Not really caring all that strongly one way or the other (i.e., if initiations continue to be frequent, graphic, etc. etc. etc. it won't really bother me all that much, but on the other hand I don't have a raging hard-on for them either), lemme just try to point out a couple things as non-objectivly as I can.
Rae wrote:
First: Inits rarely actually sidetrack a thread from whatever topic it is on for more than a few posts. I have seen and done inits that didn't even detract it for a single post.
I don't quite get the single post thing, since an initiation kind of has to be a post (unless you do it by PM or e-mail or something), but that's just splitting hairs--really, Rae's right for most cases here. Every now and then someone who gets initiated will talk back and start flaming the people who initatied him, and of course they flame right back, and so on for quite a while, but these are the exception, not the rule. Arguing that initations are bad because they slow down the boards is pretty weak on its own.
Rae wrote:
Initiation is:
elitist, distrubing, childish, and used to scare people away.
I agree with all these things, and I ask, your point being? I am normally a mature, soft spoken person. In my "professional" writing, I avoid preversion with the strictest adherance. Yet, I am not a purtain in my thoughts. I can see a situation that is meant to be silly by hyberbole, and I can laugh at it. On the other hand, there have been things that some people thought fun, or dare I say, even arousing, that I find completely disgusting. There have been these things on this forum, in fact. Do I get in a huff and whine? No. Do I leave, never to return again? No. Why, because they aren't forced on me, and I have come to expect it when I accidently happen across them.
On the one hand, it's certainly true that trying to place restrictions on what someone can and can't say is the road to hell. Censorship is never, ever the answer, and hopefully people on this board are smart enough to realize that saying what you want to when you want to means letting Nazis, or the KKK, or whoever else, say what they want to when they want to. On the other hand, there is a difference between target and non-targeted offensive material; i.e. someone spouting racist jargon is less likely to get the shit kicked out of him than someone who calls out "hey, fuck you nigger" to a black man. Since initiations are clearly targeted ("I fux0rs j00 in the ass with a switchblade"), it is pretty reasonable to assume that the person directly reciving the abuse is going to be a little more upset than if they'd found a post that said "I like fucking people in the ass with switchblades." Just because people can find humor in everything doesn't mean we have to force them to.
Rae wrote:
Simple fact of life, like racism or the initiations, is that this forum is low brow. The general sense of humor of our community is abhorrid compared to the standard quasi-conservative sense of humor of most "normal" people. Yet, this is our haven.
This is true, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that initations represent the average sense of humor on the boards. I find them tedious at best, and obviously enough other people don't think they're all that funny to keep this thread alive. Remember, the people regularly writing initiations are really a minority of the people on these boards.
Rae wrote:
This is not a coffeeshop. A coffeeshop is a place that offers a service and perhaps might stimulate discussion.
Just want to break off here to point out that that is
exactly what an internet message board is as well.
Rae wrote:
This is a forum, a community. Communities are not "open to the public, come whoever you may be."
It's kind of difficult to accept that the people who enjoy hanging out here right now have the right to determine who hangs out here always. Anyone can come; it's whether or not they like it that's the issue. No matter how hard you try (short of the mods starting quality-control bannings), anyone who wants to post here can post here. So this is certainly not true of these forums, and I don't really see it as true of most communities, except for those gated communities in the suburbs. Bottom line, since initiations can't stop people from posting, just encourage them not to, the self-guarding community isn't a strong argument for initiations as a vital service to the boards.
Rae wrote:
Communities are "This is where we live, and we want to keep it the way it is." Yes, communities grow, and often times, when they get large, they will even split into subcommunities. But, they still retain the right to elitism, if you would call it that. If an undesirable element enters a community, it is the right of that community to protect itself. Maybe, sometime in the future, the community will grow to accept said element, but it will not have it forced upon it.
