Are Non-INTPs disruptive AND should they be banned or restricted in some way?

[Jennywocky]

I'm tired of nebulous claims to certain people being the "majority voice of INTP" and really want to know how things stand, so let's just cut the shit and put our cards on the table.

I encourage you to vote, and vote seriously. At this stage, I think we really need some hard numbers, so that the forum can do whatever it needs to do to survive and prosper. At this stage, speculation without raw data is a waste of time.

Note: If your vote would be "There are bigger problems to address than the non-INTP issue," well, that's understood... but that is not what this poll is trying to address, and I did not want to water down the answers. We just need a clear "Yes/no" on this issue, so that we can move on.


Edit: IMPORTANT POINTS (references to problems with the poll)
[these should be noted, when interpreting poll results]

Stoned_Rider's problem (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=605748&postcount=25) with the "Hell Yes" option.
Rhu's complaint (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=605606&postcount=2) on yes/no format and perhaps deeper issues making poll irrelevant
Lurker's clarification (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=605697&postcount=14) of her vote (deal only with trouble maker non-INTPs, some are good)
Airjaw's & Lurker's mention (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=605753&postcount=28) of the need for clearer forum rules
cjs55 in agreement (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=605827&postcount=33) with Lurker

[Rhu]

Note: If your vote would be "There are bigger problems to address than the non-INTP issue," well, that's understood... but that is not what this poll is trying to address, and I did not want to water down the answers. We just need a clear "Yes/no" on this issue, so that we can move on.
I disagree for two reasons:

The simplest reason being that you are providing three "no" options and one "yes" option, which exposes personal biases--the poll options are each the summary and presentation of a limited number of simple arguments that do not fully encompass the issue. This is not a "clear 'yes/no'" on the issue at all.

Secondly, attempting to take a complex issue and only addressing a small part of it is "watering down" the issue itself. Nothing is going to be decided by this, because the issue is with expectations of a number of the members of the forum for some types of behavior--behaviors that are not type-specific.


This poll, like everything else related to the expressions of annoyance by certain members, is manipulative rhetoric.

[Jennywocky]

I disagree for two reasons:

The simplest reason being that you are providing three "no" options and one "yes" option, which exposes personal biases--the poll options are each the summary and presentation of a limited number of simple arguments that do not fully encompass the issue. This is not a clear "yes/no" on the issue at all.

Secondly, attempting to take a complex issue and only addressing a small part of it is "watering down" the issue itself. Nothing is going to be decided by this, because the issue is with expectations of a number of the members of the forum for some types of behavior--behaviors that are not type-specific.

This poll, like everything else related to the expressions of annoyance by certain members, is manipulative rhetoric.

Disagreement noted.

You have a REAL knack for hyperbole, Rhu.

I could have made it a simple Yes/No, but I was screwing around, much as Hustler was screwing around in some ways, because that's what I do. There is no real rhetoric involved here, and personally -- despite me probably being labeled an "NF" sympathizer -- I really don't care how the poll turns out. I was aware I was limiting options... but how many options do I need to cover all the bases fairly? This is not an essay test.

[People get the gist that Answer #1 covers a "yes" option, no matter how I worded it... I hope.]

For your second point, I'm dealing with a subset of the issue. Obviously there are bigger issues that this is part of. I'm not concerned with them right now.

I'm just sick of everyone throwing around vague claims about who the "majority" is, and would really like to have some hard numbers on various typical stances I have noticed in this debate. I don't think the numbers we generate will be used to 'set policy' -- I just think it will put us all on the same page, like a showing of hands, in terms of what the general CW landscape looks like.

If you'd like, you can run your own Yes/No poll, and we can compare numbers afterwards to validate my results. Be my guest.

[Dunearhp]

Are we so fragile? Xenophobic?

A couple of thoughts:
Forums are for communication
Clubs are for exclusion (or selective inclusion)

Forums have admins.
Clubs have bouncers.

Is this a forum or a club? Decide and get on with it.
Whatever, in the end we sleep in the bed we make for ourselves.

[Rhu]

Disagreement noted.

You have a REAL knack for hyperbole, Rhu.
I love language, though I'm not nearly as gifted in hyperbole as some.


I could have made it a simple Yes/No, but I was screwing around, much as Hustler was screwing around in some ways, because that's what I do. There is no real rhetoric involved here, and personally -- despite me probably being labeled an "NF" sympathizer -- I really don't care how the poll turns out. I was aware I was limiting options... but how many options do I need to cover all the bases fairly? This is not an essay test.
You realize your assertions above contradict those below?

I'm just sick of everyone throwing around vague claims about who the "majority" is, and would really like to have some hard numbers on various typical stances I have noticed in this debate.
I'll assume the first point was just backpedalling; an attempt at diplomacy. You care. Quit pretending you don't.


For your second point, I'm dealing with a subset of the issue. Obviously there are bigger issues.

...

If you'd like, you can run your own Yes/No poll, and we can compare numbers afterwards to validate my results. Be my guest.
If you want to be a hero, I'd suggest looking to those bigger issues rather than making yet another poll on the subject.

[563 740]

If you want to be a hero, I'd suggest looking to those bigger issues rather than making yet another poll on the subject.

It's an informational poll, not an actionable one.

Big difference between the two.

