I suppose it was a good thing to give it a try. But in the end there just wasn't anything interesting/fulfilling about it, despite its lofty aspirations.So I've quit the Roundtable.
Not that I think too many of the members were sad to see me go. And that was really the problem.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not whining or anything about it not working out. I really don't care all that much. It's just somewhat annoying when something is not what it is presented to be. The whole idea, as it is sold by the guy who started it, who calls himself RW, was that you could write about any topic you want on your turn and that people would join in on the conversation by leaving comments. The inspiration, supposedly, came from the whole concept of the old Algonquin Roundtable of Dorothy Parker fame.
Sounds great, right?
Well it could be, but it's not. I had several weeks before it was my turn to lead the discussion so I had plenty of time to share my thoughts on the other members' topics and they had plenty of time to see my kind of twisted sense of humor and my general way of making arguments. They also had plenty of time to see my usual blog writings and know what kind of things to expect from me. Remember, "any topic you want" was supposed to be the rule.
Look, I know I'm the guy who walks into a party where people may be having a conversation about the latest episode of American Idol and I quickly turn the whole thing into a discussion of the corporate control of the media and entertainment with the underlying purpose to feed the Military Industrial Complex and that I can do it with long run-on sentences. It's what makes me so charming. More importantly, it's what I do. You can't ask me to join the conversation and then bitch about what I talk about. Don't invite a hippy to your party if you don't like the smell of patchouli (seriously, that's why I never have hippies over).
So after enduring weeks of fluffy Roundtable conversations along the lines of "guilty pleasures" and "who would play you in a movie of your life" I finally got my chance to lead the discussion. I've got no problems with those types of conversations, and I was more than amused to participate in them. I just like to be able to discuss more serious topics sometimes. Besides, I thought the Algonquin Roundtable was the inspiration and not the 10th grade cafeteria. And I figured it would be cool to have a little bit deeper of a debate for my topic. I decided to talk about the whole idea of selling out and how far people will go for their own financial gain even if it hurts and oppresses others. And of course gave it a provocative title, Whoring. I thought people would dig it.
Well, yes and no. The debate became lively and entertaining I thought. It even got fairly heated at times. It was great. Aside from the snarky comments from RW. There is one thing I figured out about him in the time I was there. You know that friend who thinks he's funny but isn't even close to it? We all know somebody like that. He's that guy.
But then the very next Roundtable was led by RW, who went off on this weird ramble about "shutting up" and "who cares about your opinion" that was basically a thinly veiled dig at my post. Then a couple of days later he posted a rant at our info site going off on political posts and that Roundtable isn't about that and it gets too vicious and blah blah blah. The best part was that he said he wasn't trying to "control anybody's freedom of expression" but then said to keep Roundtable politics free and "if that isn't possible, just go away." When challenged he wouldn't admit that it was aimed at me, that he was just generally putting it out there because he just thought about it or whatever. He is also under the weird impression that Dennis Miller is a comedian.
If I wanted to deal with that much passive-aggressiveness I could have stayed in Seattle.
He, and a couple of others there, seem to have a misconception about what the Algonquin Roundtable was about. No topics were taboo there and things often got heated and very political. Jeez, why do you think it had been referred to, by one of its participants, as the "vicious" circle? Many of the people at this virtual Roundtable seem to think that all they did back then was talk about their favorite cocktails and what kind of animal they'd like to be. Dorothy Parker was not the Paris Hilton of her day for cryin' out loud.
So I stuck with it a little longer even though I offered RW the chance to tell me he wanted me to go. His passive-aggressive nature wouldn't even let him do it when invited.
But after my post on the appropriateness of hate the writing was on the wall. The very first comment was from a Roundtable member saying they didn't like to talk about politics and religion (though that wasn't the main point of the post) and many others didn't even join in the conversation. RW's link to my post in his blog was a one sentence dismissive and derisive comments. Again, digging at me in the most passive-aggressive way he could come up with as he wouldn't even come into the discussion and challenge me head on. Aggressive is fine. But that passive version is mind numbingly stupid. Got something to say to me? Fucking say it you pussy.
So I left. It really was pointless anyway. If you write something that provokes people to write comments in your blog, that's great. You know you've done something to stir the intellectual musings of some random person out there. But this forced conversation thing is exactly that, forced. And in those kind of settings it is rare for anyone to have anything interesting to say. Kind of like high school and family reunions.
-----------------------------------------------------
I'm working on trying to turn this into a larger comment/discussion on the whole idea of the online "community" and if it really exist or is valid. But this got to be long enough for one post and I still need to simmer it for a little longer and gather my thoughts to see what I want to say/ask.
