I don't give a good gorram about relevant, Wash. Or objective. And I ain't so afraid of losing something that I ain't gonna try to have it. You and I would make one beautiful baby. And I want to meet that child one day. Period.

Zoe ,'Heart Of Gold'


Bureaucracy 4: Like Job. No, really, just like Job

A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.

Current Stompy Feet: Jon B, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych, msbelle, shrift, Dana, Laura

Stompy Emerita: ita, DXMachina


Zenkitty - Aug 01, 2007 1:07:21 pm PDT #615 of 6786
Every now and then, I think I might actually be a little odd.

I am lurking in this thread right now. I keep typing up things to say, and then someone else says it better. And then someone else makes an opposing point, and I agree with them too. I don't know what I think.

235 people posting, 1547 members? Wow.


DavidS - Aug 01, 2007 1:16:43 pm PDT #616 of 6786
"Look, son, if it's good enough for Shirley Bassey, it's good enough for you."

So how about this for a poll, using tickyboxes check one:

The board is perfect as it is. Don't change a thing.

Splitting up the volume with multiple show threads dilutes the community.

Splitting up the volume with multiple show threads enhances the community.

*******

If we get a conclusive answer from that question we should know whether we need to make any changes or not.

And the changes could be very minor. The change could be a mental adjustment for some people individually: "When I'm voting on creating threads I need to balance the need for focused conversation against diluting the sense of community."

bon, do you think that kind of poll would have the negative results you're concerned about?

Would it it tell people anything they're interested in knowing, or is that just my idle curiosity?

Is there a better way to phrase the poll or are there other elements I'm not addressing?


bon bon - Aug 01, 2007 1:22:59 pm PDT #617 of 6786
It's five thousand for kissing, ten thousand for snuggling... End of list.

bon, do you think that kind of poll would have the negative results you're concerned about?

No and yes. I think you've addressed some of my concerns. I am as curious as others to see how it shakes out.

I make the following predictions, though: in a world where we are considering the injustice of disenfranchising people who don't vote there will be controversy over any result. There will be complaints that we are disenfranchising the minority. And the losers in this will want to run this poll again within the next 24 months.


Denise - Aug 01, 2007 1:25:07 pm PDT #618 of 6786

in a world where we are considering the injustice of disenfranchising people who don't vote

Is anyone actually doing this, though?


bon bon - Aug 01, 2007 1:28:24 pm PDT #619 of 6786
It's five thousand for kissing, ten thousand for snuggling... End of list.

Is anyone actually doing this, though?

This is a little ambiguous. Are we going to do anything about people who don't vote? No. Has there been a lot of agita as if we were going to do something to people who don't vote? Yes.


DavidS - Aug 01, 2007 1:33:39 pm PDT #620 of 6786
"Look, son, if it's good enough for Shirley Bassey, it's good enough for you."

The poll doesn't change anything - it just clarifies how people see the board.

Even if a majority of people want one thing, it would take a separate series of actual votes to make anything happen.

And we're not obliged to take any actions.

I just want to separate information from the noise of the discussion to get a sense of how people perceive these issues.


Connie Neil - Aug 01, 2007 1:57:42 pm PDT #621 of 6786
brillig

235 people posting, 1547 members?

Very interesting number. I suspect my facetious reference to being a summer time replacement soap opera for some folks may have more truth than I thought.

I'm not discussing the disenfranchisement of people who don't vote. I've been discussing the marginalization of people who may have posted only once or twice this year and don't feel they have enough street cred to make themselves heard.

Edit: If they don't speak up, no, we don't know what they want. But I believe the border between lurker and intermittent poster in a side thread--such as, theoretically, someone who pops up with a bit of technical know how to a question over in the Tech thread--is a narrow one. And being told no one of alleged importance gives a damn what they have to say is not conducive to them speaking up.


esse - Aug 01, 2007 2:06:14 pm PDT #622 of 6786
S to the A -- using they/them pronouns!

Right. In an attempt to move this discussion forward, and do this poll thing we keep talking about, I generated a poll using David's questions above.

Unless anyone speaks up naysaying, I'm going to go mention this in Press. I can also pop into the other threads and mention it there, unless someone else wants to pick up the ball and run with it.


DavidS - Aug 01, 2007 2:07:58 pm PDT #623 of 6786
"Look, son, if it's good enough for Shirley Bassey, it's good enough for you."

I kind of wanted to see if people had any comments or issues with the poll before we ran it. I mean, I don't want to run it twice if haven't phrased it well.


§ ita § - Aug 01, 2007 2:08:07 pm PDT #624 of 6786
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.

But I believe the border between lurker and intermittent poster in a side thread--such as, theoretically, someone who pops up with a bit of technical know how to a question over in the Tech thread--is a narrow one.

On the other hand I see a bright clear line. If you have posted or voted, you are not a lurker. End of story. Some non-lurkers are more active than others, but a lurker's pretty simple to not spot.