|
1002. Angel-Five - 2/23/2000 9:50:44 AM (Lest any of the newbies feel slighted, I want to clarify that we have attracted some top-notch people. Just not enough.) 1003. CalGal - 2/23/2000 11:44:31 AM Mondaugen does post here--if you kept up, you'd know what id he uses. The Ms is in law school and posts when she can; I have receive no impression that she doesn't like it here. In fact, she recently suggested a new thread and volunteered to host. As for the others, some of them found TT more amenable, and others have said they are busy. Unless you have heard from them and they say they refuse to post here, let's refrain from speaking for them, okay?
The fact is that these continual plaints for the past are a pain. If the people who were here from way back don't want to post here again, that's up to them.
I do not bewail the people who have left; I would be delighted to see them return. But to use their disappearance as indication of stagnancy is absurd. It is nonsense.
We're six months old, have had somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 new members, and given that normally you need a lot of new people to attract even one new member, I think we're doing well. "not enough" "top notch" people? (never mind defining top notch). We haven't even started marketing yet. We're doing very well.
I get a tad tired of people who show up periodically to complain about how old it is here, but make no effort to bring over new people and don't even post often themselves. If you want to help, bring people you know to the Mote, and help make it the type of place you want it to be. If you feel that changes in policies are necessary to bring people over, feel free to try that too. Speaking for myself, I see almost no change in Irv's proposed draft and it seems like a hell of a lot of fuss--over 300 posts--for very little. It seems clear to me that there is no major support for transparency or the rule that Seguine proposed, and Irv's draft makes no mention of either. And yet both Angel and Seguine are happy with the proposed changes. Go figure.
1004. CalGal - 2/23/2000 11:44:55 AM I hope Seguine returns. Given how few people actually leave forums, I expect to see her back, and I will be happy to see her back. But I don't view her posts or her departure as some sort of tolling bell that we should all heed. 1005. CalGal - 2/23/2000 11:53:17 AM As for recruiting new talent, Angel, you might want to consider that Rosetta Stone and Caz between them have done far, far more than anyone else in recruiting new people. Stone on purpose, Caz by bitching. Niner has paid for an ad in a few magazines, others of us have just told our friends. If you want more talent, why not do your personal best to bring some here to check it out? Recognizing, of course, that most people will look in and leave. That's true of all forums, not just this one.
We have had a couple different people take on the task of a larger marketing effort--it needs to be done, and it's probably the biggest hole we have to plug. But in the meantime, we're growing by word of mouth and attracting far more regulars than I thought would be possible, given our small little forum.
Summing up: I don't think this policy set-to has squat to do with anything other than the unhappiness of a few people. And it is certainly worth debating, if they want to have that debate. We had it. But I see no connection with the request to revisit the policy and the state of the community as a whole. I think it's doing well, considering the volunteer nature of the marketing effort. I'll be interested to see how we do once we start actively marketing.
1006. CalGal - 2/23/2000 12:02:05 PM Irv,
I have no real issue with your changes, since I see no real difference. I kept the rules as rules without spelling out the procedural accompaniments (deletions, moves to the Inferno, etc). I think the FAQ is best for procedures.
The primary difference is one of tone, and I'm sure that's what Seguine and Angel-five object to. I like the brisk, no bull-shit tone that acknowledges the objections in advance. I think it gives a good indication of the reception certain complaints will get here in the forum, and I think it makes it pretty clear that we consider the Moderator's decision to be final, rather than spelling it out in the RoE.
But if enough people want a more formal tone, I'm okay with that. 1007. CalGal - 2/23/2000 12:09:35 PM I like the brisk, no bull-shit tone that acknowledges the objections in advance.
I should be clear--it's my brisk, no bull-shit tone that I like. I wrote it purposefully with that tone. Irv, your tone is more formal and may be what more people prefer. 1008. Angel-Five - 2/23/2000 12:36:37 PM Yes, I have heard from some of them, and yes, some of them do say they refuse to post here. They've even given me an exact reason. And thank you, I'll bring up whoever I wish, whether or not you happen to like them. The fact is that these continual plaints for the past are a pain. If the people who were here from way back don't want to post here again, that's up to them.
