I do not believe people who genrate contervesy are needed.

I would think Wc would be more interesting if people who made trouble for trouble sake were kept in check in order to allow people to feel safer. It would be alot more intersting place for me if other Christians who also lived with HIV felt as safe here as they do on secular online communities to share their lives in an open and honest way.

What would it take to allow WC to develope into such a community. Can we be as welcomimg as some secular  online communities are?

Controversial topics tend to get more traffic, I think that is natural.  I don't think we need members bringing up drama to have good discussion on controversial topics.

Inappropriate comments often derail good conversations.  Sometimes that derail may lead to a good conversation.  Sometimes it leads to a new topic, with a separate title (like this one).

Sometimes someone may appear unlikeable in a certain topic, as they disagree with most of the others.  That's not what you're really referring to though :)  I've disagreed with many on here when it comes to certain topics.  Maybe some people don't particularly like me here which is fine; but I wouldn't consider myself to be 'unlikeable'.

I think WC can survive and be interesting just fine with those who are 'likeable'.  As long as those who are unlikeable show a certain level of respect, I have no problem with them participating.

Alex, I think WC is more welcoming than many secular communities.  Perhaps not all of them.

I think WC would be boring without controversy.  There isn't much point in discussing things that we all agree upon other than to pat ourselves on the back for being on the right side of things.  When deeply held beliefs are challenged, some people become angry and can lash out at others, which we've certainly seen often enough here.  It's not nice when people hurt each other's feelings, but it's all part of being human, I think.

The biggest conflicts here always seem to be between conservative and liberal Christians.  I don't think this is ever going to be resolved because it comes down to one side having to be right.  The conservative side believes that they know exactly what God and Jesus want and think and that any other interpretation is wrong.  The liberal side believes that all interpretations are valid...except the interpretation that there is only one interpretation.  Regardless of the issue, we keep coming back to this fundamental difference of opinion.  The liberal Christians feel that the conservative Christians are judgemental and cruel and the conservative Christians feel that the liberal Christians are denying the truth or at the very least blind to it.  The only way to maintain peace is to stick to topics of agreement or to convert someone to the other way of thinking.  Neither make for interesting conversation.

The problem I see is that places that are friendly to those with HIV, tend to be unfriendly to those who are Christian. CAn we have a site that is welcoming of both?

How is WC not welcoming to those with HIV?

I would like to ask : who said unlikeables cause controversy. Likeables can do the same.WonderCafe needs both likeables and unlikeables or we are agreeing with ourselves. However, both can learn to be polite  in their posting. Make sense?

I think we can disagree with likeables though CH.

ETA:  Sorry CH, I must have misread some of your post, or you added to it after I posted.

Controversy properly defined is "a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of opinion." Isn't that what forums like this should be about? So, yes, we need controversy just as any community needs controversy to be healthy. The issue is not the presence of controversy or the welcoming (or not welcoming) of those who cause controversy. Controversy is inevitable. The controversy becomes pointless when the same points keep getting made over and over again without end (that becomes boring) or when it turns personal and becomes little more than an attack on others (that's simply ugly.)

I have been online, in chats and forums, for a coon's age. I tend to find that on religious sites, they make it more about religion than on other sites. They use words like welcoming, tolerant, others, judging, forgiveness...

A flamer would dart into a MSN chat room for lesbians to post something offensive, knowing the host would kick them and ban them immediately. They did it anyways. Some times they were a bored teen and other times they were serious technos with multiple computers and they liked flamining, spamming, harassing, crashing systems, hacking...  and more than once they were someone the police were looking for. Some kept it up for years.

A forum is less fun for some and more fun for others. Some want that immediate pay-off of upsetting and being kicked. Some want to be more insidious and build division and uproar. They play games with "how far can I go without being banned". They like being banned after a long time and getting back in, having people defend them and stand up to moderators for them.

Some just attacked the "gay" rooms, some went everywhere. They would type something offensive to gays, women, Asians, Muslims, blacks, people who like Fords, senior citizens... it did not matter who.
 

Some folks have comments they want to make or are compelled to, or just want to start a fight....and they do so on CNN and YouTube and anywhere they can.

Folks would come in posing to be a curious lesbian just to be able to start the lecture about it being wrong at some point. Folks can wander into a religious site and pretend to be a liberal who eventually "discovers the error of their way". A person can come in pretending to be conservative and then "come out".

People would go into straight rooms pretending to be another gender, gay rooms pretending to be gay... sometimes it was about cyber sex and them being satisfied. There were times it was about trying to "find" themselves. At other times, it was more about "gotcha". There were others who it was about violating someone...

