![[Home]](http://meatballwiki.org/meatball.gif)
UsAndThem
MeatballWiki | RecentChanges | Random Page | Indices | CategoriesThe following table describes various relationships between us, the OnlineCommunity, and them who are not CommunityMembers. We define fun as not necessarily "fun", but interest, value, mutual goals, or anything other property that attracts one to another. We might have called this attractiveness and enmity, but fun/unfun is a simpler phrasing.
In particular, the table describes how to attract good members, how to avoid attracting bad members, and the pitfalls of creating enemies. The general theme is to be as fun as you can possibly handle, and otherwise neutral. It does describe one scenario where you have to be unfun, but that was because you were already unfun. Therefore, strive to never be unfun. Easier said than done, but focusing on NonViolence is the key.
Note this does not deal with places concerned more for TheAudience over TheCollective good. Being massively popular means attracting unfun people without it disrupting you, which is possible for more unilateral media like WebLogs. An online community can only afford to include fun people, however, as it barely has the resources to keep unfun people out let alone let them eat away at your insides.
| They are Fun to us | They are Neutral to us | They are Unfun to us | |
| We are Fun to them | Both we and they are Friends. Leads to collaboration and BarnRaising. RewardReputation. Ensure you only attract people in these circumstances. Be proactive about it. Reach out to people you find interesting and who you think will find you interesting. | They are Outsiders. EnlargeSpace. They may be a potential new friend (as we are fun to them), but we aren't interested in them. Then again, at the moment their interests may be too far afield to enlarge your own space. Help them kindly get their ideas cooking. In the future, this good will come back to reward you. Alternatively, they might be an AdoringFan. | They are Attackers. These cases are brutal because everyone likes admirers, and you want to support people with the same interest as you, but they are not very friendly. These are your second worst scenario because they will doggedly follow you to hurt you, but you at least have a control over them: their interest in you. DissuadeInteraction, DissuadeReputation. Just don't drink their poison and it cannot hurt you. If you do, develop an radical immunity as in RadicalInclusiveness. |
| We are Neutral to them | We are Uninterested. They may be very interesting, but you aren't to them. Work towards making yourself more interesting to them, but don't sweat it if they don't care. Everyone has their own lives. You can only try to be more valuable and convincing, but you will never get them all. | Both we and they are Oblivious. Neither party cares about one another. You won't bump into one another. However, maybe you're missing out on something? Look into other types of people occasionally and see if you can move them into the fun column. | They are Trolls. They don't care about us, yet they are interested in hurting us. Not good people. Find out what their expected reward is and deny it to them. cf. MeatBall:back=CategoryDifficultPerson. |
| We are Unfun to them | We are Snobbish. We failed. We sully our own reputation and make enemies that we cannot afford. Be an anti-snob. Employ ConflictResolution, apologize, be humble, accept blame, fix your process. | They are Victims. We are attacking them. They had no idea we were coming to hurt them, but we are all of a sudden fighting them. A very good way to transition someone to an Enemy who would otherwise not have bothered you at all. Don't create victims. Don't troll. | We and they are Enemies. FlameWars erupt. Both parties are to blame, so avoid afixing blame. You can only ControlYourself. So, stop being unfun as fast as possible. Escape your AngryCloud. You can try to convince the other party they are in the same situation (NameTheConflict). If both can step back, you can begin to use ConflictResolution. Otherwise, they should exercise their RightToLeave and you should ForgiveAndForget (in software and wetware). Be wary of applying PunishReputation to them out of anger. The more you enrage the other party, the more likely you will be attacked. LimitDamage you do to them. To do this, you may need to LimitDamage they can do to you. But essentially you have no power over the other party because they don't like you. Avoid deepening your loss of power by widening the conflict. It's unclear what to do when they aren't mature enough to let go; using information as a weapon may be required. A little PunishReputation a la CommunityExile is the best known answer so far, but it's a bad answer. |
The above is PrimarilyPublicDomain.
Nice table. Us-to-them (down) / Them-to-us (across) pushes away though..
How so?
just above (in the original page) was mentionned Alex. Followed a table opposing the community to others. That sounded like pushing away to me. Already one foot outside. Just a feeling.
I felt greatly inspired by it. Because of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/biological%20interaction. And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiosis.
I did this. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip%E9dia%3ARelations_sociales_entre_Wikip%E9diens. I hope you do not mind. The bottom is naturally greatly inspired of this, but not really just translation. I intend to make it more accurate and much more rich in in-references, to fit our pecularities, and orient people to some of our goodies. And I would like feedback from the others. Right now, it is too late :-) Supposed to get up in 2h30. Stupid of me.
If you mind what I did, just tell me. But please read it if you can. Right now, you and I is just commensalism. Thank you very much for your insight.
No, rather it was to stop pushing Alex away by stop being unfun. No, I don't mind at all. ;) -- SunirShah
- hate to break it to you (and I hate to come across as though I'm trying to spread a forest fire), but every time you shun a PenName user who could be a potential contributor, you're being snobby. AvoidIllusion.
In theory we shun PenNames because we're uninterested: uninterested in becoming that sort of community. In practice it's probably snobby. Do the Italics refer to what we are, or what they are? Seems to differ in different cells.
Snippet from OnlineCommunitiesAreCityStates:
- A lord establishing himself for the protection of the local peasants and the market.
Protection from what? Why do we still have a perception of the world as an 'us' and a 'them', one which must be protected from the other?
- Because "they" demonstrably exist. People who enjoy committing anti-social acts exist, both on and off line. People who view you/your nation/your religion as the enemy exist, even if you have never personally met them or done anything to deserve their anger. (Except maybe being born into particular circumstances.) Even if you believe that all men are brothers, there are probably some members of your "family" who you would rather not invite into your home.
But this idea is misapplied. People in the UK write in to newspapers saying "we don't want to lose our sovereignty and be controlled by Brussels." What makes the rest of Europe "them" but a Prime Minister who might be from the other side of the UK a member of the "us"? The problem lies when we start using arbitrary divisions as markers of "them-ness". And I think we all enjoy committing anti-social acts -- it's just most of us refrain from doing so.