Suggestion: Free for all forum

[Roo]

Originally Posted by Dragonlady

It's increasingly difficult to explain why one "concerned poster" is allowed to disrupt so many other peoples experiences here.

It's increasingly difficult to see why a few posters (or maybe just you supposedly speaking for them) think that this one thread is disrupting their experiences here.

Could you explain that please?

What exactly am I disrupting? I see you posting in a thread set up by a sock to mock this thread. Is that taking you away from something else that you wanted to be posting? Or did you feel compelled to post in this thread, and that's what's so disruptive?

And what do you mean by "concerned poster"? What am I supposed to be concerned about? Victor started the concern troll meme. Here's the definition I think works in this context:

A phrase of absolutely no meaning, used by bloggers to shut down debate on their sites.

What do you think it means when you're using it?

[threnody]

Originally Posted by Roo

What do you think it means when you're using it?

It means you should give all your monies to thren.

[Salambo]

Originally Posted by threnody

It means you should give all your monies to thren.

You already have my power of attorney!

[threnody]

Originally Posted by Salambo

You already have my power of attorney!

YAY! See you guys! Told you I invaded Canada!

[Dragonlady]

Originally Posted by threnody

YAY! See you guys! Told you I invaded Canada!

No need to invade - you did it by Fax!

[threnody]

Originally Posted by Elyanna

You win the internet, forever.

Yes. She will be one of my right hand advisors.

Originally Posted by Dragonlady

No need to invade - you did it by Fax!

And sheer brute force.

[Zombies!]

Originally Posted by threnody

Yes. She will be one of my right hand advisors.



And sheer brute force.

Salambo is dexter, I am sinister.

[Gumby]

Originally Posted by threnody

YAY! See you guys! Told you I invaded Canada!

Could I be the Head of the Ministry of Silly Walks?

[Dragonlady]

Originally Posted by threnody

It means you should give all your monies to thren.

And all your base are belong to us.

[Dragonlady]

Really?
You went back 27 hours, from post #121 of a thread that now has 235 posts to argue about this?

And that thread is NOT a mockery of anything. It is , in MY eyes only, an attempt to determine what would happen in a "free for all forum" like you suggest. The fact that it isn't going the way you had envisioned doesn't change that.

[Roo]

Originally Posted by Dragonlady

Really?
You went back 27 hours, from post #121 of a thread that now has 235 posts to argue about this?

And that thread is NOT a mockery of anything. It is , in MY eyes only, an attempt to determine what would happen in a "free for all forum" like you suggest. The fact that it isn't going the way you had envisioned doesn't change that.

In case anyone else isn't noticing, I'm taking the replies in chronological order except for this one.

And that thread is going exactly as I envisioned. The only thing is that it's still in the Box so it still has the constraint of the general rules to it.

ETA: And if anyone wants me to stop replying, then STOP POSTING TO THE THREAD!

[Dragonlady]

Originally Posted by Roo

In case anyone else isn't noticing, I'm taking the replies in chronological order except for this one.

And that thread is going exactly as I envisioned. The only thing is that it's still in the Box so it still has the constraint of the general rules to it.

If you will tell me what it is that is going to attract Mod attention, that will cause a rules violation, or whatever it is that you're most concerned about, I'll go post it in there right now. And we can all SEE what will happen.

[iampunha]

Originally Posted by Dragonlady

Really?
You went back 27 hours, from post #121 of a thread that now has 235 posts to argue about this?

Given what else she's tracked on this site, why does some other aspect of her determination in all she does here surprise you?

My job requires me to remember little things nobody else remembers. It's a deliberately developed skill. In that light, I admire her ability to remember, for example, a high of 22 users doing anything.

[nonny too]

Originally Posted by iampunha

Given what else she's tracked on this site, why does some other aspect of her determination in all she does here surprise you?

My job requires me to remember little things nobody else remembers. It's a deliberately developed skill. In that light, I admire her ability to remember, for example, a high of 22 users doing anything.

In many cases, detail adds clarity. For some reason I can't quite fathom (possibly because both add the detail they consider important rather than what's been requested), in Roo's case - as in Stoid's - additional detail tends to detract from clarity, generate tangents, and add to confusion about what she's actually trying to convey.