There are those who love a flamer and make comments or if no host was there had "fun" with them. There were those who would join in and those did not join in but found it funny or deserved. There were those who thought the attention paid to them was more distracting than the stuff the flamer said.

The difference is they did not usually discuss how Christian their behaviour was or wasn't. They did not try to make others respond in the "proper" way.

Would it have been boring, tedious, without the controversy? Depends on your idea of boring or tedious. It would have been some lesbians talking, some forty somethings, senior citizens...  Boring to some. Not to others.

Here, it would be people talking about what they would talk about. It would be boring or not, depending on who you are and what you want. If you want controversy, liberal or conservative, there are topics that just do it... abortion, porn, euthanasia....

I do not see an inherent liberal-conservative problem unless it is created by those present. I have seen too much bridge building and common ground. Piicking just low hanging fruit and plowing the other vines under is easy, for either side. It is not loving or kind. IMO What people believe and do is their business.  It is their business and between them and God if they are believers.

I spend a lot of time talking as a relatively young (for church circles) liberal queer to conservative senior citizens ... people are shocked how it goes.

I know I am wading into their world. I try to do it humbly. Now, my eyes are wide open and my skin is thick... yet, I draw boundaries in these discussions...and I never try to move them. The more someone is shoved the more they will shove back or lock their legs and stiffen up.

You cannot change another person. You can only give them information, tools, language, permission.... for them to change themselves. I tell them where I am and how I got here.

I have also seen many conservative evangelicals who do not do the hard sell.

Rev StevenDavis,

I agree controversy is inevitable and that personal attacks are not controversy as much as they are personal attacks.

As a forum, not a building or closed group, I think the rehash is also inevitable. Someone new to WC is not going to search for __ and then wade through hundreds of dated posts. They are going to create a topic. They should not be met with "been here done this" or "research the manual, I do not have time for you" IMO.

The core group is not even stagnant. I have evolved in my time here. I think many have. How many of us want to be held to words we typed in a different time when we were in a different place?

The nature of the environment also means it is never just a conversation between the usernames visible to a thread. It is like Survivor, Big Brother, Glass House, The Bachelor... there are others watching and listening in. Who is tuned in at any given time changes.

My wife and I have talked about stuff we disagree on. We occassionaly return to it. Sometimes it arises because the topic was resurrected by someone else or one of us. It would likely seems rude to say "shut up" or ignore her or sit silent. Maybe something is similiar or is another glimpse at a thing... I would not assume "well, she said she did not like that place that much last time so I will tell the folks who invited us, no"....
we may find we have changed, our thoughts or feelings have, how we express ourselves has.... In a group dynamic, I would not think "well, I know how she feels and she knows how I feel, been here done this"... I would see the group dynamic more. So, there we would be, talking about what we have already talked about and I am not sure it is always to the detriment or benefit of the group. It depends.

A conversation becomes pointless when it has no point to all those speaking or those listening.  It is rare that happens all at once. All we can determine is when it is pointless to us to type or read....I have watched people having a public conversation and they think there is no point, until someone says, "go on".

Hi Alex,

How do we know that anyone causes trouble for trouble's sake Alex?  Are such determinations formed on likeability or unlikeability?  Can someone we like cause the same trouble as someone we don't like or is there a difference in the trouble on some level?

If other Christians who live with HIV already have a place that they feel safe in why would they leave that for another place?  If it is a matter of finding safe place why would they leave the one that they already know?

Is it safe for me to assume that you feel safe here?  If you do then what is it that WonderCafe.ca offers that leads you to feel safe?

Grace and peace to you.

John

i don't think it's a matter of likeable (agreeable) or dislikable (disagreeable), but when someone crosses the line and interferes with other peoples personal lives, that's another matter.  this place would be boring if everyone agreed.  there have been a few times i have disagreed very strongly with other posters, but it never crossed the line and it has never affected either of our personal lives.  there are some posters i almost always agree with and those i hardly ever agree with and i see the same dynamics between others here.  and as for the "clique" accusations that get thrown around here from time to time, there are posters who have been here a long time, those virtual relationships have had time to "develop".  it can't be expected that someone who comes into this environment with guns-a-blazin' is going to be received with open arms.

Does wondercafe require controversy?

Wondercafe needs good topics. 

It requires something other than group think. 

It requires new blood or fresh droplets.

It requires forgiveness to be shown in its members and the willingness to let someone shift from an earlier position.

does likeable have anything to do with it?

I may not like how someone displays their posts.  That does not make them unlikeable for me. I just find my eyes skim past their posts.  It is my issue, not their issue, unless they want me to read their posts.

I may be concerned or have questions about their mental stability. That does not make them unlikeable for me.  It may cause me to have concern for them.  It may result in wondermails.  It may cause me to skip their posts.

