Honestly I think this conversation overall got confused with a hypothetical concern to a problem (users potentially not wanting things they've said, screen-capped/quoted) that is different to the context the conversation started referring to (discussing information concerning what raocow has decided). The former is honestly concerns communities on the internet generally
, not just spotzone but the problem was it was associated as a reason for a community specific thing, which was incorrect.
I like ano0maly's summary of communities and sharing information:
Different places have different conversations, and one place might have chatted about something that hasn't been brought up yet at the time in another place. That's just natural. And when you feel it's best to borrow another's words, you can share conversation from another place and cite it. If you state things in one place on the Internet of course there's a chance it can get disseminated to another place through people that are in both. Of course, it's not desirable to import or export drama needlessly.
The concern then stems from people not wanting stuff they've said to be shared in certain places for various reasons, similar incredibly broadto made up examples (because the context is
broad): there being the potential of people not wanting to have drama from talkhaus being linked by thread, or a Twitter message strawmanned to another person's Twitter. This is a general thing that applies to every community though
, but it has been brought up in a conversation about spotzone to talkhaus which has given a horrible
vibe. While this was brought up to reason why sharing images is avoided, phrasing that people generally join and leave communities for varying personal reasons, and associating potential individual's specific reasons to leave a community generally (talkhaus to spotzone in this instance) has also confused things in this converstation.
The direction this conversation took through how replies were phrased and brought up to the wrong questions, makes it sound like there's a bunch of intentionally
super secret stuff commonly
talked about in spotzone. Also makes it sound like there's a huge wall between the two communities in communicating and sharing. It also makes it sound like there's a lot of potentially defamatory gossip about communities within the place, but that's something that's actively pointed out to be a no-go.
To be honest, I think sharing chat and interesting things between the place commonly happens anyway
for the most part. A lot of users there overlap between the different communities, but it's just there's no indication of what and who comes from where unless you're in both.
Exceptions would obviously be, jokes, games and such that are specific to chat in a spotzone channel, ideas people just want to run by a spotzone channel, an occasional snippits of surprises raocow has in mind run by a few people for clarification, or idle trading of thoughts or responses for things still yet to be decided/jokes turning into actual things.
Some will choose to drop a joke between one of raocow's Youtube comment section, Talkhaus, Discordhaus or spotzone though, then choose to share it within another...or not so it doesn't look like they're saying, "hey everyone, look at this funny I made!". Alternatively, you have people stick to one, because that's the community they've chosen.
There really aren't as many patreon only benefits as I think are thought to be. People talk, ask questions and interesting things can sometimes pop up - similar to other place, but a quick place to talk on.
I think a few problems also stem from assumptions of it being a patreon only place, as
a patreon only place, rather than just another community.
In that case, I guess the best thing moving forwards would be to be more explicit about stuff coming from there, and also perhaps be more free to share jokes and such to the gazeebo. Also, if in doubt, to ask if something can be forwarded.
I think the biggest controversial thing for this context has been the Sonic list, but that has already been explained in this thread, plus there are still
a few surprises here and there only raocow knows. I think people have agreed that's fine in this thread.
However, another problem and the reason this conversation was brought to begin with is, conversations and a few other things dropped in talkhaus late and being discussed like, "we already discussed x" without the context it happened in, or was brought up from, makes it sound like lots of people are actively
excluded from important talk - which is a problem.
It ends up teasing content that was talked elsewhere and, ends up sounding like something big they didn't know about was debated/decided that they don't get a say in, when often they could just be a single line response to a quip.
Ultimately, moving forwards maybe one fix for those would be to be more explicit about the source and context the conversation was brought up from
, since the biggest concern is the place intentionally being secretive and not sharing anything. If we're more explicit about what comes from there, and open things up to chat that were just forgotten to be opened here when it's brought up, this should be less of a problem right?