Her irrelevant detail also often means that she's still responding to page two while everyone else is on page twenty-seven discussing whatever tangents she's thrown out from the original discussion. Threads don't stand still waiting for her to compose detailed responses and that often means that the discussion has moved on by the time she posts them.

[Roo]

Originally Posted by iampunha

She wants a place where there are no rules aside from the basic ones and where people can play games (like the one where instead of people like me posting funny or at least bizarre one-line responses to things, we'd be posting for the sake of having the last post in every thread on the first page of a forum) and basically do anything they want without fear of someone stepping in and saying, for example, that there's going to be a new rule for a certain poster because she's pissing everybody off because her posting style is battier than a cave in winter.

Oddly enough, except for the part where you think you're funny (not so much, IMO), I think you've outlined the basic concept. Of course, there'd be so much more than just being the last poster on the thread. I know your imagination doesn't stretch much further than that, so one of the few examples I gave was all you had to go with.

But the basic concept is right. Having a place to post as people please without anyone getting to mod you for pretty much any reason.

Originally Posted by iampunha

The fun is that she hasn't specified (that I've seen, at least) how this would be different from what happens in, for example, the Box. I believe this has already been covered, but it bears repeating. She wants something new but won't say what's wrong with what we have. She's like the kid who wants a new, fancy jungle gym but isn't saying what's wrong with the current fancy jungle gym.

Since this post was written, I've gotten a chance to see the Box used more, with Uthrecht's experiments and AJH's stuff. So far, here are the differences between the Box and the proposed forum. The Box was originally for the purpose of deterring people's behavior. It was supposed to give them a place to get a time-out. If it's being used more as a place to play around, then the punishment part gets watered down. That's OK by me, but it wasn't the original intention of the Box, I think.

Then there are the random Boxings that happen when the mods are playing around. That's something that wouldn't happen in the proposed forum. The people who like the random Boxings can still play in the Box, but those who don't enjoy that type of thing as much could post somewhere where that couldn't happen.

The Box already has an established culture with established memes. The BARBI meme, the poking you with sticks meme and the 'it smells bad in here' meme, etc. Those might have been funny when they first got started. But they've been twisted around a lot. When they started, they were meant to poke fun at the mods who were in the Box or people on Boxing day who were voluntarily Boxed on Boxing day. Now, it has come to mean some kind of internet macho punishment for people who get Boxed involuntarily. There's something sad about mocking people who can't respond in the same way that the person mocking them can. Posting in the Box has some of that associated with it, to me.

A new forum would have none of the established culture or memes. It could have a fresh start. When we first got here, all that existed was Getting Started, IIRC, and we had to decide how we were going to fill the spaces. That's how the new forum could be. A blank page. What would you post in a place that didn't have an agenda or rules or suggested topics? It was just a wide open blank canvas to express whatever you choose.

So as you noted, it might have silly games or angry flames. It could run the gamut because there would be no history or agenda.

Originally Posted by Dragonlady

Really?
You went back 27 hours, from post #121 of a thread that now has 235 posts to argue about this?

27 hours? That was nothin'. This reply is 2 weeks after yours. If your point became moot between that time, great! My point is the same. I'm responding to those people who responded to me.

Originally Posted by Dragonlady

And that thread is NOT a mockery of anything. It is , in MY eyes only, an attempt to determine what would happen in a "free for all forum" like you suggest. The fact that it isn't going the way you had envisioned doesn't change that.

Thanks for letting me know that. And as I mentioned before, I think that thread turned out pretty closely to how I envisioned it.

Originally Posted by Dragonlady

If you will tell me what it is that is going to attract Mod attention, that will cause a rules violation, or whatever it is that you're most concerned about, I'll go post it in there right now. And we can all SEE what will happen.

I'm not actually concerned about that. But if I was, I don't think your posting it would prove anything.

Originally Posted by nonny too

In many cases, detail adds clarity. For some reason I can't quite fathom (possibly because both add the detail they consider important rather than what's been requested), in Roo's case - as in Stoid's - additional detail tends to detract from clarity, generate tangents, and add to confusion about what she's actually trying to convey.