[Jennywocky]

I love language, though I'm not nearly as gifted in hyperbole as some.

No, really. Don't put yourself down here. You're wonderful at hyperbole ... and alliteration as well.


You realize your assertions above contradict those below?

To be honest, my goal was the poll. If my explanations get in the way, ignore them.


I'll assume the first point was just backpedalling; an attempt at diplomacy. You care. Quit pretending you don't.

To spell it out:

I care on the personal level, yes. I'm human. They're my friends. I don't like to see them hurt. I know some of them are taking things very personally, and I think things might have been handled differently and with more respect.

Intellectually, though, I also see the complexity of the situation. There are needs here that have to be addressed, and this is bigger than me and my own personal likes or dislikes. And there are disruptions of the forum in terms of different approaches to discussion. Since this is the INTPc forums (basically a private forum) and not simply some mandated public organization, we have to submit ourselves to the purpose of the forum... which is INTP in nature.

So in a very general sense, I don't care... or rather, my caring has no real impact on the reality of what we decide to do. I might as well not care.

That's what I usually mean when I say, "Whatever" or "I don't care."


If you want to be a hero, I'd suggest looking to those bigger issues rather than making yet another poll on the subject.

Go ahead and start a thread on the bigger issues, then. That's fine. Maybe we're not seeing what you see, and you need to ante up and point them out for discussion.

[Xander]

Congrats on a good idea and good execution Fortunato.

:P Rhu.

:)

[Rhu]

It's an informational poll, not an actionable one.

Big difference between the two.
"Action" on an internet forum is primarily concerned with the flow of information.


So in a very general sense, I don't care... or rather, my caring has no real impact on the reality of what we decide to do. I might as well not care.

That's what I usually mean when I say, "Whatever" or "I don't care."
And I'm calling it bullshit. This is a forum where the number of recognizable personalities on the forum numbers in the dozens. You have established yourself as one of them, and you have made some connections to other established personalities.

Your caring influences how you respond to the forum, and how you influence other members of the forum. Any claim you make of disconnection and lack of attatchment to the issues that involve people you care about tends to sound absurd.




Go ahead and start a thread on the bigger issues, then. That's fine. Maybe we're not seeing what you see, and you need to ante up and point them out for discussion.
I'm not entirely sure what the issues are. They have something to do with unchanging expectations of behaviors involved with site growth. The unwanted and unexpected behaviors are most commonly attributed to, yet are in no way limited to non-INTPs.

What, specifically, are those behaviors? No fucking clue. I don't count myself amongst the exceptionally discontented.

[ptGatsby]

"Action" on an internet forum is primarily concerned with the flow of information.


An "Action" of a vote is concerned with information too. Information is the first step towards physical action, decision making... Since this is a forum, the medium is irrelevant.

FWIW, Fortunato also said he does care, but realizes the complexity of the situation. He's being nicer than he should be, IMO.

Fortunato,

Thank you for doing this. And as an aside, there is nothing wrong with caring. I have no problem saying that I care and that the intellectual problems that are getting mentioned are motivated by emotional responses. They are devoid of any intellectual value. I?m rather surprised you think they have any merit at all.

[Jennywocky]

And I'm calling it bullshit. This is a forum where the number of recognizable personalities on the forum numbers in the dozens. You have established yourself as one of them, and you have made some connections to other established personalities.

Your caring influences how you respond to the forum, and how you influence other members of the forum. Any claim you make of disconnection and lack of attachment to the issues that involve people you care about tends to sound absurd.

All right, Rhu. I *do* care.

Now.... How does this change the poll?

If you think I have a bias that could taint the results and we haven't covered it yet, feel free to describe it in neutral terms.

I'm certainly not trying to sucker anyone into voting a particular way, and if there is a flaw here that you feel others should know about, that's fine -- I'd rather have them informed than not, so they can make an informed decision about things.


I'm not entirely sure what the issues are. They have something to do with unchanging expectations of behaviors involved with site growth. The unwanted and unexpected behaviors are most commonly attributed to, yet are in no way limited to non-INTPs.

Maybe this is why I avoided trying to include them in the poll.

I think this general "head count" is important, I'm going to be gone all weekend, and I don't have the hours needed to sit around and puzzle out all the complex dynamics of the forum that no one here has yet been able to articulate.

If you can do so, more power to you.

Meanwhile, I'm doing a headcount.


What, specifically, are those behaviors? No fucking clue. I don't count myself amongst the exceptionally discontented.

I know. I saw one of your other posts. So the constant disturbance must be stressful for you. (I don't find it a walk in the park either.)

What I'd like to find out here is who IS exceptionally discontent, so we can get this over with sooner rather than later.

[hereandnow]

It's odd that people who claim to want the drama to die down continue to perpetuate it. Competing polls, numerous threads and over wrought responses simply fuel the fire.

[Rhu]

It's odd that people who claim to want the drama to die down continue to perpetuate it. Competing polls, numerous threads and over wrought responses simply fuel the fire.
You would prefer everything smolder under the surface until the next person decides to kick the coals a bit, reigniting the drama at a different time?

[Lurker]

My opinion: Some non-INTPs are disruptive and yes, they should be restricted or banned. The non-INTPs I speak of judge and guilt trip us, generally treating us as though we are deficient in some way. We don't come to our own forum to be "fixed."

