On Forums
Working on some language for a grant last week we did a quick calculation and discovered that we now average 62 comments per post. It isn’t a magic number, but it’s a significant one, and higher by ten than I guessed before we did the math.
Out of these threads is emerging a community. This was always the idea behind Open Source, that a sentient being would emerge from the people who find each other through the site. This being is charming, loyal, fiercely proud and, well — like the rest of us sentient beings — internally conflicted.
We’ve let the community grow with love and curiosity and in some cases benign neglect, and now that it’s reached the age of majority, we have to ask it: what do you want to do with yourself? By what principles will you live your life? We are not, as parents would, asking when you’ll move out. You may stay in your room as long as you like; we’ll continue to stock the fridge and there’s a fire on every night in the living room.
So, guys, what now?
- What changes should we make to the structure of the comment threads? Many of you have asked for nested comment threads, that is, the ability to respond directly to a specific comment, rather than to the general thread. We heard you, and we’re working on it. But what else? People have suggested word limits to keep people concise; do you think limits are necessary?
- A couple of people have asked for a place to discuss community and site-related issues outside of the show threads. Is this as simple as a new community thread every week or so, or do we need to install new forum software? A wiki?
- What are the rules of engagement? Can the community collaborate to write a constitution of sorts on tone and methods of argument?
- I’m a little worried about citation and fair use of external sources in the comment threads; should I put together a short tutorial on Internet citation?
- After our Seattle meetup, we’ve heard requests for more, in other cities. What would these look like? Who would organize them?
- And why is the community doing this? Can we collaborate to write a manifesto of sorts, an agreement on what the goals of the Open Source community are?
Feel free to add your own questions to the list, too, even if you can’t answer them. We will make this a forum yet, and we will wear togas and scratch diagrams in the sand and disagree fiercely with each other and come back in the morning for more.
free viagra
buy viagra online
generic viagra
how does viagra work
cheap viagra
buy viagra
buy viagra online inurl
viagra 6 free samples
viagra online
viagra for women
viagra side effects
female viagra
natural viagra
online viagra
cheapest viagra prices
herbal viagra
alternative to viagra
buy generic viagra
purchase viagra online
free viagra without prescription
viagra attorneys
free viagra samples before buying
buy generic viagra cheap
viagra uk
generic viagra online
try viagra for free
generic viagra from india
fda approves viagra
free viagra sample
what is better viagra or levitra
discount generic viagra online
viagra cialis levitra
viagra dosage
viagra cheap
viagra on line
best price for viagra
free sample pack of viagra
viagra generic
viagra without prescription
discount viagra
gay viagra
mail order viagra
viagra inurl
generic viagra online paypal
generic viagra overnight
generic viagra online pharmacy
generic viagra uk
buy cheap viagra online uk
suppliers of viagra
how long does viagra last
viagra sex
generic viagra soft tabs
generic viagra 100mg
buy viagra onli
generic viagra online without prescription
viagra energy drink
cheapest uk supplier viagra
viagra cialis
generic viagra safe
viagra professional
viagra sales
viagra free trial pack
viagra lawyers
over the counter viagra
best price for generic viagra
viagra jokes
buying viagra
viagra samples
viagra sample
cialis
generic cialis
cheapest cialis
buy cialis online
buying generic cialis
cialis for order
what are the side effects of cialis
buy generic cialis
what is the generic name for cialis
cheap cialis
cialis online
buy cialis
cialis side effects
how long does cialis last
cialis forum
cialis lawyer ohio
cialis attorneys
cialis attorney columbus
cialis injury lawyer ohio
cialis injury attorney ohio
cialis injury lawyer columbus
prices cialis
cialis lawyers
viagra cialis levitra
cialis lawyer columbus
online generic cialis
daily cialis
cialis injury attorney columbus
cialis attorney ohio
cialis cost
cialis professional
cialis super active
how does cialis work
what does cialis look like
cialis drug
viagra cialis
cialis to buy new zealand
cialis without prescription
free cialis
cialis soft tabs
discount cialis
cialis generic
generic cialis from india
cheap cialis sale online
cialis daily
cialis reviews
cialis generico
how can i take cialis
cheap cialis si
cialis vs viagra
levitra
generic levitra
levitra attorneys
what is better viagra or levitra
viagra cialis levitra
levitra side effects
buy levitra
levitra online
levitra dangers
how does levitra work
levitra lawyers
what is the difference between levitra and viagra
levitra versus viagra
which works better viagra or levitra
buy levitra and overnight shipping
levitra vs viagra
canidan pharmacies levitra
how long does levitra last
viagra cialis levitra
levitra acheter
comprare levitra
levitra ohne rezept
levitra 20mg
levitra senza ricetta
cheapest generic levitra
levitra compra
cheap levitra
levitra overnight
levitra generika
levitra kaufen
March 15th, 2006 at 4:25 pm
Thanks, Brendan.
For starters:
1. A community thread, for sure.
2. Definite guidelines for posting material from elsewhere.
3. No hard and fast word limit, but perhaps a guideline to segment long posts into a sequence of discrete ‘chapters’ that’s easier to track through for those planning responsive commentary.
4. And an automatic ‘blocked for evaluation by the mediator’ on any of my posts that hit the site after 2PM Eastern Standard time. (I’m all too often too tired and/or too chemically brain-challenged to realize when I’m making ‘late hits out of bounds’. Poor Winston!)
5. I nominate Potter to write the ‘rules of engagement’.
6. An ‘edit function’ for our own posts? Is this an available technology?
March 15th, 2006 at 4:27 pm
Oops … that was supposed to be 2AM Eastern Time, not 2PM!
March 15th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
Hey! You guys can earn grant money based on the number of posts?
March 15th, 2006 at 5:03 pm
How cool!
Now we really need to try pushing the Morality thread to 300!
March 15th, 2006 at 5:54 pm
let’s talk. A meet-up? A public conversation-town meeting. Why not visit a NE town meeting? Norman Rockwell seems to paint a town meating as representing one of our four freedons!
March 15th, 2006 at 6:07 pm
Hey, you’re already probably planning this, but sometimes I think that folks don’t always check the ROS homepage (they go instead directly to their preferred thread-pages) – so Brendan, please mention this ‘Forum’ page on the air as a ‘Home Page’ thing.
(There. Now we’ve added another post to the grant-lure total!)
March 15th, 2006 at 6:46 pm
I agree that I need guidance on what I can and cannot post in relation to materials from other sources. I often post an entire article from a source when I realize that it requires a subrcription to read. BUt that is a paradox right.
I was going to reference a suggestion for a show from, Potter I beleive, whose suggestion referenced me in particular, and suggested that there be a way to keep the threads from becoming jsut another Democratic post blog and, unless I am mistaken that suggestion ahs been removed from those threads. So yes, if Potter wrote that suggestion that is no longer there then I would agree that he would be a great choice to develop ROE. But I will go out on a limb here and suggest that almost any ROEs will create and natural tension between those stated intensions and the very existence of a set of ROEs.
March 15th, 2006 at 7:39 pm
For starters, what I said in November: structured threads. Most of this comes standard with Drupal, of course. As for ViewPoints voting the Drupal project is still waiting on me to fully modularize it. But that would handle the “me too’s” as well as give people a voice who don’t want to write a full post.
I’d love to see experiments with limiting the size of posts, or the # of responses to specific post. If you have a lot to write, it’s always cleanest to do it off-site, on your own website or blog.
[225 words; 1318 characters. that seemed reasonable.]
Also, there should be separate channels per show– e.g., you could have a “haiku” channel, or more generally, one where the there are in general limitations on the size of posts. At least you a separate one for the “live blogging” during a show takes a very different form than the forum-style discussion leading up to it. This really should be a chat mode, so I can see other responses as I’m typing my zingers.
A place for users to initiate threads is a must– that’s where we could suggest projects like our own meetings. Certainly a Boston one would be sensible– Allison and I were talking about this over email. Again, as I suggested, and as a few others joined along, consider doing the WordPress-to-Drupal conversion.
March 15th, 2006 at 7:42 pm
It’s possible to let you edit your own posts, but I worry about that. We, for example, make a point of striking through any text we edit, so a record is left of its existence; it’s good blogging behavior that keeps us honest.
If we allow every commenter to edit his or her own comments for typos, we open up the possibility that someone might decide to fix MORE than just a typo, that someone might edit out a point to which someone else just took offense, or one that was prove indisputably to be wrong.
I’m inclined to disallow editing, so that it’s clear to everyone that there will be a permanent record of everything you write; it creates an incentive to source what you write, and to stay civil. Make sense?
And Winston, I’m guessing that ROE is short for Rules of Engagement, right? But I don’t understand your point about how almost any ROEs would create tension. What do you mean?
March 15th, 2006 at 7:48 pm
I’m going to express myself in the form of some sort of ill-formed op-ed, since this is a heart-of-the-matter format for me. This is simply my point-of-view. The forum here generously allows for many points-of-view and modes of expression.
I view ROS and the forum as an oasis, though not a personal playground. It is a tangible antidote and alternative to *commercial* news and the martial rhythm of the perpetual, artifical news cycle. Moreover, the topics are not marginal nor fringe, even if some of the forum discussions may be. Mine can be very marginal.
ROS is continually manifesting into a forum where individuals from different points-of-view may come together and discuss often emotional matters which defy easy and convenient understanding, solutions, and wisdom. The radio component and the forum component peel back the layers and let us go back to some first principles: Do we understand the questions? And if we do, are we forming them in a meaningful way? How do the answers match up against the questions? And were the questions and answers we articulated yesterday still pertinent today? What role does consensus play? Etc. From first principles, many matters flow.
Christopher Lydon and the ROS team handle a delicate balance of letting folks assert themselves, but keep the discussions above the belt so-to-speak. And this is the real point of my post, if there is one. I hope this forum resists the gravitational pull of touching bottom. Unlike drunks, most media seem to defy sobering up after bottoming out. “My name is Network Cable News, and I have a problem…” I don’t see the current crop of media folks finding their inner Howard Beale prophet of the airwaves moment. Mr. Beale’s glance was often inward and willing to spill the beans about the uncomfortable failing of both the Network and its adoring public. I don’t see it happening in a meaningful way, but I can be talked out of my position. And of course, Mr. Beale is a fictional character and “Network” was mere fabrication, correct?
If the ROS forum does in fact bottom out, and it’s one of many possibilities, I doubt anyone will be harmed in a deeply psychic way. But, it would mean a slight reduction in the quality of life. We can be oxygen sucking machines in our time here, or we can find meaning and contribute to each other’s contentment and peace and understanding. We have the choice. It is always there. The fact that Brendan and the ROS team have made a call-for-thought, shows they are unwilling to go gently into that good night. The good night, the darkness I see and hear in much of the commodified discourse constantly streaming across copper cables, fields of atmosphere, blogs and comment discussion groups. One could come to believe that cheap shots and low blows are the only way to make convincing arguments and change hearts and minds. This is how I’ve come to see much media discourse. It is not a point-of-view for which I feel anyone else needs to adopt.
