Consumerium social club: Difference between revisions
"what they are trying to protect by working together, i.e. at Consumerium"
(more depth, more examples) |
("what they are trying to protect by working together, i.e. at Consumerium") |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Unlike on [[Disinfopedia]] or [[Wikipedia]] this will not be allowed to interfere with [[sysop]] decisions and the [[Consumerium buying signal]] which affects real helpless living things - things with a real body, the life of real communities, both of which overrule foolish virtual/disposable chat clubs as a priority. However people get attached to such '''social club''s, that's fine, and they should have certain rights to continue their social relationships as a group even if these [[unequal power relationship]]s are damaging the mission of the forum they met each other in. | Unlike on [[Disinfopedia]] or [[Wikipedia]] this will not be allowed to interfere with [[sysop]] decisions and the [[Consumerium buying signal]] which affects real helpless living things - things with a real body, the life of real communities, both of which overrule foolish virtual/disposable chat clubs as a priority. However people get attached to such '''social club''s, that's fine, and they should have certain rights to continue their social relationships as a group even if these [[unequal power relationship]]s are damaging the mission of the forum they met each other in. | ||
Renaming the so-called "community" a '''social club''' helps remind people that their concerns or annoyances, say with [[troll]]s, are very petty compared with what they are trying to protect by working together, i.e. at Consumerium. If this name is changed it should be to something even more obviously social and with no [[authoritative integrity]], like '''Consumerium dating service''' or '''Consumerium groupthinkers'''. It should never be called a "'''Consumerium Community'''" since it is this exact terminology which seems to trigger the worst sysop behaviour. Suddenly in order to keep themselves in charge they claim to "protect the community" by using tactics that would be only justified by protecting real bodies from real assaults. Annoying a sysop might lose you status in a social club - it does most certainly not imply that you have nothing to contribute to "the mission". | |||
Consider: would you allow someone running a political meeting to literally gag someone, and physically throw them out of the building, using some technology that no one else in the room had, with no particular process or criteria that the rest of the room agreed with completely? If you did, would you expect that conversation in that room would thereafter reflect people's real views or tend towards [[groupthink]] just to end the pointless (obviously some things have already been decided) meeting sooner or avoid further exclusion? Yet this is the exact behaviour that almost all [[sysop]]s apply when they are given power. | Consider: would you allow someone running a political meeting to literally gag someone, and physically throw them out of the building, using some technology that no one else in the room had, with no particular process or criteria that the rest of the room agreed with completely? If you did, would you expect that conversation in that room would thereafter reflect people's real views or tend towards [[groupthink]] just to end the pointless (obviously some things have already been decided) meeting sooner or avoid further exclusion? Yet this is the exact behaviour that almost all [[sysop]]s apply when they are given power. | ||