Cliques on Joeuser?

Published on June 18, 2006 By Moderateman In Blog Communities

I keep seeing people mention that there are cliques here on Joeuser. I wonder how does that look? What are the cliques?

Is it like the Cripes and Bloods? Or more like school yard stuff, you know, the jocks in one corner, the geeks in another, the rich folk here, the poor folk there.?

Who are these cliques? Who is in them? Are you a member of a clique here? Do you want to be?

Inquiring mind wants to know. Are there some that are leaders of said cliques? If there are leaders there must be followers, can you name them?

Comments (Page 1)

Gideon MacLeish

on Jun 18, 2006

There are no "cliques" on JU. That's a myth spread by whiny, simpering, incompetent writers who feel they should receive attention and responses equal to those of writers who put out more substantive work. I'm frankly, sick of the accusations; as a longtime member of the "top ten", I'm certain that my name has been mentioned in connection with a few of these "cliques", and I can readily assure you, I'm not a part of any. Sure, i have my favorite bloggers that I patronize, but if they put out what I consider a crappy article, I will a) not comment, or tell them.

The whole argument is just "sour grapes" in my opinion.

Moderateman

on Jun 18, 2006

Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Sunday, June 18, 2006There are no "cliques" on JU. That's a myth spread by whiny, simpering, incompetent writers who feel they should receive attention and responses equal to those of writers who put out more substantive work. I'm frankly, sick of the accusations; as a longtime member of the "top ten", I'm certain that my name has been mentioned in connection with a few of these "cliques", and I can readily assure you, I'm not a part of any. Sure, i have my favorite bloggers that I patronize, but if they put out what I consider a crappy article, I will a) not comment, or

tell them.The whole argument is just "sour grapes" in my opinion.

That pretty well sums it up for me too gid, BUT for others that seem to feel there are dangerous gangs of bloggers waiting to waylay them with attacks of ink thrown across cyberspace the danger MUST BE very real.

Locamama

on Jun 18, 2006

I really don't think their are cliques on JU. I think there are friendships and certain people that just get on well together so they read each other, comment on each others blogs and stick up for each other if they think someone is getting treated badly. I think a clique would be more exclusionary. If you made a separate blog group for only your "group", that might be cliqueish.

Moderateman

on Jun 18, 2006

#3 by Locamama
Sun, June 18, 2006 6:06 PM

really don't think their are cliques on JU. I think there are friendships and certain people that just get on well together so they read each other, comment on each others blogs and stick up for each other if they think someone is getting treated badly. I think a clique would be more exclusionary. If you made a separate blog group for only your "group", that might be cliqueish.

But I am sure you have read about the cliques here, I see all kinds of accusations thrown around about this clique or that one. Where are all the people that say there are cliques? I keep wondering Am I in a clique? and don't know it? heh heh heh. Are you a secret agent for some clique trying to pry information about my knowledge of Joeuser cliques? eh he he heh

pseudosoldier

on Jun 18, 2006

There are no "cliques" on JU.

Well, I don't hang around enough nowadays to really speak to the present but...

The way that I got here was through a clique. Greywar started it and dragged nearly a half-dozen of us in with him. I wish he was still around, and I wish some of the other guys would occasionally pop their heads in, too (NBS, I'm looking at you, and thinking of Geezer. That's creepy, isn't it?). But you start cliques yourself, more often than not, by excluding others.

I only read certain members habitually. I still have greywar bookmarked, but he seem to only write every other month. I read dharma a lot; I check more often than she writes. I check in on Tex about once/week, or when I notice an article that she has posted (and sometimes I have to play catch-up). It's pretty much downhill from there. There isn't anyone I actually avoid per se, but there are plenty of people I just don't read.

As far as cliques go, there can't be anything remotely like your "Cripes and Bloods" (Cripes?) comment. Any 'turf war' (to extend an already overextended metaphor) would rapidly be decided by the site admins. (See various references to SPM.) There are barely even any trolls on here... If there are any cliques, it's the JoeUser clique, then the people on the fringes, then the people who don't even post here.

Texas Wahine

on Jun 18, 2006

Who's bitching about cliques NOW?

(BTW, I'm honored that you read me, Psuedosoldier.

)

Locamama

on Jun 18, 2006

I would like to be an on-line gang leader especially if I could give it a cool name like insane JU posse, boiiii,in da house.

Dr Guy

on Jun 18, 2006

I dont recall anyone talking about cliques. Did I miss something? I am not a part of any. I read many and write in many categories. maybe I am the generic clique?

bakerstreet

on Jun 18, 2006

I was grumping about the current state of the right-wing clique here the other day, which I guess makes me the 'whiny, simpering, incompetent writer' in question. To me I think the whole Dr. Guy/Dr.Miller/ParaTed2k/Moderateman cadre is pretty obvious, with a few others coming and going. If you think I am wrong, just watch their article comments and, say, Col Gene's articles and see who moves as a cohesive unit more often than not.

Not that I find anything wrong with that. It's just that any system that degrades to the point that there is only one cohesive group opposing and 'hell yeah'ing articles it gets old. I benefit from their attention, and I often benefit from their dissent. I'm not saying that cliquishness is necessarily a bad thing, I just think when there's not a balancing group, then discussions tend to degrade to a lot of agreeing with one another.

SanChonino

on Jun 18, 2006

I would like to be an on-line gang leader especially if I could give it a cool name like insane JU posse, boiiii,in da house

Ooh, ooh, sign my up for that shizzzzzzle! Wassup my home skillets?

I'd like to think that I'm my own little clique.

pseudosoldier

on Jun 18, 2006

If you think I am wrong, just watch their article comments and, say, Col Gene's articles and see who moves as a cohesive unit more often than not.

Oh, I think COL Gene moves as a cohesive (if nearly incoherent) unit all by his lonesome.

bakerstreet

on Jun 18, 2006

He used to. I don't think he really comments on other people's blogs anymore.

Texas Wahine

on Jun 18, 2006

LOL, the people who bitch about ColGene are the ONLY ones who pay attention to him. If people would ignore him, they could watch his articles sink.

Moderateman

on Jun 18, 2006

5 by pseudosoldier
Sun, June 18, 2006 6:25 PM

I remember some of those guys posting, they never excluded anyone. Neither have you far as I can see.

Myabe some will return, maybe you can fetch them and bring them back!

Moderateman

on Jun 18, 2006

#6 by Texas Wahine
Sun, June 18, 2006 6:30 PM

Who's bitching about cliques NOW?

no bitching, just comments time to time.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!