I support this (the idea of separating chat-paced discussion from other dialogue)
Ironically, I was about to comment on one of Matt's latest blog posts on "conversation", but gave up, because Matt's idea of conversation involves trading 3000 word essays ;-) Each to his own (as Matt said). Regards Ian On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 11:21 PM, Matt Kundert <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Craig, > > Craig said: > At present, this site separates the "MoQ Forum" > ( = monographs) from the "MoQ Discussion [MD]" > (= dialogue). I propose a third (dare I say) "level" > (= chat). (Can be pronounced with an "sh" sound.) > > The archives are overwhelmingly close encounters of this > third kind. > > Matt: > Yes, and it is very sad from my perspective, though other > people like that kind of thing. And overall, I say to each > their own. I treat the MD as slow-paced, and if the > conversation moves way past what I would have said, I > either say it and take people back, or don't worry about > it (of course, that also means I only half-pay-attention to > fast-paced conversations because of time-and-energy > management). People, if they find what you say > interesting, will conform to your pace. And that's what I > think you see in watching me in the midst of the MD: > 1) I don't get a lot of responses to my posts (and I mean > in a long-range sense, like my conversations don't often > last long) because the way I write isn't typically congenial > to creating the sense of an "on-going conversation" and > 2) when I do get a lot of responses, it's usually because > I _am_ writing in the way that creates that sense. (1) > represents people conforming to my pace, (2) represents > me conforming to other people's paces. > > Well, at any rate, there actually is a "rule" that says you > have to limit your posts per day in the MD: > > 3) Each member should limit the number of posts they submit to a maximum of > four per > day. > > > The trouble is, Horse is a good enough moderator to > know that to do that would kill a lot of activity, and > therefore energy, of many participants who thrive on > sending 42 posts per day. I take it that Horse has > decided to ignore the rule for fear of killing the MD > entirely. (Though he has occasionally spoken up about > this kind of thing.) > > Oh, and there's another rule I wish people would have > some respect for: > > 4) Members should reproduce only the relevant parts of any previous message > to which they > are responding. > > I mean, seriously, how hard is it to shift, page down, delete. > > I have more theories about how Horse is doing the best > possible job currently for moq.org e-mail discussion. > > Craig said: > They have become worthless for research & would > prohibit any endeavor such as "Lila's Child II". > I propose that what is now the MD NOT be archived > permanently. > Instead, a t the end of the exchange on any subject, the > initiator & others should summarize anything of value & > summit it to the archives. > > Matt: > Okay, I vote no to deletion because everything I write is > pure gold, baby. > > As Horse will no doubt let us know for why he will not > take action on your suggestions, Craig, it is because > we've already experimented before with this kind of > thing, to massive failure (maybe not "massive," but...). > > First, your plan calls for a third arena of discourse, when > you've overlooked the existence of a (currently defunct) > third arena of discourse--the MF. Nobody's used the MF > in years. We've tried several times in the last 10 years > to breathe life into that thing, but it seems a limited > endeavor based on 1) a critical mass reached in the MD, > which produces 2) pressure to create a slower environ > for "more considered" back-and-forth, which leads to > 3) the resurrection of the MF, which eventually 4) runs > out of gas as people simply run out of new, considered > ideas. > > Second, the last time we resurrected the MF, we > experimented with the summary idea. The idea was to > resurrect the promise of "results." It pretty much totally > failed, partly because the energy required for good, > neutral summary is a lot higher than some people think, > and partly because, I think, the whole idea of "results" is > out of place for the endeavor of philosophy. > > Now, the idea behind someone summarizing a thread is > not a bad idea in itself (even if the idea of "results" is > misguided). But practically it 1) will never get done (or be > sustained for very long) and 2) summaries are just one > more kind of polemically disagreeable posts and if they > are the only thing kept in an archive, people will not be > happy if they disagree. Summarizing "anything of value," > as we all know through Pirsig, isn't an "objective" kind of > thing, but one done with a person in the view. The only > solution for (2), it seems to me, would be to keep all the > posts, thus allowing people to check back over the > record. But that would be to experiment again with the > last attempt at the MF. And is there energy for that? > That's the real question. > > I think ideas have been floated for using different > programming than centralized e-mail-bouncing to get a > MoQ Chat going, but I'm not sure what became of it. I > think the only hope for something faster and disposabler > would be something new in the housing of it. Because > all creating an e-mail-bounce MC (MoQ Chat), to sit > alongside the MD, would do is recreate the dynamic of > the MD-MF. And this, I would predict (and as I think > Horse will predict), would mean that eventually all the > energy will be syphoned off into the new "dynamic" MC > and the MD would wither away, which means that we'd > have two defunct arenas in addition to all the same > problems. > > But mainly, everything I write is gold and there's no way > I'd write for something that was just thrown away. It's > why I hardly ever speak to anybody. > > Matt > > _________________________________________________________________ > Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. > http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390710/direct/01/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
