Re: Should we just turn out the lights?

In article <otk8a3tktrmuu6boebqn0331d1ud0r5qju@xxxxxxx>,
CrashTestDummy <f.j.bradfordREMOVE@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 22:58:25 -0700, HardWorkingDog <harvey@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:

This guy has put a lot of time into thinking about groups like rmd.
And the conclusion he's come to is, "we've met the enemy, and he is
us."

Anyone care to read this and see if we can come up with ways to save
ourselves?

http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html


I may be crazy for reading that diatribe, but I was impressed by
the author's articulate manner and the depth of his knowledge of the
subject. The logic appeared to be mostly without fallacy and, in fact,
quite sensible. Having had a rather generous degree of experience in
this very subject, I often found myself nodding in agreement as I read
Mr. Shirky's words. An interesting study, if somewhat exhaustive.

I don't think I would've used "diatribe" to describe his essay. I see
it more as an apology (i.e. a defense) of the sense of group that
forms on this weird piece of archaic software called usenet. I don't
think I fully considered this as a "group" because it is so anarchic,
but it helped me realize that yes, we are a group.

(Of course, he's also trying, but fairly gently, to push his "social
software" agenda but I think it's obvious enough when he is, and
results from his analysis of internet groups.)

And some of the things that seem irritating at times are really signs
that it IS a group, and it's a group that matters to us members.
Chris's plea for ride reports was a wakeup call for most of us, to
remind us that this is something important that we do, and spend a lot
of time on because it's valuable. I don't want to get all group-huggy
right now, but I think this place IS worthwhile. We saw postings from
some Old-Timers that haven't been heard from in awhile.


But personally, I find the issue to be a conundrum of sorts. Or
perhaps a sort of paradox, if you prefer. Because to fundamentally
alter a forum with regulations is to also effectively diminish a
significant degree of it's original attraction. I believe that to be
unavoidable. And though a constitutionally constructed, or
reconstructed, group may ultimately prove less susceptible to
self-destruction, I suspect it's too early to apply this theoretical
stereotype to all groups. After all, I believe a careful review of
Usenet groups would reveal a great number of thriving groups with
relatively long history and little sign of gross destruction overall.

Oh sure, participants undoubtedly come and go from these groups
more routinely than they might from a constitutionally organized group
with rules, but I offer that that's a substantial part of the original
attraction. The very lack of rules and governing.

I agree with you here. The interesting thing to me was that he
identified some things that we've seen happening in rmd, in it's
evolution of sorts, and that the cause of them is simply part of the
development a group. I hate the fact that I'm getting old, but at the
same time I realize that I'm not getting old for any other reason than
that's what I do.

In the late '90s I was a member of a fairly large group (about 80
persons) with a dedicated group email list. This group was ultimately
torn apart by the very things Mr. Shirky mentions - a lack of rules
and a certain unclarity on the rules that did exist. So I understand
what he's saying and, in many cases, agree with his suggestions for
avoiding destruction. But I do not believe that a public forum such as
RMD needs such molding. While I agree with Mr. Shirky that the lack of
governing can have occasionally unpleasant results, and that the
nature of the forum inevitably changes over time, I believe this is
part of the allure and that the group will, ultimately, survive.
(Though perhaps not in the form that current members at any given time
might prefer).

There exist groups right now that I frequented over a decade ago
and which are, for all intents and purposes, still going strong. And
until such time as groups like those are proved to be unsustainable, I
will respectfully have to disagree with Mr. Shirky on this one count.



I don't think you do :) I don't think he's saying that for a group to
be successful it HAS to HAVE such and such a form. He does propose a
form that more or less is designed to encourage success. But his
design is really only a feeble guess on how to control this messy
place. I don't think I'd like to be part of one his designed software
groups, but a lot of people do. The Pup is a member of one of these.
The only real HAS TO's he presents are in Part 3, the things you HAVE
TO ACCEPT.

To sum up, he says you HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT:
1) technical and social issues can't be separated. Check. There's only
one way to deal with ANY issue here--post.
2) members are different than users. A little trickier. I have seen
this manifest itself in a number of ways, but there is definitely a
core of people who care about rmd, and take care of this place. One
recent example is the Chinese bike guy, although I still have a
suspicion that the whole thing was started by an rmd'er :), it at
least showed that taking care of this place is worthwhile.
3) and there are times when the members (ie, core group) rights trump
individual rights. The hardest one, I think, and yet we can all
imagine situations where one person one vote will produce the wrong
answer.

The other thing that stands out to me is that he refers quite a bit to
a "successful group." What is success, when it comes to rmd?

Perhaps that would be something to continue this discussion with? From
my standpoint, swinging a leg over a dirt bike, and punching away at a
keyboard and clicking "post" are about as successful as I can imagine.

smsfpflsdm sorry, just fell asleep at the keyboard. better stop for
now, g-night.

--
Charles
'99 YZ250
.