|
1031. Angel-Five - 2/24/2000 6:32:56 AM Whether or not you like the specific metaphor of White Flight is irrelevant -- something akin to a class mechanism is occurring in this community. There's no value judgment in my saying that, no matter how huffy or offended you want to get pretending there is. It's a frickin' mechanism. It's neutral. If you're going to say for yourselves that the 'upper' classes are better than the 'middle' or the 'lower' classes, then realize that it's you saying it, because I don't think that your worth depends on your class and I don't think Seguine does either. Got that? Nevertheless, one has to also recognize the following -- unless you are going to argue that the exiting group of people is without any worth at all, then their absence damages the forum. Am I wrong? Some very valuable and interesting people have left the forum in protest or in silence, but not just because they were suddenly too busy to post. We need to replace them and then keep growing, and at the same time it won't hurt to wonder why these people left and see if that's a problem we can change. If you can in turn explain that we DON'T need to replace them and we DON'T need to wonder why they left, then sit down and let's talk. If not, then you really can't have any argument with me. 1032. CalGal - 2/24/2000 7:03:43 AM If you can in turn explain that we DON'T need to replace them and we DON'T need to wonder why they left, then sit down and let's talk.
No, we don't need to wonder why they left, really. No reason at all. Some people stay, some people go. The only reason I can think of to wonder is to a) try and get them back or b) try to change the forum in such a way that they'll come back.
Which were you proposing? If "b", then I suggest you put together a list of the valuable people, so we all know who we're to consult. The forum can then ignore the wishes of the non-valuables, and we'll go from there.
As for "replacing" them--let's not forget that the majority of the people you mention weren't here at the Mote when it started. So there's no "replacing" people who were never here. As far as increasing our numbers--regardless of whether we're "replacing" or "growing", yes, I hope we continue to grow. But I don't associate the two issues at all. Growth is achieved by marketing and communication, not wondering why a few people left the previous forum 6 months before this one started.
So if you are proposing that we put together a plan to bring back the better quality discontented folk, while still keeping the valuable people here happy, I suggest you start with a list. Include the current Mote members you want to make happy, as well as those who left.
That seems the logical starting point. I mean, you weren't just planning on speaking for them, were you? 1033. ChristinO - 2/24/2000 7:09:40 AM Angel I left because I have given my opinion on the matter and don't feel it productive to spend any more time playing you said I said and arguing over who is insulting who and who really isn't being disingenuous or who really meant what.
The question on the floor is should we scrap the standing RoE in favor of something else specifically Irv's draft. My answer is that at this time and having read what is proposed I am against it for the reasons that I have stated whether or not you agree with them or think I've understood correctly.
What more is there to say other than that? You won't change my mind and I don't see the need to post endlessly about a change that exactly two people have decided is necessary. 1034. ChristinO - 2/24/2000 7:19:44 AM Oh goodness. I hate it when I skim and then realize I put two different ideas together. This is regarding the question of who left which I thought was addressed to my leaving earlier rather than to those who choose not to post in theMote.
Angel, you and I have had the conversation before about why the exalted have left. Do you really believe that either of us is going to change the other's mind?
I think you are concerned about a non-issue. Some people will leave and others will come. Our growth of new members here has been ten times better than at the Fray so I'm not sure why you are so concerned about us stagnating and dying. The forum has obviously been good enough to make you change your mind about never participating so it can't suck all that bad.
I've addressed as much of this as I intend to. Now I'm going to learn how to play bridge.