I may not like their content or how they structure their logic.  That also does not make them unlikeable.  It may frustrate me. It may cause me to not read their posts after a long day at work.

In fact, unlikeable does not mean that I don't want them to post.  Wihtout naming names, there are folks on this site that I don't particularly like.  It is what it is.  I don't come here to be part of a fan club. If I see they have started a thread I may choose to ignore it. If I wouldnt' sit at the bar if they were there, it is unlikely that I am going to hang out in their thread.....unless they are harassing my buddy who hasn't left the bar stool yet.

***************

There are behaviours, though that I don't like, which I do find should be restricted.  The code of conducts allows for that type of lockdown. If someone is just disrupting post after post after post, or making it difficult for threads to move forward, than,yes, I feel the code of conduct should be exercised, as a warning, then as an action.  Ditto if they are found into be abusing other elements of the code of conduct.

I agree here with MistsOfSpring and Rev. Steven Davis.

Rich blessings.

---

MC jae

Like I have said before why can we not have a site that is welcoming? It is was welcoming we would have seen other people with HIV on WC, among the hundred of thousand Canadians, or the tens of millions with HIV in English speaking countries.

The fact is that sites that I know which make it welcoming for those with HIV make, are not welcoming to Chrisitians. I believ that if we had a site that was welcoming to people with HIV instead of trolls,(or if you actually believe them, than those on the extreme righjt of fundamentalism) than people would join because they could have a place where they could talk about being Christians and HIV, instead of having to go to sites and censor themselves because the do not able to be openly HIV and openly struggling with AIDS on WOndercafe, while sites where they can talk about being HIV and their struggles with AIDS they feel like a target for abuse due to their Christianity.

Who is in this "core group" of which you speak?

Rich blessings.

---

MC jae

Sort of like the Charter Roll., Jae Here from the beginning. lol

I think that anyone who has been following the postings in this forum for any length of time is aware of who the core group is, without naming any names.  Many have been around a long time and the relationships that have formed as a result of previous conversations and interactions can be seen.  It becomes quickly obvious who is popular and who is not, who is well tolerated and who is not.  It is not usually too difficult to figure out why.  For the most part there is a level of respect that is shown, though sometimes it is slow to appear. 

It is interesting that certain posters stay within certain groupings and don't venture off them too often.  "Last" has a few I have never seen elsewhere,  some of the individuals who post in social and relationships never speak on R&F or poitics.  I can understand why.  The nature of some topics and the resulting disagreements and controversy  requires a thick skin for participants.  Discussions often become personal.  I find the comment about people feeling unsafe here (Alex) odd.  I have not noticed behaviour that should make people feel unsafe.  Angry and frustrated, yes, but unsafe? Perhaps I don't understand the intent of the statement. 

I also find that the volatility of some of these discussions has the potential to make them quite interesting.  Some of the uglier conversations were almost riveting...... in the "I can't believe he really said that" kind of way, but also because I learned from them.  Sometimes we learn about conflict and resolution by watching others in action.  Some of the "likeables" have handled some of the "less likeables" with amazing skill, and self control.  While I may not have participated in many of those discussions, I enjoyed reading them, and I learned from them.  

I haven't really noticed "cliques", but perhaps I hang out in areas that they don't form.
.
I've learnt a lot from being on this forum, watching how people handle conflict (R&F, Politics). I hope my conflict skills have improved.

I was not referring to myself The intent was to point out that there are no other people who are opening HIV or living with AIDS on the site. Either there are no or few Christians who are HIV or they are too afraid to disclose.   Unlike peope with other conditons.  You must also realise that among the young (those under 50) HIV and AIDS along with depression is the most common life threatening illess.  Yet I am the only one who discloses on the board. 

This is not solely due to the way WC is, but do to the fact that in Canada, people with HIV are often discriminated against , and that they can be accused by someone they do not know of having sex with them and not disclosing their status. Unlike people accused of sexual assault people with HIV who are accused are charged and treated  like those whop are accused of shotting or stabbing someone. Thus they are usually held in jail until there trial.  Ad to this that unlike other people most people accused sexual assexual there has to be some sort of evidence, or that the people involved knew each other. All it takes to be a suspect in the case of a person of with HIV in Canada, is knowledge of their HIV status. In fact not knowing the person is acutally evidence that one is quilty, and that unlike others accused of assualts, the person is actually foirced to prove he did not do anything, as oppose to others where they onous of proof is that the crown how to prove some thing was done.  ZIn effect you need to prove a negative.

The point being is that certain groups of people, like First Nations, people with HIV, women, and others who due to their status in society are more vunerable to abuse and  attacks than others that have real consequences.  Thus I would claim that certain others do not realise that other people who belong to certain groups feel threaten by the behaviour of trolls and other abusive types. 