Posts
3 comments:
"Leave no bridge left unburned," eh?
I'm not here to defend anything or anyone, because there are bits here where I agree with you and a number of others where...well let's get to it, and despite my current area of residence, let's see if I can do it in a decidedly non-Seattle style.
First things first, you gotta be honest and admit that those RT members who did reply to your entries actually fully engaged the topic (Atul's bit in the hate entry was well thought out). Give credit where it's due.
Secondly, I'm not sure I understand what your burning need is in outing(? antagonizing? hectoring?) this group (of which I'm still a member)...
Thirdly, you do realize that there are people who get off on conflict, and there are those that don't, right? Just as there are people who'd rather not spend time dealing with flame wars, and those that egg them on. As long as one is man enough to know which they belong to and admit it, there's no real reason to go about casting aspersions about folks that belong to the other group.
Now, I agree with you that the original Algonquin table was a no-holds barred affair; that the fabled pithiness and wit the original table procured came at the price of some very heated discussions. I also agree that saying "you can talk about whatever, but not politics/religion/current heavy issues" is definitely a mixed message. At the time, I also thought that the comment on the info thing was directed either at you or at me, and also wanted to know specifically what was being said and to whom...But...
We didn't travel back in time to join the original group, did we? No, we joined this group. Now, you could pin it all on RW, but the fact of the matter is he's not alone. He's not alone in not wanting the roundtable to be even occasionally dedicated to heavier topics. He's not alone in not wanting to deal with trolls, flamers and the flame wars they create.
The underlying message was that if one wanted heavy topics, that one could do so in the time when one wasn't hosting.
Was RW's blog about "shutting up" and "who needs your opinion?" specifically about you, Deni? Could be, but I'm not convinced of that; not by a long shot. What if it wasn't about you, Deni? What then?
I ask, because if it were me, and I thought that particular post was about me, I'd be all "fuck you guys, I'm going home" right then and there; I have no time for that kind of shit.
There's no way I would wait two fucking months for my turn, write a blog entry that, while ostensibly about hate, included examples of the very things we were asked to avoid: Falwell (religion), Bush (politics), Phelps (heavy issues). Then, having done that, act surprised that the folks who have a problem with that shit, decide not to reply to your entry. THEN, having taken offense, leave the group. AND THEN, take a shit on the whole enterprise because they wouldn't play by your rules.
I love ya, man; you're a good friend, we go way back, but this is too much.
You like conflict; thrive on it, in fact. You joined a group that did not share that trait. Not a good fit, so you leave. that's all well and good.
To my mind, there's no real reason to go further than that (i.e. - instigating this bullshit) beyond being a dick, or being a troll and looking for a fight.
Leave well enough alone.
You make some valid points TBO.
Yes, you're right, I should have been clearer that several of the people on the roundtable did fully engage in my topics (and I specifically agree with your point about Atul's comment).
But as for your describing this as a "burning need," not really. It's my blog, this is something that is banging around in my head right now so I wrote about it. Writing about what I want to write about is why I was annoyed by them (and by "them" I pretty much mean RW). I had lots of people who read my blog ask me about the whole Roundtable thing when I joined and I figure I should write a post-mordem instead of it just disappearing without explanation. And it would be dishonest to do an "artistic differences" thing ala a band break-up. I laid out my thoughts, for the people who read my blog.
How this is troll-like I don't know. That, as I have taken it to mean, is someone who lays anonymous bombs on other people's blogs to try to stir up trouble. I've never been the kind of person who does that. And you know I cast no aspersions on anyone when I quit on the RT-info site, neither did I leave any rude or mean comments on any RT members blogs.
And I'm not whining about people not playing by my rules. I never expected anuone to do it like me. All I wanted was the respect to do what I do, especially because that's what I was told I could do.
If you want to tell youself that RW's "shut up" blog was not a direct (albeit passive-aggressive) resonse to my post, well you can believe what you want. But you're wrong.
Remember I did offer to quit after that, and I was told "write what you want," so I took them at their word and stayed true to myself. And I still disagree that either of my entries were "political" in nature. Moral and philosophical, yes. But not specifically political at all. And I was never told to avoid religion or heaviness, even after I specifically asked if they wanted the topics to stay light and airy. They said no so I took them at their word.
I never expected that we were at the original Roundtable. My point in that was that whenever someone (RW) started ranting about topics getting too heavy or political, bringing up the example that "that's not what the original Roundtable was about" was always used as the reason for it.
