> so, you feel that the group is undergoing some passive-aggressive
> social dilemma here?
So for me, here's the point - when I joined this group at the end of
November last year there were about 125 people in the group and
probably 25-30 regular posters. It was intimate. It was like a
small group of friends. To me it feels like it remained this
intimate group of friends (though getting bigger every day) until
about 6 or 8 weeks ago. Since then we've had a series of unpleasant
events around E.L. Woody, 59 Bloggers, Adam Kontras, and Cheryl
Shuman. I've definitely played a roll in this and have been trying
to understand my own behavior and that of the group. At the same
time I happen to be reading this book and notice a connection. I
point it out only because I think that understanding something is the
first part of gaining some facility for controlling it. I would love
to see this group head back toward that feeling of an intimate group
of friends rather than this kind of nasty free for all we kind of
seem headed toward. So I point out this thing about 150 people just
to say, maybe asking people to be more civil isn't going to be
effective, maybe there is something else at work here. I don't have
any answers.
On Jul 22, 2005, at 10:47 AM, andrew michael baron wrote:
> The Magic Number being what any group 'tends' towards. With even
> 5000, perhaps, a fluxuating 145 will always speak up, and the rest,
> not
Maybe we self regulate - I don't know. I dumped all my messages more
than 6 weeks old so it's hard to count since I can't sort them in my
mail program. One of the points in the book is that human groups
often regulate their size by splitting into smaller groups.
-Verdi
http://michaelverdi.com
http://freevlog.org
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "videoblogging" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
