Our Responsibility To Our Communities

Community is about giving and respect. If we can’t act with respect, then all is lost, or as least minimalized to the point of losing its value. With regards to giving, that is the true purpose of creating community in the first place, online or off, as we give in a selfless manner that considers the needs of others before our own needs.

“The community decides what’s acceptable”

But that’s just group think, and means that everyone becomes a member of the thought police. Look what happened at Flickr.

As long as posters aren’t profane or personal in attacks, what’s wrong with tolerating dissenting voices?

I think that the barn-raising metaphor makes no sense in this context. Sometimes structures that don’t work or no longer serve the intended community or their own function DO need to be torn down. Insisting that everyone post only positive thoughts isn’t realistic nor is it helpful.

Why not just ignore people whose writings annoy you?

Slightly different discussion, but this post reminds me a conversation I had with a Chamber of Commerce honcho last fall. Basically, this is what I explained to him:

Ten years ago, people depended on you to create a community, and because you were the only real game in town, they joined and played along. Today, they don’t need you. They can get on Facebook, Twitter, Seesmic, YouTube and Ning, and create their own business community on their own terms. They meet where they want, when they want, how they want and don’t need you to dictate their schedule anymore. They associate with who they want and weed out people they don’t want. They opt-in and opt-out at will. They define and redefine purpose and strategy at will. They use real-time tools to collaborate, discuss issues and find contractors. The new community’s relevance isn’t about continuity or legacy anymore, it’s about actual relevance.

Communities form, grow and thrive on relevance, passion and interest. I see many companies trying to create communities in the Social Media space and failing miserably because they think that they have to BUILD something all on their own. A destination, an experience, content, etc. Truth is, the community is probably already there. It probably already lives online somewhere. The most successful community-building efforts I have seen online so far have been the ones where brand managers empowered their fans to create the community themselves. It does take a village.

Communities are about the community, not about the community leader. You have to empower the fans, not disenfranchise them by building a temple for them to worship you in.

You so rock for always writing fantastic posts, Amber.

olivier blanchards last blog post..Engagement Paradigm: Defining the value of “followers” on Twitter

It’s a shame we can’t figure out a way to preserve some of the disruptive energy that makes the physical world such a fun place to be. As long as we rely on hastily typed comments, we lose the subtle nuances that colour a conversation. People get affronted, everything becomes a detail fest where every character is pored over, and the dynamic of a healthy discussion can be lost.

That’s why everyone plays nice all the time, it’s just a hell of a lot easier. But are we missing something by taking the flower strewn path of mutual admiration?

I have to side with Amber on this: Dissent is vital, sure, but being a contrarian just for the sake of being a contrarian doesn’t bring a whole lot to the table.

Unless you have a valid counterpoint and either the semantic chops or substance to back it up, don’t fall into the heckler’s trap: Always being the guy in the back of the room who has to raise his hand to disagree about everything just to get attention. That’s not being smart or clever, it’s being an a**hole. There’s a big difference between presenting a valid counterpoint and being an antisocial attention addict.

Not pointing fingers at anyone in particular, but I’m calling a cat a cat. Meeeeeeeeow.

olivier blanchards last blog post..Engagement Paradigm: Defining the value of “followers” on Twitter

So you’re either a constructive and positive contributor, or you’re an a-hole. But that’s my point about losing subtle nuance. I guess it’s because these communities are rooted in University-educated middle class libertarians – everyone’s always so goddam reasonable. No counterpoint can be tolerated unless prefaced by “I really do appreciate the effort you’ve obviously put in, but can I just be so bold as to offer a valuable insight that may sit contrary to your original position?” Can’t I just call you a fucktard instead?

Instead what we get is less direct, but snide. (Eg “One more time…” as if I’ve not been quite bright enough to understand what you’re saying). It’s smiling with a grimace. It can feel like I imagine a gated community in Florida feels. Round of golf anyone?

I know what you’re thinking. If you don’t like it, don’t play. Actually I do, I’m a University educated middle class guy, so I can fit in just fine. It’s just that I think we need to address the dynamics of online communication if we want to be truly inclusive.

Another example – I played the online game Travian for a bit. The etiquette that surrounds it can be quite an eye opener. If you message a player and forget to put a subject line in, that’s a big no-no. If you don’t speak respectfully to the guy who’s attacking your village, that’s another black mark.

I’d love to know if we’re becoming more apologetic – is that really healthy?

Well this “comment conversation” has certainly gotten interesting…However, as I re-read the post and all of the ensuing comments, I believe this is exactly the point. A mini-community has developed on this very page – one that is allowing for open discussion, back and forth dialogue, and even a bit of “contrarianism.”

I want to stress what I think is one of the keys to Amber’s post (dare I say, “one more time”?):

“You bear the responsibility of creating dissonance with a positive purpose. Being contrarian for the sake of it is utterly valueless.

Sidebar: Firefox spell check does not recognize the word contrarian. Coincidence or…?

My 3 cents.

DJ Waldow
@djwaldow

DJ Waldows last blog post..100th Post Ends The Journey

I don’t disagree with a personal responsibility to add something of ‘value’ to any community. The problems usually start when we try to define what we consider ‘valuable’. Here in the UK (and I presume elsewhere) people take their clothes off and run across a sporting field. It’s selfish, self-indulgent and disrupts the flow of play. But it’s also theatre, and draws cheers and heckles in equal measure. The ‘community’ may decide that this adds nothing to the task in hand, and indeed some people may be offended by an equivalent act online, and therefore demand that the offending people are not allowed to participate.

I’m not advocating a ‘free-for-all, anarchic, say what you like and hang the consequences’ approach. It won’t happen because we are, as a species, very fond of conforming. I’d just like to preserve as much richness, colour and texture as is humanly possible, and ‘netiquette’ has proven disastrous at achieving this aim.