I don't think all non-INTPs do this; that's why I'm against any blanket action. But the ones who do infringe upon our freedom and ways of being need to go elsewhere where their input is welcome.

[hereandnow]

You would prefer everything smolder under the surface until the next person decides to kick the coals a bit, reigniting the drama at a different time?

This won't stop future drama. It merely insures the next flood of emotional handwringing will be worse.

[Jennywocky]

My opinion: Some non-INTPs are disruptive and yes, they should be restricted or banned. The non-INTPs I speak of judge and guilt trip us, generally treating us as though we are deficient in some way. We don't come to our own forum to be "fixed."

Note: Others should feel free to clarify their votes here as well, if they believe the choices do not properly represent them. (Thanks, Lurker.)


This won't stop future drama. It merely insures the next flood of emotional handwringing will be worse.

I have mixed feelings about this myself; and there are so many people involved, undoubtedly some will benefit from expressing themselves, while for others it might instigate things. I don't honestly know. But I think overall the best choice is for all of us to get an assessment of things.

[Rhu]

This won't stop future drama. It merely insures the next flood of emotional handwringing will be worse.
So there's no chance of formulating strategies to identify and deal with interpersonal issues? No point in seeking to understand and resolve them?

[hereandnow]

So there's no chance of formulating strategies to identify and deal with interpersonal issues? No point in seeking to understand and resolve them?

Interpersonal issues are my achilles heel. Deferring to others on that is the only logical course available for me.

In my experience the only way to understand and resolve issues is to rationally explore them. Again perhaps my weakest area is interpersonal skills-but the drama? It relieves pressure but longterm it appears to further inhibit rational discussion.

[Varelse]

My opinion: Some non-INTPs are disruptive and yes, they should be restricted or banned. The non-INTPs I speak of judge and guilt trip us, generally treating us as though we are deficient in some way. We don't come to our own forum to be "fixed."

I don't think all non-INTPs do this; that's why I'm against any blanket action. But the ones who do infringe upon our freedom and ways of being need to go elsewhere where their input is welcome.IMHO, those who are disruptive should be dealt with, while those that aren't shouldn't be treated the same as the disruptive ones.

But, then, I haven't been around long enough to know too much of what's going on.

[airjaw]

Why don't all the INTP's that want to have an INTP-only forum create an INTP-only forum? We can leave INTPc the way it is and let the INTP's with their own vision create it. They don't need to "unregister" or be all dramatic, they can be active members of both.

The way i see it, INTPc shouldn't change. I'm not sure what the original mission or spirit was, but i would presume that it didn't involve banning non-INTP's from participating.

[hereandnow]

Why don't all the INTP's that want to have an INTP-only forum create an INTP-only forum? We can leave INTPc the way it is and let the INTP's with their own vision create it. They don't need to "unregister" or be all dramatic, they can be active members of both.

Are you serious? This is INTP Central. It doesn't say INTP Plus. IF any changes are made, and there won't be, it won't include leaving things as they are and chasing INTP's to a specific area. That's absurd.

[airjaw]

Are you serious? This is INTP Central. It doesn't say INTP Plus. IF any changes are made, and there won't be, it won't include leaving things as they are and chasing INTP's to a specific area. That's absurd.

I'm not advocating "chasing" intp's to a specific area. I'm suggesting a practical solution that may be the best for everyone involved. Like you said, there won't be changes made to INTPc. If thats the case, then why not create an INTP-only forum?

[hereandnow]

I'm not advocating "chasing" intp's to a specific area. I'm suggesting a practical solution that may be the best for everyone involved.

There is no solution that's best for everyone involved. If a decision is made the logical way to proceed is to support INTP's first.

If I'm on an INTJ forum and this discussion takes place my view would be the same; INTJ's come first.

[Lurker]

IMHO, those who are disruptive should be dealt with, while those that aren't shouldn't be treated the same as the disruptive ones.

But, then, I haven't been around long enough to know too much of what's going on.

Well, I agree with you. That's why I'm against a massive sweep; there are quite a few non-INTPs who kick ass (in a good way). I hope the Death Poll gives an accurate indication of exactly who causes problems around here. (And this is precisely why people should vote in it!)

[Stoned_Rider]

umm, I just want an INTP forum, where INTPs feel free to speak their minds. I don't see that option anywhere in the poll, but I assume you want it to go under "Hell, Yes!"? Then so be it - but I'm telling ya, you won't be getting accurate results this way. I don't think INTPs will like the idea of being pushed or manipulated into adopting an extreme stance. I'm voting "Hell, Yes!" anyway as a protest.

The non-INTPs whose presence here is welcome already know who they are. Hint: they are actually amused by this whole thing rather than annoyed by it. As for the rest, especially those who are guilt-tripping us for refusing to be guilt-tripped by non-INTPs, in our INTP forum, chances are this was never really the place for them anyway. They can sod off for all I care. But see, technically this doesn't really qualify as a "Hell, Yes!" answer. I believe that the presence of non-INTPs, in principle, is highly beneficial for INTPc, but I'm strongly against non-INTPs taking liberties to dictate what INTPs should say, how they should behave, and even how they should joke FFS. If there is one thing that is simply unacceptable in my book is for INTPs to feel deterred from being themselves just to avoid unnecessary conflict with the ":whyi: non-INTPs" - we already have enough of that in real life and we're fucking sick of it. Digesthisickness sums it up perfectly here (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=605675&postcount=76).

