Subject:
|
Re: Todd! Admin and owner
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sat, 21 Oct 2000 23:38:42 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
408 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Joakim Olsson writes:
> > *Well, maybe I do not have the knowledge to speak/write in the language oher
> > than my own, but hey, I'm here to learn*
> >
> > Todd!
> > I think that the service you provide us/me is more than I/we could ever have
> > been asking for. I think that the service you provide us/me is more than
> > I/we could ever have been asking for. It is great and highly valuable.
> > However:
> > I think I know your personal thoughts of the"Matthew issue" , but:
> > What is your professional opinion as an Administrator(and owner) of the
> > LUGNET community, without personal thoughts?
>
> My professional opinion is I'm concerned that the arguments of the past 36
> hours have been more about Matthew and his continued presence or non-presence
> and less about the underlying issues he was trying to raise. Perhaps the
> collective mind of the community feels those issues are unimportant, or
> perhaps tensions are still too high to warrant that level of discussion, or
> perhaps Matthew's concerns simply failed to resonate because of his highly
> unconventional approach, in which case there's little hope of them ever being
> discussed until someone rearticulates the concerns in a more conventional
> manner.
I let this one sit for a while, maybe should let it sit even longer. I think
we do need to separate the issue of what to do about MM (which seems to be
coming to a consensus, more or less) from the larger issue of whether Lugnet
is exclusionary in a bad way. Mind you, I want it to be exclusionary of those
who are not willing to conform to behavioural (not opinion, not enjoyment of
the hobby, but behavioural) norms (while on LUGNET, what they do elsewhere may
reflect on their reputation for friendliness and trustworthyness but should
have no bearing whatever on whether they are in conformance with the ToS, per
se) and I would be disappointed if it were to waver from that. The ToS are
there for a reason and I want them enforced.
I am not up to restating the exclusionary problem succinctly right now, but I
would suggest that anyone who wants to take a shot at it might want to peruse
the thread in off-topic.debate that *was* trying to address this issue without
focusing specifically on MM. Some points raised there might be worth trying to
restate.
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=6651
I think we do have a small problem in this area but it's not a *large*
problem. At least not yet it isn't. But we know that we've lost some long time
community members (and yes, Paul B, I take your point that you're not a member
of a community just because you share characteristics, you're a member because
you want to be, and further the AFOL community isn't one community, it's
many... but putting that aside...) from Lugnet. That's more measurable than
the people who lurked a bit and decided not to join because they didn't like
what they saw. We have a lot less ways of measuring that, but surely it may
potentially be a worse problem in the long run if it is a large effect.
Like I said in the other thread, elitism, and the notion that some people's
words ought to carry more weight in the contexts where they are known to be
experts, are, IMHO, good things. As long as the elitism, and the
acknowledgement of who to listen to, is meritocracy based and not clique
based, that is.
A question, though, and I am not a social scientist and thus am out of my
depth... Is a certain amount of this sort of sense (that not everyone joins
immediately and stays forever) actually normal and healthy group dynamics?
Does LUGNET as a whole tend to overanalyse itself?
Is THAT question itself symptomatic of overanalysis? :-)
I dunno. To a certain extent, as fascinated as I am about communities, I just
want to build, and talk about what I built and TLC and stuff. Blue train doors
available in bulk. Whodathunkit?
++Lar
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Todd! Admin and owner
|
| Larry Pieniazek wrote: <snip> (...) I'm not a social scientist, too, but I say yes to the first question. Maybe I take the word elitist as different one, but I can see that we are at similar points on the subject. I already throw some words on it (...) (24 years ago, 22-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Todd! Admin and owner
|
| (...) My professional opinion is I'm concerned that the arguments of the past 36 hours have been more about Matthew and his continued presence or non-presence and less about the underlying issues he was trying to raise. Perhaps the collective mind (...) (24 years ago, 21-Oct-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
9 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
|
|
|
|
