Subject:
|
Re: Porthole alternative
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 1 Mar 2002 15:57:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1034 times
|
| |
|
|
Kyle Beatty wrote:
> Your points are well-taken, but even as someone who hasn't had opportunity
> to be corrected, I get the distinct feeling that the playground isn't really
> all that open or fun. It doesn't take very many well-intentioned shots
> across too many practically-innocent bows to keep _all_ the ships out of the
> harbor. I have absolutely no animus toward anyone on these boards (quite the
> opposite) but being in a conversation like this has to make me wonder
> whether something hasn't gone awry.
>
> Characterizing unhappy responses to correction as being inherently
> anti-Lugnet is dangerous. (By the way, every time I use this expression,
> "correction," the hair on the back of my neck stands up. It really creeps me
> out in a deeply Orwellian way.)
I certainly agree that there seems to be a lot more "correction" and
related noise. I think there are a few problems here.
- The Lugnet admins have not had a lot of time recently to do the
administrative stuff they used to do. This has resulted in several folks
feeling the need to step in to prevent self destruction. Part of what
occurs then is several different voices, not a single voice, and this
can make an appearance that things are worse.
- There has been some real resistance to community self regulation. This
results in direct arguments about the community, and more indirect
strife as perhaps some people test the boundaries more than before,
others chime in on one side or the other, etc.
- The number of people using Lugnet has grown with corresponding growth
in traffic and newsgroups. Also, people feel less connection to each
other. The increased number of active newsgroups also entices people to
wider cross posting. The increased traffic means that any particular
type of activity which would annoy someone, is multiplied, which
intensifies their response (this goes for both the off-topic messages
being "corrected" and the "corrections" themselves).
The first point and the second point are closely related. A community
requires active participation by all members, but also requires a core
set of leaders. The leaders are responsible to taking the pulse of the
community and feeding that back to the community in the form of guidance
or rules. The whole community however is responsible for making things
work. This means that everyone should feel free to politely point out to
someone who is bucking the community that their actions are against the
spirit of the community. In in-person communities, we do this all the
time. Often non-verbal communication can be used (the glare at someone
who just tossed their cigarette butt on the floor for example), but
sometimes you just need to say something. When someone continues to buck
the community, the community needs to decide how to react. It may just
start shunning the person. It may ask them to leave. It may just step up
the intensity of the "correction".
The last point is another key point. The reason Lugnet is getting more
and more newsgroups is that beyond a certain level of traffic, people
can't process everything. Probably most people can't really process more
than about 100 messages a day. So people need a way to be selective. One
way is to skim subject lines looking for interesting articles. Another
is to skim for known authors. Both of these methods however require more
and more time as the traffic increases. One natural thing does counter
the increased traffic in that people respond less often to messages.
When one or two new MOCs are introduced each day, many people comment.
When 100 new MOCs are introduced in a day, people only comment on a few.
The best way though to keep the traffic manageable is to sub-divide the
discussion by creating new newsgroups. This allows people to focus on
areas of interest to them. These days I actually mostly only read
.trains and .pirates as far as theme groups go, and I tend to not look
at that many creations (and much of that is done actually by looking at
the updated folders on Brickshelf, and there I skip over creations which
don't look that interesting, whereas a year ago, I probably looked at
most of the mechs, these days I just skip them, they're neat, and I
appreciate them, but they aren't what I build).
Cross posting counteracts the sub-division, and worse, depending how how
it's done, and what tool people are using to read messages, can cause
people to be exposed to the messages multiple times, thus increasing
traffic even more. Some of the excessive cross posting comes across as
people who crave more attention, so they cross post to every group under
the sun, no matter the relevance. Think about it, do we accept that in
in-person activities? Do you let someone start talking about how great
their vacation to Florida was during a round table on highway
construction? Probably not, unless they are making a careful point about
how their vacation to Florida relates to the discussion. For example
saying: "During my recent vacation to Florida, I noticed that their
signs about increased fines in a construction area specify that they
only apply when workers are present." That's a lot different from
saying: "You know, it was really neat spending time at the wildlife
rehab center, I got to pet a Florida panther."
You will also notice that at most social gatherings, business talk is
generally frowned upon. You don't go around during someone's birthday
party trying to sell Tupperware (unless the idea of the birthday party
was a Tupperware party). Sure, some business always sneaks in ("So what
have you been doing lately Frank?" "Oh, I've been looking for a job."
"Hey, my company is hiring, why don't you send me your resume."). The
other person isn't going to start interviewing me though. The newsgroup
equivalent would be to make the business comment and then ask people to
either respond off line or direct follow-ups to an appropriate venue.
Lugnet is at a crossroads right now. If the community decides on a set
of norms which facilitate sharing, it will continue to grow. If people
resist the need to develop norms which facilitate communication, it will
self destruct. I urge you all to consider what you are posting and ask
if it is an attempt to facilitate communication, or is it something
else.
Frank
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Porthole alternative
|
| In lugnet.admin.general, Frank Filz writes: <snip 'cause I had to, not that I wanted to> (...) This is definitly 'big picture'!! Nicely said and done, Frank! Dave (23 years ago, 1-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: Porthole alternative
|
| (...) Do you think that if “the admins” were still playing the role they used to here they would be stepping in and “correcting” quite as much? I worry about the *potential* for Todd’s apparent inactively to be used as an excuse to throw a little (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Porthole alternative
|
| (...) Your points are well-taken, but even as someone who hasn't had opportunity to be corrected, I get the distinct feeling that the playground isn't really all that open or fun. It doesn't take very many well-intentioned shots across too many (...) (23 years ago, 1-Mar-02, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
39 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
