JustBusiness17
New Member
Just wanted to point out that locking threads in this forum without explanation conveys a rather centralized (authoritarian) power structure in this supposedly decentralized (community based) discussion forum...
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If a thread is clearly going to be locked, don't spam it with remarks like "This thread is going to be locked". You're just bumping a crappy thread.
It seems that this highly visible message was inspired by me. I'm sorry that my conduct was so radical to warrant a new rule and didn't realize I was being so out of line.LoR said:Forum rules
Once an issue has been solved or a satisfactory conclusion has been achieved (either by a short discussion or an administrator decision) threads will be locked to prevent them being bumped.
Do not expect that your suggestion will be implemented regardless of how good you think your idea it is. There are many factors as to why something may be dismissed and more often than not there is no need for a huge debate over it, the conclusion is final. The thread will have been locked for good reason, and your thread should serve as a reminder to others that the suggestion has already been made and implemented or dismissed.
Wikipedia: Group Conflict said:Group conflicts, also called group intrigues, is where social behaviour causes groups of individuals to conflict with each other. It can also refer to a conflict within these groups. This conflict is often caused by differences in social norms, values, and religion.
Both constructive and destructive conflict occurs in most small groups. It is very important to accentuate the constructive conflict and minimize the destructive conflict. Conflict is bound to happen, but if we use it constructively then it need not be a bad thing.
When destructive conflict is used in small groups, it is counterproductive to the long term goal. It is much like poisoning the goose that lays the golden eggs. In the case of small group communication, destructive conflict creates hostility between the members. This poisons group synergy and the results, the golden eggs if you will, either cease being produced or are at least inferior in quality.
Using constructive conflict within small groups has the opposite effect. It is much like nourishing the goose so that it continues to produce the golden eggs, golden eggs which may be even better than what the unnourished goose could have produced. In this sense, bringing up problems and alternative solutions while still valuing others in small groups allows the group to work forward. [1]
Undecided atm. Can we stay on topic please.Eidolon said:So, does this mean you are staying or going?
This is the second time that I'm requesting that we stay on topic. You're are also trying to speak on behalf of the community's management staff which is explicitly frowned upon by AndromedasWake in the forum rules.Eidolon said:Dude, I think you are reading way too deeply into this. Its just a forum. Seriously, you're using terms like "decentralized organization" and "group conflict" to describe the conditions of the forum. Its not a socialist regime, or democratically elected body. Its just a forum. The hierachy is just the admins, and various mods, and users. I think you are making this is to a much much larger deal than it actually is. Just post something when you have something to say on an issue or start a new thread when you have something to talk about, and just go with it. You don't have to get all political about it when something doesn't go the way you wanted it too. Just move on, or bitch about it for a few minutes, and then move on. But the whole "I'm leaving, but I keep coming back, then I leave again, but come back one more time, and can't make up my mind if I'm leaving or staying" is really starting to make you look melodramatic.
JustBusiness17 said:Just wanted to point out that locking threads in this forum without explanation conveys a rather centralized (authoritarian) power structure in this supposedly decentralized (community based) discussion forum...
JustBusiness17 said:This is the second time that I'm requesting that we stay on topic. You're are also trying to speak on behalf of the community's management staff which is explicitly frowned upon by AndromedasWake in the forum rules.Eidolon said:Dude, I think you are reading way too deeply into this. Its just a forum. Seriously, you're using terms like "decentralized organization" and "group conflict" to describe the conditions of the forum. Its not a socialist regime, or democratically elected body. Its just a forum. The hierachy is just the admins, and various mods, and users. I think you are making this is to a much much larger deal than it actually is. Just post something when you have something to say on an issue or start a new thread when you have something to talk about, and just go with it. You don't have to get all political about it when something doesn't go the way you wanted it too. Just move on, or bitch about it for a few minutes, and then move on. But the whole "I'm leaving, but I keep coming back, then I leave again, but come back one more time, and can't make up my mind if I'm leaving or staying" is really starting to make you look melodramatic.
Forum Commandments said:You aren't a moderator, and acting like one isn't cool.
JustBusiness17 said:Since this was one of the discussions that I wanted to have and the thread was re-opened as a legitimate topic of conversation, I figured I would stick around and see if evolves into anything worthwhile...