The trouble with this argument is that, except for the people who write initiations (who, as I said, are not really the majority here), the community doesn't percieve the n00bs who get initiated as undesirable, or if they do, they don't see initiations as a way of dealing with it. I really do think it's a stretch claiming that initations are a sanctioned practice of the established community to keep trouble out, when in reality they're something that a decent number of folks do for kicks. (Just a note here, Rae, I know you say just below this that you don't personally initiate to keep undesirables out, but the argument floats around this thread a fair ammount already, and this is as good a place to address it as any)
Rae wrote:
So, why do I initiate? Well, it isn't to drive of the undesirables. If someone comes in here and causes a ruckus, it is the admins who are in charge of dealing with that, with the example of locking threads and banning accounts. No, I initate to welcome and warn, and I do try to let a n00b know it is a welcome. I am pretty sure that most, if not all, of my inits end with some varient of "Welcome to the forums." Hell, in a few cases, I have even PM'd n00bs to let them know that I am not doing it out of spite.
This to me is a more convincing argument for initiations. I mean, I don't personally think telling someone about the horrible things I'm doing to them in my imagination is really an electronic equivilent for a handshake, but if you do then more power to you. Just make sure it's clear to the n00b (maybe at the beginnnings of the post, not the end) that this is your way of getting to know them, otherwise you risk their not perciving it as a friendly, welcoming gesture (and if your goal in writing an initiation really is to welcome them, that would defeat the purpose).
Rae wrote:
And RMG, you may not think rape is funny, but some people around here are like George Carlin. They are already an embedded part of the community, not an "insurgent element," and they aren't going to change. The init warns people that, at least by some, rape can be seen as humorous. My sincerest apoligies to some person who gets on here and that was raped and who runs off crying after my init, but this isn't the place for them. When we have Alice bouncing around saying "Rape is surprise sex" and Ghastly and the CoP (now forming) posting who knows what, a rape victim or a person sensitive to the topic would not get along well here.
Again, this to me is a more convincing argument. Less of a quality control filter and more of a sugeon general's warning. Again, though, if this is really the reason for initiations, I think it could be better served by an addenum at the end along the lines of "Just to let you know, people around here will occasionally start talking about rape like it's funny, and if this post bothered you, you will not want to hang around." Don't know what the hell the CoP is, though.
MR. Dead wrote:
Well, it seems Grievre, that you just want this forum to up and start running itself the way you think it should be.
Not likely gonna happen bubba.
If you want a forum with not inititiations, no so-called side tracking and allows you to plainly discuss ES on your narrow view:
GO SOMEWHERE ELSE AND MAKE YOUR OWN FORUM.
Then you can be the little control freak that you want to be and all 3 poeple in the world that share your same view can sit around and be directed by you to discuss ES to your satisfaction.
This seems a bit much, really...there's nothing wrong with saying you don't like initations and you want them to change. Sure, Grievre's been a little aggressive taking that stance, but going reactionary and aggressivly refusing to listen to him (her?) because "That's not the way we've done it here" isn't going to make him see your side, or make him friendlier in his posts. The rest of this post was pretty much more of the same, so there you have it: everybody is talking here because everybody wants to advance their own personal view of how the forums should be. Grievre is hardly unique in that, it's just that right now the majority of voices heard on the issue are against him, so of course it seems like he's trying to force unwanted change. That's not being a control freak, that's being a supporter of a minority cause trying to drum up support, so no one really needs to get upset, whichever side they believe is right.
Cymry wrote:
The thing you forget about inits, Greivre, is that usually they give warning before they happen. Think they are offensive ? skip over them. We do not force you to read them, or respont to them in the tread. I can't see anyone getting terribly upset if you just ignore it and post something on the original topic.
Really, that's only the case some of the time, and even if you do get warning, are you, as some poor n00b, going to ignore a response to one of your first posts, even if someone does start it out "Hey, man, this is going to be bloody."? So it's tough to see the irregular addition of warnings as any real argument for keeping initiations the way they are.
krylex wrote:
And, Grievre, you are walking a thin line
Now that's just being silly. Arguing against the majority does not place you anywhere near a ban-worthy offense, no matter how unconvincingly you do it. No one is walking any "thin lines" here with regards to getting banned.
The Baron wrote:
I'm not going to have you banned if you actually reply. I'm sick of the trolling, the constant bullshit with no point that serves no point but making people angry. What Krylex said is pretty accurate. So far, you've stirred up a lot of drama that has no real point except to cause more drama. You've provided no solution, no suggestions, nada. Causing self-perpetuating drama is called trolling, hun. It's bad stuff, and I don't like it.