[airjaw]

Well, I agree with you. That's why I'm against a massive sweep; there are quite a few non-INTPs who kick ass (in a good way). I hope the Death Poll gives an accurate indication of exactly who causes problems around here. (And this is precisely why people should vote in it!)

I think this is unfair. There aren't any RULES here against these so-called 'problems' you're referring to. Mods are supposed to enforce the rules of the forum. If someone is being disruptive and breaking the rules, then they can banned. Otherwise, one is just imposing his/her subjective views. I've never heard of a forum banning someone simply because he/she wasn't liked.
Thats what tightly-knit organizations do, and justifiably so. Sometimes you need cohesiveness and harmony, and people that don't fit rightly need to be kicked out or forced to leave. But not INTPc.

[airjaw]

I believe that the presence of non-INTPs, in principle, is highly beneficial for INTPc, but I'm strongly against non-INTPs taking liberties to dictate what INTPs should say, how they should behave, and even how they should joke FFS. If there is one thing that is simply unacceptable in my book is for INTPs to feel deterred from being themselves just to avoid unnecessary conflict with the ":whyi: non-INTPs" - we already have enough of that in real life and we're fucking sick of it. Digesthisickness sums it up perfectly here (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=605675&postcount=76).

Are these non-INTP's really causing that much trouble? I've never had a problem with non-INTP's here, but my personal experiences may differ. Your feelings are valid, and I agree its bs if non-INTP's are doing that. Maybe we should have a disclaimer stickied up for all non-INTP's about the "unwritten" rules of this board...
asking them to please respect the rights of INTP's, ie. don't try to change us, lecture us, or judge us.

I'm sure the Non-INTP's that decide to stay will do their best to respect our wishes. If not, then they can be banned.

[Lurker]

I think this is unfair. There aren't any RULES here against these so-called 'problems' you're referring to. Mods are supposed to enforce the rules of the forum. If someone is being disruptive and breaking the rules, then they can banned. Otherwise, one is just imposing his/her subjective views. I've never heard of a forum banning someone simply because he/she wasn't liked.
Thats what tightly-knit organizations do, and justifiably so. Sometimes you need cohesiveness and harmony, and people that don't fit rightly need to be kicked out or forced to leave. But not INTPc.

Okay, well, you and I disagree on this point. To me, it's self evident that an INTP forum should mainly be composed of INTPs. Maybe there should be some policies in place to prevent the problem in the first place. I can see how that sends out a confusing message to new members.

It's not so much that they are being disruptive. The problem is that they are being themselves - which is fine on an all types forum - but the fact remains that this is an INTP niche, and some INTPs want to keep it that way.

[ptGatsby]

It's not so much that they are being disruptive. The problem is that they are being themselves - which is fine on an all types forum - but the fact remains that this is an INTP niche, and some INTPs want to keep it that way.

*checks the poll in this thread* Seems to be a minority at this point in time, wouldn't you say?

I wonder how many INTPs want an INTP niche to be acting like this. *shrug* Maybe it won't just be non-INTPs that decide the environment sucks.

[airjaw]

Okay, well, you and I disagree on this point. To me, it's self evident that an INTP forum should mainly be composed of INTPs. Maybe there should be some policies in place to prevent the problem in the first place. I can see how that sends out a confusing message to new members.

It's not so much that they are being disruptive. The problem is that they are being themselves - which is fine on an all types forum - but the fact remains that this is an INTP niche, and some INTPs want to keep it that way.

Fair enough, I can kinda see your side. I haven't been here as long as some of you have and maybe the quality of the forums has regressed considerably, although that'd be a subjective judgment. I'd certainly be pissed off if 500 ESTJ's joined this forum all of a sudden and started doing stereotypical ESTJ things.

I can see where you guys are coming from when you start to criticize and ridicule the presence of the non-INTP's here - perhaps if there aren't rules to prevent them from participating in INTPc, then clear messages that they aren't welcome here will still be acknowledged, and they'll get the hint.

It's a tough situation and I'm not sure there's a solution that will satisfy everyone. I will repeat what I consider the best solution I have come up with however: post general guidelines that we'd like this forum to live by and expect everyone to adhere to them.

This is another point where you and I differ: I believe that non-INTP's can modify their behavior if they understand that this is an INTP haven. Someone (a non-INTP) used the analogy of a guest coming to our house and needing to respect our rules and wishes. If you look at it that way, then its pretty simple really. Be a good guest, or draw the ire of the INTP's who (literally) live here.

[Jennywocky]

This is another point where you and I differ: I believe that non-INTP's can modify their behavior if they understand that this is an INTP haven. Someone (a non-INTP) used the analogy of a guest coming to our house and needing to respect our rules and wishes. If you look at it that way, then its pretty simple really. Be a good guest, or draw the ire of the INTP's who (literally) live here.

Exactly. I haven't pondered it for a long while, but at first glance it seems like an apropos analogy.

You wouldn't go to someone's house and correct them in how they parent their children, or redecorate their kitchen without permission, or yell at them for putting their own feet on the furniture. The guest is there at the liberty of the host.