By the way, I wasn't acting surprised about the reaction to my post. I wasn't surprised at all. I did hope to drag some people into what I thought was a pretty good little discussion. The idea of hate as an emotion (and wanting to avoid it rather than face it) has always fasinated me. How could it not, with my mother. :)
Like you said, you've known me a long time. When have I ever left well enough alone? Besides, you know I wasn't sitting here at my keyboard in some full rage pounding away at my keyboard. It's everyone else who was taking my posts too seriously. I thought they were fun conversations.
I still think RW's big problem with me was not the heavy, political or religious topics. It was that they required a little bit of thought and an actual opinion and left no room for his really bad snarky 9th grade-like jokes.
So there.
Oh, and I love you, you big lug.
I love you too, 'tard. No foolin'.
In the interest of continuing this discussion objectively, however, I must press on. Maybe it'll help your thinking about online communities. My bottom line, as far as this last is concerned: You get out of it what you put into it.
My main sticking point with your blog entry is that it isn't as cut and dry as you make it out to be.
Yes, the rules should've been laid out from the gitgo. Yes, it is greatly preferred that communication is straightforward and plain spoken. And yes, it would be exemplary if the contributors were allowed to have their personalities intact when making their posts.
What I keep coming back to, however, is that we joined them. Yeah, there was a general invite out to people to come and participate, but we were the ones that took the necessary steps to become part of that circle. We were the ones that put their brand onto our blogs. It was their traffic that came to us (and ours to theirs, but you get my drift).
In that act, it put us in the role of having to accept their rules, vague as they may be.
By the way, the way your blog reads, it implies that they came to you, specifically, with a golden envelope. That wasn't the case.
If you want to tell youself that RW's "shut up" blog was not a direct (albeit passive-aggressive) resonse to my post, well you can believe what you want. But you're wrong.
You could be right, I don't know RW all that well. But, you know what, dude? There is still a sizeable margin of doubt here. I guess I'll go on living in denial, as you suggest.
I guess the lesson here for those who find themselves on the meek/"passive aggressive" side of things is that when confronted, stick to your guns, even if one ends up looking like a villain in the short run...Yeah, you were told to write what you want, even though that concession followed a number of entries about not wanting topics to get too heavy on the forum.
What you have going for you is that you did press the matter, and were told you had free reign over your writings, that's his bag. Beyond that, however, the ball was in your court, bud.
And you're right, you're not a troll. And I know you weren't sitting at the desktop writing away out of pure spite.
(I'm willfully ignoring things like "you right-wing fuck wad," and "explain how you are able to fit your head so far up your own ass", both from the Whoring thread, for the purposes of this discussion. However well-earned those put downs were, they're known flame war instigators. For me, flame wars do not equal meaningful discussion. Just saying.)
You do set up your traps nicely, however. You start by linking to their blogs, knowing full well that those are traceable directly back to this entry. Anyone with a modicum of curiousity will want to see what that's all about, and what do they have waiting for them?
Essentially a hit job. I mean look at the fucking thing. You call RW a passive aggressive pussy with an antiquated sense of humor (really, I hope you age gracefully, my friend); you characterize the bulk of entries as beneath your contempt ("I was more than amused..." "after enduring [emphasis mine] weeks of entries...")...
It leaves those who are targets, and those who are just stuck in the fray, in the position of either pretending to ignore it, or to engage you in some way; and gods help those that decide to step in.
I mean, really, if it was as bad as you make it out to be, why didn't you leave sooner?
The very first comment was from a Roundtable member saying they didn't like to talk about politics and religion (though that wasn't the main point of the post) and many others didn't even join in the conversation.
Second question: what did you want them to do instead? What would've earned your respect? And before you go off about RW again, here I'm talking about the people you mention in the quote above. Namely, Funk (owner of the first comment) and those others who didn't join the conversation. Hell, RW too. He could've just not linked to you, as resentful as what he put up was. And yeah, I sense resentment more than anything else there.
But, you know, you could've stuck it out and continued to write whatever the hell you wanted...May have even changed some people's minds about writing/talking about heavy topics, just like Funk did at the end of the Hate entry.
All it took to beat you was one petty link entry and being ignored. And in your "reporting what you experienced", you ended up beating up on an old man, and tagging a number of people who would've considered you a friend otherwise...
For what reason? To what end?
I mean, if you really hoped to "drag some people into what [you] thought was a pretty good little discussion," and a handful object to that, how is your giving up and calling people names going to help your cause?
Post a Comment