Alex, I think it's just the demographic this site attracts.  IRL, I know many people, but I only know of one who is HIV positive.  There may be some where they just haven't told me, but I suspect that very few of the people I know are HIV positive.

I think that the core group is made up of people who post fairly regularly.  It evolves - four years ago i had members who are seldom or never heard from now - we sometimes have a thread about 'where are they now?'   New people join - sometimes hesitantly poking in a toe and testing the waters - sometimes diving right in.

Sometimes people take a break, or withdraw to fight sickness, or get busy at work - later they may come back.

Not everybody agrees.  We differ in theology, and in our expressions thereof.  Some are clergy and some are lay - and some of the lay people have a lot of experience in the church, and some are newbies - and some follow different religions or none at all.  Some are quite social - some reveal very little about themselves.  Some are older - and enjoy talking to people in their own age group - while the younger ones may have different interests and experiences. 

The shifting, emerging core group keeps the Cafe going - they introduce new topics, they check up on one another, they welcome new people.  But they don't do it alone.  New people come on, or lurkers see something they just have to comment on.  I see a name and go to check the profile before welcoming them only to find that they joined in the beginning.  It's good to know they are there. 

I don't consider the core group a clique.  Rather it is a living, breathing, growing, changing community. 

We aren't naming names in this group, but I would bet that if we ask people to name those in the core group, we would come up with a lot of different lists - and some of you might be surprised to find that you are considered part of the core.

That is my point certain people due to various reasons are more afraid of bein themselves due to peole who would cause trouble.  There are others with HIV on WC they are just afraid of what trolls and others would do it they devulged. 

We havea trans person here, who sevral years ago, a troll (or whatever you call them)  attack them by finding out who they were and thean notifying various people in their small community, including an employer, and church people who did not know that that person was transgender.

Yet the focus is oftewn on how to accomadate abusers/trolls etc instead of those who can be threatned if they wish to be themselves.  This is either justified because the abuser is supposed ill, or that they are entertaining.

Alex: where do you get your stats from? re "You must also realise that among the young (those under 50) HIV and AIDS along with depression is the most common life threatening illess"?

Reason: unless you have a very different understanding of illness than the sites that I am searching HIV/AIDS is no where near the top for those under 50.   

I think ther are people who are likeable no matter what the subject matter.

I think there are people who are unlikeable no matter what the subject matter.

There are people who are likeable sometimes, and unlikeable otehr times, depending on the subject matter.

No two people will agree on exactly where on the continuum a third person sits

IMHO

Hi chemgal,

So, to summarize, you don't buy into the quantity necessarily equals quality argument.  Good discussion can be had apart from drama.

Let's not rule it out completely yet.  Taking an unpopular position in one argument may not be enough to earn anyone the lable of unlikeable.  How many threads would it take though before the lable stuck?  Who would a person have to diss to make the lable stick sooner?

Once the lable has been affixed how can it be removed?

Disagreement happens here all the time and most appear to manage it quite well.  Some struggle with it.  I'm glad that you don't consider yourself unlikeable.  Based on the conversation you participate in I would hazard a guess that many share in the belief you are likeable.

I'm reasonable confident that we haven't had anybody post here who believed that they were unlikeable so it isn't really a matter of self-esteem so much as it is a matter of who we like.  I suspect that when an individual is held in high esteem by others it is easy for us to share that perspective.  On the flip side the more an individual is unliked by others the easier it would be for us to not like them as well.

I'm not advancing the notion of cliques with this because to be honest mobs don't need cliques.  We just need enough folks carrying torches and brandishing pitch-forks and somebody who doesn't fit comfortably to play the part of monster.  And the monster can be anybody.

I tend to agree.  I think that quality is preferable to quantity.

I also think it is interesting that you thought it was the responsibility of the unlikeable to show a certain level of respect.  Am I being too presumptuous in thinking that you believe the likeable already show a certain level of respect?

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi MistsOfSpring,

Fair enough.  Controvery in and of itself is not negative.  It is how that controversy gets carried out that causes the problems.

Agreed.  Hurting others, even unintentionally, is part of being human.  Is there not another human part that helps us to reconcile when hurt has happened?

Respectfully, I think that is only a matter of appearances.

I'm going to take a risk and say that among Christians there is a great deal of misunderstanding about what represents a "liberal" Christian viewpoint and what represents a "conservative" Christian viewpoint.

Apart from that I think the real problem is between "flexible" and "inflexible" Christian viewpoints.  Those who hold to a "flexible" viewpoint are often perceived as being willing to give away the farm whereas those who hold to an "inflexible" viewpoint appear to be very happy proponents of the "truth hurts" perspective where the more it hurts others the more truthful it must be.

