WYR Would You Rather - Webmaster Edition #7

[Cedric]

We've got a real head-scratcher for all the community leaders out there. It's about the kind of community you're running. As someone who runs a community, you know it's not always easy to keep things balanced. So, let's get into this challenge.

Here's the question:

🤔 The Dilemma:​

When it comes to running your community, which path would you prefer?

1. Run a community where members are super into everything and argue a lot.
2. Run a chill place where your members don't argue but don't engage much.

This is all about whether it's better to have a lively group that might get heated or a quiet group that's easy to manage but maybe a bit too quiet. Your decision changes how people act in your community, and we want to know what you think is best.

Tell us about what you've picked and why. Have you gone for a passionate group? How do you deal with the arguments? Or do you prefer a quieter group? How do you keep things interesting when it's less engaging?

Your experiences and tips are super helpful to others who are trying to make their communities great. Can't wait to hear what you have to say about choosing between a fiery or a chill community!

Can't wait to hear what you all prefer. Drop your thoughts below!

Cheers!

 

[Cory]

I'd rather keep it chill. If I continuously create a fair amount of content or do exchanges/packages to keep the forum full of content, then I'm doing my best to get users to engage in the content of the board. Arguing is likely to lead to flaming and that's not a good representation of a forum, in my opinion.

 

[Cedric]

I’ve voted for the argue and engage a lot option.

Having passionate debates in a community can actually be a positive thing. It shows that members care deeply about the subject matter, and it can lead to the exchange of diverse ideas and perspectives. However, it does require stronger moderation to ensure that these discussions remain respectful and constructive. But often this is also how a community is build. 😊

 

[Debashis]

I would go with "Run a chill place where members don't argue but don't engage much". I feel it's far better than having chaos all across the forum. It's easier to ignite engagement among the members compared to stopping them from arguing with each other.

 

[Reverie]

While I like an engaging community, having to steer conversations and peer conflict is exhausting sometimes. I rather have a chill community - hopefully the more people who discover it would then grow because they enjoy the community vibe rather than the chaos.

 

[Jane]

Members into everything and argue a lot. Now by argue..I mean passionately debate. You can do that without hurling insults at each other I think. If everyone agreed life would be dull. Lively debate is good

 

[AjayJunkies]

I prefer `1. Run a community where members are super into everything and argue a lot.`

My community started like this and I wasn't prepared for the arguments and feedback. I went too hard on opposing feedback I found negative and incorrectly viewed it as my forum members being dissatisfied and disliking me when I should have viewed it as a passionate community that is very involved in and interested in our product.

Although 1. can be much more stressful, on the flip side it provides a lot of product feedback and helps the community grow as content increases.

 

[Kennysplash]

We should agree to disagree. Arguments can be a good thing, it provides the parties involved with different viewpoints. And at the end they might come to a compromise. This is far better than agreement to everything which means low engagements.

 

[Sinistra]

I would rather have a heated discussion about something I am passionate about than not have any engagement at all. I mean you get me talking about anime I can't shut up and when you talk bad about an anime I like it's like how dare you! but it's healthy to have a good argument here and there. As long as it doesn't get too out of hand I am OK with it. If I have to intervene then the discussion is over!