One guiding principle I use is the golden rule. Treat others with a tone I wish to be treated. I do not wish to be spewing idiotic platitudes here and I’m not getting spiritual, but strictly from a perspective of efficacy, a nasty thread can ripple into verbal, written rock throwing exercises that chase folks away. And frankly, I have never listened to anyone throwing rocks at me. Appealing to Akido, why be there for the rock? A hard lesson, well learned.
Furthermore, I try to avoid as much as I can, ad hominem attacks. Especially, if they’re targeting human beings that are not directly involved in the thread. Specifically, ad hominen attacks on public figures. I do not believe I can seek remedies with public figures on the ROS threads, unless they are the topic of conversation. A brief example, if you’re considering the public behavior and effects of say Henry Kissinger or Augusto Pinochet, does it do more good to lay out the case or call him a war criminal or patriot. I think laying out the case is the meaningful approach that will connect with people. Calling him a war criminal or a great patriot may feel better in the short run, but nothing convincing has occurred. Again, this is my guiding principle, I’m not advocating this for others and I may fall short. Many politicians have been targets of my bitter, caustic side. Sometimes you just have to vent and blow-off steam. I fall short and will continue to fall short.
It would be counter productive to codify any of this. I merely spoke up as a small reminder that it’s not a zero-sum experience for some of us here. Best to all, and I’m sorry for the length and proselytizing tone. I couldn’t say it any differently. I will now go and rejoin my diaspora of one.
March 15th, 2006 at 10:16 pm
Jon Garfunkel: although it’s true that I for one could use frequent editorial help (I needed you two days ago for massive quintuple post on, I think, the ‘Insta-giants’ thread!), please understand that many of us haven’t the know-how to obtain or configure our own websites or personal blogs.
Let alone the money. I consider myself lucky, on my currently scant income, to afford my monthly ISP payment.
It seems to me that the gift of ROS is that it’s an idea exchange – and some, perhaps most, ideas worth reading for their counter-conventional-wisdom value can’t be posited in 255 words.
No one is obligated to read every post in a thread, or every word in a post.
Brendan will correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m willing to bet you a beer that the hard drives housing the Radio Open Source web-log are capacious enough for several million more words.
Or maybe a billion.
March 15th, 2006 at 11:14 pm
I believe Brendan’s insistence on avoiding post-editing of posts is well taken. And Nikos, some of your most memorable posts are those from the wee hours of the night!
Length of posts is somewhat of a problem, in my view. Perhaps we could be alotted a certain amount of vertical space per post: Up to a certain length we’d be guaranteed a standard font size, but as we entered the two-fold length realm, the font size would drop, and then drop further still at the three-fold threshold, etc. You could perhaps have some sort of magnifying feature built into the software so that those determined to read the fine print could still do so, but hopefully the system would coax most of us, most of the time, to work hard to stay concise.
In addition to the considerations Brendan brought up for discussion, I’d like to add the issue of scalability. I think it’s just a matter of time before this program is taken up by several more large audience stations, which might then serve as a “tipping point” for it to be taken up by a plethora of smaller stations nationwide. Hard to say how the blogger intimacy enjoyed today on the ROS site will feel when the larger audience base arrives. I don’t have the expertise to advise how best to build a system aimed at preserving the best of what ROS has offered during its early period, but I’d advise giving lots of thought to devising a system with the best chance to do so.
March 15th, 2006 at 11:21 pm
I’ve been pondering the ‘Community’ idea all day – no, longer – especially in the light of my recent intemperate foolishness vis a vis Winston. I’ve said it elsewhere that although Winston’s opinions turn my stomach, his zeal is admirable, and I kinda enjoy our fencing. I respect his doggedness, and from this have come to admire him in much the same way that two rival football teams afford each other grudging respect – and shake hands after their heated contests.
In a way, I feel more bonded to good ol’ Winston Dodson than to many other bloggers whose political opinions match mine.
This is one surprising manifestation of our ‘community’.
We wouldn’t be the same without Winston.
Perhaps it’s because my ethnicity affords me an intimate understanding of big Mediterranean families, but my ‘feel’ for the ROS blog community reminds me of a big, extended Greek family living of the largesse of our patriarch Chris. It’s a big, rambling and multistory house with lots of rooms, set amid tree-studded grounds full of gardens and vineyards.
Potter, the eldest and wisest, wakes up earlier than me (the cranky uncle upstairs) and stirs coffee in the ROS kitchen with other family members back East (Jazzman, at least – and I want to say many more, like plaintext, nightwatchman, tbrucia, and a hundred others – but I don’t know where all these great contributors live!). Later, CheeseChowMain, Peggy Sue, I, and other left-coasters wake up and drift into the kitchen while Potter and the others move off to the sunny and fragrant gardens, and we exchange pleasantries and impressions of Chris’s latest and upcoming shows. Ephelba pipes in from Oregon, while Sidewalker is our sibling off on a Japanese adventure, whose impressions we read excitedly like postcards from exotica.
Nother and Allison are the kids who spend too much time away in town, and not enough around the kitchen table (post more, you two!).
Winston is the young (I’m older than him, I’m pretty sure), rebellious son who shocked all if us by joining the Marines and then coming home to try and convert us to conservatism!
Now, I know that this little impressionistic sketch is an overly idyllic picture, but it’s how this lone contributor feels about the rest: like a family – or, at least, a village of cousins.
But the extended family isn’t destined to remain like this – and not only because oftentimes the fiercest feuds are those between siblings or cousins.
Every time ROS adds a new station and that region’s listeners, the village will grow.
This is a good thing – a very good thing.
I’d like to become a less prominent voice among many others, and not feel quite so obligated to handle certain angles and viewpoints that I sense aren’t fully represented. The more the better. I really do prefer to read than to type.
The chemistry will change whenever a new listenership joins the village.
It might become more academic: ideas exchanged and debated in a drier, more formal tone.
Many will prefer this. But it worries me. I like casually-voiced writing. It’s entertaining, and increases the accessibility of the content of a contribution.
So, I hope that those who join in will feel progressively less inhibited in their styles. Yet this runs the risk of my little sin the other night, of course, when my frustration with lil’ bro’ WSD exploded into uncalled-for scorn.
So, the ‘rules of engagement’ must draw a line between casual jests between bloggers who are familiar with one another and feel a bond (that might not be evident to others) and outright low blows.
So, are we a village, or a college?
Or, can we be both at once to different contributors? I’d like to think so – but that choice is ultimately more the ROS staff’s than ours, I think.
Finally, I look forward to Winston’s take on this, because, if we had an active and permanent community thread, I’ll bet he and I – and many others – would grow friendlier by finding off-topic commonalities – thus lessening the likelihood of contemptuous exchanges.
In fact, may I suggest that this very page earn its own permanent place on the ROS left-hand margin, below ‘Series’ (or, on the right between ‘About’ and ‘Archives’) and serve as a the first edition of the community forum?
Thanks again, everyone. I do very much love this forum called ROS, and it needs all of us — like a garden needs raindrops.
March 16th, 2006 at 12:17 am
re: editing ex post facto, there are possibilities to handle this, that can be allowed: (a) a 5-minute window after posting (b) before someone responds. Like I said, there’s some software which does this.
Nikos– understood, thank you. I actually meant to paste “225 words…” at the bottom. On one hand, I am saying that if you have a 2,000-word post, one might look into getting their own platform for their own sake– Google/Blogger is free after all. Of course there are times when so many words is necessary, but how does one not overwhelm the discussion. There’s always a balance. That’s what I was trying to clarify.
cheesechowmain– part of the reason to codify this is just to help people catch up to speed, and also to have a set of norms to behave around. That doesn’t mean they are rules. I could have more to say on this.
March 16th, 2006 at 12:51 am
Jon: I totally agree that the suggestions and observations here need to be codified. I lack the communication skill to say, *my* observations don’t need to be codified. It shows a one of many problems in my comment. The misunderstanding is completely my fault. My apologies and thanks for pointing this out.
March 16th, 2006 at 2:30 pm
Jon: We may take your condensing idea one step further. If we double the speed of the show, we should be able to include twice as much content in a single hour.
You’llalljusthavetolistenveryverycarefully.
March 16th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
Ooh yeah!
This topic is near and dear to my heart. I host a fledgling (2.5 year old) communityand thoughts about how to maintain heartfelt, genuine interactions while maintaining civility, and still allowing for personalities, passions and the unexpected to shine through, are on my mind a lot.
My thoughts on Rules:
I do believe that ‘rules’ could be counter productive. Guidelines that we encourage each other to aspire to might be good, though. In my shop I have posted a a statement about the Social Circles and their guidelines. I made a feeble attempt at articulating what we value and what we seek to avoid in our exchanges with one another. I refer to it when needed. Its not required reading. Simply having it there, having it articulated, creates a foundation.
My Offerings for Guidelines:
speak your truth, only your truth
verify to yourself that your words need to be spoken
speak with compassion (not condescension, compassion)
valuing diversity means valuing the person who is different from you (sounds obvious, but leads to:)
debate an idea, not a person (or, put another way:)
speak to a particular idea/action, don’t characterize a person
imagine the best possible reason/outcome for someone’s idea/action before you address the worst possible reason/outcome
ask yourself who benefits by your words
you may not like everyone, it is vital that you respect everyone
You get the idea. I’m sure we can develop a set of guidelines and keep a link to it on every page. I have found at Circles, that, predominantly, people will follow the established behaviors. Especially those of the perceived leaders. So, with a core of folk who embody or refer to the ideal, we have little need for enforcement. Now, this is with an IRL community. People are generally more considerate of others when they are in their presence or know the person, or know that the people they are talking to know the person. I’ll speak more to my thoughts on community in another post.
March 16th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
Length of posts:
As for the length of posts, I’m torn. I’m not the most concise. Also, I don’t have the time to continue reading and posting all day. I often have one shot to write what’s on my mind/in my heart. (Like now) And I appreciate that people want to flesh things out so much. Its more about the formatting of the blog. If I could see the beginnings of posts and who’s posted them and then expand the ones I want to read that would be immensely helpful. Sometimes people get subthreads going that I’m simply not engaged with and don’t want to scroll through.
The separating out into bits would be good, too. Especially if people can be aware of when they are addressing different points. I find that I can control this on my forum, because I can manually split posts when needed. This allows for a better flow and ability to track conversations. The blog format seems a bit cumbersome to me. There is simply more flexibity in a forum. (I don’t know how a Wiki differs.)
OVerall, I think there is a general challenge when we are dealing with lots and lots of text that we are reading on screens. How to format it for more comfortability is the question.
Besides length of post, there is the impact of ‘carpet bombing’. Whether its the length of one post or a string of posts by one poster, it can feel like someone is trying to dominate and overwhelm others through sheer volume. But it doesn’t always feel this way. People are generally giving a lot of thought to their posts.