At the same time, being a gracious host means that you make your expectations clear to your guests, to avoid mishaps, and you accommodate their needs if you can. But you set and clarify the groundrules they need to follow. If you don't want them smoking, then tell them right away they're not allowed to smoke when they light up... and if they insist, then send them outside until they're willing to comply.

As far as I can tell, this is partly an Fe thing (which INTPs are notoriously bad at). We also are autonomous and hate to tell others what to do; so here, we just sort of expect people to show up, watch us, and behave accordingly.

And when they don't behave properly we flex and bury it... becoming resentful... and finally putting our foot down and becoming completely inflexible because we feel violated. We need to communicate expectations better, and enforce them.

[airjaw]

quoted from another thread in the "vomitorium aka non intp lounge"


When I first started coming over here, I was under the impression that non-INTPs were welcome at INTP-c. Park and MacGuffin were visiting over at INFP-gc doing some outreach, and Park even issued an invitation to INFPs to join INTP-c and participate in the "Challenge" thread.

Hustler was always kind of hostile, but overall the atmosphere seemed welcoming (as long as non-INTPs made some kind of effort to fit in and not showboat). There was no guidance in the FAQ about the participation of non-INTPs, but the existence of the Non-INTP Lounge seemed to indicate that there was a place for non-INTPs on INTP-c.

Lately, though, the admins have been playing with the name of the Non-INTP Lounge to make it more insulting, and other mods and admins have been more vocal along with Hustler about not liking the non-INTP presence. So it's all sending kind of a mixed message.

Personally, I'm not really concerned about the opinions of the rank-and-file membership. (I've received mostly positive feedback from them, I think.) But INTP-c has a large and active group of mods and admins to set policy or at least set the tone of the message board, so I look to them for guidance.

If the mods and admins want to make INTP-c exclusive to INTPs and get rid of the non-INTPs, I think that would be fine with most non-INTPs. My impression is that most non-INTPs aren't here to show off or take over INTP-c. We try to respect whatever structure and tone the INTPs themselves want. We stick pretty much to threads created by INTPs and talk about the things that interest INTPs. The only time I personally start getting irritable is when the mods and admins begin leaning on the non-INTPs. The creation of the INTP-only forum didn't bug me, but the screwing around with the title of the non-INTP Lounge ever since that time has come off as disrespectful. As a result, my own opinion of INTP-c (and the tone of my posts) has suffered since then.

Anyway, mixed messages are always a problem. It's like I'm a guest in someone's house and the husband is gracious and asking me to stay as long as I like, while the wife is yelling at me about how much trouble I am and asking when I'm going to leave.

Maybe the mods and admins could decide on a clear policy toward non-INTPs. If you don't want us here, then put that in the message board FAQ and eliminate the non-INTP forum altogether. On the other hand, if you want us here but want to limit our participation, then quit screwing with the non-INTP lounge (so as not to stir up resentment) and clarify what you want from us with a standing statement of policy in the FAQ: i.e., only so many posts per day max, no showboating, a quick trigger on the ban button for non-INTPs who won't respect the INTP nature of the message board, etc.

The mods and admins already have control over non-INTP access to the board (via the ability to ban); what's missing is a clear statement of policy. If mods and admins could knock off the most obvious manifestations of disrespect and simultaneously clarify policy, I think most non-INTPs would be happy to go along with whatever the mods and admins decide. Right now the mods and admins are handling non-INTPs with all-stick-and-no-carrot: Lots of open and obvious disrespect and little or no clear guidance as to what behavior is expected from us. Reverse the equation, and you'll probably get a better response from non-INTPs.

A philosophical point:

I've seen it noted in books on personality type that INTPs tend to like to own property. The books don't say why this is so, but it probably represents some need for stability. When INTPs own the property, then they can write the rules and have things their own way.

But in that same context, I've noticed that INTPs tend to be terrible hosts. They are so focused on maintaining their control of the property that they end up treating guests as intruders.

That's what seems to be going on here on the message board. Guests are coming to INTP-c, and the mods and admins are focused on how the presence of guests is ruining INTP-c for INTPs. So the mods and admins end up abusing the guests in the effort to keep INTP-c pristine for INTPs.

Most of the rest of the world deals with this situation differently. It's pretty well understood that the owner owns the property and sets the rules. So the owner just sets some clear policy and rules to guide any contentious points ("No smoking in the house," "Take off your shoes when you enter"), and otherwise focuses on being a good host.

The mods and admins might try the same thing: Manage the relationship with the guests better (i.e., cut out the disrespect and try to be a good host), and set out clear policy on a few main problem areas so that guests know know ahead of time how to avoid obvious trouble spots. And be quick to ban anyone who can't live by the rules. Or just say, "No guests, period."

I'm not saying that INTP-c should be run this way. I'm just saying that this is the way most other personality types handle these things.

But of course it's your house and your rules. I realize that by proposing a non-INTP way of doing things, I may be perceived as attacking the INTP way of doing things. So if you all need to do the arbitrary tyrant thing in order to prove your ownership of INTP-c, then go for it. :)

[cjs55]

I'm not voting, since I don't know where to, but I agree with lurker.

