I, TKO and others are attempting to contribute to the success of a2k...
...and are shut out by creators who can't see beyond their egos
Regular users will develop a sense of community ownership. As a whole, their content contributions probably outweigh yours. This belief manifests itself in several ways. It can produce a high regard for the status quo, with some users expressing an almost moral outrage when facing community changes. These changes may be as minor as adding a new feature to the Web site or broadening the community's focus.
Another phenomenon is users taking on community responsibilities. Slashdot's moderation and meta-moderation systems use this to apply community standards to user-created content. Perl Monks and Everything 2 treat it slightly differently, with a community-led editorial focus. As each site has grown, relying on the site owners and maintainers would have been a bottleneck. Some communities even resolve disputes and mete out punishments judged by a group of community leaders. Moderators of mailing lists and newsgroups often use this approach.
The responsibilities may also be individually-perceived and not explicit. For example, the Perl Monks Statistical Page is a volunteer effort not directly connected to the main site -- a subcommunity of sorts. Community members saw a need and filled it themselves. Volunteers also collate helpful links for new Perl Monks, though a hand-picked group maintains a FAQ.
Besides letting community leaders and members perform administrative work (content production, content moderation, software development, content rating, the donation of hardware or bandwidth fees), don't forget that the community has a stake in its own future. Even if you pay for everything out of your pocket, your work is wasted without users.
did you ever read the lit on community design?
Quote:Regular users will develop a sense of community ownership. As a whole, their content contributions probably outweigh yours. This belief manifests itself in several ways. It can produce a high regard for the status quo, with some users expressing an almost moral outrage when facing community changes. These changes may be as minor as adding a new feature to the Web site or broadening the community's focus.
RG - I'm calling your bluff.
You said the solution is to "agree to disagree and move on," but I think you just want the last word.
I have not overstated my opinion. I've spoken for myself and my experience. You seem to acknowledge that my preference some from familiarity, yet you assert my opinion originates in an "impression."
Which is it? Am I an observer of the site, or am I interacting with it actively?
You don't agree to disagree. Your annoyance with my line of questions and concerns with receive the same attention you give them. If I'm expected to be compassionate or patient with your hurdles, I expect the same compassion /patience with hearing my concerns.
I can think of one thing I demand, and that is when members are being harassed that some action or plan is in place by the Mods.
"Mods" is still short for "Moderator" isn't it? Kind of a meaningless title otherwise.
As for site ergonomics/function...
Tell me what it is that I demand?
Your ego is flirting with ethical boundaries. You are allowing personal feelings to manifest into some statements to users which could be considered inappropriate.
Diest TKO wrote:Your ego is flirting with ethical boundaries. You are allowing personal feelings to manifest into some statements to users which could be considered inappropriate.
Nonsense, I have every right to express my personal feelings of annoyance as well. This isn't a one way street where you have the right to criticize and I don't.
For how much you criticize you sure have think skin when any criticism comes your way.
You're the bus driver. You signed up. It is a one way street. The site ultimately goes in the direction you choose. Your opinion comes with a greater responsibility than any other opinion here RG.
You're criticism is just personal character assaults at this point...
Your contempt is unwarranted and I think as a leader your supposed to be setting a high community standard here, not acting defensive about the choices you've made for the site in defense of your ego. Thick skin, I've got in plenty.
The point you're missing RG is that you're not offering any criticism. You're only insulting me.
You claimed you wanted to "agree to disagree, and then move on."
I offered you that point to exit with grace but your oneupmanship ego is getting the better of you. The leader of a community sets the bar.
You advice when it came time to deal with harassing trolls was to look away and ignore, essentially turn the other cheek. I find it funny that you can ask me to walk away from someone insulting my existence, but have no ability to "move on" yourself from someone like myself which has offered you several ways out without even having to turn your cheek.
You can't seem to accept criticism, and are trying to make this a referendum on me, a user.
The conversation was pretty civil, until you kicked in the door with your "armchair quarterbacks" statement. You derailed the thread comrade. Congrats.