|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 100 responses total. |
scott
|
|
response 25 of 100:
| 
Apr 4 02:37 UTC 1996 |
Um, I haven't ridiculed you, have I?
We are *not* really a cabal of techies. Mary Remmers (chelsea) is not a
techie, Misti Anslin (mta) is not a techie, and there are others as well.
Attacks from a "you don't understand the technology" perspective are rare.
All of the issues about FW powers were discussed from the social pwerspective,
as in "What if we gave everybody the ability to link?". Nobody said it
couldn't be done, or said that Kerouac was stupid for asking. It was "Well,
people might spam". That isn't a techie-cabal response. The techie-cabal
response was "It might work, but I don't think there is a configuration
setting for it".
We argue the ideas, and usually most participants weigh in once and then
retire. Unless somebody keeps arguing. Everything about this has been a
response to a kerouac post, and is almost always an attempt to make valid
ponts. I can't recall seeing anything that just ridiculed kerouac
exclusively. Some people (occasionally myself) are questioning why it is such
a big issue, or making comments about the rather large volume of text kerouac
has been entering on what seems like it should be a rather short-lived topic.
I'm still here for discussion, although I personally am getting sick of the
topic.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 26 of 100:
|
Apr 4 02:53 UTC 1996 |
What frustrated me is that noone wanted to enlarge the discussion...
I never expected my ideas to amount to anything, necessarily, but I
did want to use them to focus discussion on the problems they were
addressing. But instead of enlarging the discussion, people narrowly
chose only to respond to my ideas as if that was all that was being
discussed. I wanted to broaden the scope! I begged remmers and valerie
and carson and scott for ideas on how to improve fair tiwnessing and
conferencing. But Carson changed his tag to "how many kerouacs does
it take to put in a lightbulb", Remmers lectured me on my lack of
persuasive techniques, and rather than offer even one new suggeestion Valerie
ran off altogether.
So I get frustrated and I overreact in defending myself. This conference
and of itself is an example now of the decline in conferencing on grex. Thats
my agenda. Everyone knows thats my agenda. But the only change people
seem to agree on is that the coop login screen needs changing? This is
ridiculous.
|
scott
|
|
response 27 of 100:
|
Apr 4 03:12 UTC 1996 |
OK, so hammering away on one small point is your way of inviting people to
brainstorm ideas? I must admit I didn't see that connection.
More likely, pretty much everybody else here is happy with the way
fairwitnessing works (a few of the people being the founders who got to make
up the rules in the first place, and tweak them over the years). It isn't
perfect, but it's about as good as it's going to get in a realistic setting.
Your Politics conference is what I consider to be a great example of good
fairwitnessing. The FW links in related items, and tries to stimulate
discussion by posting interesting topics. So people don't leave in disgust.
At worst, they just aren't interested in the conference.
Conferences with bad fairwitnessing are like cable access TV shows produced
by neo-nazi groups. The cable station doesn't (can't!) censor those shows,
they can and do invite opposing viewpoints in to counterprogram. Think back
to when you created the Politics conference. Did it cost you anything? Did
anybody object and block your proposal? Nope, it just got created after a
couple days. If you think there needs to be a Sexuality conference that isn't
Fw-ed by certain persons, get your own and compete for participants. As a
matter of fact, the shell of the original still exists, waiting for a new FW.
And if you don't feel like you can FW it yourself, advertise for somebody else
to handle it. If there are that many disgruntled folks, you'll have no
trouble.
My point is, board and staff aren't very interested in regulating how people
use Grex. The main arguments are not about what uses are legitimate, but
rather what uses Grex can realistically support. We don't allow MUDs, for
instance, not because we think people shouldn't be using them, but because
we don't have the resources to support one. (the one exception is that we
will lean in favor of uses that get people involved in Grex community stuff,
such as preferring conferencing over e-mail).
|
srw
|
|
response 28 of 100:
|
Apr 4 03:15 UTC 1996 |
I call the issues as I see them. I only get one vote.
I see the login screen as annoying, so I say so.
I don't see the need to change fw rules, so I say so.
I don't like the idea of limiting fw ability to kill items, either.
I guess you and I don't see eye to eye, much.
You're entitled to your opinion, and I'll listen to it, but it is up to me
to decide whether I agree with you. As it happens, so far, i haven't done so
very much. But I don't disrespect you.
I think Remmers and Carson were expressing their frustration, but in a
different way. I should let them explain themselves, though.
|
srw
|
|
response 29 of 100:
|
Apr 4 03:15 UTC 1996 |
27 slipped in
|
dang
|
|
response 30 of 100:
|
Apr 4 03:24 UTC 1996 |
I think that is one of the problems/. As far as I can tell, people don't feel
that there is a problem with fws, with a few exceptions. Certainly not with
fwing in general. I admit, you did a good job of making me think about it,
which I haven't done in many years, and for that I thank you.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 31 of 100:
|
Apr 4 03:47 UTC 1996 |
Okay points taken...I just happen to think the problem is more serious.
