hmm, i didn't get exactly what this was about.
imho you can decide what kind of individual you want to be, a community is formed by individuals in a bottom up spontaneous aggregation, hence "deciding" on community properties doesn't make much sense in this chaotic context.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I suppose if enough people with similar individual attributes come togerther as an online community, then certain shared themes will permiate the social structure.
Deciding for example not to allow a greed focussed discussion to propogate on Gridcoin would be the example of this. As soon as someone on Gridcoin starts trolling about profitability a host of others will drown that dissent with examples of altruistic science; those users are deciding what kind of community they want and make it real through their actions.
Very true, I suppose community self regulation also comes in the form of 'peer pressure' as well so it can work both ways ..
"SCIENTIA HUMANA LIBERTAS"
Courtesy of @joshoeah
Also most peole like to feel part of a community and will post opinions they feel most others will find acceptable, if not valuable. There are always ikonoclasts who want to challenge, of course.
I agree that one can decide what kind of individual you want to be but it becomes far more difficult when 'peer pressure' takes hold ..
I suppose that the points I'm trying to make are that communities should be aware of the bracket they fall into and commit to changing their ethos in order to create better, fairer and more transparent entities ..
"SCIENTIA HUMANA LIBERTAS"
Courtesy of @joshoeah