I guess I'll expand my comment into an answer, because there's a lot I didn't say.

On chat, I see a lot of rooms with "regulars" - a small group of folks that have been in the room since its conception, and continue to play major roles in the dynamics of conversations there. They often have personalities that get along well together, and so they agree on certain things - including the room's informal "policies".

Over time - weeks, months, years - the standards of behavior gradually align with this group's expectations. They're the major players in the dramas of chat, and so they set a standard. New users see that these regulars are the main folks here, and so they might change their behaviors accordingly. Without outside intervention, you very quickly build up what's called "room culture".

The phrase "room culture" is generally used defensively. When a moderator or other flag-handler deletes a chat message, suspends a user, or otherwise acts in a way that the regulars don't like, they can be attacked for it. Worse still are cases when the moderator isn't a moderator on the site. They'll then be called an outsider, someone who just doesn't understand the "room culture".

I think that at least part of the problem here stems from this idea, and I've seen certain recent issues on chat parallel this pretty closely. It all comes down to an attitude issue - and I know that that sounds harsh, but it is the truth. The attitude that some folks are above the overarching chat policies and can make their own rules because they're established is one that can cause problems.

What I'm not saying:

• I'm not implying that room culture is always a terrible thing. Different sites have different personalities, and so be extension different rooms have different personalities.
• By extension, I'm not saying that the idea of regulars is a bad thing. Having folks who know the main site well and are available to help the new guys is always great. I've walked into many sites where I have no clue what the standards are, and between observing the main site and meta, and asking the experienced users in chat, I've learned about the site much more.

What I am saying:

• Over-the-top, offensive, and otherwise inappropriate room culture is not okay and should not be tolerated.
• Exclusive cliques, while uncommon, are not good, because they can give new users poor experiences on the site.

I don't have a fix for this issue at the moment. Trying to eradicate this is like trying to eradicate bigotry - it won't work. But we need to have measures in place to prevent these users and these attitudes from harming chat and Stack Exchange.

I guess I'll expand my comment into an answer, because there's a lot I didn't say.

On chat, I see a lot of rooms with "regulars" - a small group of folks that have been in the room since its conception, and continue to play major roles in the dynamics of conversations there. They often have personalities that get along well together, and so they agree on certain things - including the room's informal "policies".

Over time - weeks, months, years - the standards of behavior gradually align with this group's expectations. They're the major players in the dramas of chat, and so they set a standard. New users see that these regulars are the main folks here, and so they might change their behaviors accordingly. Without outside intervention, you very quickly build up what's called "room culture".

The phrase "room culture" is generally used defensively. When a moderator or other flag-handler deletes a chat message, suspends a user, or otherwise acts in a way that the regulars don't like, they can be attacked for it. Worse still are cases when the moderator isn't a moderator on the site. They'll then be called an outsider, someone who just doesn't understand the "room culture".

I think that at least part of the problem here stems from this idea, and I've seen certain recent issues on chat parallel this pretty closely. It all comes down to an attitude issue - and I know that that sounds harsh, but it is the truth. The attitude that some folks are above the overarching chat policies and can make their own rules because they're established is one that can cause problems.

What I'm not saying:

• I'm not implying that room culture is always a terrible thing. Different sites have different personalities, and so by extension different rooms have different personalities.
• By extension, I'm not saying that the idea of regulars is a bad thing. Having folks who know the main site well and are available to help the new contributors is always great. I've walked into many sites where I have no clue what the standards are, and between observing the main site and meta, and asking the experienced users in chat, I've learned about the site much more.

What I am saying:

• Over-the-top, offensive, and otherwise inappropriate room culture is not okay and should not be tolerated.
• Exclusive cliques, while uncommon, are not good, because they can give new users poor experiences on the site.

I don't have a fix for this issue at the moment. Trying to eradicate this is like trying to eradicate bigotry - it won't work. But we need to have measures in place to prevent these users and these attitudes from harming chat and Stack Exchange.

