Home ›
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
and if you keep going like this, you won't, damn you >:[
oh, also, learn laconism
but whatever, I think that while we may want new people, we won't get them that easily. People from BTL, for example, are not interested in the non-TvT discussing aspect or think this place can get too shitposty (Which it does, admittedly, but it doesn't make it lose its appeal to me). People from TvT think we're still a dramafest thanks to Chagen and Tnu and/or think we're some sort of troll-demons thing going by Madrugada's charming support. Heaper's Hangout's crew is mostly here in one form or another, some just register and don't post, which is the whole "Lurk till you decide whether you like it or not" thing. Most of them go with nope, apparently. Those who do are the users we all know, like me and me and me and me. Central Avenue and Anonymous User too, I guess.
Overall, I think that we really shouldn't be expectating any user influx from these sites and if we really want new people, the only thing we can do is spread the word over in new places and whatnot.
Ancient precedent for this sort of situation is to raid a neighboring tribe and steal their women, I believe.
WHAT IS BEST IN LIFE?
Admittedly, the presence of "Malk, no malking" makes the forum feel like The Malk and Alex Show, give or take a few other names. In other words, overly cliquey.
Also, it's been bugging me that the forum demographics are so homogeneous. What are we doing to scare away all the women?
A few banned, a few missing in action.
It's probably to do with the cliqueyness you mentioned.
Yeah. Thing is, I tend to get bored of the 777th conversation of some animu I never heard of nor care to.
I have no idea what that has to do with female membership, and I actually think animus are more popular amongst young women than young men anyway.
It has to do with cliqueyness, mostly.
Welp, back when membership was more balanced, there was just as much animu faggotry. Perhaps moreso.
Honestly, having dealt with larger forums, I have trouble seeing cliqueyness as a bad thing; at the very least, it pales in comparison to the issues that arise in a larger forum.
It means that people not in the know feel left out a lot.
On the topic of women on this forum, the stalkerish attitudes of Chagen and Tnu couldn't have helped.
Perhaps my perspective is warped as being part of a clique, because this is the first time I've really comprehended one. I mean, sure, I knew there was a clique. I thought that was IJBM2.0 altogether. It was never really my intention to try and be socially dominant or anything, and it feels kinda weird to use those words in reference to myself.
It's really not my intention to make anyone feel as though they're on the "outside", and I daresay that's true of the other members of the clique -- whoever that entails. For all I know, the clique could be as small as three or four people or be a dozen.
Well, no one really intends these things, but it helps to be aware of it if the aim is to expand the userbase.
The Cliqueness of IJBM is one of the reasons why I find it difficult to post here because I wasn't there and it feels deliberately excludary(sp)
I don't know if there's a clique here (well, a clique that's smaller than the majority of the forum) so much as a couple of dominant personalities, or at least, groups who argue against each other all the time over minutiae and are more active than others as a result. But that's not really a bad thing as long as people don't feel that they're not allowed to put their two cents in, or, God forbid, that they're not allowed to actually have decent points in debates against these people. See: Lai's bowing out of the 15951st game design/zombie debate not because he went in over his head (though that might have been the case), but because he was against Alex. Not that I think Lai really feels left out, as he's been more active lately, but it would be pretty bad if any prospective newbies also felt that way, or felt that only Malk and Juan are allowed to disagree with him because his posts happen to be multiple paragraphs long.
Well, that turned into much more of a rant than I initially expected. I don't intend for any of that to come off as offensive, either, for the record. I just think Abyss sort of has a point, although that might be unchangeable as a result of the forum's nature and origin.
The cliqueyness is something I noticed too. This specific in-joke is an example of people commenting along the lines of "oh, how typical of X poster to be like this" without elaborating much on what "this" entails, making things unclear for some of us. I don't think TV Tropes is free of that either, honestly.
I think that that applies to any of the more active/veteran posters, really. As has been mentioned, one of the downsides of this forum is that everyone is predictable now. And if it's unclear what "this" entails, I don't think anyone would mind explaining, as has been demonstrated in this very thread.
Well, this whole "oh how typical of X poster" thing is probably present on any forum which has posters who develop a reputation for certain personality traits or habits and such.
I'd imagine that's also true. It's just that you can't really expect it to be any different here. Which is why I'd like to see more new posters.
We should spread the word, but being cynical for a minute, how could we sell this place as? A Forum about nothing?
An "about page" to link to would be handy. Especially if one is unsure how to "sell" this place using only one's signature on another forum.
