![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
I suspect a lot of problems online involve people creating steadily more complex systems to address initial problems, without really considering the difference between dealing with the reason the problems arise verses just ordering people to do it their way.
For example, there's this rant about commenting. Leaving aside that she doesn't seem to really get how hits work, her argument is interestingly circular.
So, you're supposed to comment when you read. Authors like comments, and all you have to say is "I liked it". It's especially annoying when someone leaves a comment (to talk to the author or another commenter) but never mentions the story at all. Also, you're not allowed to say anything negative about the story.
And why is it so important to actually leave a comment? Why, because if you don't the author assumes you hate it and their writing is crap.
And why will the author assume this? Why, because all the people saying this are operating within a community where you're not allowed to say their writing is crap.
And why aren't people leaving comments? Why, because a lot of people are obeying the rule that if you can't say only nice things, you shouldn't comment at all.
(I would personally suggest that there's also a nasty little feedback loop centered on the last piece - people don't say what bothers them, so the authors keep writing new stories with the same issue, so the stories keep bothering people, so they keep not commenting, so the authors keep writing new stories... And if the author ever does find out, it's by hearing a bunch of people bitching about how much the stories suck among themselves, which feeds into the idea reader silence means it's crap.)
Basically, rather than looking at the current system and considering if there might be something causing it, the idea is to create a new set of rules to shore up the perceived problem. This isn't looking at why people aren't commenting, it's just ordering them to do so and turning it into a form letter obligation, which in turn ends up discouraging people from commenting because they're not allowed to actually, well, comment.
I wonder if the internet's structure is aggravating this kind of thing. One of the ongoing complaints about internet communities is that they get ruined by either newcomers destroying the structure or the old guard codifying it to the point it's stifling, and the thing that's always seemed odd to me is that the annoying set should stay in one place (having created a community with a set of rules they want) but the issue is brought up by people who keep moving and having it happen again and again.
And that kind of behavior would make a lot of sense if the people like the way the community functions, but end up not realizing which rules are necessary for that. Cult of Nice often strikes me as a version of this, particularly because over time the dictates get stricter and stricter, which is exactly what you'd expect if they're trying to get people to do X more, yet while they get short-term improvement, people end up doing X less and less. And they get contradictory, which is what you'd expect if the rules themselves are causing the problem.
All that said, I think the idea of reviewing everything you read has a certain merit to it, but even without the ridiculous caveat of only being allowed to write "I liked it!" every time, there's still the problem of different types of reviews. It's easy to think that you want to give a long review, put it off, and then forget entirely. That's not such an issue off FFN, though, since on, say, LJ, you're perfectly able to write a short comment and come back again for a longer response. But then, off FFN and onto a more interactive commenting system (especially one where authors are getting strongly encouraged to respond to comments) making any comment becomes an invitation for the author to ask more details, and we're back to the problem of "I liked it!". If you liked some parts and not others, and say that but no more, the author will almost certainly ask for detail, and if you didn't give it because you didn't have time...
Come to think of it, I wonder to what degree LJ-based commenting is, in general, held off because people don't always want a conversation. You'd need to enact a secondary system where everyone learns to put "Sorry I don't have time to say anything in depth right now" at the bottom for those comments, and then change standard assumptions so authors didn't assume that meant "ask me tomorrow". And see? Inventing secondary rules already, suggesting it's not really a viable rule in the current system.
I might try it out myself sometime, though.
(There's also a massive discussion on tagging stuff with Christian Character, which I found kind of funny because it's a lot of people discussing based on hypotheticals, right down to some of them declaring intent to reclaim it so it doesn't refer to crappy agenda-pushing convertion attempts. When. Well.)
For example, there's this rant about commenting. Leaving aside that she doesn't seem to really get how hits work, her argument is interestingly circular.
So, you're supposed to comment when you read. Authors like comments, and all you have to say is "I liked it". It's especially annoying when someone leaves a comment (to talk to the author or another commenter) but never mentions the story at all. Also, you're not allowed to say anything negative about the story.
And why is it so important to actually leave a comment? Why, because if you don't the author assumes you hate it and their writing is crap.
And why will the author assume this? Why, because all the people saying this are operating within a community where you're not allowed to say their writing is crap.
And why aren't people leaving comments? Why, because a lot of people are obeying the rule that if you can't say only nice things, you shouldn't comment at all.
(I would personally suggest that there's also a nasty little feedback loop centered on the last piece - people don't say what bothers them, so the authors keep writing new stories with the same issue, so the stories keep bothering people, so they keep not commenting, so the authors keep writing new stories... And if the author ever does find out, it's by hearing a bunch of people bitching about how much the stories suck among themselves, which feeds into the idea reader silence means it's crap.)
Basically, rather than looking at the current system and considering if there might be something causing it, the idea is to create a new set of rules to shore up the perceived problem. This isn't looking at why people aren't commenting, it's just ordering them to do so and turning it into a form letter obligation, which in turn ends up discouraging people from commenting because they're not allowed to actually, well, comment.
I wonder if the internet's structure is aggravating this kind of thing. One of the ongoing complaints about internet communities is that they get ruined by either newcomers destroying the structure or the old guard codifying it to the point it's stifling, and the thing that's always seemed odd to me is that the annoying set should stay in one place (having created a community with a set of rules they want) but the issue is brought up by people who keep moving and having it happen again and again.
And that kind of behavior would make a lot of sense if the people like the way the community functions, but end up not realizing which rules are necessary for that. Cult of Nice often strikes me as a version of this, particularly because over time the dictates get stricter and stricter, which is exactly what you'd expect if they're trying to get people to do X more, yet while they get short-term improvement, people end up doing X less and less. And they get contradictory, which is what you'd expect if the rules themselves are causing the problem.
All that said, I think the idea of reviewing everything you read has a certain merit to it, but even without the ridiculous caveat of only being allowed to write "I liked it!" every time, there's still the problem of different types of reviews. It's easy to think that you want to give a long review, put it off, and then forget entirely. That's not such an issue off FFN, though, since on, say, LJ, you're perfectly able to write a short comment and come back again for a longer response. But then, off FFN and onto a more interactive commenting system (especially one where authors are getting strongly encouraged to respond to comments) making any comment becomes an invitation for the author to ask more details, and we're back to the problem of "I liked it!". If you liked some parts and not others, and say that but no more, the author will almost certainly ask for detail, and if you didn't give it because you didn't have time...
Come to think of it, I wonder to what degree LJ-based commenting is, in general, held off because people don't always want a conversation. You'd need to enact a secondary system where everyone learns to put "Sorry I don't have time to say anything in depth right now" at the bottom for those comments, and then change standard assumptions so authors didn't assume that meant "ask me tomorrow". And see? Inventing secondary rules already, suggesting it's not really a viable rule in the current system.
I might try it out myself sometime, though.
(There's also a massive discussion on tagging stuff with Christian Character, which I found kind of funny because it's a lot of people discussing based on hypotheticals, right down to some of them declaring intent to reclaim it so it doesn't refer to crappy agenda-pushing convertion attempts. When. Well.)