There's this weird habit you have, CalGal, of making up what other people are saying. You do it with me a lot, and when I ask you to substantiate your misconstructions you never do. You're doing it now. I wasn't making a plaint for the past in those posts, I was pointing out an obvious fact that strong and valued members of the community have departed and we need to replace them. Moreover, we need to grow. I invite anyone to demonstrate otherwise. You can be defensive if you wish about what I've said but unless you're willing to argue that we don't need to attract more new members to this forum, you'd probably best not argue with me when I say that we do. If you want to help, bring people you know to the Mote, and help make it the type of place you want it to be. If you feel that changes in policies are necessary to bring people over, feel free to try that too. Oh, that's a hoot in so many ways. I have directed people I know at the Mote. Several. Some of them lurked occasionally at the old Fray, others don't know any of us at all. To a person they have all said 'no thanks'. I wish they would have chosen to join but they didn't want to... so, please, off the high horse with your suggestions to attract new members.1009. Angel-Five - 2/23/2000 12:37:07 PM>and help make it the type of place you want it to be Yes, well, now, you complain every time I try to do that, don't you? There's no consensus, we don't need to do this, it's unworkable, I don't see how yadda yadda yadda. I can't post on policy or content without you popping right up and posting off a barrage of 'there's no need for us to even consider this' or 'there's no need for such a change'. You're doing it right now. Forgive me if I look at the sentiment of your quoted statement askance as a result. And your newfound willingness to let anyone discuss changes to the rules is a day late and a pound short for you to be able to casually refer to it as a given, especially as it was your recalcitrance to even consider a rules change in the first place that contributed heavily to those three hundred posts you mention. Sorry, Sparky, I won't take that check. You don't think the new rules are any different? So far everyone else has said they like the wording and the emphasis; you're the only one saying that the results weren't worth the effort 1010. Angel-Five - 2/23/2000 12:37:54 PM Whoops.
and help make it the type of place you want it to be Yes, well, now, you complain every time I try to do that, don't you? There's no consensus, we don't need to do this, it's unworkable, I don't see how yadda yadda yadda. I can't post on policy or content without you popping right up and posting off a barrage of 'there's no need for us to even consider this' or 'there's no need for such a change'. You're doing it right now. Forgive me if I look at the sentiment of your quoted statement askance as a result. And your newfound willingness to let anyone discuss changes to the rules is a day late and a pound short for you to be able to casually refer to it as a given, especially as it was your recalcitrance to even consider a rules change in the first place that contributed heavily to those three hundred posts you mention. Sorry, Sparky, I won't take that check. You don't think the new rules are any different? So far everyone else has said they like the wording and the emphasis; you're the only one saying that the results weren't worth the effort 1011. Angel-Five - 2/23/2000 12:43:48 PM Brisk, no-bullshit tone? Has it escaped you that all of my criticisms of your RoE focused on a lack of clarity? Yet it must just be because of your brisk, no-bullshit tone, obviously. Then again, you're still going on about how I wanted the RoE changed to force transparency when I said several times that I wasn't interested in forcing transparency on an unwilling forum. Please, CalGal, don't talk about what I want unless you're willing to figure out just what that actually is. 1012. CalGal - 2/23/2000 1:17:30 PM And thank you, I'll bring up whoever I wish, whether or not you happen to like them.
?????
Where did I mention liking them? If you've heard from them, that's fine. Just say so. You happened to mention a few people who are posting here, which cast doubt on the accuracy of the rest of your mentions.
I was pointing out an obvious fact that strong and valued members of the community have departed and we need to replace them.
The people you've mentioned didn't leave the Mote. They left the Fray--for the most part long before the Fray ended. If they don't want to check out the Mote, that's their business. But they didn't weaken this community, which started without them. It'd be nice if everyone from the Fray came back, but we can't judge the strength of this forum just because some people who'd left long before don't show up here.
I have directed people I know at the Mote.
Wonderful. Good. You hadn't mentioned it, so I had no idea whether you have or not. You'll notice I didn't make an accusation. But as I said, sending over 10-20 people might end up with one regular. So the fact that no one has stayed means precisely nothing. Keep those cards and letters coming, and see what happens.
Yes, well, now, you complain every time I try to do that, don't you?
No, I don't. I have mentioned at least five times that I support your efforts to change the rules--even if I disagree with your proposed changes. I think we should check to see if there is a consensus for change before we start drafting changes, but like anything else that's just my opinion. But I completely support discussions, and have said so. Please don't make me go back and find the many times that I said so--although I will, if you insist on misrepresenting things.
1013. Angel-Five - 2/23/2000 1:22:04 PM Reply in the Inferno. 1014. Angel-Five - 2/23/2000 2:02:41 PM It might be nice to next discuss, as a group, ways of increasing the size of the Mote community as a whole. 1015. CalGal - 2/23/2000 2:04:44 PM I can't post on policy or content without you popping right up and posting off a barrage of 'there's no need for us to even consider this' or 'there's no need for such a change'.