This is, essentially, an argument against arguing. I percieve that as a bad thing for a debate-oriented forum. We all need to keep in mind that people defending their opinion are going to be, well, opinionated about it, and we especially need to remember that very little of this serves any point except to kill some time, generally enjoyably.
Okay, let me try to sum this excessivly long post up with summaries of points For Initations, Against Initations, and General Observations:
For Initations
1.
"It's an expression of love, welcoming, etc." Okay, sez I. It strikes me as an odd how-de-do, but I'm not gonna say it can't work. But right now it's not always clear that this is the equivilent of a hearty slap on the back to the n00b reading, and a "by the way, this is all just a joke" at the end of a three-page gang-rape scene probably won't make that appart to said n00b, who we must remember is pretty clueless most of the time. In general, though, it's a decent argument for initiations.
2.
"It keeps out people we don't like" Strikes me as an overly-aggressive form of quality control, especially since many people that get initiated and don't come backmay or may not actually be obnoxious trolls--we never really waited to find out. One stupid introduction thread does not an irreedemable sinner make. This is a pretty tough argument to sell; keeping out people you don't like by being really unpleasant to them is a tough ideological standpoint to buy in the first place, and there's a pretty significant downside to it. Probably not a winning argument for.
3.
"It lets people know how sick these boards can get" This is fairly convincing, although most of the really sick things on the board--I say most, not all--do tend to be in initiations, so it's a bit cyclical at heart. The boards can get a little weird, and people should know that. Whether or not initating people is the way to do it, well, initations do get the job done, and I'm really not sure how else to do it. I mean, would
you read the stickied "Disclaimer of Uncensored Content" thread? I'd say this one is a decent argument for.
Against Initiations
1.
"They make people so upset they leave." While there is some truth to the argument that people who do this should be more thickskinned, initiations really aren't a great first impression. It's not a really spectactular display of the quality and enjoyment people will get if they stick around, so it probably does lose us people who really wouldn't be bad additions to the boards. First impressions are important, and initiations can be a bad one for any number of reasons (they're childish and dull; they're graphic and offensive, or any number of other, similar reactions). Pretty solid argument against.
2.
"They're elitist." Yeah, but on the other hand, virtually every fun-loving group of people has some knee-jerk belief that the older, more experienced guys should be allowed to make fun of the new, green kids until they get a little weathering on 'em. It's elitist like Boy Scouts or a frat house is, at worst. This alone is a pretty bad reason to stop initiations.
3.
"It's childish; It's mental masturbation; It's ego-inflation, etc." I totally agree, but again, I don't think that alone means people should stop. Dientology is a bad system to live by; just because your motives are self-serving doesn't mean what you are doing is inherently bad and needs to be stopped. Not a strong argument against.
4.
"It distracts from topics" Most of the time, not true by more than a couple of posts, which isn't all that big of a distraction. It could be cut down on if, when some n00b reacts poorly to an initation post, someone just puts up a quick "look, it's just how [poster of initiation here] says hi, it's a forum tradition, you won't have to worry about it again unless you're really obnoxious, so even though we know you're pissed right now, please--just let it go" rather than chewing him out for not taking it like he's supposed to. Like I said, though, those are the exception, not the rule, so as an argument it's a bit of a wash.
General Observations
1. Play nice, children. Obviously we all have different opinions on how initiations should be handled. This thread has safely established that; now that that's over with, we can discuss it nicely. Agressive, "if you weren't such a self-centered jerk" posts are never going to convince someone of your side, so why try?
2. No one wants anything that is bad for the boards here, but we do have different visions of what a good board should be. Reach for compromise with other peoples' visions, not the establishment of yours. If any one person says "I don't care what everyone else says, I'm going to do it my way," then discussing things is rather moot.
3. This is a self-governed sort of community. We don't have laws (short of the stuff we all signed when we registered), we have generally accepted ways of doing things and generally unaccepted ways of doing things. If something's in the grey area, be it initations, bitching about initiations, or anything else, that is not
carte blance to immediatly relegate it to the unaccepted side of the spectrum.
You are all bored of me by now, so peace out.