Posted by Dinah on April 25, 2005, at 19:52:47
In reply to Re: my vote » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on April 25, 2005, at 18:31:13
> > If you think that people really are happy at the idea of getting to play behind a glass wall where all their friends can watch and listen, but only some of their friends are welcome to join in, and are afraid to say so for fear of negative input from posters like me, then this poster like me will remove herself from the equation.
> No Dinah, I'm not happy at that idea. But I don't see small boards in that way. If I saw them in that way then I would be opposed to them as well.
I don't understand how they can be seen any other way. Assuming that a poster posts on both glassed off and open boards:
1) You are having conversations, playful or meaningful, which can be read by your friends from all boards.
2) Some of those conversations can not be joined by friends unless they are members of a limited size, and thus restricted, board.
3) It logically follows from 1 & 2 that you are engaging in " play behind a glass wall where all their friends can watch and listen, but only some of their friends are welcome to join in"
Can all friends watch and listen? Yes. Are all friends welcome to join in? No. Only some are welcome to join in those conversations.
What other possible way can 1 & 2 be joined?
The other alternative is that people participate in only restricted boards in which case
1) People who they do not consider friends can watch and listen.
2) People who they do not consider friends are not welcome to join in.
That is at least internally consistent to me, but not really in keeping with what the boards mean to me.
The first scenario, where people considered friends are not allowed to join in conversations they are allowed to watch and see, is totally beyond my conception.
> In fact some people are quiet about what they think and some people are opposed to them because they can see how much this is upsetting you.
> That shows just how much people do care about you and your hurt. So please don't go. I'm sorry I didn't think to Babblemail what I had to say.
Alexandra, do you really think that's what I want? Do you know me so little that you think that I would find that a good thing? Do you think I want this to be about me? Do you really think I'm like that?
I don't want people to side with me because they don't want to hurt me. I don't want people to shut up about their opinions because they don't want to hurt me.
I sort of would like that people wouldn't want to hurt anyone on this site by having conversations openly and then overtly or covertly (through restricted boards) asking others not to join. How would I feel if you and Damos were having a bantering conversation on Social and when I tried to banter with you, you told me it was a private conversation and I wasn't welcome. How is a publicly read board where I wasn't allowed to post any different? And I don't just mean me. I wouldn't even read a board I can't post on. Because I would know I wasn't welcome there. But how would people who didn't realize they weren't welcome feel about it?
I don't want people to not post their opinions because of me. I don't want people to oppose the idea because of me. That idea is REPUGNANT to me. It is contrary to everything I believe in. It's contrary to the very thing I am trying to say in this argument.
Which is that EVERYONE is important. And that EVERYONE should feel welcome. And that feeling like your nose is pressed to a glass wall and there are people laughing and joking or crying and commiserating behind it and YOU AREN'T WELCOME is not a very Babble-like idea. Not the Babble that I love anyway.
And I keep coming smack into the realization that I don't want to be a part of a Babble where that's the way things are.
I'm going back to self imposed block. Dr. Bob can make it official if he likes. Or he can make me step out of the white robes of PBC virginity if he likes.
I can't sell my ideals for virginity.