Here's the odd thing, Angel--as much as I support your ability to say, "I want a change", I support my own ability to say, "I don't think a change is needed." To me, they are equivalent rights. What I find amusing is the notion that you all think that I say this with any authority, rather than just a simple expression of my opinion. Since I have no authority--as you yourself have said several times--why is it any less my prerogative to disagree with you than it is your prerogative to ask for changes?
So far everyone else has said they like the wording and the emphasis; you're the only one saying that the results weren't worth the effort
No, I'm saying that the results have no connection to the discussion. 300 posts aside, we have the same basic rules we started with. The only thing that changes if we adopt Irv's draft is the wording, not the rules.
I do still have reservations about spelling out procedures--there's no need to commit ourselves to what we do when a rule has been broken.
As for the rest of your posts, I'm not going to play. Have a nice evening. 1016. CalGal - 2/23/2000 2:06:11 PM Angel,
No, I'm not replying in the Inferno. You started by saying that the Mote is dying, I disagreed. You want to go post non-policy complaints in the Inferno, it's not like I'm going to stop you. Have fun. 1017. Angel-Five - 2/23/2000 2:06:45 PM Reply in the Inferno. 1018. Angel-Five - 2/23/2000 2:07:40 PM 'Reply in the Inferno' = my reply is in the inferno. Twit. 1019. Seguine - 2/23/2000 10:54:20 PM "I should be clear--it's my brisk, no bull-shit tone that I like. I wrote it purposefully with that tone. Irv, your tone is more formal and may be what more people prefer."
I certainly prefer Irv's neutral tone. What you term "brisk, no bull-shit" would be considered bossy and condescending to anyone I would consider inviting to this forum. (As would, not incidentally, much of your discourse.) One gets the impression from the existing RoE that the Mote, contrary to Pelle's peculiar avowal to the contrary, is indeed a kindergarten, and that it's presided over by a thirteen year old girl. Who doesn't express herself clearly.
As for the issue of transparency, although I advocated it, my proposed revisions to the RoE didn't address it. (The RoE should be concise enough that people can actually read it without their eyes glazing over.) I still think it's extremely important that transparency be achieved. The best place to do that is probably in the FAQ, which should be linked to the RoE, and probably linked elsewhere as well (e.g., the banner).
As for my proposal re personal info, I have not abandoned it because I think it wouldn't be helpful but because the RoE Irv has written achieves some of my aims and will surely benefit the forum. I'm not sure why anyone's compromises here should mystify you.
1020. Seguine - 2/23/2000 10:54:44 PM I have changed my mind about one thing. I no longer think it's essential to establish that a consensus for change exists, or even to submit Irv's change proposal to a vote. True, having a vote would be the fair and democratic thing to do. But if the members are generally united in their feeling that the Mote operates best under a benevolent dictatorship (and they seem to be), then the RoE can legitimately be changed by fiat. I advocate for Irv's proposed change on the basis that if no one cares either way (and the lack of participation in this discussion seems indicative, but of course an emailed query would indicate more and should be standard procedure by now), then the rules should be changed per his revisions to reap the benefit they would bring. 1021. Seguine - 2/23/2000 11:36:43 PM "Summing up: I don't think this policy set-to has squat to do with anything other than the unhappiness of a few people."
As you well know, when a collective situation is unsatisfactory to some part of a population, that cohort either attempts to change the situation or, determining that the costs of the attempt are too high relative to the potential benefits, leaves the collective.
What A-5 (and I, and others, be quite assured) have observed in the Fray, and even more so the Mote, is analagous to the American phenomenon of money abandoning cities for suburbs.
It's claimed by liberals (like Irv) that the rich and the middle class should stick around and contribute their resources to cities for the good of those communities. But when the people who supposedly benefit most from those resources openly resent the folks who ostensibly contribute so much, when their relative numbers swell, and when they make all interaction a power play whose outcome is an impoverishment of the community and nothing more, well, then it's time for the folks with the resources to go elsewhere and allow the proletariat to run things as it sees fit. The fact is, proles want control and power more than they want what their "betters" have to offer, for the cost of those goods in self-respect is too high. Thus we have ghettos, and chat rooms.
The fact that "a few" remaining people in the Mote are unhappy is testament, more than anything else, that the ones with the most to offer have already gone. At some point, even those of us with more modest contributions in hand must consider whether they might be given better elsewhere.
|
 |
Go To Mote #
|
|