Fair points if not simplifications.  Given that conflict appears inevitable do we not even attempt to be respectful?  Are there really no rules when the two points of view collide?

Since you bring up the idea of interesting conversation could you define what interesting conversation looks like?

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi crazyheart,

Nobody that I am aware of.

The opening post includes an allusion to a statement that WonderCafe.ca needs conflict or it will become boring.

I have accepted that statement for the time being though I would qualify that controversy doesn't need to be hostile.

I have added the idea that controversy among friends (likeables) differs from controversy among non-friends (unlikeables).

I have done this for a number of reasons.  First and foremost is that from time to time we receive comments and threads here lamenting the bickering and squabbling.  And when neither bickering nor squabbling occur it appears inevitable that the same people will wonder where everybody is and why this place seems so dead.

Most, I suspect, enjoy conversation here and yet most lament the threads where the conversation goes on and on and on simply because most of the conversation is objectionable in some way or another.

I'm going to take a risk and say that WonderCafe.ca does not need unlikeables.

My question then becomes how will WonderCafe.ca deal with the unlikeables?

Bearing in mind that one member's list of likeables may very well be another member's list of unlikeables.

Indeed it does.  Although I would like to point out that there is a greater frequency among all members to point out the rude behaviour of others and a lesser frequency among all members to hold themselves accountable for rude behaviour.

In other words.  The problem isn't just the others.  It is often the self.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi RevJohn,

Controversy seems to have its place. I find myself drawn to it up to a point. Pretty much like a moth to a light.

But I must confess that on some of the controversial threads, I will skip over the posts of those I have deemed to be unlikeable. I get particularly impatient with long passages of scripture and with posts containing a large number of typos (no objection to a few here or there.) If I generally find someone to be unclear in his/ her posts, sooner or later I stop reading them.

Okay, I will avoid identifying any individuals. But I do remember a particularly interesting controversy involving a particular poster's avatar. The conflict escalated to a point I was not anticipating.

Perhaps some of the most interesting posters are the ones that I sometimes find likeable and sometimes unlikeable. Probably I have a bias towards liking those individuals I generally agree with.

How is it working out so far? Is it too early to tell?

Interesting thread . . . P3

Hi Rev. Steven Davis,

Controversy can also be defined as contention, strife or argument.

One appears to be more favourable than the other so perhaps it is just  a matter of which kind of controversy we look for.

Yes, provided we stick to the first definition and not the latter one.

Again, I think it depends on how controversy is defined and as for the welcoming or not welcoming I think that speaks to the issue of likeability and unlikeability and I am wondering how that particular lense magnifies  issues and events.

No matter how it is defined I think.

Agreed.  Both elements seem suited to the second definition of controversy and so the tricky bit is how to allow and encourage the first definition while limiting and discouraging the second definition.

Any thoughts?

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi SG,

Which adds another layer to the mix.  Does our perception of what WonderCafe.ca is influence our choice in labeling some likeable and others unlikeable?  Does that same perception precondition us to view controversy as necessary public debate on opinion or as strife and argument?

Too true.  Those words themselves may precondition us to avoid or look unfavourably on those who constantly figure in controversy.

Which presents as either an extra layer of accountability or an extra weapon with which to abuse.

Agreed.

While we cannot change another person I don't think that we resist the temptation to do so.  At least not always or not successfully.

This appears to speak to stereotypes.

Which in turn leads me to wonder if it is easy to apply negative stereotypes to individuals we have decided are unlikelable.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi momsfruitcake,

Maybe it isn't.  I'm not so certain.

While I think we are all agreed that even those we find likeable can post stuff we might disagree with there is a reason why we like some and dislike others.

Often those reasons are internal to every poster and yet, as like or dislike becomes evident I believe it has exponential impact upon the wider community.  I don't think it is by coincidence that certain posters take more flack than others.

Possibly it is.  Sometimes I'm not so sure.

We have, some of us, taken steps to take WodnerCafe.ca beyond the virtual to the actual.  There has been face to face communication and I would suggest that when that happens there is permission given to touch peoples personal lives.

For example, some here know me from another forum.  In the bounds of that forum I shared the medical nightmare my family endured in NL.  It is natural for those individuals to inquire as to how the situation sits at present.  From time to time the matter has come up here at WonderCafe.ca.

Feeling a sense of community among posters I have know for years I will be more open and less guarded.  That provides ammunition for those who would use it and it has happened on one occasion.  That once was most unpleasant.  Still, it is only once in roughly five years so on the whole I don't worry much about it.

Either that or filled with unending references of the approaching apocalypse because of the agreement.

