|
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.
1022. ChristinO - 2/24/2000 2:15:46 AM Excuse me?
Pardon my sorry ignorant inner city ass but your condescension is unfuckingbelievable. Thank you for blessing us with your intellectual superiority, but you can catch the white flight bus with any others too pretentious to lower themselves to converse with proles.
1023. CalGal - 2/24/2000 2:25:51 AM Uh, Christin?
It's unbe-fucking-lievable.
You'd know that if you weren't such a prole. 1024. ChristinO - 2/24/2000 2:54:43 AM Angel to CG:
"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
I'm curious about this "everyone approves of it" bit since only four people have commented on Irv's draft. Angel, Seguine, CalGal and Indy. That's two for and one opposed and one saying "It's fine but I don't see how it's different than the rules we have now".
I'll now weigh in and say that I prefer the RoE the way they are. I am open to change and Irv's draft is a worthy effort but as I see it the rules haven't changed and I think it's a bit silly to spend all this time on a change that is merely stylistic.
The reason I prefer to have things more rather than less vague is because the more specific your rules the more specific they need to be. We've had this argument before and in an attempt to make things specific Seguine was almost suspended because she crossed a line that was not set out explicitly but which was clearly against the rules so far as most everyone was concerned. I would rather we not end up with a 500 page document listing every single instance of what can and cannot be said. We're mostly grown-ups here. The abuses have been rare and handled responsibly by both thread hosts and the Moderator. If there were some huge problem then I'd be more amenable to making changes but there hasn't been.
1025. Seguine - 2/24/2000 3:06:56 AM If you consider yourselves proles, then perhaps you are. I count myself among those whose contributions to this forum have been, and will continue to be (if they continue at all), quite modest.
If the prole/money analogy upsets your delicate constitution, Christin, then choose another. Lib arts majors overwhelming engineers. Libertarians swamping progressives. Much of the dynamic is the same. But something resembling a class dynamic is also at work here, like it or not. And some of the very folks who dominate discussion now, CalGal, and have invited folks to leave when they didn't like the way it was run by the royal "we", are the ones who used to bitch loudest about special people dominating the forum. Musical chairs.
There's another thing going on here, too, which I referred to in my party analogy. Ghettos of one sort and another--undergrounds, that sort of thing--can be extremely interesting. (Harlem in the 1920s, for instance.) But after a while the fortuitous mix of types that come together under pressure or by accident sort of homogenizes itself. "Outliers" go away; conformity takes hold.
The interesting mix can't just be recreated at will or by appeals to community obligation. It has to happen via the influx of new blood, and pretty much by accident. Moreover, the invitation of new blood should be as random as possible (the print advertisements you mentioned, CG, are probably an excellent start).
There's nothing unbelievable or condescending about any of this; it's just the facts. 1026. CalGal - 2/24/2000 3:28:18 AM And some of the very folks who dominate discussion now, CalGal, and have invited folks to leave when they didn't like the way it was run by the royal "we", are the ones who used to bitch loudest about special people dominating the forum.
Actually, what I didn't like is exactly the same notion you are promulgating here--the "betters"/"proles" class structure. I didn't like it then, and I don't like it now.
I have consistently supported the same approach to forum values and management and values from the "inside" (this assumes that I am on the inside) that I did when I was not involved in any way.
It's not that I don't want "your sort", Seguine. In fact, quite the opposite. I want all sorts, and I don't inherently value one kind over the other from a forum perspective. (As an individual, I like and value some more than others, but that's a different story.)
Happily, this means that both you and I are consistent. I can't remember the first time I heard you (and others) spout this idiocy about "classes" of members, but it's probably been at least two years. My position on this has remained unchanged--it still gets me a tad nauseous to see someone seriously recommend that a forum do what it can to encourage a superior class to come in and keep the barbarians in line.
1027. ChristinO - 2/24/2000 4:00:07 AM Seguine,
It's your idea that's insulting not your analogy.
Since this is and has been comepletely pointless for the most part I'll take my leave.
1028. Seguine - 2/24/2000 4:03:11 AM Ah, CalGal, it all rings a little hollow from a self-professed elitist who resorts to "we're all equally valuable" populism only when it suits her aspirations.
The class issue in the Mote (or anywhere) is a matter of perception; you can't change that fact, and you can't change perceptions without changing their object (or by spinning and lying about it, but perhaps you realize this has its downside).
You may not like the fact that some participants in the forum command more respect than others; more curiosity, interest, deference, or whatever. I'm not troubled by it. That's the nature of honest human interaction.
It was the inequality, the variability of the Fray, not some imaginary, populist eveness of value, which made it interesting. If this forum fails to attract people whose extraordinary qualities attract others still, it will languish. If it loses people with extraordinary qualities, it will croak. Don't you know that? 1029. Seguine - 2/24/2000 4:04:30 AM Christin: whatever. 1030. Angel-Five - 2/24/2000 6:14:18 AM "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
I'm curious about this "everyone approves of it" bit since
only four people have commented on Irv's draft. Angel,
Seguine, CalGal and Indy. That's two for and one
opposed and one saying "It's fine but I don't see how it's
different than the rules we have now". It's not stylistic, it's an issue of clarity and openness that the rules address. These rules shouldn't read like some gang member drawling from the corner of the clubhouse, for fuck's sake, they should read like an up-front declaration from equals to equals of the expected behavior. They should make explicit the means by which we function, because one of the paramount concerns of any forum poster anywhere I've ever seen is whether someone has the power to control their speech and if so under what conditions. And what do the new rules say? The moderator has sole control. Not a lynch mob, not a community action panel, the moderator. To me, that's important, and it's obviously important to a lot of other people here, given all the accusations of 'cabal' and whatnot.
And I didn't say 'everyone', I said 'everyone else'. And who has voted against the rules? I welcome anyone else to participate in the discussion, I'd like everyone emailed in case they aren't aware that it's on the table to say yea or nay or just pitch in their two cents. No one loses that way. But out of what we have so far, I've only noted one nay vote. 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.
|