[kuranes]

I was wondering what ( if anything ) set off this latest kerfuffle, and I've seen a couple references to NF's not allowing INTP"s to tell the kind of ( off color ? ) jokes that they sometimes like to tell. NF's have no power to "allow" or "forbid" and so I'm still unclear on this.

For the record, I don't see it as a type problem.

There are some things that make this site different or special, in addition to it being small enough that many people get to know each other. If it is thought that someone either ( A. ) Doesn't share hardly any of these existing qualities, or ( B. ) Isn't contributing anything new to the table, then they will typically recieve discouragement, assuming that they're not outright breaking the rather flexible rules.

What are these "things" ?

Well, we could devote a whole thread to that. Although there are differences of opinion even amongst old members, I would think that there is:
(A. ) A shared sense of humor, to some extent, which can be vitriolic. See B.
(B.) Articulate, informed posts. You may want to check out what a "homage" actually IS , for example, before disagreeing with someone about its quality. :)
(C. ) Many of us are interested in science, and in scientific ways of looking at events and objects in the world.
(D.) Impulsivity is discouraged by the very vitriol I mentioned earlier.

And...so it goes....

[Hustler]

For starters, this poll fucking sucks. It should have had the following options:

Yes, and action should be taken.
Yes, but I don't see the need for action.
No, they are not disruptive or problematic at all.

That would have gotten more accurate results.


I care on the personal level, yes. I'm human. They're my friends. I don't like to see them hurt. I know some of them are taking things very personally, and I think things might have been handled differently and with more respect.
Good. I hope they do get upset. Maybe they'll get upset enough to just leave and take their hurt feelings with them. I hope they get the message loud and clear that this forum isn't for them, and their very presence here is a detriment. I hope they can use their tiny powers of cognition to see that, in fact, this is not an all types forum, and we don't want their lame perspective, because that's not why we're here. If we wanted to hear from them, we'd ask them about it at their own forums which, since they're busy leeching off of us, they haven't managed to start. So now I say stick 'em all in the Vomitorium and, when we want their perspective, we'll come ask them there.

And fuck them even more for coming here, shitting all over the place, and forcing my hand. Do you think I want to be the bad guy in all this? Not really, but someone has to speak up for the entitlement of INTPs to have an unequivocally INTP-oriented forum here at INTP Central, and as one of the less timid posters, it falls to me.


I think this is unfair. There aren't any RULES here against these so-called 'problems' you're referring to.
Sometimes new rules have to be made. Sometimes action has to be taken to solve a problem which isn't clearly outlined in the rules. Problems don't always read the rulebook and try to fit in. We're Ps; we adapt.

[Jennywocky]

For starters, this poll fucking sucks. It should have had the following options:

Yes, and action should be taken.
Yes, but I don't see the need for action.
No, they are not disruptive or problematic at all.

That would have gotten more accurate results.

That's fine.

I'm leaving for the weekend, so if you care to get some "more accurate" results, please feel free to redo the poll in a way that pleases you. (Not being snotty here, in case you can't tell. I'm quite serious. I don't want bitching after the fact that the "poll wasn't fair.")

In the meantime, people have been making "claims from majority" for the last few days (if not longer) about how all the INTPs who supposedly are down on the non-INTPs in the forum. Regardless of one's viewpoint, I thought it high time someone took the initiative to actually determine what the real score was.

You found a great deal of time to run humorous polls on who should be abused but meanwhile apparently didn't give a flying fig about collecting some pertinent data. If it pisses you off that someone else finally stepped in to try to do something useful... well, good. I should have been asking this question a few days ago, to be honest.

Meanwhile, I've been following Rhu's comments on the issue, and he makes a good point about how really it's a "poster issue" rather than necessarily just a type issue, and that even the admins and mods are all guilty at times of allowing the threads to get bogged down in silly humor and meandering asides.

Perhaps you'd want to incorporate that in some way as well.

For the record, I don't think you have to be the "bad guy" ... to be honest. Yeah, it's a sucky position to be in, but I think it's a matter of perspective and attitude. If you just figured out a different way to compose yourself and deal with people (obviously there is a WIDE variety of responses an "INTP" might give to a situation like this, judging from the variety I've seen here), you might get better results... and without so much grief. I think you can clean up this forum without resorting to the axe all the time.

Good luck, everyone, and have fun. I'll see what happened when I get back on Sunday.

[hereandnow]

Regardless of one's viewpoint, I thought it high time someone took the initiative to actually determine what the real score was.

The "real" score isn't evidenced in a poll because most members haven't voted. Further, as you've admitted the poll was flawed which prevented me and a few others from voting in it.

[Hustler]

I'm leaving for the weekend, so if you care to get some "more accurate" results, please feel free to redo the poll in a way that pleases you. (Not being snotty here, in case you can't tell. I'm quite serious. I don't want bitching after the fact that the "poll wasn't fair.")
Holy shit. A whole weekend with zero posts from Fortunato? I'd better consult the Tech Admins and see if this is going to crash the forum. Anyway, it's far too late for restructuring the poll. People are sure to get tired of voting in poll after poll on this subject. The only one I really give a shit about is the Death List.