As true as that is.  The clique accusations are not always made by newcomers.  Some who have been here at least as long as I have believe firmly in the presence of cliques.

I suspect it is a lot easier to view mass opposition to personal opinion as some form of conspiracy simply because the alternative is to face the possibility that the reason why so many oppose has more to do with a reaction to bad behaviour.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Time to add some controversy.....:-)

I dislike labels of "likeable" and "unlikeable".

This is a cybercommunity so that my judgement of people is based primarily on my perceptions of people from what they write, coming from how they think and many other variables and influences too numerous to mention.

I can honestly say that I don't have a list of "unlikeables".

Do some people's posts try my patience, cause me be frustrated and impatient, and bring out the worst in me and elevate my blood pressure - yes!

But to dislike someone I have never met....or even someone I have encountered briefly.... I think that's pretty shallow and makes me judgemental.

And if people are going to judge me as likeable or unlikeable from my posts, then I think that's pretty shallow.

The persona I present here could be totally different from who I really am.  Perhaps I'm a pretty good actor/writer who has everyone bamboozled.

There are so many things that influence the things we write.  Some people express themselves so much better than others.  I'm inclined to read some posters comments more than others because of their clarity, rational thinking, insights, sense of humour, honesty, respect shown for others, ability to resolve conflict (in my perception)...compassion expressed or because they inspire.

For the record, I had no problem calling out a particular poster who repeatedly showed disrespect for others and I named the behaviour for what it was.

I would hope someone would do the same to me if was a pain in the butt.

I think a goal of wondercafe is/should be to encourage thoughtful, perhaps enlightened discussion, especially in the R & F threads.

That's what I look for.

Hi Pinga,

The consensus thus far is yes, WonderCafe.ca does require controversy and that controversy should resemble public debate of opinion.

That probably is a discussion for another thread but I'll bite.  What makes a topic good?

What about groups think?

Not sure how best to read this.  Are you wanting WonderCafe.ca to resemble some blood sport more closely?  Suggesting that we sacrifice a member or two every now and then?

I think that WonderCafe.ca is forgiving of the repentant.  Which is good.  Somebody accepts that they have hurt someone and they attempt to reconcile.

What happens when somebody will not accept that they have hurt others?  What happens when we won't accpet that we have hurt otehrs?

That is the question.

Here we are!  Thank you for bringing this up.

We are content to let folk we don't like hang out here unmolested.  Unless they start something.  Then what?

I do not think that you are unique in your thoughts.  I think that most of us don't think about this part of our social interactions.

We are comfortable saying that controversy is inevitable.  We have no problem generating lists of folks we don't like for any number of reasons.  We will say that those folk we don't like are welcome here.  All the while we draw lines and wait for folk to cross them.

Then things hit the fan around here.

That would require absolutely no heat and precious little light from the community.  One flagged comment, in theory, would be enough.  And yet, we have donnybrooks.  Why do you think that is?

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi Alex,

I think that WonderCafe.ca is welcoming.  If it weren't there wouldn't be anybody here and the site would be an electronic wasteland.

That said I don't believe that WonderCafe.ca can claim to be about open-minded discussion and then say some discussion or commentary is out of place.  Which means that there are constituencies here that are not going to feel welcome.

If I can't solve WonderCafe's problems I doubt I can solve the problems of other sites.

Part of the welcoming would be the language we use.  

Right here you are suggesting that WonderCafe.ca is a black and white site which welcomes trolls and discourages those with HIV.

Compare and contrast that with repeated claims from zealous Christian members long departed, that his place is hostile to them and exceedingly tolerant of homosexuality.

If I wasn't reading the comments on the same forae I'd be convinced I was hearing about two radically different sites.

The fact is Alex.  Not every Christian feels welcomed here at WonderCafe.ca and typically those who come forward and share that are the ones who insist that since this is a Church sponsored site it should be more friendly for Christians.

I recognize that this is your opinion.  I don't share it.

That could happen Alex.  I think it would radically alter WonderCafe.ca.

I think that WonderCafe.ca was meant to be a rather vague market.  What you are calling for appears more targetted.  Much like some of the forae focus on different issues.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi Folks, FYI, we removed the other thread that this one spun off of. It was important to debrief, but I and several others felt some of the things said there were inappropiate. Thanks for your understanding.

Aaron for WonderCafe

Gecko, when I (and possibly others) say they dislike someone, I mean I dislike their WC persona.  I might dislike Gecko, but like the real Sara (making up a name, if I got it right it's purely coincidence!) behind the persona, who exists IRL.

I do think there is correlation between the personas and the real life people, but for some WC members they are more similar than others.  Some members do know each other in real life as well.

heh RevJohn, are you trying to prove that your behaviour can be unlikeable...(wink).

how about a one paragraph response?

thanks for the update admin.