JustBusiness17 said:Just wanted to point out that locking threads in this forum without explanation conveys a rather centralized (authoritarian) power structure in this supposedly decentralized (community based) discussion forum...
What level of democracy are you implying? For the last 11 years, I've only been able to understand political philosophies as existing on a spectrum.Squawk said:JustBusiness17 said:Just wanted to point out that locking threads in this forum without explanation conveys a rather centralized (authoritarian) power structure in this supposedly decentralized (community based) discussion forum...
Yeah, probably true. You think democracy works best in an internet forum? Start one and find out.
Thank you for bringing this up. I have 2 questions:AndromedasWake said:JustBusiness17 said:Just wanted to point out that locking threads in this forum without explanation conveys a rather centralized (authoritarian) power structure in this supposedly decentralized (community based) discussion forum...
The discussion is decentralised, but the management of features isn't. I like the idea of being able to get community suggestions posted, assessed and implemented if:
1. The mods think it's a good idea and the webmaster says it's feasible
2. There is massive demand, which doesn't happen often, but ultimately cannot be ignored when trying to build a site which reflects the community's desires and isn't unfair
I just wanted to point out that if the volunteer aspect of the community is going to inhibit innovation, perhaps you should consider seeking a revenue stream to remove this hurdle. Right wingers would argue that profit incentives are the only way to achieve progress, although I would beg to differ. But perhaps thats a discussion for another time.AndromedasWake said:Bear in mind that any implementations are made at the expense of the webmaster's time, so I think it's only reasonable that he be able to veto things, especially cosmetic changes. He also takes it upon himself to fix problems, and this subforum is intended to bring them to his attention and my own.
This goes against Kaizen Business Philosophy, but static management can have its advantages as well, I guess. In my own opinion, aligning reality with an organizational vision, values, etc is more of an ongoing process than it is a destination and I've already listed some of my observed discrepancies between the those within LoR. Perhaps this is where all the confusion comes from so feel free to explain where I'm mistaken. If I'm not mistaken, it seems like a more open flow of information and increased transparency (eg: providing explanations) would would suit AW's stated ideals more appropriately:Squawk said:I was being flippant, I don't see that anything other than the current management structure is appropriate for an internet forum, particularly one that is run not for profit by people giving of their spare time. If I deem it necessary to lock a thread I will do so, I may or may not choose to explain myself (generally I will).
AndromedasWake said:League of Reason is a community and does not have any strict policy - nor is it represented by any individual or group.
AndromedasWake said:... League of Reason members are people with (active) forum accounts, because League of Reason is an open web community, not a clique or exclusionist group or think tank. The LoR Show panel does not set the policy of any "organisation".
Thats a fair admission, but it brings up the question, what philosophy are you using to run the site? I'm not trying to patronize you, just trying to understand your perspective...AndromedasWake said:Sorry, I do not speak or think in terms of any business philosophy. We used to have a moderator here who insisted we develop the site into a business, and it never went anywhere, because I don't personally have the motivation or desire to fix what ain't broke.
Editing an explanation into the OP is a great idea (more so for long drawn out discussions), but automatically locking threads seems a little drastic - especially considering my next point.Re: Workload, a possible solution might be to have each suggestion thread lock automatically after one week (if it is not resolved beforehand) and flagged for review by the mod team. The OP must update the first post with the finalised suggestion and it will be either implemented or dismissed with an explanation edited into the OP.
I guess this is where we disagree. I think locking threads is counterproductive to developing ideas. It's impossible to say how a really shitty will eventually develop. More importantly, there's no telling when it will develop. If you lock a conversation, you're pretty much doing your best to ensure it will never develop.... What happens if someone posts a fantastic idea disguised as a really shitty one based on how it was presented and all it takes is a better explanation from a different person?In any event, I do agree that the threads should be locked once the suggestion has been reviewed. One week is enough time for the community to decide what they think is interesting and worth refining, isn't it?
I think more time and a constructive approach to suggestions is the best policy. Low hanging fruit are easy to pick, but I prefer to go after ideas that are well nourished through cultivation.Might require more or less time. Thoughts?