Even in the busiest conferences, activity is down by at least a third since a
year ago. Coop used to have more than 200 readers, now what does it have
less than a hundred? There are dead and dormant confs littered all over
the place. Confs that havent had any activity in a year. And I dont
think the problem is technical. The problem is the atmosphere that
surrounds grex's conferences is stagnant, the conferences arent promoted
well and new users dont end up feeling comfortable. In order to
attract new users, you have got to not only be open but inviting. This
means not making users feel like guests, which is a by-product of bad
fw'ing. It means giving users a voice and being accepting.
I apppreciate the libertarian approach that the founders of grexused, but
but I think people are happier if they can be part of a community as opposed to
having their own private rooms where everyone who comes in are their
guests. Grex needs to foster this sense of community, it needs to create
a fabric that links all of the divergent interests and conferences
together. New tech improvements will get users here to try out the
features and such, but most users will only stay around if "Grex" means
something, if what they get here they cant get anywhere else in exxactly
the same way. This is why conferencing is so important and I just get
frustrated when more people dont see the connection between grex's health
and its conferencing.
So I think its great that people can have their own confs, but I also
think it would be great if "Grex" had its own confs, official areas where
topics and things are discussed, and which would exsist regardless of
whether this user or that user is around to fw it. There can be two
levels of confs on grex, just as there are many levels to most things.
This would foster the idea of grex beinga collective vision and not just
a place fod individuals to do their own thing. This is a way to bring
more people to grex and get more people to keep coming back.
|
arthurp
|
|
response 32 of 100:
|
Apr 4 05:46 UTC 1996 |
I see the 'decline' in conferencing differently. First, I don't see a
'decline'. I see it staying at the same level while other forms of usage are
growing quickly. My idea about the reason for this is that we are caught in
a unique situation in history. Computers started as a hobby sorta thing for
a few very devoted people. Up sprang conferencing. Now computing has
matured, the number of 'devoted few' has not changed much. The new people
are young (short attention span), and after high speed pretty graphics stuff.
This is a problem I see with society in general and Grex is going to have a
*very* hard time fixing the problems of society at large. I think
conferencing here is healthy compared to the rest of 'industry' as it were.
*All* of my favorite local boards have gone away now, or died into
nothingness. Grex is my refuge. As for a sense of 'belonging to a group',
I feel a part of a group here as I have not felt since I was in ROTC. I think
that speaks Volumes since part of military training is in effect brainwashing
you into being part of a group. I really like it here, and I don't see
anything shouting out "change me!"
|
dang
|
|
response 33 of 100:
|
Apr 4 06:00 UTC 1996 |
Another reason that I see confrencing declining a little is the rocky
technical time we had for the last few months before the switch to the sun
4. The staff did a wonderful job, but the system was still flaky. I konw
that I didn't confrence anywhere near as much during that time, and I suspect
that many other people reacted the same way. Now that the system is relaible,
I'm back several times a day, instead of once a week.
|
brighn
|
|
response 34 of 100:
|
Apr 4 08:50 UTC 1996 |
In a libertarian world, Ker, the central authority is weak if non-existent.
You've suggested having a conference for killed items.
In a libertarian world, each individual would be responsible for downloading
interesting items and storing them on their home system, rather than letting
some central authority take care of it for them.
You say you treat others with respect. And yet you responded to me at
one point with "You're wrong and you know it." Hardly respectful.
*snort*
At least I'm *willing* to admit I don't respect you. =}
|
arthurp
|
|
response 35 of 100:
|
Apr 4 10:22 UTC 1996 |
<Chaz shakes Brighn's hand>
|
gregc
|
|
response 36 of 100:
|
Apr 4 11:42 UTC 1996 |
I think that's alot of it Kerouac. You have stuffed worrds into Davel's
mouth and you've stuffed words into brighn's. I think you honestly believe
that when other people have an opinion that is far from yours, that they
are doing it just to tick you off, or just to play devil's advocate, or just
to be silly. You only seem to believe in the concept of differring opinions
when someone else's opinion is only somewhat different from yours. When
someone has an opinion that goes beyond this point, you seem to refuse
to believe that a person could honestly hold such an opinion. Such an
opinion is so far from what you "just know" is true, that you're sure
the other person "is wrong, and they know it".
