|
1474. arkymalarky - 8/13/2001 5:00:51 AM (cont)
Divisiveness is very easy to create and very difficult to mend, and it's plagued this group since I've been part of it. The problem is that as more posters drop off the division becomes life-threatening, yet it continues, and the ones who sense it most seem to be at a loss as to what to do about it, while others, at least imo, are satisfied to continue to pretend it isn't there or isn't causing serious problems. Others are truly able to ignore it, which is great.
Divisiveness is an enemy of diversity, because no matter what their backgrounds, posters who participate very much find themselves either walking a tightrope between camps or falling off into one side or the other. It's hard for them to avoid, particularly in certain threads. Witness the most recent dustup. I have walked the tightrope myself until recently, and jumped off it based on my own perceptions of a trend and the belief that I really didn't have anything left to lose in the deal.
WRT bannings, we actually bat it around more than we actually do it. We've banned Cazart and JonFergusen, but although Rose is threatened he's not been banned, and only a handful of others have been suspended. Cal is the only other poster around whom any significant controversy over behavior has developed, and no one's entertained thoughts of banning or suspension; though I, for one, find her tendency to selectively attack people without provocation--and her sheer ubiquitousness which makes such attacks almost impossible to avoid--incredibly damaging and divisive to an already weakened forum.
1475. arkymalarky - 8/13/2001 5:01:10 AM Personally, I would rather banning or suspension just be done by the moderators--slap--with no discussion or suggestions from the Peanut Gallery, which only serves to contribute to our "discuss-it-to-death" syndrome. If I have a complaint regarding a bannable offense, it should be handled via email rather than letting the whole forum in on the discussion/decision. But that's just my opinion.
1476. janjon - 8/13/2001 5:28:45 AM well, I must admit that I hadn't realized that it indeed has only been two bannings. This perhaps is because so much talk/time/energy/focus has gone into discussions regarding the same. And, you do from time to time see various posters come out with an "off with his/her head", always "for the good of the forum" of course. Has a chilling effect. OTOH, doing things in a non-public way would have an even more chilling effect, IMO. Thus, to me, another example of Live With It - Its Cyberspace.
But, I gather that you find the banning/suspension aspects to be a minor part of the problem. I can agree with that. Diversity and numbers - that is the core issue. And, no question, much harder to develop when there isn't a "natural" road in, such as being an adjunct to a zine.
But, I can also agree with what I think you are saying about the damaging effects of pervasive and negative, cutting (as in personal attacks, not in opposing thoughts or ideas) tones. Attitudes to the effect that "I can say anything I want (as long as I'm on topic) and as often as I want" won't be tolerated by many for very long. Polite ignoring by some, fight back by others, leave for some. No problem, I guess, as long as those who do things that way and everyone else realize that that is the import. 1477. arkymalarky - 8/13/2001 5:49:12 AM Let me clarify a bit. I think the banning/suspension and reason should be publicly announced.
On the numbers--you've hit the nail on the head. It's crucial that we not lose long-standing and regular members when we have no real prospects of a significant number of new people, but that's exactly what I see happening. 1478. Indiana Jones - 8/13/2001 11:15:32 AM janjon and arky: I think it's too late.
I will probably continue to visit here because of the people I do like to read and because of a feeling of responsibility re the two threads I host, but any sense of optimism is gone. 1479. mgleason - 8/14/2001 4:25:41 AM I think we're being a little melodramatic. Other forums feature infighting, incestuous little groups, and patches of sheer boredom, and they still attract new blood.
We need to explore what people want, and then see if it's possible to deliver. For starters, this conversation should be featured more prominently, because I'll wager that most of us don't even know it's going on. 1480. CalGal - 8/14/2001 5:03:36 AM Definitely too melodramatic. As for JJ and MsG, Arky, JJ posted that he was away because he was busy and MsG isn't posting because she is starting law school. Are you saying you doubt this explanation?
Wonkers is always gone for months at a time and then comes back. vK is rich and travels a lot now, although I'm sure he's also in the "The Mote sucks because of CalGal" club.
Myself, I've not cared much about this place since June, when the most recent whining about me started. But I don't think the slowdown is more than tangentially related to the whining--I think no more than three people I can think of have actively left because they couldn't tolerate me even with their trusty support group bucking them up. It's slow in large part because it's always slow this time of year and yes, if something doesn't click again it could be a deadly slowness. I doubt it, myself--it will probably come back. Either way, I don't care as much as I used to.
If you want to revive a forum, the way to do it is to talk about the things you want to talk about. Introduce new topics, expect it to be slow at first, and see what happens.
I also think it would be fun if we could do some group activity--a book reading, a movie festival, something to that effect.
