Posted by alexandra_k on October 4, 2006, at 17:49:46
In reply to We obviously don't agree » alexandra_k, posted by gardenergirl on October 4, 2006, at 16:39:28
> > I'm wondering why people think that those reasons aren't applicable to restricted chat rooms.
> Which people?The people who thought that those reasons meant that there shouldn't be small boards. I think a fair few people agreed with those reasons. They thought that was precisely why there shouldn't be small boards.
I'm just having trouble seeing how those reasons don't apply to this instance.
It is about... Consistency.
Maybe there are other reasons for not wanting small boards? If so, then perhaps those other reasons don't apply to this case. Or perhaps there aren't other reasons for not wanting small boards in which case... I guess that consistency would require that small boards really aren't that objectionable after all.
This isn't so very much about opposition to restricted chat as it is about support for small boards. I'll admit I was a bit confused / upset about it to start with... I still think that the admin board is a good place to talk about admin. That is precisely what the admin board is for, I would have thought.
Another thing that bears on this issue is Dr Bob asking specifically what the deputies think. Kind of implies that if others say what they think they are butting in to the conversation and he doesn't care what other people think about the issue.
But maybe he will get better with that...
Another thing is his tendency to say 'it was the deputies idea' when it was not. Or 'the deputies decided' when they did not, they just went along with what he had decided already. Or 'we decided that' when he really meand 'I decided that'.
There have been problems with that already and I anticipate still more.
I guess the nature of the admin board is changing... We get to discuss things like what colour chat should be and how many lines we get in Babblemail and the real policy decisions won't really be on admin anymore.
> I suppose that each of us decides how best to get our needs met and direct our energies to that end.
I'm concerned about what is best for the group.
And I'm concerned that Dr Bob is thinking that a certain amount of inclusion / exclusion dynamics are inevitable. But he should be careful not to mistake a failure of imagination for an insight into necessity too. Sure, I understand that sometimes people just will feel what they feel. But my point is that if he considers those dynamics to be 'inevitable' then he won't really consider what he can do to minimise those dynamics. He won't really be concerned with minimising them. Why put energy or effort into what is inevitable? There would be little point.
> I really don't want to feel angry about someone else's issue.
This is an admin issue gg. Or maybe... Only deputies get to deal with the real admin issues now and what non-deputies have to say is... Of little concern.
I'm sorry... I don't understand why anger.
poster:alexandra_k
thread:690598
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060918/msgs/691849.html