I guess I'll expand my comment into an answer, because there's a lot I didn't say.

On chat, I see a lot of rooms with "regulars" - a small group of folks that have been in the room since its concept, and continue to play major roles in the dynamics of conversations there. They often have personalities that get along well together, and so they agree on certain things - including the room's informal "policies".

Over time - weeks, months, years - the standards of behavior gradually align with this group's expectations. They're the major players in the dramas of chat, and so they set a standard. New users see that these regulars are the main folks here, and so they might change their behaviors accordingly. Without outside intervention, you very quickly build up what's called "room culture".

The phrase "room culture" is generally used defensively. When a moderator or other flag-handler deletes a chat message, suspends a user, or otherwise acts in a way that the regulars don't like, they can be attacked for it. Worse still are cases when the moderator isn't a moderator on the site. They'll then be called an outsider, someone who just doesn't understand the "room culture".

I think that at least part of the problem here stems from this idea, and I've seen certain recent issues on chat parallel this pretty closely. It all comes down to an attitude issue - and I know that that sounds harsh, but it is the truth. The attitude that some folks are above the overarching chat policies and can make their own rules because they're established is one that can cause problems.

What I'm not saying:

• I'm not implying that room culture is always a terrible thing. Different sites have different personalities, and so be extension different rooms have different personalities.
• By extension, I'm not saying that the idea of regulars is a bad thing. Having folks who know the main site well and are available to help the new guys is always great. I've walked into many sites where I have no clue what the standards are, and between observing the main site and meta, and asking the experienced users in chat, I've learned about the site much more.

What I am saying:

• Over-the-top, offensive, and otherwise inappropriate room culture is not okay and should not be tolerated.
• Exclusive cliques, while uncommon, are not good, because they can give new users poor experiences on the site.

I don't have a fix for this issue at the moment. Trying to eradicate this is like trying to eradicate bigotry - it won't work. But we need to have measures in place to prevent these users and these attitudes from harming chat and Stack Exchange.

I guess I'll expand my comment into an answer, because there's a lot I didn't say.

On chat, I see a lot of rooms with "regulars" - a small group of folks that have been in the room since its conception, and continue to play major roles in the dynamics of conversations there. They often have personalities that get along well together, and so they agree on certain things - including the room's informal "policies".

Over time - weeks, months, years - the standards of behavior gradually align with this group's expectations. They're the major players in the dramas of chat, and so they set a standard. New users see that these regulars are the main folks here, and so they might change their behaviors accordingly. Without outside intervention, you very quickly build up what's called "room culture".

The phrase "room culture" is generally used defensively. When a moderator or other flag-handler deletes a chat message, suspends a user, or otherwise acts in a way that the regulars don't like, they can be attacked for it. Worse still are cases when the moderator isn't a moderator on the site. They'll then be called an outsider, someone who just doesn't understand the "room culture".

I think that at least part of the problem here stems from this idea, and I've seen certain recent issues on chat parallel this pretty closely. It all comes down to an attitude issue - and I know that that sounds harsh, but it is the truth. The attitude that some folks are above the overarching chat policies and can make their own rules because they're established is one that can cause problems.

What I'm not saying:

• I'm not implying that room culture is always a terrible thing. Different sites have different personalities, and so be extension different rooms have different personalities.
• By extension, I'm not saying that the idea of regulars is a bad thing. Having folks who know the main site well and are available to help the new guys is always great. I've walked into many sites where I have no clue what the standards are, and between observing the main site and meta, and asking the experienced users in chat, I've learned about the site much more.

What I am saying:

• Over-the-top, offensive, and otherwise inappropriate room culture is not okay and should not be tolerated.
• Exclusive cliques, while uncommon, are not good, because they can give new users poor experiences on the site.

I don't have a fix for this issue at the moment. Trying to eradicate this is like trying to eradicate bigotry - it won't work. But we need to have measures in place to prevent these users and these attitudes from harming chat and Stack Exchange.