In the meantime, people have been making "claims from majority" for the last few days (if not longer) about how all the INTPs who supposedly are down on the non-INTPs in the forum. Regardless of one's viewpoint, I thought it high time someone took the initiative to actually determine what the real score was.
Just looking over the results from this poll, I see that the majority of voters thus far think the non-INTPs are annoying. That's all I need to see. The way you set it up made people hesitant to vote for the all-or-nothing "Hell Yes" option.


You found a great deal of time to run humorous polls on who should be abused but meanwhile apparently didn't give a flying fig about collecting some pertinent data. If it pisses you off that someone else finally stepped in to try to do something useful... well, good. I should have been asking this question a few days ago, to be honest.
No, it irks me that you went about it in just about the most incompetent way possible. If you could have "collected data" in a more useful way, then I'd have been patting you on the back.

[airjaw]

Sometimes new rules have to be made. Sometimes action has to be taken to solve a problem which isn't clearly outlined in the rules. Problems don't always read the rulebook and try to fit in. We're Ps; we adapt.

I agree, and understand that concept. I just have a different vision of what INTPc should be. I'm fine with the way it is now. Thats not to say that my vision is better or worse than yours, just different.

Hustler and Lurker and others who have a problem with the non-INTPs: if you have a problem with their behavior, then make it be known and ask them to stop. I believe in a diplomatic solution instead of an outright militaristic use of force. Rules should be set in place so that if they break the rules, then action can be taken.



There are only three logical solutions to this problem:
1. Ban or restrict non-INTP activity
2. branch off and create a new INTP-only forum.
3. enforce some guidelines that all members should agree to adhere to

Option 3, imo, is the best choice.

[cjs55]

I think 3 is a good choice. The rule should be, 'if you exhibit excessive interruption of INTP discourse on the forum, you will be relegated to a non-INTP subforum.' It should be enforced on a case by case basis.

We don't need to make overreaching mandates. We just need to keep INTP central, INTP central, with the least amount of action necessary.

[Jezebel]

I think this whole "issue" is ridiculous. So ridiculous that I don't care to litter the forum with posts about the situation and argue with people about it. I wouldn't have ever even thought it was an issue until I log on today and see a dozen threads about it.

I've never had any problems with anyone on this board specifically due to them being a different type. If anything, it's the INTPs that feel so violated by their presence that they find it an issue that I don't relate to.

Unfortunately, the more apathetic tend to fade into the background while those being more vocal will seem like a bigger crowd than they are. But no, they aren't speaking for me.

[hereandnow]

1. Drop it.

It's practical and logistically it's a breeze.

[Birdsnest]

The internet is a public place. We should try to share, but I still feel like we have a right to complain. I don't think non-intp's should mock the intps. I don't think the vomitorium should exist. I think a sister board should exist, and it should be respectful of the other types. We should respect them, they should respect us.

I would try to let all types know that if a non-intp mocks or otherwise causes a riff on the board, they should first get a warning, and then a boot. To a neighboring board, like the mbti central.

But its really hard to enforce that, its just that it should be clear that this IS supposed to be a sanctuary of sorts.

I think the main point is to respect people, T or F, and try not to cross that line. But when it is, the sister board should be there, or a limit to the number of posts could be put on such as 2 posts per day on 'guests'. All types should register as their type, and then 'guest' types have limits to their posts, especially when they are dramatic nuisances.

Nuisance:
1. an obnoxious or annoying person, thing, condition, practice, etc.: a monthly meeting that was more nuisance than pleasure.
2. Law. something offensive or annoying to individuals or to the community, esp. in violation of their legal rights.

Does anyone have legal rights to put anyone in a certain area called a vomitorium? Doubtful. But, if they were limited to the # of posts, it might help, and would make that one or two posts more meaningful instead of getting tons of banter.

I honestly like reading the posts of other types, and they really can be interesting. In limited amounts. But when conflicts come up, its usually the clash of too much Fe or too little Fe. And I remember the original intp board and how smoothly it went when fewer members were there. So, I agree we need SOMETHING because its getting ridiculously saturated now.

[booyalab]

you forgot the Non-INTPs aren't disruptive but they should be banned or restricted anyway option.

[Jennywocky]

Holy shit. A whole weekend with zero posts from Fortunato? I'd better consult the Tech Admins and see if this is going to crash the forum.

Crap. It's Sunday, I'm back, and the Forums are still standing.

Either I'm highly dispensible, or you guys are true tech gurus. Or both.



The way you set it up made people hesitant to vote for the all-or-nothing "Hell Yes" option.

Yes, that apparently was a mistake on my part.

(On the other hand, maybe I'll just blame Haight or someone for not stopping me from indulging in my insanity.)



No, it irks me that you went about it in just about the most incompetent way possible. If you could have "collected data" in a more useful way, then I'd have been patting you on the back.

Oh, I wouldn't call it the "most incompetent way" -- if I had known I was up for running for a prize in that category, I could have come up with some far more spectacular crash-and-burns. (I'm almost embarrassed to be credited with such incompetence, when I know I wasn't even doing my best to bottom out.)

More seriously, are you referring to simply restructing the poll, or some other method altogether of information solicitation? (Just curious)

[demagogic_schizoid]

I think it's wrong when INTP's get flamed by non-INTP's for not understanding them on our own board. it irritates me greatly. they should try and act like INTP's if they want to post on an INTP board. I don't demand that they be perfect or even good at it, but they should post in a spirit of trying to be as rational and unemotional as possible. I don't believe they should be banned just for not being INTP's, but only for not making an effort to fit into the spirit of INTP-ness.