1035. Angel-Five - 2/24/2000 7:20:19 AM Oh, we don't need to know why people leave the forum. How illuminating. If they were valued members -- they possessed traits that we as a community valued -- then it only makes sense to anyone that we try and keep people with those traits, and we attract other people with similar traits. Yes? That means largely figuring out what made those people leave in the first place. Maybe nine out of ten people who look at this place and leave do that for a reason we can correct -- hasn't that occurred to you? And that maybe we would be more valuable if those people stayed? So you can ditch the bullshit about how in order to attract talent we have to decide who we like and don't like in the community. That's so rank a distortion that even a dog wouldn't touch it. We're not picking and choosing between talent pools (at least, I'm not -- but if you want to argue that in order to attract certain people we have to ignore others, go ahead) in our selection process, just trying to keep what we do attract. I'm glad that you've at least come around to saying that some of the people I mentioned chose to restrict their time in, or leave completely, the Mote. But it's extremely foolish for you to push this point of yours, that the Mote is totally separate from the Fray. That's an artificial distinction. Some things run better here, but it's the same basic community otherwise. Really, The Mote is a nice place, but let's not pretend we invented it or even substantially remade it. 1036. Angel-Five - 2/24/2000 7:22:52 AM Our growth of new members here isn't close to that of the Fray. 1037. Angel-Five - 2/24/2000 7:28:33 AM And as to why the 'exalted' (do you have any idea how telling it is for you to use that word in a conversation about why they left and who does and does not want more people like them?) have left -- yes, we have had that conversation. And as I recall we both managed to come up with the same, exact reason. It's just that it bothered me and you were fine with it. I don't expect to convince you of anything, and actually don't much want to at this point. I miss having certain people around; you don't as much. That's that. 1038. arkymalarky - 2/24/2000 7:30:32 AM People came and went in the Fray all the time I was there, but many, if not most of the ones I most enjoyed reading are still here. FWIW, I never could persuade any of my friends, or even my husband, who I think would really enjoy it, to post in the Fray or here. Bro said he would, but I haven't seen him yet. I don't know anyone else irl who participates in any online forum, and there never seemed to be a whole lot of really regular contributers from the time I started in the Fray. 1039. Angel-Five - 2/24/2000 7:37:21 AM My brother lurked occasionally for a while, but dismissed the Fray as a bunch of mental masturbation (well, 'mostly mental, occasionally much more physical and overt' is how he put it). 1040. Angel-Five - 2/24/2000 7:39:35 AM I think a lot of it was when he started asking me about movie recommendations and I'd tell him what the Movies thread recommended and he'd follow up on it and call me back pissed off. We talk about Mote insularity but as far as movie recommendations and analyses it's a reality. 1041. JayAckroyd - 2/24/2000 10:20:16 PM It is interesting that amidst all this ruckus, only four people have made a direct comment on Irv's draft.
I prefer the new wording.
1042. Seguine - 2/25/2000 12:12:05 AM Jay, my guess is that most people don't care (no one reads the RoE); or else, when this thread got moved back off the front page, most people quit reading and so are unaware of Irv's proposal. In case it's the latter, I have posted a notice in Thread Suggestions. 1043. PsychProf - 2/25/2000 12:12:25 AM Jay...that is because the issues surounding policy are control related, personality dominated, or motivated by hostility, for a least some posters. EG, Seguine uses the topic as a chance to partronize and let us know she is smarter/better than others(wanna compare resumes Seg? you can accept the challenge at ozzienelson@hotmail.com )...why else would she substantially contribute to a "future policy" discussion on a forum that she doesn't like and intends to leave? BTW... The original ROE or Irv's are fine with me. 1044. Indiana Jones - 2/25/2000 12:23:46 AM IMO this has been a big discussion about something that doesn't appear to be a large problem. The discussion is much bigger than anything causing it. I concur with PP that either version is fine because I really don't see a substantive difference.
Whatever is "wrong" with the Mote currently--and it appears to me to be very healthy for an online forum of its size--it's not with the ROE. 1045. soupisgoodfood - 2/25/2000 12:40:59 AM I vote for Irv's wording. 1046. Dantheman - 2/25/2000 12:47:03 AM I agree with IJ's post 1044. Both versions are fine, and we're making way too mcuh of the Rules of Engagement. 1047. Dantheman - 2/25/2000 12:47:21 AM whoops mcuh=much 1048. JayAckroyd - 2/25/2000 1:19:43 AM PP-
I prefer Irv's version because it's simpler, but the rules don't really matter. The moderator does. If the moderator is not judicious, temperate and thick-skinned, the best of all possible rules will still fail.
I agree that there's been way too much discussion of this.
Seguine may or may not vanish. We've all sometimes regretted the amount of time we spend here, I suspect. I certainly should not be writing this post right now.
1049. IrvingSnodgrass - 2/25/2000 1:30:50 AM It's true that my version does not differ substantively from the earlier version, which stated the same information. All I did was take out some of the redundancy, and removed the invitations to try and break the rules ("don't push the envelope").
Contrary to what someone said earlier, I didn't make any penalties more specific. In fact, just the opposite. I tried to more clearly state that the moderator is the final judge on any rule violations.
The first draft of the rules were fine. I just tried to tighten them up. 1050. PincherMartin - 2/25/2000 1:35:19 AM Is it possible to show Irv's (and other's as well) version again?
I have finally read the RoE -- I think they are brief and clear, but I'm willing to compare them with any other drafts to see if it can still be bettered.
|
