RE: SUBFORUM IDEAS TOPIC
10-16-2014, 06:35 AM
(This post was last modified: 10-16-2014, 06:39 AM by seedy.)
also, since I've just been talking essentially about SYSTEMS OF POWER AND GOVERNANCE and PRIVILEGE WITHIN A STRUCTURE THAT FAVORS TALKY-TALKS (disclaimer: if you haven't noticed I am also a disgusting talky-talk) I thought I'd make my position about this whole subforum deal clear (I've already mentioned this to Schaz over skype, but eh):
my main worry is that there have been mentions of "if there's problems, we'll make a change." 'problems' can be a slippery word, and all I've seen as the way for change to be made/problems addressed is discussion + vote (which I have already made my points about in the previous post.)
my other worries are that this distinct subforum will eventually lead to ingroup/outgroup drama. I don't see massive amounts of offensive content being posted, I don't see horrible harrassment happening. that doesn't seem likely to me! what I can foresee happening is a growing trend of "people who agree with THESE concepts post HERE, and people who agree with THOSE concepts post THERE," essentially turning the subforum into a sub-community, with large amounts of people mostly ONLY posting in there and other people NEVER venturing in. a situation like this being allowed to continue would lead to enmity, feuds, and general Bad Feelings.
it wouldn't be immediate, of course, but without the right oversight it would very likely develop.
all my problems with this subforum are solvable, were I convinced that the apparatus is set up to resolve conflicts in a good manner. currently, I don't think it is.
@Ed:
oh hey I just refreshed the page and: hey wheat, while I can't really complain about you picking and choosing whose points you want to address (it's a free country, after all!), I'm sort of annoyed at you /still/ linking that post where you took me and ixcaliber's words completely out of context and spin-doctored them to fit your argument. after we had that exchange, ix apologized, I apologized, we worked out our differences (like you say is a great thing to do in your posts about how this forum will be regulated!). but without the follow up posts, the whole tone of the conversation is changed. I made this point before and asked you to stop using your sound-bite clip of my words to fuel your version of the story. you ignored me. maybe this time you'll listen?
I don't know why you say that the old forum was shut down 'because of cliquishness.' do you have an inside line to the mods that I don't know about? it's an opinion you're stating as a long-established fact, and people who weren't there at the time are going to read your words and assume it /is/ a fact.
anyways, like I say earlier in this post, my fears for this subforum /would/ be cliquishness. serious mafia asked everyone to make well-reasoned posts. this subforum is telling people that the way to have conflicts is through well-reasoned posts. you can see how this will drive out some people while appealing to others?
my main worry is that there have been mentions of "if there's problems, we'll make a change." 'problems' can be a slippery word, and all I've seen as the way for change to be made/problems addressed is discussion + vote (which I have already made my points about in the previous post.)
my other worries are that this distinct subforum will eventually lead to ingroup/outgroup drama. I don't see massive amounts of offensive content being posted, I don't see horrible harrassment happening. that doesn't seem likely to me! what I can foresee happening is a growing trend of "people who agree with THESE concepts post HERE, and people who agree with THOSE concepts post THERE," essentially turning the subforum into a sub-community, with large amounts of people mostly ONLY posting in there and other people NEVER venturing in. a situation like this being allowed to continue would lead to enmity, feuds, and general Bad Feelings.
it wouldn't be immediate, of course, but without the right oversight it would very likely develop.
all my problems with this subforum are solvable, were I convinced that the apparatus is set up to resolve conflicts in a good manner. currently, I don't think it is.
@Ed:
Spoiler
oh hey I just refreshed the page and: hey wheat, while I can't really complain about you picking and choosing whose points you want to address (it's a free country, after all!), I'm sort of annoyed at you /still/ linking that post where you took me and ixcaliber's words completely out of context and spin-doctored them to fit your argument. after we had that exchange, ix apologized, I apologized, we worked out our differences (like you say is a great thing to do in your posts about how this forum will be regulated!). but without the follow up posts, the whole tone of the conversation is changed. I made this point before and asked you to stop using your sound-bite clip of my words to fuel your version of the story. you ignored me. maybe this time you'll listen?
I don't know why you say that the old forum was shut down 'because of cliquishness.' do you have an inside line to the mods that I don't know about? it's an opinion you're stating as a long-established fact, and people who weren't there at the time are going to read your words and assume it /is/ a fact.
anyways, like I say earlier in this post, my fears for this subforum /would/ be cliquishness. serious mafia asked everyone to make well-reasoned posts. this subforum is telling people that the way to have conflicts is through well-reasoned posts. you can see how this will drive out some people while appealing to others?