People are very different. They hold *wildly* varying, and very heartfelt,
opinions and beliefs on issues. These are subjective issues. There is no
right and wrong, only differring opinions. You insult people when you tell
them that not only is their opinion "wrong", but you are certain they
don't really believe it and are just doing it out of spite. And then you
wonder why you have no support in this conference.
You also tend to argue from an absolutist viewpoint about subjective
issues. Instead of saying "In my opinion, I think tthe way Grex handles
XXXXX is broken or needs improvement or it's not being done as well as
it could be", you tend to say things like: "The way Grex handles XXXXX
is broken and needs to be fixed." You seem to believe that your vision
is the 100% correct, and perfect way to accomplish something and that
anybody who doesn't agree with you is just being lazy or apathetic or
stubborn or entrenched.
Because of course you've shown us the one-true-way to make things work
and it should be clearly obvious to anyone with an intelligence above
that of a monkey that your views are clearly superior. Therefore the
only explanation for everyone not rushing to implement your views must
be rampant apathy and lazyness. (At least, that appears to be your
reasoning, the best I can deduce.)
Has it ever occurred to you that people can hold opinions that are
different from yours? Hold them very strongly and believe in them
as strongly as you believe in yours? That people *do* listen to what
you say, they *do* listen to your ideas, but the problem is <gasp!>, they
simply *do* *not* *agree* *with* *you*. They arn't making up some
imaginary viewpoint to mock you, they arn't being apathetic, they just
don't agree. But then you insult them by saying their viewpoint is
just invented and you wonder why everyone is pissed at you.
|
scott
|
|
response 37 of 100:
|
Apr 4 11:56 UTC 1996 |
(Scott wonders if kerouac is really describing himself in #36. This isn't
an attack, it really does sound like the complaints I've had about kerouac's
style of argument)
|
gregc
|
|
response 38 of 100:
|
Apr 4 12:05 UTC 1996 |
For comparison, here's some Useless Agora Statistics that people may
(or may not) find interesting. I used last Agora, not the current one:
Total responses(including #0's): 10053
Total users who have responded: 293
Top 31 responders:
863 popcorn 630 carson 538 scg 419 rcurl 380 srw
353 aruba 333 janc 311 adbarr 281 remmers 250 steve
238 omni 231 scott 215 tsty 181 eeyore 178 kerouac
172 ajax 170 danr 150 freida 141 shepherd 133 gregc
127 beeswing 124 chelsea 115 kaplan 114 rlawson 110 n8nxf
106 mcpoz 105 shade 103 void 95 mdw 89 gull
89 arthurp
The only conclusions I'll draw from the above is:
1.) A lot of people are still reading agora, and
2.) Valerie really *doesn't* have a life after all! :-)
|
carson
|
|
response 39 of 100:
|
Apr 4 12:41 UTC 1996 |
your stats are skewed because of the Grex-off. still, I'm embarrassed.
|
gregc
|
|
response 40 of 100:
|
Apr 4 13:42 UTC 1996 |
Ummm, Scott, I'm confused by your comment in #37.
|
scott
|
|
response 41 of 100:
|
Apr 4 14:26 UTC 1996 |
(In #36, kerouac talks about what he doesn't like about brighn. What I find
interesting is that many of the same complaints are ones I have about kerouac)
|
gregc
|
|
response 42 of 100:
|
Apr 4 15:21 UTC 1996 |
Heh, Scott, that's what I thought you thought.
If you go take a closer look at #36, you will see that it's not
kerouac talking about brighn. It's *me* talking about kerouac.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 43 of 100:
|
Apr 4 15:39 UTC 1996 |
Now that we seem to surmount a difficult point in the discussion, I will
respond to Jan's original observation:
"....I feel like nothing worth talking about is being talked about
here."
I would suggest that is because most users do not feel empowered. The
only power on grex is wielded by staff, and they generally do what they
want to do - and argue with ideas put forward by others. Very seldom
does one hear here "That's a good idea and we'll implement it right away".
Staff doesn't come here to talk about what matters to grex as they have
their own forums both in staff meetings and a closed staff conference.
There is an item where staff describes what they are *doing*, but none
where staff is asking what they should be doing.
It was observed by a staff member, above, that the most interesting
discussion to him was one about some arcane hardware/software issue. That
is a "technical committee" matter, however, and hardly one concerned with
the *purposes of grex* or its management for those purposes. In fact,
the purposes of grex are hardly ever talked about by anyone: the majority
of thought and effort is devoted to the machinery.