Ok, various thoughts for various folks-

MCJae
First, the "core group", for me, did not imply length of time on the board, being a clique or even being likeable. It is, for me, visible presence. One look at the numbers, last time Aaron offered them, says there are more present than present and visible. It is about being active in the conversation, in the centre of things. It is not even about volume of posts or thread starting....Now, that said, the core group of R&F may or may not be the core group of popular culture. The core group also changes. Someone who used to post leaves. posts less frequently... and another person joins or starts to type.

 ----------

RevJohn
The use of those words - welcoming, tolerant, others, judging, forgiveness...
I did not intend them to mean they "precondition us to avoid or look unfavourably on those who constantly figure in controversy."
In fact, I would hazard something else. The thing that makes the biggest allegation leveled against church folks, hypocrisy.
You see, we decide we need to behave like church folks. (oh, not the real church folks but the way we think church folks are supposed to be)
The ass can't be called an ass, it is a long eared, hoofed mammal of the horse family.

Truth be told, if someone shoves me I am likely to verbally or nonverbally say, "excuse me". Not because I am going to beat the crap out of them or start an argument, but a shove happened. As the recipient, I am going to say "hey now". They need to know I do not take kindly to shoving. Shoving is not ok. It is not ok even when you are dealing with the mentally challenged, the mentally ill... or just a jerk. My mom spent time in "the quiet room" for unacceptable behaviour. She was mentally ill, there are still boundaries she had to stick to.

If they say "sorry" and don't shove, all will be well. If they say sorry and shove me again, it won' be as well. If they do not say sorry, then I have to guess if they think shoving is ok or they do not care how I feel about it or cannot apologize... or whatever. If they don't apologize and don't shove, it is likely they could not say sorry. If they shove me again they either think shoving is ok, cannot control themselves, are trying to hurt me...etc.

I am not going to hold a grudge, follow them to the parking lot, or even assume the next time I see them they are going to shove me... if they keep shoving, I am calling the management of the store.

I am not likely to ponder aloud about whether they are mentally ill, autistic... or even an ass.

If they keep shoving I am going to be prepared for a shove, not because I hold a grudge but if I didn't I would be an idiot.

I am seriously not likely to say, "oh, surely you did not notice me here, I will be clearer where I am". I am not going to say, "oh, I don't want to judge them" or "I am not telling the manager because I do not want to get them in trouble". I am not going to say, "Jesus would want me to be a doormat".

On other forums, when someone is out of line, the moderator is the go-to. In chat, it is the host. The sense of community or "saving" someone from the board or themselves is less prevalent. Do what you do and the host will do what they do. Dance and pay the piper. When the piper exacts the cost it is rare they get up in arms or discuss the scope of their ability or "justness" of their actions. People do not feel they "in part" run or fund the forum.

So, is the crucifixtions are also less prevalent. If someone starts and you start on them, like a parent, there are no favourites, both will be told enough....
When someone is banned, they tend not to be forgiven and given another chance. The moderators also do not announce the ban, that keeps the disruption, controversy going.  If a thread popped up to discuss the ban or diss someone, you might get a notice that too is disruptive.

The sense of community here, and in church, hints at healthy community... sometimes none actually exists, sometimes it hides something else. Instead of taking something to M&P, someone says they do not want to look unChristian and instead they bad mouth, undermine, etc.... Instead of talking about how they feel, they just quit coming. They do not get their own way and they head for the door. They try to get a majority to swing the board meeting...

IMO When it works, it works because of those present and when it doesn't it is because of those present. It is not "this one" or "that one's" fault. Though that is indeed easier than looking at self or community. When ___'s (trolls, flamers, spammers...) take over sites, it is because of the administration and the posters actions or inactions.

---------------------
gecko,
I found myself nodding agreement. 
If I read or don't it is based on readability, not likeablitity. If I do not like opinion, context, tone.... it is about that not the person.
I also do not think "meeting" is the answer to an anonymous internet site.
Some will meet and others not. My wife and I are still close friends with some we never met from chat and others we did meet. Some people liked each other online but not off. Some liked each other offline and had not liked each other online... It also does not have to be acting or pretending. My FIL in person is light and fun, on the phone he is awkward. My mom speaks like a sailor and writes like a poet.

_________

Alex,

It is hard feeling alone. Yet, being alone is not always based on something being wrong with us or the places we are... I do not assume that HIV status keeps people from Wondercafe.

That said, I could see it is a barrier or a fear folks have about revealing it.

I have had contact with a number who watched how LGBTQ folks were treated and left.

Many who were more conservative have left.

Both allege the place is not welcoming for different reasons.

