Who wants what groups?

@Robert Gentel,

So, you're basically glomming a bunch of additional **** on to A2K here in order to increase membership and the number of people who visit places you host, but it doesn't really add any additional advantage to those here, and could possibly detract from conversation which is currently going on at the main site.

And you wonder why people aren't going gaga over the idea? I don't understand what benefit this is supposed to bring any user here. The same trolls who disrupt our threads now, will be just disrupting them in the new 'groups.' The same people who could be talking about topics now will be talking about them then.

Perhaps you could explain the benefits in greater detail? By which I mean to the current user base.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

So if I may rephrase your original question....

"Who wants to manage a private, hosted forum?"

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

does A2K even need to know about them?

This is probably not the best time to ask me about that, but I'll put it this way: I completely regret posting this particular thread. I don't think anyone in this thread was my target audience.

I am getting feedback about the very concept of groups that I did not solicit and that doesn't make sense at this stage (groups have been part of our plan for years and have a lot of work already put into it, they aren't a suggestion up for discussion at this time except which ones will exist to start) and from people who base the negativity on assumptions that are false.

I wanted the folks who have asked for the groups and been told to wait to come forward but this predictably became a discussion about group F.U.D. instead and I probably shouldn't have bothered.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Perhaps you could explain the benefits in greater detail? By which I mean to the current user base.

If I understand correctly, there is no benefit to the user base. There is also no detriment to the user base.

Robert is asking for volunteers to test a new offering, which is separate from, but somewhat related to, the main A2K site.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Perhaps you could explain the benefits in greater detail? By which I mean to the current user base.

If I understand correctly, there is no benefit to the user base. There is also no detriment to the user base.

Robert is asking for volunteers to test a new offering, which is separate from, but somewhat related to, the main A2K site.

Thanks, I think I can speak for many here when I say that this was not initially clear.

Am I right in assuming, I wonder, that the purpose of this is to simply drive more and more traffic to the A2K domain? I don't have a problem with that - ain't my site - but why even engage the current user base, when what you are doing doesn't do **** for them at all? Makes no sense.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

but, but, but...........if okie and ican go off and have their own masturbatory republican love forum and deny me membership, how am i gonna mock them Crying or Very sad

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

So, you're basically glomming a bunch of additional **** on to A2K here in order to increase membership and the number of people who visit places you host, but it doesn't really add any additional advantage to those here, and could possibly detract from conversation which is currently going on at the main site.

That's certainly one negative way to spin it, but no that is not my primary motivation or my secondary one. Network effects are simple strategic efficiencies of scale that in many cases benefit all (e.g. the initial groups mostly would not exist if they could not leverage this economy of scale).

Quote:

Perhaps you could explain the benefits in greater detail? By which I mean to the current user base.

I'll pass. I lack the patience to deal with it and think you've been a bit of a dick about it anyway. If you don't understand or like it that is something I'll just have to learn to live with.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Am I right in assuming, I wonder, that the purpose of this is to simply drive more and more traffic to the A2K domain?

No, but you didn't let that stop you, did you?

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Am I right in assuming, I wonder, that the purpose of this is to simply drive more and more traffic to the A2K domain?

No, but you didn't let that stop you did you?

From speculating? Why shouldn't I speculate?

Can you tell us what the purpose of these groups IS, then? Is it an added benefit of some sort to any of the current users? Does it benefit A2K in some way? Is it just a concept that you think is neat?

At some point you should consider the fact that when so many people here have a hard time understanding what you are trying to describe/roll out, that maybe the problem doesn't lie with, yaknow, everybody else.

I find the tendency you have to get pissy when others don't agree with you to be your most endearing feature, RG. By far.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

So if I may rephrase your original question....

"Who wants to manage a private, hosted forum?"

That works, but it's also not necessarily private. Maybe discrete is the right word.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

From speculating? Why shouldn't I speculate?

You probably don't like negative speculation about you that is based on false assumptions, but if you don't get why you shouldn't do that to others that is yet another thing I lack the patience to explain to you today.

Quote:

I find the tendency you have to get pissy when others don't agree with you to be your most endearing feature, RG. By far.

I don't mind disagreement, I have little patience, however, for stupidity. And I see this as a healthy bit of stupidity (starting on my part).

I made a simple request for people who want forums to direct their requests for them to the helpdesk and predictably got a discussion about whether or not I should have made the feature or even had the temerity to "enagage" the forum about it. The disagreement doesn't bother me, the sheer stupidity frustrates the **** out me though.

Nobody bothered to check their assumptions before giving a bunch of unsolicited feedback that I really can't use right now (what do you guys want? For me to stop making the thing you imagine I am making? Ok, done, I'm not making that) and it was stupid for me to start this thread, that was the predictable consequence.

1 Reply

You're awfully touchy . . . how was Cyclo's speculation negative about you?

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
From speculating? Why shouldn't I speculate?

You probably don't like negative speculation about you that is based on false assumptions, but if you don't get why you shouldn't do that to others that is yet another thing I lack the patience to explain to you today.

Generally when I don't want people speculating about either me or something I'm doing, I refrain from posting threads inviting discussion about them and then failing to explain even the most basic points of what I intend to do in any real depth.

Blaming the ensuing discussion on 'insecurity' is a little, yeah. Ridiculous.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Blaming the ensuing discussion on 'insecurity' is a little, yeah. Ridiculous.

I do think that the F.U.D. about being wanted in groups or not, being able to see them or not and all is largely motivated by typical human acceptance insecurity. Not necessarily the entire discussion but that particular element of it.

But yes, starting the thread was stupid. I should have known that a request about who wants a group would have turned into a forum to express random reservations about groups.

2 Replies

i welcome any and all negative speculation about me and my motives

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Blaming the ensuing discussion on 'insecurity' is a little, yeah. Ridiculous.

I do think that the F.U.D. about being wanted in groups or not, being able to see them or not and all is largely motivated by typical human acceptance insecurity. Not necessarily the entire discussion but that particular element of it.

You could have prevented ALL of it by actually providing that information in the first place, rather than leaving others to speculate about it. But you didn't, and then you blame others for speculating? C'mon.

It's also fair to say that people have had various experiences with other discussion boards which have groups, and want to discuss their experiences, both positive and negative, that happen with them.

Look, I don't want to brow-beat you, I see that you edited your last post to admit that it was a stupid thing to start this thread at all, and that's the basic point I was getting at. If you want to make changes to A2K, whether any of it benefits any of us or not, it isn't as if we have any say in the matter at all, but if you don't want feedback - possibly negative feedback - don't bring up changes with the group, as if you do want feedback. It just confuses us insecure morons.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

I always knew you was one a them . . . and that ain't no speculation, Buddy.

0 Replies

ummmmm, what's a F.U.D

2 Replies

@djjd62,

farmers ugly daughter.

1 Reply

I'd like to host a test group called "How to Use A2K" that will serve as a tutorial and resource for A2K members.

1 Reply

Who wants what groups?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know