It's also time for our anniversary; it might be fun to send out another mailing if we have anything to announce. I haven't heard from Alistair; if he hasn't done anything with the new look maybe I'll give it a shot. 1481. mgleason - 8/14/2001 6:46:23 AM Those are good suggestions. I'm up for a reading (no tea-leaves, however), and there's always the Emmy Awards, too. 1482. arkymalarky - 8/14/2001 7:20:41 AM I'm not the melodramatic type. The dropoff without the new people coming in pretty much speaks for itself. There are no significant sources from which to draw new people in here, so I don't see that changing, and you don't revive anything without energy feeding into it.
A group activity would be good if it were coupled with an anniversary mailout to bring in enough people to keep it going well.
And don't flatter yourself, Cal. One statement was made about you and I meant it for simply what it was--no more. You needn't attempt to lather it up into the fount of the entire series of posts in here. 1483. CalGal - 8/14/2001 8:37:48 AM The Emmy awards don't usually generate enough interest--but they were very good last year, much better than the Oscars (in terms of entertainment value).
As far as attracting more people for group activities, I don't think it much matters whether we do or don't. If it's something that interests the people who are here, great. If it brings in others too, fine.
Arky, I wasn't flattering myself. You made more than one reference to things you've said before in regards to me. Besides, you didn't answer my question about JJ and MsG. Are you saying you don't believe them?
We have had slow periods before; last year at this time was particularly bad. Then it picked up. So your comment that it can't be fixed is innacurate. I don't know if it will pick up again, and as I said I'm getting to the point that I don't care--not because it hasn't been busy, but because I'm tired of giving a damn about people when a group of them bitch so incessantly.
In any event, the way to address bringing people back is by doing what I said--introduce topics you are interested in, suggest group activities that others might enjoy, and go from there. 1484. arkymalarky - 8/14/2001 8:56:11 AM My comment that there is no significant source from which to draw in new people is completely accurate. Please try to understand the basic concept that we need to bring in new people from the outside--that would be people who are not already reading us and wouldn't know jack squat what we were discussing and whether or not it was of interest. In addition, a mailout to try to prick the interest of those who have quit looking in, for whatever reason, might be helpful.
I have never been a bitcher about conditions in here. In fact, I've been an enthusiastic supporter of the forum from the beginning. I have posted my perception of what I have observed in recent weeks. You are free to disagree with my assessment, but your disagreement isn't good enough to make it invalid.
And yes my dear, you were, as usual, flattering yourself. The fact that 3/4 of your post was about you and what you think others think about you is proof enough of that without my bothering to point it out.
You made more than one reference to things you've said before in regards to me.
Where?
WRT JJ and MsGreer, I made a short list of regular posters who are no longer regular. Unlike you, apparently, I do not hang onto their every post and file away their reasons for being absent, or concern myself excessively about whether they were telling the truth. Yes, JJ and MsGreer said they were busy, but the fact remains that they were very regular and they're not any longer, and every loss of a regular poster, for whatever reason, hurts a forum this small.
1485. rubberducky - 8/15/2001 1:51:33 AM what we need to do is open up registration, people.
period.
this bit about people not getting (somewhat immediate) log-ins will be the death of this place. i like theMote and all, but would i wait days at a time for a log-in for a site with no content other than a poster forum? um, no.
i've said it before, give any and everyone provisional access until the gatekeeper can do whatever review needs to be done and give a pass/fail evaluation. it's that simple. that is the only thing that will facilitate new blood.
this has nothing to do with GJ or Diva wrt their gatekeeping abilities, but we are kidding ourselves if we think theMote is soooo important that we have to hamstring ourselves just to keep pests like Jon & caz out. frankly, given my druthers, i'd rather see both here causing a stink, because at least then there is something interesting to read and participate in.
enough already. imho, they've won a battle already in that we have a net loss in membership due to our over ... vigilance in this area.
i'd appreciate a moderator response as well as what other people think. 1486. mgleason - 8/15/2001 1:59:55 AM I agree with you, RD. Let 'em in, and throw 'em out after, if need be. 1487. janjon - 8/15/2001 2:08:04 AM that makes a great deal of sense. The how-good-is-your-pedigree-in-terms-of-becoming-the-WRONG-TYPE-of-irritant mentality is one of the major flaws of this place. 1488. seadate - 8/15/2001 3:04:09 AM I miss Fielding. 1489. JudithAtHome - 8/15/2001 3:16:46 AM Me, too. 1490. CalGal - 8/15/2001 3:49:17 AM I agree that we should open it back up; I thought the recent problem was due to a technical problem affecting email. If that has been resolved, then we should open it up asap. 1491. arkymalarky - 8/15/2001 5:51:56 AM I totally agree, RD. 1492. rubberducky - 8/22/2001 4:40:02 AM wabbit or Mrs Nuh-Uh:
any feedback re: my Message # 1485 1493. wabbit - 8/29/2001 11:55:08 PM Ducky,
I also thought this problem had been resolved. I'll check again.
|