I know those who were aboriginal left.

I know we are also pretty white around here.

Those who have a house and there is any sort or problem, repairable or not, do not tend to like to hear it. If they don't listen, the house will fall, but it is after all their house.

Agreed, chemgal.  I'm trying to stir the pot a bit.  My name isn't Sara, but I have been called "the crazy whale lady".

Alex,
Thanks for providing the details about how you are having trouble fitting into two communities that apparently have little overlap:
.
-gay (especially HIV positive, which has lots of health challenges)
-Christian
.
I didn't know that and it helps me understand where you are coming from. WC may be a rare place where you can be Christian and gay? Sorry I know so little about it.

Hi revjohn...I don't know what wondercafe needs so will just speak to my need.  I need genuine, thoughtfilled conversation about spirituality to challenge and further my own thoughts.  I can't imagine this happening in a real way without controversy, and I welcome it. 

My definition of controversy does not include berating or diminishing others for who they are.  What they do and how they behave on this forum is a different matter.

possibly the word controversy is a bit of a stubbling block. I would agree that disagreement is very healthy asl long as we stick to the rules of conduct set out by the United Church.

The crazy whale lady, I think it's good to bring up the internet persona vs. real life person.

SG,
You said,
"I am not likely to ponder aloud about whether they are mentally ill, autistic... or even an ass."
.
It was I who pondered (after the ban, so he could not read it, unless he used a proxy server) on the mental problem.
.
I did not do so to be mean or nasty or judgmental. I did so because I was genuinely worried that he might attempt suicide or some other radical act.

Hi Witch,

I respect this thought and would like to concur with it.

Concurrance seems a tad too easy.

I think, in theory, you are in the paint.  If we were all to sit down on our own and calmly and rationally start to think about this or that member individual responses would vary and some wildly.

For the most part I don't think that WonderCafe.ca does threads where we sit down alone and think about things calmly and rationally.  I think it is particularly noticeable when things start to fly on any given thread that sides form very quickly and some comments appear more reactive thinking than thoughtful thinking.

I know that for me personally when I read a post and then immediately leap into a response I feel better deleting that response without posting it and having gotten whatever it was that was in my system I sit down and try a more careful response.

Not that second attempts always look like second attempts.

If I end up deleting a response three or four times before sending I tend to wait until I've slept on it before posting a response.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi Paradox3,

Would it be fair to say that the point where you are no longer drawn to controversy is like the white space between definitions of controversy in a dictionary?  Where it ceases to be public debate and becomes strife or argument?

Thank you for sharing that.

Are you aware of how engaging in that act either reinfoces your impression of the unlikeable or abrogates unlikeability?

Do you mean that you agree with the content of their posts or their style of posting?

My unlikeable list would be extremely short.

So far, none who have posted would qualify for it.

Discussion so far has, for me at any rate, been eye-opening in a very positive sense.  It certainly is crafting an image of WonderCafe.ca that is deeper than surface level.

Thank you.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi gecko46,

It is probably more effective if you don't telegraph that intent.  Forewarned is forearmed you know.  Better to just hit us right between the eyes.

I respect that .  I thought of other pairings.  I thought that this one was least likely to cause problems particularly if we were able to keep the terms abstract and not start defining them by actually slapping usernames next to them.

Agreed.  I don't think that the limitations of perception prevent anyone from forming an opinion.  In fact, it may be that the limits of perception are exactly what allows for differentiation in opinion.

I'm pleased to hear that.

I'm also pleased that this sentiment seems to be the common one.  At least nobody has posted that they have an extensive list of unlikeables.

And you like that?

Respectfully you aren't going to try and say that you are above being shallow and judgmental are you?  I mean, I can accept that nobody wants to be that way.  I wouldn't believe you if you said it was impossible or even difficult for you to be shallow and judgmental.

You aren't going to trry and say that the rest of us are above being shallow and judmental are you?

Admittedly so.  You could be quite different in person than you are here.

I am, however; talking about here and not who we are when nobody from WonderCafe.ca is watching.

This also seems to be a recurring theme among posters.

That is a fair point.

How does that differ in real conversation as opposed to virtual conversation (particularly since the virtual here isn't even real time?

Suppose by the time you had posted your post several others had come up with the same idea and took the same action.  Does that calling out look measured or over the top?

I think it is easy to see several measured responses and it is just as easy to see piling on and what happens next is anybody's guess.

Okay everybody that is definitely permission giving.  :)

Fair points.  Thank you for adding them.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Hi Pinga,

Well, for the sake of the discussion I reserve the right to push whatever buttons may present.  

Oooooooh.  Keep that up and I may have to reconsider my lists.

Grace and peace to you.

John