowledge).

 

It truly is a safe haven for minors.

 

Youre right - there is no hate directed at any member unless they distinguish themselves as someone who is worthy of it, everyone starts chat with a blank slate and it is up to them what they make of that.

 

Perhaps chat needs but one rule: Let's all be civil to one another.

 

It does, but sometimes people seem to need a prod in that direction.

 

 

 

 

Some of you seem to think I am being harsh, or unfair. None of you who have said this have explained why you think that.

 

Anywhere you have real-time interaction with other people you get various social issues, cliques being the one which is applicable here. That is true of life and of chat. If you lambaste me for saying this you do not have a jaded enough view of the world, in my opinion.

 

 

The chat clique is unique in that there is a single acceptance criterion - prove that you are a decent human being by not being a 'flaming asshole' on too many occasions. This is not difficult, but if someone finds it difficult I would suggest that this is not the place for them. I find that entirely reasonable.

Edited February 13, 2010 by Pasta and Cheese

[Daisy]

Some of you seem to think I am being harsh, or unfair. None of you who have said this have explained why you think that.

 

Anywhere you have real-time interaction with other people you get various social issues, cliques being the one which is applicable here. That is true of life and of chat. If you lambaste me for saying this you do not have a jaded enough view of the world, in my opinion.

 

 

The chat clique is unique in that there is a single acceptance criterion - prove that you are a decent human being by not being a 'flaming asshole' on too many occasions. This is not difficult, but if someone finds it difficult I would suggest that this is not the place for them. I find that entirely reasonable.

 

I'm probably not jaded enough. Though I have come across enough bad groups and people in real life. However just because others behave like that (whatever social behaviour) doesn't mean that we or I have to.

 

I'd just point out that you're assuming that the 'clique' in that environment isn't the 'flaming asshole' or know what proving you are a decent human being means, rather than the newbies. It's an assumption anyway.

Edited February 13, 2010 by Smarties

[Aeroplane]

I'm probably not jaded enough. Though I have come across enough bad groups and people in real life. However just because others behave like that (whatever social behaviour) doesn't mean that we or I have to.

 

I'd just point out that you're assuming that the 'clique' in that environment isn't the 'flaming asshole' or know what proving you are a decent human being means, rather than the newbies. It's an assumption anyway.

 

 

'Flaming asshole' is open to anyone. Established member and newbie alike if that makes you feel better .

[Mark Arbour]

I'm probably not jaded enough. Though I have come across enough bad groups and people in real life. However just because others behave like that (whatever social behaviour) doesn't mean that we or I have to.

 

I'd just point out that you're assuming that the 'clique' in that environment isn't the 'flaming asshole' or know what proving you are a decent human being means, rather than the newbies. It's an assumption anyway.

 

I think Rob was acknowledging that. It is pretty common for a group to naturally purge itself of idiots. Sometimes it takes a while. A really long while.

 

I would assume that when chat reopens, the participants, whether they are new or old members, would automatically do that. Self-regulation, as it were.

[Myk]

Who do I have to proposition to make this thread disappear?

 

Greg....who is very irked

[Daisy]

'Flaming asshole' is open to anyone. Established member and newbie alike if that makes you feel better .

 

 

I think Rob was acknowledging that. It is pretty common for a group to naturally purge itself of idiots. Sometimes it takes a while. A really long while.

 

I would assume that when chat reopens, the participants, whether they are new or old members, would automatically do that. Self-regulation, as it were.

 

Maybe .

 

There are loads of open ended possibilities .

 

One possibility is that a theoretical group is like one's I've encountered throughout my life, the idiots stick together in their own group or cling to the popular and bash everyone outside it. Or in gentler forms of the such. I am being hypothetical and crude. (and not behaviour I'd like to repeat anyway). And now I've forgotten what I was saying, damn .

 

.... erm, but yeah, ok I agree with your principle . I do self-regulation in my life , even if stupidly it does take awhile.

 

One of the dangers of the group getting it wrong means that it's more than one against one, even if after awhile others say step in, it can cause discomfort.

 

(and I'm a devils advocate, a behaviour I should probably dumb down some)

Edited February 13, 2010 by Smarties

[JSmith]

Wow. I just read (almost) every post in this thread, and I must say that I'm not impressed.

 

So far we've outlined some general 'statements' (not rules) about how certain people view the chatroom. I wouldn't even call them guidelines like the topic title says. I'm all for discussing ways to help police the chatroom, but so far none of this really helps. We've had chat rules since it opened. We've blasted them in open announcements over and over again. The site rules, which everyone agreed to even if they didn't read them, apply for any area on the forums, chatroom included.

 

In the past we have been very lenient on moderation of the chatroom, but that's because it wasn't needed. A few years ago we never had problems like we are now. It was closed a few times due to lack of funding and lack of interest, but we never had as many issues as we do now. THAT'S what's causing us to get more heavy handed in the chatroom. We have two moderators dedicated to only the chatroom, while just a handful of other tackle the entire site. Even with that, most of the global moderators still have to help handle the chatroom. It was beyond control, and I warned people in the chatroom several times that it was going to be closed if things didn't start getting better. They didn't. I closed it.

 

But to be totally honest, I don't understand how not having a chatroom for three days is causing this much drama. It's only three days, and most of you have each other on MSN/AIM/Facebook/Whatever to continue talking. When the chat reopens I have no doubt that things will be better for a while. The moderators will ease off because everyone will moderate themselves more. But once everyone starts getting comfortable again, we can't let that stop, or this will happen again.

 

So no, we don't need a new set of guidelines. The same set of guidelines that have been in place for the past couple years are just fine. It's the members in the chat that need to follow them without a moderator in the room.

[Mark Arbour]

I closed it.

 

 

So you're the one!

 

Sometimes a cooling off period is a good thing.

[Myr]

Chat room is back open... for now.

It would be best if all of you remember the rules. There is a link posted to them when you log into chat Now.

They are also here:

https://www.gayauthors.org/forums/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules