Who wants what groups?

I [heart] chai2

Why do you have to change things. I like A2K just as it is. Robert said he was going to add more groups. YOu mean like PhilForum was added? I saw the movie "The Social Network." yesterday. Didn't understand that either.

There are instances where a group would be a good idea, as stated by Robert. I would like to have a group for alternative healing, for instance. I believe there are readers of the lurking variety on such threads, because they feel intimidated and won't post as it is now.

and then there's the whole, would i really want to join a group that would have someone like me as a member

I think we have had many engage in a2k by entering on an idiosyncratic topic and looking around..

Damn, I agree with Roger.

I was waiting for Twain.
I have my idiotic forays. Am I of lesser value? Well, yeah to some. But there are remedies, like the various ways to ignore, including scrolling.

I can see that.

So I get being able to have groups as I think Robert was speaking of.

It's a push pull, as I'm mostly against them, can see being for some of them.

Newcomers may love the choices. Which would change the whole place away from community. Community is not clique. I think community is viability.

Well, not that community stays the same, but that it is a gathering that people can be associated with, connect to, even while arguing with.

I got the impression you are HOT!

I also want to see a group for original writing. Not too many members feel their work is appreciated enough to post very much of it. We would offer up paeans of praise should such a group materialize.

We already have a group for that.


An accessible group.

Hmmmm...quite often lately dj, I find you've said something that I agree with!!!

I think I'll go and put my head in a bucket now!

Well, I want an inaccessable group. One that nobody can find or join.

I'm not sure that I properly understand how the proposed groups would work, exactly. Or why they might be desirable, even. But speaking from my own A2K posting & reading activities, I don't feel the need for defined groups. I've been perfectly happy to respond to threads which interest me (across the A2K spectrum) & have instigated threads across a variety of my own interests, too. I like the "general-ness" here. I like the idea of a big community, in which members can opt in and out of discussions of interest at any particular time as it suits them.

I would like a button at the top, like - popular - my friends - my topics - but it would be - special groups -, where those entries could be looked over at a glance, jut like everything else.

I just tagged this topic as Philosophy. Not that Philo forum people specifically need such groups, but this is in part due to their requests and I think they are more likely to get what the groups are supposed to be.

Anyway, my understanding is, groups are intended to be semi-isolated (anyone can read, but only members can post) enclaves for various forms of expression. Creative writing is a really perfect example (thanks, Edgar!), but so are riddles, Lovatts, water softening and ESL, as these are the kinds of topics that are perfectly legit and wonderful but people vote them down all the time in order to clear their screens.

I have access to a sorted list of the least popular threads and the non-spammy ones routinely fall under the categories of riddles, Lovatts, water softening and ESL, which may make them harder for newbies to find. Separating those topic types out would make it easier for newbies to spot what they wanted and for non-interested folk to stay away without having to vote them down, all at the same time.

If I have misstated this, I'm sure Robert will come along some time to correct me.

I honestly don't believe that this would be in the interests or to the benefit of the A2K community as a whole.
What particular interest groups here believe this would be a good thing for them? (Those with no interest in being part of the whole community?)
Who would find it satisfying to be able to read, but not be able to contribute to any particular thread?
I don't get why this idea is being suggested.

I still don't totally get groups, but what I take from them so far is that they're not primarily a corralling sort of thing, but a way for members to have more control over their own discussions.

For example -- the Philforum people didn't like A2K's default moderation policies, and so Robert said, OK, I'll make a group for you that you guys can moderate the way you want it to be moderated.

I think that you, msolga, have also expressed some concerns with A2K's moderation policies (in terms of how much incivility is considered minimally acceptable). So you could (if you wanted) start something like an "Environmental Discussions" group, where you could have a bit more control over what happens in the discussion (and I'm not clear exactly how much, but I think you could at least leave out people you find merely disruptive).

another convert

How would a person know if they were included or excluded from any particular group?