> I dont remember why I was kind of barred from lobsters , but I applaud all this behavior you mentioned.

Some serious cognitive dissonance here.

I think a lot of people like this idea of a close-knit clique of like minded people, but the communities tend to pick up toxic qualities where membership becomes a game in itself. Anyone who doesn’t fall in line with the established in-crowd gets pushed out via the Byzantine rules that the in-crowd uses to maintain their position.

I still visit and participate, but I’m realistic about what it is. There is some value there, but you have to navigate it like a small subreddit where the moderator keeps tight control over what can be discussed and indirectly or directly influences the allowable opinions on the site. I really liked their original ideas about having an open moderation log and clear rules, but I’ve seen more than enough questionable moderation decisions and selective application of the rules to accept that it’s not as pure as I thought it was going to be.

Hmmmm interesting analogy! I'm not too sure if cliques apply as much to online communities. Cliques are usually exclusionary not because people don't meet the criteria/scope of the clique, but by scale constraints, eg how many people someone can maintain a close relationship with. Online communities are kind of sufficiently different because of this scale. They can grow basically indefinitely, and are only limited by the stated scope/criteria of the community.

Lobsters has other problems too. The owner occasionally steals credit from posters, changing the author of posts to his own friends, also taking all the credit for it away. Debating the owner's action results in a ban.