Perhaps another guideline is to take a virtual breath and allow leave space between your posts. Allow
others to absorb what you’ve posted and formulate replies. Of course, I’m not doing that right now. I have to move on soon and I’m not sure when I’ll get back to this, so I’m geting as many thoughts out as possible. I’ve a feeling this is not uncommon. Its a tricky balance.
March 16th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
On creating/editing posts:
I am unlikely to open another piece of software while posting here. Can’t explain why. I’m computer savvy enough, I just find that I don’t do it. I would like it if the Reply box was in one column and I could scroll the previous replies next to it – rather than being forced to continually scroll up and down at which point I often forget who I was responding to or what I wanted to write. I’m not sure I care about editing. We’re all human and I enjoy the typos. But it seems that if you can add a feature that allows you to edit before anyone else has posted (and perhaps, shows the edits with strike-throughs) that could be helpful. Beyond that, you can have integrity problems.
I have tried to use html to format my comments, to no avail, the commands are simply ignored. If there could be section on hints for formatting your posts that would be helpful to me.
March 16th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Community?
What is community? Perhaps that is the first thing we need to figure out. I enjoy ROS. Clearly. I am hesitant to call it a community. To commune is to converse intimately. I don’t feel that virtual communications are intimate. Certainly there is a certain amount of sharing andwe could use the word community loosely. But as the audience for ROS grows and the number of posters to the blog increases, I do think we will see what small sense of familiarity we have here diminish.
To be clear, I feel some sense of the people that post here regularly. I could not say that I know anyone. I’ve met Brendan once and still can’t't say that I know him. We don’t have personal exchanges here and frankly, none of the ROS staff post often enoght to feel that we’re conversing with them. We’re conversing with one another and they are monitoring from above. For me, you are all a bunch of disembodied word generators. I am stimulated by words and the process of struggling to articulate ideas within the limits of language. But it is more of an exercise that I benefit from intellectually than a series of relationships that I experience. If I were sitting on a train crying, would you reach out to me as a friend? Likely not, since you wouldn’t even know who I am. Imagine that the next day I posted that I was crying on the orange line at 5:30 pm and you realized that you had seen me.
Even the sense that I have of any of you could be a fabrication. It is a combination of my imagination based on how I read your words. And your words could be a complete misrepresentation of who you are IRL. Putting aside the metaphysical view that everything is a fabrication and staying in the realm of the physical existence we operate in, I have no way of knowing that nother isn’t a 12 year old girl and peggysue isn’t a serial killer. In some ways, I don’t need to know. I enjoy what I get out of this.
But when we start talking about community and guidelines and how to ensure a quality of exchange here, we might need to consider some IRL contact. IME, online discussion groups that are extensions of IRL groups are the richest experience. There is a self-monitoring that occurs when you know some of the people who are reading what you post. You read someone’s writing differently when you know what she looks like and sounds like. We witness one another and bear that witness here. It can have a profound effect on the quality of experience.
It doesn’t take much either. I know of a group that has a gathering once a year. They maintain contact for sharing and planning with an online group for the other 362 days of the year. They have real relationships and accomplish a lot via their online communications. But the online group would be ‘dead’ without the annual gathering.
I highly recommend that we find ways to gather and meet and appreciate one another IRL. I see a lot of potential for the power of the ROS blog gang. I believe that the real source of that power will be the alchemy of the community that comes out of face to face interactions. Anyone else up for this idea?
March 16th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
Stepping out now. Thanks for indulging me….
March 16th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
Nikos: “So, are we a village, or a college?
Or, can we be both at once to different contributors? I’d like to think so – but that choice is ultimately more the ROS staff’s than ours, I think.”
Brendan: “It’s possible to let you edit your own posts, but I worry about that.”
Part of what I find so intriguing about the ROS forum is the trust of the community from Chris and ROS team. It shows in a thread like this, in the show comments, and in the show suggestions that there is some care and attention paid to allowing bottom-up contributions to complement the usual top-down approach. This is a flattening that lessens the hierarchical gap. Other shows will read emails, take calls, etc. but you don’t see what is being filtered. I think seeing the process is incredibly interesting, entertaining, and very instructive (not in the academic sense). It also encourages accountability and improvement; my hobby horse. Of course, my writing is improving retrograde-wise, but nuthin’s perfect.
Perhaps there is another possible convergence to ruminate upon. It involves ROS, the ROS community and thoughts about the edit function: I’m reminded of another reason why I like the work of painters like Max Ernst, Hans Hoffman, Joan Mitchell, Jackson Pollock, etc. and jazz musicians. You can see the process at work in their art. This is fundamental and it lifts the covers off the mystery which reveals deeper mysteries about how human beings think and feel. Instead of the artist losing power and control by exposing the process, we all gain a deeper grasp of the mystery of thinking and this for me is a beautiful thing. It makes the work even more monumental. The process illuminates the creative act as much as the produced idea or artifact. This is a huge part of the ROS attraction for me.
So, I too would love an edit button. My comments are full of grotesque mistakes. I cringe after hitting the submit button. I would enjoy performing iterative regression editing with my comments after hitting the submit button; something I need to do more off-line. But, I see the benefit of showing all the messy thinking. It’s all part of the process. Or perhaps, I’ve simply have convergence on the brain right now. And, all that sincere thought can be turned into to ‘camp’.
Allison, thank you very much for sharing those guidelines. With your blessing and permission I’d like ‘borrow’ them for integration into various corporate cultures that I encounter? Creating an embraceable corporate conduct is one of many problems I grapple with, and these guidelines are terrific.
March 16th, 2006 at 4:06 pm
I should add to my last post that this idea we’re grappling with about process is a core idea for me personally. And, it is why to a great extent I do not trust facts and self-evident logical conundrums. Without some sense of how things are arrived upon, I tend to view them with suspicion. Not everything, of course. But as I’ve stated before, transparency is a very healthy part of any collective effort and leads to a higher degree of trust and robustness. I believe this is good for communities, business, governments, medical service, flipping burgers, etc. And I believe this cuts across party boundaries. I guess I’ll never amount to becoming a true partisan who embraces the “mushroom treatment.”
March 16th, 2006 at 7:22 pm
Motion I propose OpenSource Forums and governance rules be structured to support an on-line Constitutional Convention.
Rationale A credible threat of a Constitutional Convention shall compel the Congress to impeach the President well before the 2006 election.
Supporting material Structure of planning Open Source could spearhead.
March 16th, 2006 at 9:26 pm
re: Moderated threads: Would a moderated submission policy work roughly as follows: The ROS team would judge comments before publishing them publically. Comments that get bounced would be published with a canned response of ‘thank you for sharing, but your submission has been rejected’ or something along these lines. I think the downside is that it creates opaqueness and it lessens the fluid, realtime flavor. I like the unfiltered approach. I like shrinking the gap between listeners and ROS. It’s all glorious to me. I believe in the go-go 90’s this was referred to as disintermediation. A funny word for a worthy idea. The trade-offs, the trade-offs.
re: Comment Length: I do think enforcing a length to comments might be a good idea. I’m definitely capable of channeling my inner gas bag. Enforcing a length on some folks’ lack of brevity(mine), would encourage folks(me again) to tighten things up. Also, you’ll need to limit the number of comments per thread, otherwise, folks(not me) will just continue where they left off. Some of the problem may be ameliorated by the use of nested threads. I’m assuming there will be the concept of expanding/contracting threads and comments, with a default setting to contracted. You’ll see something like a subject line or opening sentence? Perhaps these settings can be adjusted by the user? Perhaps the comment length problem will be addressed by use of nested comments? Perhaps, the viewable comment length can be configured by the user? Nikos likes a 1000 word limit, CheeseChowMain likes a 10K limit, etc. This can be tweaked on demand. There is cost involved and downsides to features, ROS should tread carefully. When in doubt, channel Donald Norman, feng shui, and Occam’s Razor. Entropy is a harsh mistress/master.
re: Forum process. I’m under the impression that ROS will go through these suggestions and cull them and post some decisions. I imagine some sort of revision and sunset would be important for things that become moribund. This should be simply on an ‘as needed’ basis. ‘As needed’ usually becomes fairly apparent.
re: Fair use of external sources. Brendan, if you have time and inclination, this would be great to publish. I’m very confused about this.
re: Allison: IRL. This comment has definitely given me pause. Instead of doing/saying too much, I’m going to sit down and give this serious consideration.
re: anonymity. I would hate to lose my anonymity because of the ‘bad apple’ principle. I value my anonymity so we can confront each other on the ideas, with as little preconcieved baggage as possible. I have felt this is important. The idea of exposing our identity gets into the realm that reasonable, respect behavior requires identity. This is why Allison’s IRL questions have given me great pause. It is a very deep question.
Totally thinking outloud: I believe there should be zero traction for this idea, but it is interesting to consider something like a “nicotine withdrawl room” for folks who are totally exercised about something and need a place to vent? Even get potty mouth’d? If you’ve ever been around someone trying to kick the habit, you’re groking the metaphor. Sometimes you just gotta get ticked-off about something and niceties won’t satisfy. My brain chemistry is over this hump, tailgaters and people who cut me off in traffic don’t even raise my bloodpressure anymore, but I can remember when I needed to rant as a healthy release. Sometimes it’s a reasonably sane response to the world. Maybe we could allow commenters to set up access control to who can view these rants, thereby, not crushing someone’s feelings and leading to rock throwing feuds. There has to be a way for folks to work out their aggressive impulses without turning the threads into flesh flying blood baths. Perhaps, IRL is one solution? Perhaps, someone can articulate this into something workable? This suggestion as-is is not workable, and is intended to be quasi-humorous, quasi-serious rambling about an extremely non-trivial problem.
Thanks to all. I’m going to ruminate about Allison’s post.
March 16th, 2006 at 10:00 pm
Alison: I loved your posts on this thread and thank you for your thoughtful ideas. I like your guidelines very much as opposed to rules (and no, I’m not a serial killer but of course I wouldn’t admit it if I was).
And Nikos, I love your big family house picture of us all especially you, me & cheesechowmain trundling into the kitchen late. I’m against editing because I think more real freashness & personality comes through in all of our little quirks and typos even if I have had a few moments of regret and taken some ribbing about my spelling. I like seeing the Jackson Pollock drips in our posts. Oh, and the other day when Brendan threatened to turn the car around with no ice cream if you “boysâ€? didn’t behave? I was aware that I was in that car too. I guess the blood-lust was already revved up when I jumped in to that conversation. Still, I think I owe our pal Winston an apology too. Sorry ’bout the Hombre crack WD.
I wonder what will happen as this thing grows. I’m pretty new on the blog myself and I love the intellectual stimulation of the topics plus the lively exchange of ideas on the blog. Will it become unmanageable? Will it take a lot more time to follow a thread because there are so many posts on it? Will nesting help mitigate the length of the threads?
A community or site related thread seems like a good idea to me.
March 16th, 2006 at 10:09 pm
Even though I’ve had more than ‘my fair turn’ on this page, I must say that Allison’s guidelines are so thoroughly excellent I’ve copied them to inform me toward a more thoughtful, and less emotionally reflexive future as a contributor.
Secondly, Allison’s worry over ‘rules’ strikes a chord with me: I’m feeling allied to Winston on the notion that ‘ROE’s’ will, even if subliminally, create an undercurrent of tension.
So, ‘Guidelines’ are probably more appropriate for this forum. Less legalistic, a bit more forgiving, yet still a ‘code’ that moderators like Brendan, or regulars like Allison, can point to when boneheaded ignoramuses like me offend. (Repeat offenders can be barred, I’d guess. Kinda like problem customers in the pubs wherein I once tended bar.) (And Peggy Sue, I wish I had even half your ‘grace under fire’!)
Thirdly, I feel the need to point out that this thread has generated 26 (now 27) posts, but from only 10 contributors – which I worry is because it’s several places down the Home Page. I’m pretty darn certain you’d attract the attention of more ROS bloggers if this page had its own link on the left side of the Home Page over, below, or amid the On Deck, Warming Up, and Series sections.
Lastly, david: youcrackedmeup.
March 16th, 2006 at 10:50 pm
Come to think of it (sorry, here I am again), I’ll bet you ROS staffers a beer (on your next trip to Seattle) that giving your ‘Outsourced’ and ‘Us’ categories their own left-side green rectangles under ‘Series’ and ‘Recently Aired’ will attract more commentary into their threads.
I’ll also point out that the ‘Outsourced’ category often couches hidden treasures: it was there, in the ‘Danish Cartoons in New Zealand’ thread, that fiddlesticks revealed the goldmine website ‘Middle East Transparent’ to ignorant American me. For which I will be eternally grateful to both him and this web-forum.
March 17th, 2006 at 12:42 am
cheesechowmain: no one suggested moderated threads. But organized threads is a start. There is a lot of repetition here as well as in the November and January threads. As Santayana might have said if he used the Internet, those who forget the post are condemned to repeat it.
Also, I’d like to point out that the spirit of open source, to the point of view of Larry Lessig (absolutely recommended reading) is that it is not “anything goes.” Open Source is about communities understanding that behavior arises from codes (“Code is Law”) and thus it’s in the interest of the members of the community build good codes. The codes may be architectural (how the software works), behavioral (social mores), legal or financial– though applications of the latter two don’t always necessarily apply. (Still, I wouldn’t mind if my membership to my local NPR affiliate, WGBH, earned me a star next to my name– or if ROS asked for a contribution, that would earn me a rose, etc.)
That said, there’s one more key point about open source “communities”– that the contributions of folks on the periphery should be valued as well as well as the major stakeholders. If that’s a value, than “keep it short” is one way to meet that value. A star or a rose by my name should less call out people for slavish respect than it should identify newer people as deserving of special respect. This, by the way, is based on the Civilities effort that I’m increasingly corresponding with the good folks at the dignitarian movement.
March 17th, 2006 at 1:24 am
Wow, I just glanced through these posts and I plan to go through them again. I was energized by the thorough thought put into the individual ideas.
My initial contribution to this thread is: Yea, yea, what they said!
For me when I think about Radio Open Source, I basically think, I’M JUST HAPPY TO BE HERE. I was truly devastated when The Connection went down. There was a huge void in my intellectual life. As the years went by, I was worried that Chris and Mary had given up, thrown in the towel. I honestly started to feel kind of betrayed. Of course, I should have known better. In the face of hardship Mary and Chris did not despair. If they could not find ground in traditional “public� radio, they would dig new ground, in a new sphere. In doing so, they would grow new branches for Emerson’s legacy of individualism. They would clear ground for a new foundation, a foundation sturdy enough to hold us all up, on equal ground, on high ground. The conversation Chris always talked about would no longer just be in my head, someone would actually listen – to me – to us.
Christopher lydon’s beautiful curiosity came into my life when I had just left the Navy and had no intellectual aspirations. My initial epiphany came one night when I threw in Kind of Blue. For the first time I realized that emotions could be aroused in me without words. My mind told me, if something this major is true, what else is out there that I don’t know. It was like a dormant light bulb suddenly lit up in my head and at 24 years old, I realized half my brain was sitting around unused. As I started to shake the cobwebs from my slumbering mind, I came across The Connection. Curious Chris was my new unknowing mentor. Christopher Lydon taught me that it was ok to tackle the tough questions of our world, not just ok, but essential. He taught me it was ok to engage in all of it, the whole of it, with unguarded enthusiasm. Sure I would look dumb sometimes, ask the wrong questions, appear vulnerable, but in the end I would know more than I knew before. I would be more enriched, and I would enrich the people around me. Many people accuse Chris of being arrogant and I feel sorry for those people. They are intimidated by the fact that Chris is not afraid to engage any theme of this theater we call life. I feel sorry that these people limit themselves in wonder. This life is theirs too, all of it, the whole of it. From Iraq, to spring cleaning, to Updike, we should revel in it all – before it’s too late.
So, I would humbly propose just a few guidelines. The first is we follow all of Allison’s guidelines. I’m convinced that Allison could convince me of anything. The second guideline I propose is that people who consider themselves part of the community (I realize that we haven’t defined that yet) should make a concerted effort to post to the all of the concept shows and alike. It’s easy to jump on the news of the day shows and spout opinions past one another. It’s quite another thing to think out a thoughtful post; a post that might ask more questions than give answers. A post that add logs to the common fire, as opposed to just showing us your personal flame. It’s not easy to be vulnerable, but the reward can mean unrealized beauty.
My last suggestion for guidelines is this. Nikos if you’re reading this, I really liked your post above. I really like most of your posts. You compared blogging on this site to Jazz in that we see the working it out process. I love that too, except there is one difference. When I saw Roy Haynes a couple of weeks ago he did not practice his drums on stage. He practiced (not that he has to practice) at home or before the show. When he was on stage he improvised but within certain confines. Sometimes it feels that certain bloggers feel like its ok to practice on stage. Personally I compose my posts on a word document and I make sure to edit it a couple of times. I would read many of the bloggers on this site much more if they would spend more time composing and editing. I feel bad because I know I’m missing good stuff; if only they practiced more off stage and brought the goods to the show, I would buy a ticket and come watch.
Ultimately though, I’m just happy to be here! I will finish with this:
“The man finishes his story – how good! How final! How it puts new face on all things! He fills the sky. Lo! On the other side rises also a man and draws a circle around the circle we had just pronounced the outline of the sphere.�
Ralph Waldo Emerson
March 17th, 2006 at 2:29 am
I’m very new here but I’ve bit down hard, looking for a certain flavor. I was hoping Open Source would turn out to be a fabulously led call-and-reponse choir between a set of experts and say, self-selected, engaged emerging experts who re-configured the choir for each discussion. It is fabulously-led, but the big wonderful family where everyone sounds off with nearly unconditional approval, while charming, will not survive exponential growth for obvious practical reasons.
To optimize toward my particular expectations here are some suggestions:
1. Require/encourage/coax all expert guests on the show to engage with the blog on their own subject as a prerequisite for participating in the actual show. Three blog responses each as a minimum, for example, at their complete discretion, could focus and develop the community discussion very favorably.
2. Encourage/coax/inspire active lurking as opposed to reflexive posting. Find a way to reward experts for self-selecting themselves to post on what they consider their particular expertise. This could mean the public warm-up is a little slower and linked to obviously related expert sites so these people have time to cycle in to the community as their subject is coming up. I’m getting here at a coral bed community of connaisseur voices who flower uniquely in succession instead of constantly all at once.
3. Try to avoid nesting by reaching/encouraging/rewarding experts to post on their own subject and simultaeously rewarding passionate lurking or just reading until you are about to burst. Scrolling through everything essential on an important subject is very powerful.
4, Inexpert and spacious ranting could be gently and affectionately discouraged without curbing the net enthusiasm or content of the community. Brendan seems to be doing this with a masterful (and fatherly) restaint already and maybe he should dial up his carrot and stick schtick a little. I loved the ice cream ride.
5. At this level of engagement, changing subjects every day feels dizzying. I’d really like to see a format where on some topics the Show cycles back to the assembled group, summarizes the community dialogue and goes back on air to pick up from there. It doesn’t have to be a codified format but I think people are yearning for this. Continuity, depth, development, sense of implied concensus?
6. This means that there is probably somewhere on the site a helpful no frills set of ‘Encouragements’.
March 17th, 2006 at 3:02 am
nother: when Radio Open Source Nation sends its first delegate to the U.N., I’m willing to bet she’ll be Allison.
March 17th, 2006 at 5:55 am
I Jon Garfunkel (I have to be careful – or, rather, accidentally formal – because ‘Jon’ also blogs this page), I’m beginning to perceive that you are the lucky operator of an admirably structured sort of brain. Your sense of order and of merit reminds me of the many virtues I admire from my studies of the First French Republic.
But I, for one, ain’t that sharp, pal.
So, although I’ll willingly admit that your ideas are laudable, I fear that they might be a tad too patrician for plebeians like me: word counts and ‘merit stars’ will effectively nudge me out of here (which might, however, not be a bad thing!).
Nevertheless – and although it’s surely impossible to detect – I’ve been a bit more conscious lately of my verbosity, thanks in part to you!
Still, I rather doubt that I’d ever manage 225-word limits on a consistent basis.
Not only me either: it seems that this page of thoughtful posts from many others is an example of ‘voting with our fingertips’ – we’re often over the limit. Especially the most insightful contributions. Nevertheless, guidelines advocating conciseness (instead of hard rules or draconian software-laws) will help reduce the clutter, for sure.
So thanks again!
II Now, I open this second and final chapter of this post not as a challenge to Allison (who I obviously respect to the point of near veneration), but because Allison’s use of the forthcoming quoted phrase affords an unlooked-for opportunity to accentuate one aspect of my concerns for the future of the ROS forum.
Allison, your description ‘disembodied word-generators’ startled me.
Maybe it’s because in my ‘other writings’ I work with entirely imaginary fictional characters, who, to convey them realistically, I must, envision with the sort of clarity that includes detail like the down on one’s forearm, or maybe it’s because I’ve met IRL Chris and David and several ROS listeners and bloggers in Seattle, but every ROS blogger who I know by ‘handle’ has at least a vague human reality to me.
This ‘reality’, however fanciful it might be for the many I haven’t met IRL, provides the ‘color’ for my otherwise black-and-white word-on-a-web-page impressions of us. I guess I’m suggesting that although I can (regrettably) sure be a jerk in an argument, I also want to humanly reach those reading our pages – which is probably why I’m so happy to apologize when I realize I’ve strayed over the boundary of respectful discourse. (It also helps to have the sort of disillusioned ‘anti-ego’ that likes to laugh at oneself on a daily schedule!)
And it’s why I not uncommonly offer plaudits for noteworthy posts. I want everyone to know that thoughtfulness and time devoted to our collective illumination isn’t going unnoticed – and, especially – unappreciated.
This sort of distinction, between ‘you are what I want to imagine you to be’ and ‘you are only your argument on the page’ is not only a distinction of ‘whimsy vs. realism’. It’s also exactly the distinction between ‘cool collegiality’ and ‘hazardous familiarity’ that Chris, Brendan, Katherine, Chelsea, Robin, Greta, Henry, Mary, Jay, Jim, Joellen, Julia, Kevin, and Vanessa (is that everyone?) might feel compelled to choose between to suit their vision of the ROS Community.
College, or village?
Each possibility includes risk.
The ‘village’ paradigm must accept the possibility of heated feuds, including scorn – and therefore provide a method of corrective censure.
The ‘college’ paradigm, however, would likely include the potential for the very same scorn, albeit conveyed in a chilly, impersonal and even imperious manner that might attract elitists while alienating others – others who, given the chance, might otherwise offer reams of enlightenment to the rest of us.
So, yeah, I’m advocating a sort of ROS that allows bumptious familiarity alongside formal collegiality, and verbosity alongside conciseness. And it’s worth mentioning here because the choices that Brendan and the gang might soon make in software could, even if by accident, favor one style of community over the other.
Ultimately, I think we’re all here not to pontificate but to learn. (Hopefully, anyway.) And although I can’t compare this site to others (because blogging here eats most of my scant web-time), I rather suspect that the galactic-scale enlightenment I’ve gained here wouldn’t have eventuated in cooler, more formally ‘collegial’ web-climes.
It’s said that it takes a village to raise a child – and, in my case, it takes a village to make the local idiot into a knowledgeable resident.
Anyone is welcome to disabuse me of my ignorance, however (as usual!).
PS: I very much like Babu’s idea to encourage the on-air guests to blog with us – although, admittedly, this might violate public radio ethics in some way I can’t quite fathom…
Over and out.
March 17th, 2006 at 11:25 am
I agree that currently the “community” thing is more metaphor than strict reality; we need to work pretty hard to get into dialogues at the moment (comparatively speaking), and that’s just a technical issue. I also agree with Brendan that while it might be nice to be able to edit comments for typos, it’s really not all that necessary. If what you want is a blog of your own, you can get one (for free) in a variety of other places. Comments are often uneditable, for good reason.
I really can’t see why you would need/want a 250 word limit. People here have lots to say. If you pop on a short word limit, people will just split it into multiple comments. There’s no reason why meaningful community can’t be built using long comments. In fact, I think this is the sort of community that’s built exactly that way.
I think “general” commentary should actually be somewhere else. A blog is about specific, timely topics; there are other ways to do ongoing conversations, and I don’t think the blog should get muddied with those sorts of things, quite frankly. I think it would be more helpful to all of us to have a synchronous chat for those kinds of conversations instead (which could be summarized by a helpful volunteer assistant for posting later, if required).
But that’s just my 2 cents.
Cheers!
March 17th, 2006 at 11:30 am
Great post Nikos. I feel we should error on the side of less change. Many of the blogs I’ve checked out have a forum feel of computer people. ROS is so inviting because it’s so basic. Pick a handle, write your thought, click on submit – beautiful in its simplicity. ROS is not after computer elites, it’s after the everyman. Bottom to top as opposed to top to bottom (as Nikos and CCM so aptly put it).
As far as word limits, I’m against that unless, as Allison said, there was a place to cover the second half of the post. If someone was reading the post and liked what they were reading, they could click and read the rest.
Allison, I’m torn about having a meetup. Like I said, you could probably convince me of anything, so I definitely wouldn’t rule out going to one. It’s just that I feel so free on this site and I feel that my anonymity is part of the reason. Of course Chris and the gang are what inspire me most; it’s just that I thrive on people’s lack of judgment of me and my lack of judgment of them. I feel weighted down in life by how much we judge each other by looks, mannerisms, dress, age, ext. In our community, we judge ideas only – and that’s beautiful. Of course I could be that 12 year old girl that you mentioned but would it matter if I was. I’m serious, would it take away from any insight that you may have gleamed from one of my comments? Even 12 year old girls have an individual view of the world that we do not see.
But… I’m torn.
Your right, a real community is there for each other in times of need. I cringe at thinking that you might have been on the subway crying by yourself at 5:30. I cringe to think that I might have walked by you instead of giving you my shoulder. So, I’m very very torn about this issue.
P.S. The benches along Frog pond in Boston Common are a much better place to cry alone. It’s better to cry in the face of beauty. I’ve had a couple of good cryouts there.
March 17th, 2006 at 12:22 pm
Nikos: I resemble that remark. You are an excellent judge of character. Yes, I am the possessor of highly structured mind, and I keep it fit by engaging in structural exercises, such as this. Fortunately, the antidotes to a structured mind include Edouard Manet, Miles Davis, the Most Extreme Elimination Challenge, and driving on Boston roads.
We see here the failures of the single-thread format. It is difficult for everybody to read each post equally. Rochelle: There was never a suggestion for a 250-word hard limit, not from me or anyone. I just simply counted the words I made in a post here. But I was trying to illustrate how factors such as long posts and frequent posts may have an effect of the commons. And suppose also that certain posting behaviors affect whether new folks or radio guests contribute to the thread. These are all trade-offs.
And furthermore this is not an easy problem to solve. No such solution has been effectively deployed in online community software– all of which makes the problem more intriguing to me.
I will write up something this weekend on Civilities about causal ethics and then post here. Causal ethics– I’m not sure if there’s a better word for it– is not proscribing behaviors as right or wrong but in being cognizant of their effect. E.g., the Bible doesn’t explicitly prohibit polygamy, but it’s clear from the stories of the patriarchs that it’s a wreck on harmonious family life.
March 17th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
I dont think imposing limits is the right idea, I think I agree with Brendan.. I simply wont read the comments that go on forever, and hopefully people will be more careful with that.
Id say do not make a forum. Forums being attached to blogs/podcasts/and vlogs lead to fragmenting of discussions, with some going on there and some going on in the comments. The comments for each post should be enough.
How bout a role reversal for a show! Brendan or Robyn or one of the producers host and Chris can be the blogger n chief?
March 17th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
WD: regarding your “jsut [sic] another Democratic post blog” comment above, potter no doubt would have done a better job of it but I have to ‘fess up – twas I: http://www.radioopensource.org/suggest-a-show-february-2006/#comment-7014
As you can see since then I’ve given up on trying to get the HTML stuff to work. Maybe we could have a blurb on how to effectively work these webby wonders.
1) I was struck by Chris’ comment about hearing peggysue’s voice. In keeping with the spirit of radio wouldn’t it be cool to have little spoken blurbs available in the member profiles. We could then have a mash-up show of member blurbs should be at least humorous, if not poignant.
2) I have to say I’m most affected by posts that pick at me personally. They get me to fortify my position or, better, to compromise and retract. I have my knee jerk moments when my well ruminated opinions find themselves laid upon the ROSosphere. But when someone points out what an invererate bungler I really am, now that really gets the wheels spinning. It’s all good.
3) Somewhat connected with this, how about “call for submissions” for “on deck” shows. This way people can submit little audio blurbs (submitted via email and complete w/short text descriptions of the audio content.) This might be helpful to people who can’t call in since their clocks don’t reflect Boston Time. It might be a bother to wade through these but I know the ROS “people” regularly monitor the blogs for “content.” It might be pretty cool to “hear” people’s contributions.
March 17th, 2006 at 1:45 pm
Re: IRL meet-ups.
Like nother, I’ve always valued my facelessness here on the blog. Yet the lure of seeing a live show in Seattle was too great. So, I swallowed down my natural shyness, took the plunge, and met Chris and David.
It was wholly worthwhile (see my commentary in the ‘What Makes a City Great’ thread).
The next decision was whether or not to further my unmasking at the Seattle coffee-shop greet-and-meet. Emboldened by the euphoria I’d gained while watching the previous day’s live show, I took that plunge too – and loved it.
Believe me: it’s much better having at least a fleeting IRL familiarity with your community-cousins than having to rely purely on imagination. I was so pleased to survive intact my unmasking that I’m an advocate for another Puget Sound regional blogger-meet-and-greet this summer (date and venue to be named later).
I can sense already that this post isn’t persuasive on it’s own.
And that’s fine: the proof’s in the pudding. Meeting your IRC pals in IRL is something you must do to appreciate.
My only possible offer of ‘proof’ is this: hearing my cross-the-Straits neighbor peggy sue’s voice on the air last night wasn’t merely nice: it was ‘electrifyingly’ pleasing.
IRL? Try it. It’s worth the nervousness.
March 17th, 2006 at 2:17 pm
I am unable to speak with any authority about the structure of my mind. I’m under the impression my brain is a little more fleshy, but even it defies a significant understanding. An instrument this inconsistent and self-referentially contradictory is dreadfully inadequate for the task. :^)
I’m going to suggest for the sake of goodwill that a Santayana theshold of two iterations is a bit low; two iterations is barely gettin’ started. There is a metaphysical argument that repeating history and coming to an understanding about this repetition is an important point in being here (anywhere). Kind souls have made this supple point with gentle, encouraging words. The writer from “Groundhog Day” discussed some of this on ROS fairly recently. Some things cannot be short-circuit’d.
Though I’m unable to describe the contours of my mind, I have found that inquiry has led me to “rediscover fire” at times and “reinvent the wheel” at others. These were extremely valuable experiences for me. On one hand the action is the important aspect, not the result. On another hand, the realization that I am often trudging along a very old and worn path (apologies to Eudora Welty) have led me to something akin to comfort and contentment. With rediscovery and reinvention, I come to a deeper awareness of both freedom and responsibility. I am unable and unwilling to deprive myself, nor others, of having this joy. In it’s strange paradoxical way this is a moment that allows for the possiblity of full connection across time and space with “the other” while fully actualizing myself as an individual. Something this powerful is to be cherised, not dismissed. I fully encourage anyone to allow themselves this valuable space within for learning. But to each their own devices.
This is not to dismiss listening. Listening is an extremely important learning device. This is why I enjoy ROS. There can be opportunities for helpfulness to shephard and mentor those coming up to speed. It is probably unavoidable, but there is a groundhog day aspect to some of this; I am unable to fully reduce ‘this’ to a more descriptive term. But I think ‘this’ is related to the grand ‘that’. Perhaps, this is not the first discussion among human beings to seek an understanding about how to structure their discourse. Any guidance is welcome’d by me, but not to the detriment of enjoying inquiry. In the spirit of courtesy, respect, and effectiveness, I will limit and reduce my public meanderings. I have already taken up an unreasonable allotment. In this regard, I will improve.
March 17th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
Aren’t we all a bunch of opinionated introverts here? I did have a picture of myself on my profile page before I put a painting in that slot. And I liked having that place to put a picture as a way to illustrate a point about a visual topic. I haven’t put my own picture back up because I noticed when I checked other posters profiles that hardly anybody else had a picture of them selves on their profile page. I realize I could have put a picture of Catherine Zeta Jones in that box instead of myself or if I really wanted to worry Allison, Jack Nicholson grinning insanely but I was into presenting a real picture of myself. On the other hand I do agree with nother that it is nice to be valued (or reviled) for your thoughts alone without the cumbersome baggage of the visual impression and all the stereotyping that can go along with that. I don’t think of my fellow posters as disembodied word generators and would be curious to see you all but also respect your privacy enough to not feel that seeing you is not the most important thing. It is the exchange of ideas I value most.
It was pretty exciting to actually get to speak on the show and I hope are going to hear more voices from the blog.
Nikos & Jon Garfunkel: I didn’t quite get that roses and stars thing either. Sometimes I figure the high tech stuff is just flying right over my head. I agree with nother… keep it simple.
Marshall MacCluen’s idea that the media is the message keeps coming to my mind and I wonder how changes in the form of ROS will affect the message.
The thoughtfulness that has gone into the posts on this thread is I think a good illustration of why not to have word limits
March 17th, 2006 at 3:19 pm
Opps, I don’t think of my fellow posters as disembodied word generators and would be curious to see you all but also respect your privacy enough to not feel that seeing you is the most important thing.
I have one too many “nots” in this sentence in my above post.
March 17th, 2006 at 5:11 pm
I also spelled Mcluhan incorrectly (not that this is a desperate cry for editing mechanisms).
Thinking about him and his ideas I looked up his website…
http://www.marshallmcluhan.com/
Worth going to just for the quotes page… “If it works, it’s obsolete”. MM
March 17th, 2006 at 10:00 pm
Brendan, my apologies for adding to the 11,666 words already posted on this topic. But I do want to add (I hope) to the “word limit” discussion.
I completely agree with JonGarfunkel who pointed out that lengthy and frequent posts affect the resulting discussion, that there are trade-offs. One trade-off I have often seen in group discussions involves those using many words with little meaning crowding out those using few but meaningful words. And I think this crowding out happens here.
The situation results, in my mind, because contributors place different values on blog space. Some view it as an unlimited, costless resource. Unlimited because, after all, actual space is largely unlimited. And costless because these contributors have considerable time to blog. Others view blog space as a limited, costly resource. Limited because it can be hard to find the dipole needle in the hay stack debris cloud. And costly because these contributors have little time to blog.
So I think some limit on contributions serves to put a common value on blog space by making blog space a scarce resource: something to be used with care.
But here I disagree with previous support for limits. First the blog rests on the idea that value comes from open contribution, that is, bottom up. So limits should not be top down, specified arbitrary from above. Next, the idea of limits should be rethought as allocations given to all equally, to be used as each contributor sees fit. Posting voluminously on one topic at the expense of posting on other topics. Or spreading the allocation around more evenly.
Here is one way it might work. When ROS asks for show suggestions, also ask for word count suggestions. Then average the word count suggestions. The possible starting value of, say, 10,000 words allocated monthly might result. Then allow contributors to post on any topic at any length and at any frequency, within the contributor’s allocation.
This is only one quite rough way to allocate space. If interested, JonGarfunkel might want to jump in here, since, if I read one of his posts right, he develops for the Drupal project. I am sure that he can think of better approaches and appropriate technology.
March 18th, 2006 at 7:22 am
To paraphrase Lawrence Lessig, the code ROS chooses to host the community will dictate the laws of the community.
So maybe Bredan or someone could draw up a list of software products that might be used in the re-do of the community portion of the site (I’m assuming that that is at hand, no?). And provide a link to a good example of each tool in use. For example, would we use Slash, or Drupal, or PHP-Nuke, or Scoop? I think this would make things more concrete and let us converge.
I’d also benefit from the discussion since I’m about to begin investigating community tools for a large website with which I’m involved.
March 18th, 2006 at 11:47 am
I’m a bit of an anarchist, even though I sympathize with Raymond in the above post I found myself plotting ways to subvert his suggest rule even as I was reading about it. Perhaps after a certain number of words a window with advice such as the suggestion from Strunk & White below could pop up. I prefer suggestion rather than rule because I wouldn’t want to cut off Solomon writing the Song of Songs in mid sentence.
advice from Strunk & White’s Elements of Style
Do not overwrite
Rich, ornate prose is hard to digest, generally unwholesome, and sometimes nauseating. If the sickly sweet word, the overblown phrase are your natural form of expression, as is sometimes the case, you will have to compensate for it by a show of vigor, and by writing something as meritorious as the Song of Songs, which is Solomon’s.
When writing with a computer, you must guard against wordiness. The click and flow of a word processor can be seductive, and you may find yourself adding a few unnecessary words or even a whole passage just to experience the pleasure of running your fingers over the keyboard and watching your words appear on the screen. It is always a good idea to reread your writing later and ruthlessly delete the excess.”
Chapter 5, #6 Elements of Style
March 18th, 2006 at 12:42 pm
Strunk and White are the Scrooges of writing with style.
Bah, humbug!
March 18th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
Nikos: I’m so sorry ;*)
March 18th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
What I wanted to suggest was the Edward Abbey Quote:
“Eschew Superfluage” but I wasn’t sure how to spell it.
March 18th, 2006 at 1:20 pm
I don’t have time right now to address many of the points made since my posts. I will say a bit more about my “disembodied word generators” comment and my IRL thoughts.
I am well aware that there are real people behind the generation of the words. That is why I try to follow the guidelines I mentioned above. I have a growing sense of the some of the posters based on what I’m reading. Certainly, if I were to meet one of you, I would have a smile on my face and a pre-conceived sense of appreciation. You would not be a complete stranger. But my sense of you is based solely on these thoughts that you place here. Thoughts are complex and don’t always reflect how other people experience us. I really don’t know if what you mention about your life is fiction. Nor you me. Because I have no experience of you physically, you are disembodied to me, as in a figment of my imagination (and I have good one!).
This is not a bad thing. Does it matter to me if nother is a 12-year old girl? No. If I met a 12-year old girl that had been posting these posts, I’d be duly impressed. It wouldn’t change the quality of the posts per se. Except that when you present yourself as something that you are not, there is a disingenuousness that bleeds into the integrity of everything. You are not speaking truth. You may have excuses – “I didn’t think you’d value my ideas if you knew” – but it is still not the truth. The power of it is diminished by this. Even if I don’t know the deception, the power is inherently diminished.
As for the IRL: people can determine for themselves if they want to participate. Or we don’t have to have any. I can go either way. I simply don’t consider it a “community” without it. The fear of being known, of being judged or of judging, prohibits the intimacy required for community. IMHO, our words here are simply an exercise in thought if we can’t practice them with each other. A lot of what is posted here is about working towards a more compassionate world. We seek ideas about ending/preventing atrocities, about forms of leadership that serve us all, etc. How can we speak against the way people treat each other if we’re afraid of how we’d treat each other?
It seems to me that some IRL contact is a chance to practice. There have been some very raw posts here about our lives and still there is a base of mutual respect. We would be bringing that pre-developed respect to our meeting. From there we could consciously practice what we preach and process the fears that get in the way as a way of understanding how you work with others that do not seem to be able to act selflessly and compassionately and without fear in the world.
Again, this is one person’s vision. It has never been a stated mission of the ROS blog or the staff. I have no expectation that anyone is interested. This all comes from my skepticism about the use of the word community. It gets bantied about a lot in today’s world.
March 18th, 2006 at 5:47 pm
Allison: exactly. To paraphrase Yogi Berra, if people in Boston don’t want to show up at a real-life gathering, nobody’s going to stop them. Bicyclemark: If we don’t have an independent forum, there’s no way we could propose setting up a Boston gathering (unless Allison and I just do so on our own).
Raymond: Thanks for your words on the “scarce resource” point. peggysue: Thanks for seeing Raymond’s point, and for digging up Strunk and White. Certainly different types of writing apply in different media. Normative writing is best on a single web page devoted to it. What we do here is interactive writing and works best in brief.
Plaintext: Brilliant idea for uploading an audio clip introduction to the profile page. And pre-recorded questions are a good idea as well — this of course has long been used by All Things Considered using the advanced technology of answering machines.
Regarding “community” let me summarize some more outside theory. The researcher Etienne Wenger coined the term communities of practice: in short, they do things. This ROS group is probably best described as a community of circumstance since the one thing we share is we listen to this show. At best, we engage and learn, but without being part of the governance, we cannot do.
Furthermore, due to the constrains of the single-thread format, there is little we couid do, if we tried, as their is no mechanism to do things like take votes and establish consensus.
March 18th, 2006 at 7:11 pm
Wow! What a great group of posts and people behind them that ROS has collected in a relatively short time! It was not that long ago that I was lamenting the dearth of posters. I wanted to post my 2 cents on everything to keep the place warm. I no longer feel that way. New and interesting people are showing up everyday including the amazing “Vijtable” and the uninhibited honest and intriguing “serious lee”.
I hope that the door is open and there is a warm welcome for all who step in. So with any changes please not discourage folks from dropping in and maybe coming back. Those of us who are “regulars” have this responsibility as well.
I read through here and made a collage of the thoughts, so many excellent ones, that I felt important. That would be yet another long post. I am going to try to prune it. One thing I think we all have to be mindful and respectful of is the precious time that we take from others to make our points. This has been expressed in many ways through this thread.
Maybe changes should be made slowly and minimally with an eye to adjusting as we go. Certainly as we get more and more posters the terrain will change.
I am a big one for trying be be an example rather than impose rules. I feel this more and more as I get older. So I would be for guidelines before rules.
As far as real life versus a “community” such as this goes I think it is amazing how well we can get to know each other and have feelings for each other given the medium. Yet Allison is absolutely right that it cannot be a real community, nor should we think that it ever can be one even with real life meetings if that were possible. But it suffices and it works for me anyway. I can walk away from my computer and do other things that interest me. In a real community, well a close one that I did live in that was very much a family, you give up a lot. There are a lot of rewards in such a community and a lot of responsibilities as well. But we do not and cannot have that here. So I say let’s not try to make this into something that it can never be.
I do love what we seem to be building and it’s endless possibilities for stimulating growth. And that for me is something to treasure.
More soon.
March 18th, 2006 at 8:36 pm
Another one of the great things about living in Japan is that there is the brief lull between the late-night westcoasters and early-morning eastcoaster when I can catch up on the day’s show and all the thoughtful posts without 10 new ones stacking up before I’m finished reading even one of Niko’s lengthy contributions (but please don’t stop). Of course sometimes it feels a little lonely.
When I first started to listening to the shows I wished, like babu, that it could be even more open. Why didn’t Chris and his guests engage more with the comments? But I soon found out after reading everyone’s posts, that the voiced portion of each thread is only part of the process and that the chance to jump in (or sit on the side and watch others get wet) before, during and after and engage personally, intellectually (I keept trying, anyway) and, sometimes, heatedly with this facinating and growing community is what makes the ROS format special.
