Posted by Dr. Bob on February 9, 2004, at 19:51:37
In reply to Perhaps a poll? » Dr. Bob, posted by judy1 on February 9, 2004, at 12:41:08
> So, if I am understanding right, Dr. Bob, these small towns would be for posters who were "invited" by posters who were already members.
That was my original idea, but it wasn't very popular, so now I'm thinking about limiting how many people could join, but letting people have their pick:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040112/msgs/310834.html
> Why would that not invite members to discuss things that are unkind to nonmembers, with nonmembers not having the opportunity to respond?
>
> FallsAre people only civil because others might respond? Members would need to be civil regarding nonmembers, like people now need to be civil regarding those who are blocked.
----
> > Hmm, what about a board expressly for newcomers?
>
> What's wrong with someone saying "I'm new" on a thread on social and having a couple of other people come back with "I'm new too".Nothing, but some people may not feel comfortable doing that, and even if they do, that may not be enough for them to feel really connected.
> > I'm not sure what happened with 2001. Maybe they didn't really feel like a cohort?
>
> Well there was enough group feeling to carry out an unofficial boycott of the board... I'd like to think it was because we potential members of the class of 2001 were not that far away from being newcomers ourselves.
>
> JaneWell, people would be free to boycott these small town boards, too. But PB 2001 wasn't started until April 2002 and was open for more than a year, and I'm not sure I'd consider people newcomers after 1 to 2 years...
----
> Perhaps I read this incorrectly. I read it as a done deal. Something you now had firm plans to do. Am I incorrect?
Pretty firm. But I wouldn't call it a done deal. And sometimes it takes me time to get to things...
> It would help if I had more clarity as to "why" it is important to you to have these boards. It's my understanding that at any given time, the active posters on Social aren't much more than you are stating.
>
> DinahThe idea is, the open boards are like big cities. The small town boards would be like, well, small towns. Some people prefer small towns to big cities. Those people might feel more comfortable on small town boards.
If Social is small, OK, think of it as more Socials?
----
> perhaps it would help to have a poll
>
> judyThe thing is, I think people who are here now are going to be relatively satisfied with the current system. Otherwise, they wouldn't be here now...
----
Thanks for the feedback, everyone. Change is always hard here.
Some people seem to feel it would be elitist to join a small town board. But someone could do that and still visit the big city boards. And if they didn't feel comfortable in the big city, wouldn't it be nice for them to have an alternative? If they felt supported on a small board, they might even be more likely to try a large one...
People have already formed their own small groups. Is that elitist? I'm more inclined to see it as wanting to connect than wanting to exclude. But what about those who want to connect, but haven't been able to? Why not try something new to help them?
Also, I wouldn't see it as so exclusionary to let others listen in on what's being discussed...
Are people assuming that they'd be rejected? That a mass exodus from the current boards would leave them behind? There are lots of wonderful people here who *like* the current boards. Why would they leave?
Maybe no one would. That would be fine, too. I've certainly been wrong before...
Bob
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:300134
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040112/msgs/311431.html