I know that there are people who like both Omnimaga and Cemetech.  For the record, there is nothing wrong with that.  However, as a person who likes both websites, you are probably aware that both websites have things they don't like about each other.  Because they're not the same!  They're not supposed to be the same.  People join each website for different reasons.

With that in mind, if you like both websites, you will find that some person--or people--on either website feel(s) threatened by the other website.  It doesn't matter which one.  It happens.   People on Omnimaga will feel attacked by cemetech, even if cemetech is not attacking.  Likewise, people on cemetech will feel that we are attacking them, whether we are or not.

As a person who likes both websites, perhaps you want both websites to be at peace with each other.  And perhaps you want to do something about it.  However, I've seen several examples, including recent ones, of the wrong way to handle this.  If you act like a policeman/judge instead of a diplomat, you will only end up making things worse for one website, possibly both.  And that's not your goal, since you like both websites.

If one website or a person (let's say website A) is acting like a threat to website B or wrongly feels threatened by website B, here's some tips for you if you try to fix the situation by confronting the person/website:

1. Remind the person that you are a fan of the person's website, website A.  You won't be lying.  Remember that you are defending website B, so if you don't remind website A of your loyalties, some people will get angry thinking that you've betrayed website A and gone over fully and permanently to website B.
2. Use words carefully.  Two wrongs don't make a right.  "Get your act together" or "Why can't you freakin leave them alone" only makes an angry person angrier.
3. Sometimes simply stating a wrong will only make a person feel even more threatened.  Instead, have website A describe their problem, and talk them through it, maybe asking questions that they can give thought and honest answers to.  At least for only a little bit, let them feel that they're correct.
4. Don't bring other people into the conversation once it starts.  (By the way, if a "debate" or a "discussion" of the matter is occuring, don't get involved yourself.  It's just as bad as bringing people into your discussion.)
5. Feel for the other person.  If they feel threatened, there's a reason.  It doesn't matter whether they are correct or not, they have better things to do than pretend they are attacked.
6. If there's no sign of change, drop it.  Just drop it.  Some people are not going to change their opinions, and there's nothing you can do about it.  You will only make things worse by pressing the matter.

So if you like both websites, show it.  Don't defend one website by hurting the other.

Hot_Dog++

It doesn't even have to be between websites... It can be between people, too.
With people, as with sites, be kind, empathetic, and understanding. Be careful with what you say, and drop it immediately if the other person isn't responding positively.
If only these problems would come to an end...

Finally, I have peace of mind.
Hot_Dog++

Thanks a whole lot for those tips/guidelines!

In essence I agree with this post. However, I'm not sure I like the usage of words like "diplomacy", "threaten", and "loyalty"--they make it sounds too much like the sites are countries at war with one another. They seem hyperbolic. I feel that it's this kind of strong mindset that leads to such an us-vs-them not-invented-here mentality, and opens up a rift where there need not be one. That being said, I'm not sure what other words could be used. Maybe "calm rationality", "offended", "fondness for a particular site". I know that I, personally, don't feel any loyalty to any particular site, at least not strictly speaking. Maybe I'm in the minority here when I express this, but they're just websites. I'm here to program and chat with friends, not bicker over trivialities (except maybe which programming language is the best, or which calculator one should buy). It shouldn't be so arduous to remain neutral in a programming community. I think, in general, a big issue is one of synecdoche. Person-From-Site-A will see Person-From-Site-B doing something PFSA doesn't like, and will assume that means the entirety of Site B is a certain way. We all need to keep in mind that, for the most part, everyone acts to their own end, and not always as a representative of the site that they frequent. Great advice, though. I think (like calcdude said) this applies to interpersonal relationships in general. If everyone approached conflict in this manner, there'd be a lot less, well, conflict.

Quote from: merthsoft on May 04, 2011, 09:40:58 am

In essence I agree with this post. However, I'm not sure I like the usage of words like "diplomacy", "threaten", and "loyalty"--they make it sounds too much like the sites are countries at war with one another. They seem hyperbolic. I feel that it's this kind of strong mindset that leads to such an us-vs-them not-invented-here mentality, and opens up a rift where there need not be one. That being said, I'm not sure what other words could be used. Maybe "calm rationality", "offended", "fondness for a particular site". I know that I, personally, don't feel any loyalty to any particular site, at least not strictly speaking. Maybe I'm in the minority here when I express this, but they're just websites. I'm here to program and chat with friends, not bicker over trivialities (except maybe which programming language is the best, or which calculator one should buy). It shouldn't be so arduous to remain neutral in a programming community. I think, in general, a big issue is one of synecdoche. Person-From-Site-A will see Person-From-Site-B doing something PFSA doesn't like, and will assume that means the entirety of Site B is a certain way. We all need to keep in mind that, for the most part, everyone acts to their own end, and not always as a representative of the site that they frequent. Great advice, though. I think (like calcdude said) this applies to interpersonal relationships in general. If everyone approached conflict in this manner, there'd be a lot less, well, conflict.

You have a very, very good point about word choice.  merthsoft++.  The advice is very valid in that kind of situation.  However, I have friends here that are as valuable to me as my college friends and neigherborhood friends, hence the word "loyalty."  And unfortunately, I always think of "diplomacy" and "threaten,"  since I felt threatened and was a diplomat.

Synecdoche is very, very true, ++ again.  And this article definitely applies to that.  However, I wrote this article because sometimes things go too far.  It starts with just two people, but eventually they bring everyone they know into it, and it turns into a site-A attacking a site-B.  I wish it didn't happen, but it does.

I agree with your points here. Especially about having really-close internet friends, so I see where you're coming from with that.

As far as your second paragraph, you're right about things going too far. I feel like the tiniest of arguments end up spiraling out of control, especially when everyone else gets involved. I think, related to "4. Don't bring other people into the conversation once it starts.", there should be "4.5. Don't bring yourself into conversations, unless you're 100% certain that you can be rational and impartial". It's hard to do, but often times just staying out of other people's fights will keep the fight from getting too huge.

there should be "4.5. Don't bring yourself into conversations, unless you're 100% certain that you can be rational and impartial". It's hard to do, but often times just staying out of other people's fights will keep the fight from getting too huge.

I agree completely with this. I have done this before on the mint IRC channel. I got into an argument on Irag war and almost got banned. It is almost impossible to stay neutral in arguments.