I find it kind of annoying that some of the complaining here is the lack of variety on topics when we ourselves are the ones who pseudo-veto topics simply because of past drama. If we really want to get variety, then we need to either learn how to start treating topics other than media with a degree of deference and respect.
Also, for example, we supposedly say that stuff like sexism always leads to drama, but we've had CountryPumpkin making threads about it for the last couple of months and there hardly hasn't been as much of an issue.
I also agree with ponicalica one hundred per cent (Yeah yeah, predictable.
) in that cliqueyness is not that bad and it's preferable to the other extreme. However, this is not a matter of extremes, and we could grow steadily to a forum with a size that allows for discussion outside of the few so-called dominant personalities and that is still manageable. But, as I've mentioned before any measures we take to do so are not guaranteed to work, which is kind of why this kind of discussion bothers me, because I often feel that it's basically complaining about the forum being the forum and its users being...well, us. And I'd understand it if it sometimes didn't come across as "Bluh bluh I don't like it when this guy comes into this thread and talks because I know what he's gonna say"
I don't know, I might be exaggerating, but whatever. I prefer to say it rather than keep it to myself and let it fester
I can try making another thread I guess
Edit: And CountryPumpkin is the best thing to happen to the forum in a while. Feels like we've been treading new ground lately
Juan_Carlos,
But, as I've mentioned before any measures we take to do so are not guaranteed to work, which is kind of why this kind of discussion bothers me, because I often feel that it's basically complaining about the forum being the forum and its users being...well, us. And I'd understand it if it sometimes didn't come across as "Bluh bluh I don't like it when this guy comes into this thread and talks because I know what he's gonna say"
Aye, I apologize for bringing this stuff up. I probably should have realized it would bug some people.
In hindsight, it does seem kind of like complaining about current users not having interesting enough perspectives on things. The reality seems to be that certain communities will have certain slants and trying to "remedy" that or increase the kinds of perspectives can be really difficult.
Meh, it's OK and there's nothing wrong with the discussion per se, it's more the way other people are presenting their arguments that kind of grates on me, because it comes across as if Malk and Alex intended for this whole forum to be dominated by them and to just talk between themselves.
"I find it kind of annoying that some of the complaining here is the lack of variety on topics when we ourselves are the ones who pseudo-veto topics simply because of past drama. If we really want to get variety, then we need to either learn how to start treating topics other than media with a degree of deference and respect."
I always did find that habit of trying to shut down "serious" topics annoying, especially since they tend to be stuff I'd actually like to talk about rather than yet another media topic.
Come to think it of, the media whores here are Juan, Malk and I moreso than anyone else. So if only media topics are considered risk-free...
psst, this is me saying "it's not our fault"
Never said it is. If anything, it was Chagen, Tnu, Hatter, Anonym, and the other banned posters that black stained serious topics. In truth, ever since we got rid of the problem posters, I think they have become less forbidden.
I might also mention that Juan is often the one who derides serious topics a lot, such as in the recent David Cameron thread (or at least it came off that way).
I haven't really seen any pseudo-vetoing of topics due to previous drama recently (or at the very least, it shouldn't happen for that reason), so much as I see us pseudo-vetoing topics because we just had the discussion in question two days ago. Now that certain people are gone, we were actually able to have a rape thread that tread new ground, for instance.
I think the issue there is less that we can't respect those topics and more that we're less qualified to talk about them, or something. Or less interested, which can be a problem. But there's not much that can be done about that; for instance, you can't just make me want to talk about politics because some idiot candidate said something idiotic. But if I happen to look through the topic and find something to take contention with (which is more likely to happen with a newer poster, as I can at least accept that a person with established views might say something I disagree with), I might be inclined to participate.
I don't know how often it comes down to a flat-out "Malk no malking" (because "malking" apparently equals "disagreeing over something", without specification by a certain topic), but certain topics are repetitive enough that you can, and should, expect someone with a certain established viewpoint to come in and say something you expected. That's more the fault of the topics than the people, and it's part of why more users would be sort of nice. I'm less concerned that we're familiar with each other, and more that our current userbase lacks a certain variety. If more people were invested in other topics, it might inspire the rest of the forum to get involved (or at least watch), and become more knowledgeable as well. I dunno, there's just my two cents.
I don't think anyone's blaming them for doing so. It just kinda happens, and they're totally within their rights to have such discussions as long as they respect potential newbies who want to participate (assuming said newbies aren't causing trouble or espousing legitimately harmful viewpoints, of course).
I was commenting on how the summit was going to be a political circle jerk due to the fact that Cameron had only invited people who agreed with him. I did think it might have been misinterpreted, but I decided to simply clarify if someone asked because I had to go after that post.