Yes, let’s keep it as open as possible.
So allison’s guidelines over any set rules. The norms of proper etiquette have already been established and if someone doesn’t adhere, many of the elders I’m sure will provide gentle guidance.
No word limit. Contributors should know that if they want their comments to be read by more they should follow peggysue and “Eschew Superfluage�.
—I like the idea of a floating reply box so less scrolling up and down is necessary to refute some of Winston’s facts.
No editor. While I’m an awful speller, who was part of the unsuccessful ITA experiment in the 60s, and would greatly benefit from editing, I agree with others that our flaws are what make us interesting. Reflection and a good dictionary are enough.
No Constitution, or at least not a Founding Fathers type. Constitutions must evolve if they are to remain relevant. When key articles are created, they are much harder to change as a whole culture with entrenched interests develops around each (the right to bare arms is an example). A manifesto with a few broad and regularly reviewed goals should be sufficient.
Yes to a community thread–like this one, to get lots of input when issues arise.
(Thanks Brendan and Chris for keeping it open)
Informal meetings sound great, though I agree with Potter that this community should and will remain cyber, but with a beating heart.
When is everyong coming to Tokyo?
March 18th, 2006 at 11:04 pm
The following is entirely my opinion, even though it is in the spirit of the ‘fierce disagreement’ Brendan jests about in the last line of this thread’s tease. And if my presuppositions or conclusions are incorrect, I’ll embrace a corrective scolding from Brendan without complaint.
I very much hope that I’m wrong about this, but I worry I’m beginning to sense a trace of territoriality lurking within this discourse.
I can think, off the top of my head, of three favorite contributors (who I respectfully will not name), whose posts are usually insightful, searching, and penetrating. Yet each of them, somewhere between one to four times out of every ten posts, contributes stuff that’s more meandering and obtuse than focused and crystalline. And so what?
You’ve got to accept the chaff along with the wheat.
None of us here are submitting this stuff for payment. And it would be easy to hold up anyone’s worst post as ‘an example’ of writing-in-need-of-an-edit. But what about the brilliant stuff from the same folks? Stuff that drops my jaw on a daily basis?
Now, because I’m always willing (however reluctantly) to play the bad guy, let me point out that everybody gets just as much access to the thread-space as I do.
You get as much ‘territory’ here as me or anyone else.
Are you feeling under-represented or that some of us take up too much space?
There’s an easy solution: Post More.
The floor at ROS is always yours for the taking.
The more, the merrier.
Should I arbitrarily restrain myself because I’m able in a half an hour, and twice a day, to type a 1,000-word distillation of my recent thoughts on the show-topic or a recent thread tangent, while others haven’t the time or practice to do likewise?
Your inability or unwillingness to post as frequently or as densely as I do is not my problem, or anyone else’s.
But hey, I’d love to be a less omnipresent voice amid dozens of others.
So, Post More.
The more the merrier.
A great example of why artificial limits would ruin the value of this place is the recent Israel vs. Hamas thread, where I dropped out halfway through because I was learning so much by reading the voluminous exchange between Potter and dc.
You really wanna arbitrarily limit Potter’s access to this site?
Are you sure?
Let’s put it this way: what I write in the box below ‘Nikos says’ is my thoughts, written in my style (which sometimes varies in verbosity from one hour to the next) – that box is my ‘territory’. Although it doesn’t much bother me, I don’t appreciate being ‘graded’, but, much more importantly:
I don’t want my favorite contributors cowed away from their patterns of contribution by worries that critics out there resent the frequency or density of their posts.
I want to read them.
Even their less persuasive stuff.
Even their introspective stuff.
I don’t care if their stuff bothers others.
Hey, if you don’t like it, don’t read it.
If you’re reading it and it doesn’t seem to make its points effectively, fine, then skim it – or skip it.
Once we start it, where do we stop editorial critique?
Shall we install software that blocks flowery use of adverbs and adjectives next?
Then after policing our writing styles – how we write – shall we begin policing what we write?
Put a screen on ‘humanistic’ or ‘democratic’, and you’ll successfully block 60% of my recent posts, and maybe more.
Does my presence offend by its frequency? (And are you sure this isn’t more ‘territorial’ than you realize?)
Post More.
Don’t ask those of us able and willing to freely contribute our time to this venture to give you a bigger footprint by running away. (Although please know that several of us regulars consciously do limit our contributions. It might not seem like it, but I do, and I know, by missing their pre-established presences, that others do so too.)
I’ve gained immeasurably valuable knowledge from this site precisely because I’m willing and able to contribute, and then carefully absorb and evaluate the reactions my posts garner.
And when someone like Potter is illuminating without any feedback from ignorant ol’ me, I happily sit back and simply read.
Post More.
Especially you newbies.
March 19th, 2006 at 9:54 am
I hope this is the longest post I ever make. Please indulge me. I am repeating some things that have been written here. These are points that I reacted to and that expressed with many words better than what could have been expressed in a few.
I am against limiting posts for the time being but it is kind thing to prune your posts to it’s most essential ideas with few asides because others want attention and attention is limited. (I am being a terrible example of this right now I know and please skim without any guilt.)
The most important reason is, I feel, that limiting posts to an absolute when you are really trying to say or convey some things that take a little longer may inhibit some necessary or good points. People have begin posting “part one” and “part two” on another forum I check into because they literally cannot type beyond the allotted limit. I live with a writer and I can tell you that it takes much much longer to write something concise and perfectly. Within reason, we should strive for that. Maybe think a little more before posting,
Those who are inclined to post many long pieces should be aware that they lose our attention, or take advantage of it. Jon’s idea of dropping the font size further and further as one hit’s thresholds is interesting (and funny).
b>Jon Garfunkel’s idea of separate threads or channels for “live blogging” versus discussion before and after is interesting. As it is now however, you can sort of tell when we are “live blogging” and I think I like it the way it is. I am not for nesting because I think it will take away from the discussion. I would not be inclined to follow branches and would probably miss some good posts. What might work is having part of a very long post viewable, the rest you follow. But again I would rather not have a separate comments thread to each post (nesting).
On the other hand I would like to see a separate café hangout or “ behind the shedâ€? thread devoted to socializing or re-socializing if people would like to do that. If there are folks who want to meetup they can use this thread to make arrangements. Perhaps Brendan can with approval from the parties forward email addresses to those who do not want to publish theirs on the site. If there is some “working outâ€? that needs to be done regarding behavior— perhaps it can be done on this thread.
Brendan is there a way to edit with a preview and then maybe half an hour after one posts it’s permanent? That way you can check mistakes. No matter how hard I try, even using Mircosoft Word beforehand, I almost always make mistakes. Myabe I could work on not being embarrassed. We could forgive each other a priori.
Jon poses an interesting thought about handling more and more people: “scalability. I look to Haaretz. They have mandated short posts (you cannot type further than your allotment). What happens on that forum is that you get to know who you want to read and who you don’t. Since you have to click on the title of the post to read it there is competition for attention in the titles. These are comment threads based on various articles. Small conversational groups form and then there is some cross arguing. They say they are censoring, but there is little that I can see. What is wonderful however is hearing voices from all over the globe. This is what I would love to have here on ROS, a more thoughtful version though, voices from all over the country, then international. I think Nikos gets the feel of this in his excellent post above. http://www.radioopensource.org/on-forums/#comment-7440
Allison’s guidelines for engagement are right on the mark.
When Allison says: “So, with a core of folk who embody or refer to the ideal, we have little need for enforcement.� It echoes my own feeling that those of us who hang around here as regulars, who do so presumably because we are getting as well as giving, will be motivated to maintain a level of quality in the exchanges and so will have incentive to embody these qualities. This is not easy here or in real life I admit. I do not think that the motivation here would be less however, especially if one is benefiting from participation intellectually, finding commiseration, validation, and a form of friendship. Gradually this culture/ethic we cultivate and strive for will become stronger.
Allison’s guidelines again:
speak your truth, only your truth_verify to yourself that your words need to be spoken_speak with compassion (not condescension, compassion)
valuing diversity means valuing the person who is different from you (sounds obvious, but leads to:)_debate an idea, not a person (or, put another way:)_speak to a particular idea/action, don’t characterize a person_imagine the best possible reason/outcome for someone’s idea/action before you address the worst possible reason/outcome_ask yourself who benefits by your words_you may not like everyone, it is vital that you respect everyone
Allison says: �it is more of an exercise that I benefit from intellectually than a series of relationships that I experience�.
I agree but I would not say that these are not relationships of a sort. They are not nothing.
Allison again: “your words could be a complete misrepresentation of who you are IRL.�
After awhile I don’t think one can really misrepresent who they are. Each of us has a voice that is a reflection of our being, that is more than the words.
Allison: “In some ways, I don’t need to know. I enjoy what I get out of this.â€?
Me too.
Cheesechowmein says:
“Part of what I find so intriguing about the ROS forum is the trust of the community from Chris and ROS team. It shows in a thread like this, in the show comments, and in the show suggestions that there is some care and attention paid to allowing bottom-up contributions to complement the usual top-down approach. This is a flattening that lessens the hierarchical gap.
Instead of the artist losing power and control by exposing the process, we all gain a deeper grasp of the mystery of thinking and this for me is a beautiful thing. It makes the work even more monumental. The process illuminates the creative act as much as the produced idea or artifact. This is a huge part of the ROS attraction for me.�
I find myself wishing I could comment as I listen to other radio programs. I think this will catch on. It feels good to contribute. Coincidentally, David Brooks column (NYTimes 3/19/06) today talks about Plato’s division of the soul into three parts reason, eros (desire) and thymos (the hunger for recognition).
This is it, to be known, to have your deepest thoughts out there —but be anonymous at the same time. But I do not pause at Allison’s comments about this falling short of “real life�. I am not thinking this is or should be a real life community. That does not lessen my commitment to work to keep this a place where we can have respectful informed discussion.
I do not want to lose my anonymity because as CCM says there is value in not being encumbered by details about a person that are not necessary to the work at hand.
Nother to Allison: “I’m torn about having a meetup. Like I said, you could probably convince me of anything, so I definitely wouldn’t rule out going to one. It’s just that I feel so free on this site and I feel that my anonymity is part of the reason. Of course Chris and the gang are what inspire me most; it’s just that I thrive on people’s lack of judgment of me and my lack of judgment of them. I feel weighted down in life by how much we judge each other by looks, mannerisms, dress, age, ext. In our community, we judge ideas only – and that’s beautifulâ€?
Nother (great post) http://www.radioopensource.org/on-forums/#comment-7529
Nikos: http://www.radioopensource.org/on-forums/#comment-7540 “And it’s why I not uncommonly offer plaudits for noteworthy posts. I want everyone to know that thoughtfulness and time devoted to our collective illumination isn’t going unnoticed – and, especially – unappreciated.â€?