Coop is going to a listless conference, or one in which people just analyze
one another, unless the group holding power in the organization comes to
the users for their ideas and opinions on matters concerned with the purposes
of the organization.
|
scott
|
|
response 44 of 100:
|
Apr 4 17:05 UTC 1996 |
Ooops, my apologies. I saw the word "kerouac" right below the header line,
and didn't notice that it was a Gregc response. (In other words, I saw
kerouac in roughly the usual loginID spot, and didn't notice "gregc" right
above it)
OK, then, I agree with gregc pretty much.
|
srw
|
|
response 45 of 100:
|
Apr 4 18:04 UTC 1996 |
Let me underline one sentence from Rane's comments.
*** the purposes of grex are hardly ever talked about by anyone ***
This is lamentable. Coop is here to talk about the purposes of Grex.
Rane is probably right that staff is perceived as holding all the power.
As a staff member, though, I know that this isn't true. I just don't know
how to convince others of it.
In order to have an influence on Grex, you must
(1) post your ideas in coop
(2) get others to agree with. Not everyone, but a significant number.
The Staff will listen, because they listen to the board, and the board is
elected by the members. And all board/staff types really do have the best
interest of Grex at heart.
If your idea is great, and everyone wants it, but no one knows how to do it,
then there will be problems, of course. I remember an example in which a
non-board non-staff person (ajax) proposed a guest account on Grex.
it is a good idea, in my opionion, and I supported it. No one on staff had
time to work on it, though. So ajax was invited to do some of the work
himself. He did. I don't believe the Grex staff actually obstructed this
project. It never was finished, though, and I'm disappointed about it. There
were some unsolved technical problems, as I recall. This was a harder thing
to do on Grex than most ideas people come up with.
Even though (so far) it has still not happened, I think it is an example of
how coop is a mechanism by which Grex can be changed by its users.
Let's not restart the status of Guest accounts in this item, but start
or resume it in another item. I was just using it as an example.
|
kerouac
|
|
response 46 of 100:
|
Apr 4 21:13 UTC 1996 |
re: #36...when I am making comments under my own name, I dont have to
or shouldnt have to put IMO in front of every sentence. Greg you are as
opinionated an anyone here and I could find a dozen messages posted by you
in coop that reflect opinion without expressly stating that it is opinion.
The only thing I'm guilty of is that I dont shut up when people disagree with
me. I didnt know that know that I didnt have the right to reiterate and
clarify what I proposed and to answer people's replies. Thats all I've
been saying.
re: #38...Brighn, I never made this personal. When I said you were
wrong, it was because I felt you were wrong. Obviously that was my
opinion. I dont disrespect you, but I dont think it speaks well of you to
say you disrespect someone you have never met. I dont disrespect you,
and have never called you name
All I ever did to you was say you misused
your fw commands, and that you were (IMO) a lousy fw who has driven away
more people from his conf than any other fw that I've seen on this board.
Thats not personal and you shouldnt take it that way. We have differing
views and yet every time (as in my previous response), that I try to
re-focus the dialogue you want to get in a pissing contest with me. I
didnt MENTION your name in my previous post. I'm not trying to make it
personal.
I didnt mention brighn OR greg in my previous post, and instead talked
about my personal views on grtex's confing problems. They responded by
attacking me personally anbd by name, and didnt refer to the subject at
hand at all. THIS ITEM IS NOT ABOUT ME. It is about conferencing!
If you want to attack me, say you disrespect me, whatever, do it in email....
|
raven
|
|
response 47 of 100:
|
Apr 5 05:54 UTC 1996 |
Ummmm a certain pern keeps mentioning problems with conferencing.
Where are they, I don't see any problems with conferencing. If this
pern wanted to see problems with conferncing he should have checked out
m-net a couple years ago (I don't know how it is now as I left and didn't
go back). Grex is mooth sailing compared with the old m-net, usenet, etc.
If it ain't broke don't fix it, I don't see anything broken (other than
those &%^&%$ 2400 modems :-)).
|
janc
|
|
response 48 of 100:
|
Apr 5 07:09 UTC 1996 |
Maybe this conference is boring because there isn't much interesting to say
about Grex. Most users want Grex to be pretty much just what it is -- a place
to come and conference, email, party, with few restrictions, regulations, or
toll collectors. Not much to say about that. If you polled the users about
what they wanted to see change on Grex, they'd almost certainly overwhelmingly
agree on better accessibility, performance, and reliability. That's a pretty
tepid discussion topic too. So most of the "defining our goals" stuff isn't
talked about much because it isn't very controversial.
|
brighn
|
|
response 49 of 100:
|
Apr 5 09:33 UTC 1996 |
You call me the worst FW for sending people away, and you say it isn't
personal, Richard? Your quote in the other item (which you clip in your
response above) was "You're wrong, brighn, *and you know it*". The latter
part is the disrespectful part.
*wonders when he himself will give up on talking to kerouac*
|