Posted by Dinah on February 4, 2005, at 10:01:13
In reply to Re: feeling unvalued, posted by Dr. Bob on February 4, 2005, at 8:03:34
Are you turning me down?
> > I ask to become matriarch of a small board. I'd like it to be one of the larger of the small boards, about half a million members give or take.
> Half a million sounds cozy to you?
> I do suppose coziness would be in the eye of the beholder. Some people might consider 15-50 too cozy. Or not enough variety. That would be fine, they wouldn't have to take part. But as long as that did feel cozy for some people, there would IMO be some value added...
> > Since I wouldn't feel any desire to curtail the freedom of any posters who decide to post anywhere else...
> Wanting the freedom to post anywhere is not wanting to have to make a commitment to somewhere?
Not at all, Dr. Bob. I commit to one place, but except for marriage or therapy, my commitment to one place does not preclude my commitment to more than one place.
> > I wouldn't want patriarchs or matriarchs to be in a popularity contest either.
> 1. That's a really good point. Nobody wants to feel unvalued. Which goes along with having been shut out in the past. And someone might feel unvalued not only if they can't join a board, but also if they do join a board and then others don't join them there.
Indeed, Dr. Bob. I fear I could no more be part of a system that makes patriarchs or matriarchs or groups feel that way than I could with one that makes individual posters feel that way. That's why I would like members of this VSG to also be able to join other VSG's where size is not a very important consideration. That's why I suggested a cut off of 100,000. If someone wishes to be part of a group with less than a 100,000 poster limit, then naturally I could understand and even support the fact that they would have to choose between the two groups. But if they want to be part of a hundred groups with a membership limit of 100,000 or more, I'd still want them to feel like they could post there.
I still am shocked that you wish to sponsor a system that invariably will.
> I think a lot would depend on the chemistry. And not all small boards would take off. So people would need to have some way to move from one to another.
> 2. If the number of "votes" (members) were capped (at a small number), then wouldn't it be less like a popularity contest?
> 3. Is someone more likely to feel valued as a member of a group of 15-50 or half a million?
I can only speak for myself.
> > Welcome to this cozy board, where no matter how long or short a time you've been posting here, everyone knows your name... And more importantly, where everyone is ready to welcome you warmly.
> 1. People here are wonderfully supportive (and joining together to oppose this idea may be an example of that), but the truth is, not everyone is in fact welcomed warmly. Even with the new green newbie indicators.
Well, you won't let us welcome them on the newbie board. But the official greeters do a fine job. Naturally they would probably feel even more welcome if the official greeters still felt an obligation to greet, but others could greet if they feel they have something to add. Perhaps the matriarchs and patriarchs would feel a similar obligation on the VSG's, even if they were very small groups of 100,000 or more.
> 2. It's one thing to know someone's name, another to know who they are... Who could keep a half a million people straight? Even with profiles?
Trust me? I have an excellent memory.
You know, Dr. Bob. A determined and clever poster knows that even when the battle is lost, there are other ways to achieve victory. A wise administrator will allow the determined and clever posters their victories, realizing that there is value in keeping the subversives in plain view.