We would be much less without the glue of Nikos’ posts and praises. He’s the natural diplomat,the bridgebuilder, in these parts.
Nikos says “The ‘village’ paradigm must accept the possibility of heated feuds, including scorn – and therefore provide a method of corrective censure._The ‘college’ paradigm, however, would likely include the potential for the very same scorn, albeit conveyed in a chilly, impersonal and even imperious manner that might attract elitists while alienating others – others who, given the chance, might otherwise offer reams of enlightenment to the rest of us.
So, yeah, I’m advocating a sort of ROS that allows bumptious familiarity alongside formal collegiality, and verbosity alongside conciseness. And it’s worth mentioning here because the choices that Brendan and the gang might soon make in software could, even if by accident, favor one style of community over the other.â€?
I am for doing very little at the moment beyond emphasizing the guidelines and waiting to see how well we can embody them. When someone gets off track, then a little karma squad thing seems to happen naturally. We should be careful, however, about piling up lest we lose folks who we merely would like to reform a little. In some cases the loss cannot be prevented. People come with the flaws they carry in real life as well as their strengths. Patience and kindness is needed but when those flaws are disruptive you cannot ignore it.
Nikos: “It’s said that it takes a village to raise a child – and, in my case, it takes a village to make the local idiot into a knowledgeable resident.â€?
Amen. We are here to learn from what is offered and to offer what we can.
Nother: “I feel we should error on the side of less change. Many of the blogs I’ve checked out have a forum feel of computer people. ROS is so inviting because it’s so basic. Pick a handle, write your thought, click on submit – beautiful in its simplicity.â€?
Amen.
Plaintext: http://www.radioopensource.org/suggest-a-show-february-2006/#comment-7014
This poses some interesting questions about getting a more “conservative� POV represented. “Is ROS ever likely to attract_more conservative contributors?�
I was hoping from the beginning that ROS would not be intimidated by a perceived liberal bias that public radio and television has been accused of having. Polls do not bear this viewpoint out. Why be defensive? There is no question that Chris is liberal but he strives to understand consider and present the opposing viewpoints. I want to see/hear open consideration and articulate presentation. Bill Moyers was an excellent example in this area.
Plaintext: â€?It’s all good.â€?
Amen.
CCM: “Though I’m unable to describe the contours of my mind, I have found that inquiry has led me to “rediscover fire” at times and “reinvent the wheel” at others. These were extremely valuable experiences for me. On one hand the action is the important aspect, not the result. On another hand, the realization that I am often trudging along a very old and worn path (apologies to Eudora Welty) have led me to something akin to comfort and contentment. With rediscovery and reinvention, I come to a deeper awareness of both freedom and responsibility. I am unable and unwilling to deprive myself, nor others, of having this joy. In it’s strange paradoxical way this is a moment that allows for the possiblity of full connection across time and space with “the other” while fully actualizing myself as an individual. Something this powerful is to be cherised, not dismissed. I fully encourage anyone to allow themselves this valuable space within for learning. But to each their own devices.
This is not to dismiss listening. Listening is an extremely important learning device. This is why I enjoy ROS. There can be opportunities for helpfulness to shephard and mentor those coming up to speed. It is probably unavoidable, but there is a groundhog day aspect to some of this; I am unable to fully reduce ‘this’ to a more descriptive term. But I think ‘this’ is related to the grand ‘that’. Perhaps, this is not the first discussion among human beings to seek an understanding about how to structure their discourse. Any guidance is welcome’d by me, but not to the detriment of enjoying inquiry. In the spirit of courtesy, respect, and effectiveness, I will limit and reduce my public meanderings. I have already taken up an unreasonable allotment. In this regard, I will improve.â€?
Peggysue: “On the other hand I do agree with nother that it is nice to be valued (or reviled) for your thoughts alone without the cumbersome baggage of the visual impression and all the stereotyping that can go along with that. I don’t think of my fellow posters as disembodied word generators and would be curious to see you all but also respect your privacy enough to [not} feel that seeing you is not the most important thing. It is the exchange of ideas I value most.â€?
Peggysue �The thoughtfulness that has gone into the posts on this thread is I think a good illustration of why not to have word limits
Raymond: “I completely agree with JonGarfunkel who pointed out that lengthy and frequent posts affect the resulting discussion, that there are trade-offs. One trade-off I have often seen in group discussions involves those using many words with little meaning crowding out those using few but meaningful words. And I think this crowding out happens here.�
“The situation results, in my mind, because contributors place different values on blog space. Some view it as an unlimited, costless resource. Unlimited because, after all, actual space is largely unlimited. And costless because these contributors have considerable time to blog. Others view blog space as a limited, costly resource. Limited because it can be hard to find the dipole needle in the hay stack debris cloud. And costly because these contributors have little time to blog.�
“So I think some limit on contributions serves to put a common value on blog space by making blog space a scarce resource: something to be used with care.�
Amen, but I disagree with the ensuing proposal of a monthly word limit UNTIL that becomes obviously and unavoidably necessary.
Allison: “when you present yourself as something that you are not, there is a disingenuousness that bleeds into the integrity of everything. You are not speaking truth. You may have excuses – “I didn’t think you’d value my ideas if you knew” – but it is still not the truth. The power of it is diminished by this. Even if I don’t know the deception, the power is inherently diminished.â€?
True that is why one cannot get away with this kind of thing for long. I don’t think this is an issue here. Maybe I am wrong about that.
I’d like to propose a regular forum meeting/thread- perhaps once every three or 6 months to see how things are going and what needs to be changed.
March 19th, 2006 at 9:30 pm
Hey gang,
I wonder, as I ponder the questions/responses, if we could focus on Brendan’s last bullet point:
“And why is the community doing this? Can we collaborate to write a manifesto of sorts, an agreement on what the goals of the Open Source community are?”
Once we answer the “why”, it will inform how we feel about the other questions.
The most I’ve seen so far is that we’re all here for intellectual discussion. Is that it?
And, Brendan, what were you and Chris and the rest of ROS envisioning?
As with any group activity, it makes sense to flush out the mission, then a vision and then the how to’s. Anybody want to get this part of the exploration going?
March 19th, 2006 at 10:04 pm
Great suggestion allison.
I’m here:
i) to further my knowledge: by asking questions and suggesting show topics
ii) to learn what other people are thinking about issues around the globe and at home that affect us directly and indirectly.
iii) to engage interactively in more thoughtful intellectual (mostly) discussions: to express my ideas and have them challenged
iv) for enjoyment: to be wowed, to smile, to laugh and (sometimes) to cry.
I’m not here:
i) to advance a cause, though I do propose, naturally, certain ways of looking at the world.
ii) to engage in chit chat or for bellicos and disparaging exchange.
iii) to meet new friends, though if that happens as an outcome of participation in this cyber community I welcome it.
iv) for entertainment, in a kind of pop-culture sense of the word.
v) for a top down reception of information.
I will keep thinking about it…
March 20th, 2006 at 1:40 am
I’m here for the lure of listening in on and possibly carefully conversing with a hand-picked set of experts who engaged in a dialogue on some of the most important questions of these times, led by a master interviewer. I really miss the participation of the ‘experts’ in the blog.
March 20th, 2006 at 2:07 am
ROS seems to facilitate two differing styles of discourse at once, and symbiotically. The two are: a) inquiry, and b) pontificating.
Obviously, ‘a’ is the more laudable. Less obviously, pontificating (which I do more than my fair share of) is a method of provoking the sorts of reaction that facilitate inquiry and enlightenment.
It’s also vexing as hell.
Nevertheless, it seems to me that both ends of this continuum ought to be understood so that we can enquire with less pontification, and yet provocatively opine with a minimum of vexatious arrogance. (Yes, I’m talkin’ ‘bout myself!)
Aside from this, I essentially throw my hat into the ring already drawn on the sand by sidewalker and babu.
But no word or posting limits, please.
More explicitly: No censorship of any kind — apart from the predicates of common decency and the politesse of mutual respect.
March 20th, 2006 at 3:09 am
I like allison’s idea. I’ll try to follow sidewalker’s awesome format. Some will overlap, some is a restatement, but I think that is acceptable. I hope this helps…
Why I come to ROS:
(*) To listen to Christopher Lydon and his guests. Chris, the guests, and the ROS team do excellent work.
(*) To hear about unusual topics occasionally. Examples: Samba School, Convergence, John Updike, and Michael Brown: Three Act Play.
(*) To listen to and read discourse about topics (often intractable) which defy convenient description, form, and solution. Foreign policy, Economics, Religion, Race relations, etc. are low hanging fruit. Outsourced topics are great too.
(*) To participate with others in the improvisational integration between the forum and the show and the forum discussions.
(*) To maintain my amateur status, in all its glory and shortcomings, while enjoying the pros doing their radio/web chi.
(*) To have fun. This would be as tedious to define as something like ‘art’, ‘happiness’, ‘the meaning of life’. However, no fun = funless and blandful. :^)
What I’m *not* seeking here at ROS:
(*) To hear host and guests bludgeon each other or their audience. The respectful boundaries are eroding in many other venues. ROS has done well in this respect without losing passion and excitement.
(*) To hear from a constant stream of the usual MSM suspects or pundit class opinion makers. A good balance is struck between the orthodox pundits and unusual suspects.
(*) To change hearts and minds, though I try to keep my eyes, ears, and brain open. It’s not a perfect science. Minds often change slowly, even glacially.
(*) To compete.
(*) To create a false sense of territory petit and a desire to hold it. Nikos made an excellent point about this above.
(*) To do small talk. Only because of the clogging factor. I very much enjoy IRL friendly exchanges of pleasantries and small talk. Perhaps a solution can open this up a little.
(*) To antagonize or be antagonized. There are many other venues.
(*) To supress or be supressed.
(*) To seek validation on my comments. Not necessary, but always welcome. So are constructive critiques.
(*) To find perfection or anything remotely so. As a person who loves the mistakes, the blemishes, the rehearsals, the false starts, the dead-end, the do-over/retry, etc. this wouldn’t make any sense.
March 20th, 2006 at 8:45 am
I have used up my self alloted space here but this is just to say all the above is well stated and I agree with most if not all of it. My interest initially was to support Chris Lydon’s return to radio. The effort has attracted such good minds and good dialogue. It’s great to be able to have input but I agree about using restraint and not seeking to hold territory. I do confess to wanting at times to change a mind too much and having some of the other flaws CCM has listed in “not seeking”. I’ll be working on it. Making a point can become or be pontificating. That’s hard.
March 22nd, 2006 at 1:11 am
To paraphrase and second peggysue: Don’t overwrite and eschew superfluage.
March 22nd, 2006 at 2:40 am
The Puget Sound Chapter of the Guttersnipe Coalition (that’s a rabble of ROS bloggers) is planning a get-together on May 7th in Anacortes.
See the ‘Convergences’ thread for details — and let us know if you’re thinking about joining the meet’n'greet!