I'm not actually trying to provide clarity, which is a good thing, I guess, since you're not seeing any. I'm just responding to people's posts. And I'm doing that chronologically, not by the importance of the point.

Much of the confusion you see is really my responses to people who are saying different, often contradictory things. Some people seem to think that everyone is agreeing with each other, but they must not be reading everyone's posts in the thread because the differences, from my viewpoint, are pretty evident.

Originally Posted by nonny too

Her irrelevant detail also often means that she's still responding to page two while everyone else is on page twenty-seven discussing whatever tangents she's thrown out from the original discussion. Threads don't stand still waiting for her to compose detailed responses and that often means that the discussion has moved on by the time she posts them.

My detail is pretty much dictated by the post I'm responding to. And yes, it has taken me a long time to reply to everyone. And yes, in some ways, the discussion has changed over the course of the different responses. But in some ways, it was good that I took so long to reply. We've been able to see Uthrecht's experiments as well as gotten more feedback after seeing how the affects of that and other people posting more in the Box has played out. The issue isn't all that time-sensitive, so there's really not that much need to post about it on a timely basis.

[bufftabby]

Originally Posted by Roo

And what do you mean by "concerned poster"? What am I supposed to be concerned about? Victor started the concern troll meme. Here's the definition I think works in this context:

What do you think it means when you're using it?

Hmm, that definition has only 35 thumbs up, but 227 thumbs down on UD. You clearly scrolled past the more accurate (153 up, 30 down) definition of

A person who posts on a blog thread, in the guise of "concern," to disrupt dialogue or undermine morale by pointing out that posters and/or the site may be getting themselves in trouble, usually with an authority or power. They point out problems that don't really exist. The intent is to derail, stifle, control, the dialogue. It is viewed as insincere and condescending.

To be fair--by which I mean nitpick irrelevancies in advance--this is a forum, not a blog, and "getting in trouble" would be more along the lines of losing or failing to gain hypothetical members. Since your suggestion would purportedly serve to change the dialogue, I would view that as an attempt to control the dialogue. While I can't speak to your sincerity, and your attitude is more bewildering than condescending, I argue that this definition is far more accurate than the one you provided, and demonstrates that the epithet of "concern troll" is not wholly undeserved by you.

[Roo]

Originally Posted by bufftabby

Hmm, that definition has only 35 thumbs up, but 227 thumbs down on UD.

I was less interested in what people on the site thought of how popular the definition was and more interested in how it was being applied here.

But it looks like we disagree on how it's being applied here.

Originally Posted by bufftabby

You clearly scrolled past the more accurate (153 up, 30 down) definition of

To be fair--by which I mean nitpick irrelevancies in advance--this is a forum, not a blog, and "getting in trouble" would be more along the lines of losing or failing to gain hypothetical members. Since your suggestion would purportedly serve to change the dialogue, I would view that as an attempt to control the dialogue. While I can't speak to your sincerity, and your attitude is more bewildering than condescending, I argue that this definition is far more accurate than the one you provided, and demonstrates that the epithet of "concern troll" is not wholly undeserved by you.

I made a suggestion. How does that "change the dialogue"? What dialogue was being discussed at the time about this subject?

If you're saying that every suggestion changes the dialogue, which is the status quo, you're saying that anyone who makes a suggestion is a concern troll. That would effectively silence all suggestions. Should that be the policy here? If so, why?

I didn't point out an issue that doesn't exist. I made a suggestion. And yes, the suggestion was for something that doesn't currently exist. That's pretty much true of most suggestions. Again, are all suggestions then just people pointing out issues that don't exist, making them concern trolls?

I just noticed that Fenris started a thread called:
Let's talk about embedding pics in threads
In it, he even says:

Originally Posted by Fenris

The concern is that the more pics in threads, the less comfortable people are with browsing from work--and we want to encourage browsing!

Fenris suggested something that is not currently part of the status quo. He even used the words concern, and I don't remember a big uproar about people not being able to go to picture threads from work, and if there was one, he didn't mention it, so is he pointing out a problem that doesn't exist?

Is Fenris a concern troll or are mods the only ones who can use the word concern in a suggestion thread and change the dialogue of the status quo?