However, the trouble here is, who decides what this spirit is? The majority? what if a mjority of people are mediocre or unhealthy INTP's, and then a healthy INTP comes along who differs from their consensus (and there is a lot of crap that goes unchallenged in the name of pseudo-intellectualism round here). INTP's do not always respond positively to this, they can round on another INTP and denounce them as un-INTP for not fitting in with the consensus. There could even be a result where people consciously try to out-INTP each other.I wouldn't like to see such a board. Also, why would we trust the people in charge of implementing this policy? Power corrupts, remember.

Perhaps it would be good if rather than acheiving this through banning, we simply jumped in to defend an INTP who we saw getting NF'd. This way, the strength of the board depends on each individuals desire to make it as good as possible, to defend logic and reason at every turn, and defeat rather than silence the NFing of our members. (this is not an attack on all NF's, as some are very reasonable). If people jumped in to show that shmaltzy, vapid, manipulative ocmments are not appreciated, and logical, clear thinking is, if they put aside their personal prejudices against certain members and in favour of others (let's not forget many INTP's, especially males, will be prone to manipulation by a Feeler, and go along with something they know is unreasonable and leave a fellow INTP to be torn apart by hysteria and irrationality for being "mean" or "argumentative"), then the board will become better. Ultimately my point is that it's up to the members to make the board, not through mob justice or through demanding a strong leader do their bidding for them, but through doing what INTP's do best - thinking clearly and defeating irrationality through logic. If we can do this together, we truly will be strong. Go forth and think INTP's!

[Hustler]

Perhaps it would be good if rather than acheiving this through banning, we simply jumped in to defend an INTP who we saw getting NF'd.
Great idea. I hope you will be at the vanguard of this pro-INTP movement.

[demagogic_schizoid]

Great idea. I hope you will be at the vanguard of this pro-INTP movement.

I try to do my bit and I try to call BS when I see it. If the movement needs a leader, though, then I don't think it's worth much; why try to create a better board for people than they want to create for themselves? It really is up to each individual. If they want to put up with being fed horse-shit and being told it's caviar, it's not my place to snatch the plate from their hands.

[Hustler]

I try to do my bit and I try to call BS when I see it. If the movement needs a leader, though, then I don't think it's worth much; why try to create a better board for people than they want to create for themselves? It really is up to each individual. If they want to put up with being fed horse-shit and being told it's caviar, it's not my place to snatch the plate from their hands.
Sometimes, it just takes a little momentum. And, remember, you're not just creating a better board for them, you're creating a better board for yourself as well. Ultimately, it is up to each individual, but on some level, building a community for INTPs means that we're coming together to relate to each other and help each other out, so you being in that vanguard of the pro-INTP movement would be just that: helping your fellow INTP, helping build community and the worth of the site, and just making the world a better place, one tiny corner of the internet at a time. And, hey, we INTPs aren't renown for our assertiveness or decision-making ability, so sometimes a friendly nudge is just what we need.

[kuranes]

I think that a pro-INTP movement is fine. I don't think that the board is mostly or only about having arguments, and about staying cool or cold whilst having them, though. Nor should we cringe from them.

[demagogic_schizoid]

Sometimes, it just takes a little momentum. And, remember, you're not just creating a better board for them, you're creating a better board for yourself as well.

I agree with this, which is why I try not to let crap pass when I see it, even if it's something I don't care much about or which would be easier to ignore.


And, hey, we INTPs aren't renown for our assertiveness or decision-making ability, so sometimes a friendly nudge is just what we need.

Watch this space. I've stated my opinion here for others to read and agree with if they like, and I'll keep on calling BS when I see it. Do you have any other suggestions as to what I could do?

[Hustler]

Do you have any other suggestions as to what I could do?
Yeah, but they're not appropriate for this thread, and I'm sure Madrigal could phrase them better than I could.

[demagogic_schizoid]

Yeah, but they're not appropriate for this thread, and I'm sure Madrigal could phrase them better than I could.

That's not very friendly Hustler, what happened to our newfound sense of community? Funny you bring her up though, as she's one of the NF's who needs her irrational, illogical arguments and manipulative bullshit to be exposed more often than most. I usually give up after a while because there are so many layers of deception that it seems like a never-ending struggle, and reasoning with someone like that is like trying to explain the concept of colour to someone who's been blind since birth, but I suppose I do owe it to the board to make the effort next time.

[Xander]

I think that this argument can be simplifyed a lot.

If any INTP here thinks that what they are about to say will not be recieved well and does not say it then that is the INTP restricting themselves and not being restricted by the non INTPs.

If they do say something which is not recieved well because of type differences and they get a negative reaction then at that point the offending party should be reminded of where they are. It doesn't need some blanket assumptive decision to exclude people based arbitrarily on expected reactions to the INTP type. Let's face it such blanket things aren't INTPish at all.

As for the degredation of the forum, I see this as more of a function of intelligence and maturity but that is something which cannot be made into a blanket decision, nor should it. Also those with less will probably benefit from those with more. This is worth a little backlash.