![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
davywavyPosted as an answer to one of Steve Claptons posts, but repeated here.
I think UKG has become of decreasing use and worth to the society as we have grown. It is handy as an annoucement board for games and society business, but I'd say that the quality of general debate has declined as the cam has grown, to the extent where it is now of very little worth to read long threads. Too many cooks spoiling the broth and all that. I'd say it's incorrect to use it as a gauge as to the feelings of the membership, as not only are most of the membership not on it, but most of the membership (even the ones who are on it) *don't care*.
Very often, it is the same people - perhaps a dozen or so - venting at one another and trying to score points. Perhaps the greatest use of UKG is to judging the mood of the society is that it gives a fairly accurate impression of what the 10% at the extreme end of any argument are thinking, and that most people are somewhere in between, clustering round the 'couldn't give a toss' pole somewhere in the middle.
To find out what people are thinking, I've always gone with Napoleon: "If you want an argument, get a group. If you want to know what people think, ask them as individuals." He was right.
I think UKG has become of decreasing use and worth to the society as we have grown. It is handy as an annoucement board for games and society business, but I'd say that the quality of general debate has declined as the cam has grown, to the extent where it is now of very little worth to read long threads. Too many cooks spoiling the broth and all that. I'd say it's incorrect to use it as a gauge as to the feelings of the membership, as not only are most of the membership not on it, but most of the membership (even the ones who are on it) *don't care*.
Very often, it is the same people - perhaps a dozen or so - venting at one another and trying to score points. Perhaps the greatest use of UKG is to judging the mood of the society is that it gives a fairly accurate impression of what the 10% at the extreme end of any argument are thinking, and that most people are somewhere in between, clustering round the 'couldn't give a toss' pole somewhere in the middle.
To find out what people are thinking, I've always gone with Napoleon: "If you want an argument, get a group. If you want to know what people think, ask them as individuals." He was right.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2002-07-31 09:00 am (UTC)That's pretty much why I unsubb'd
no subject
Date: 2002-07-31 12:46 pm (UTC)However, what UK General does is allows those dozen or so people to vent. For the sake of argument, lets assume that some of the problems they have are genuine problems. If people who are already (rightly or wrongly) seen as some kind of 'power cabal' within the society leave the list, they are deliberately placing themselves in a position where they are unable to respond to the concerns of that minority. They are making themselves inaccessible.
All that's going to do is make those people who already feel their concerns won't be addressed unless they shout even more vocal.
I think that would be a pity.
Hmph
Date: 2002-08-01 12:16 am (UTC)Then they can get shrinks, just like everyone else. :)
"Getting yelled at" isn't in our job descriptions.
And if someone has a concern, they can take it through channels. After all, that's why they're there.
Re: Hmph
Date: 2002-08-01 01:26 am (UTC)Like I said elsewhere, my phone number, as NC, was freely available to all members.
An officer who is not easily available to any member to whom they are responsible is not doing their officerial job properly. Far too often the channels are a handy thing to hide behind for officers who don't want that degree oof access.
I tried to set a precedent that officers should be available. Sadly, few seem to have taken the hint.
Re: Hmph
Date: 2002-08-01 02:03 am (UTC)I am available. For discussion. Not for being ranted at.
Re: Hmph
Date: 2002-08-01 05:52 am (UTC)I do believe a public channel for debate is useful. I also believe it's more useful if representatives of what is seen as 'the power cabal' make themselves available. A bit like Prime Minister's Question Time (only, as it's under the CoC, more polite). Talking to someone on the phone is a one to one thing. Sometimes the venting on lists only happens when that's failed. Sometimes it happens when it's not so much a 'problem one person has' as a factor people feel should be subject to public debate.
No, the standard of public debate is not high. Do our schools still teach kids how to debate?
The way decisions are taken and announced within the Cam feels very authoritarian. I'm not saying it IS that way. I tend to believe this comes about because many not all, please do NOT read all) of those making the announcements lack the self-confidence and people skills to get the concepts across.
Then, when someone takes objection to the announcement, the person announcing (due to lack of self-confidence, assertiveness skills, whatever) takes it horribly personally. Which may or may not have been intended.
Possibly this is a property of mailing lists, rather than anything specific to the Cam. Still, I am not at all sure what purpose it serves when prominent figures withdraw from a public forum.
Re: Hmph
Date: 2002-08-01 06:14 am (UTC)For the most part, people who have the time to put into the Cam as full-time officers, tend to be people who don't have full-time, responsible jobs. That means either students or people who can't get jobs like that - and usually that means they'll lack the skills.
Re:
Date: 2002-08-01 01:23 am (UTC)I'd reckon I've spent my fair share of time in that power cabal, and I posted my home & mobile phone numbers to UKG several times. Anyone who had serious problems or issues to raise or discuss was welcome to ring me, 24 hours. (I did say that, nigh word for word).
None of the usual suspects (i.e. the stanard venters) did. Ever.
If the issues aren't so serious that they aren't worth a phone call, then they aren't serious.
I tried that, too...
Date: 2002-08-01 02:14 am (UTC)Said "Hey, if you speak for even 10%, I'll be surprised. Let's find out. Anyone who feels that (deleted) speaks for you, feel free to email me at buserc@mindspring.com and I'll tell you the results."
Guess how many people emailed me? None. Go figure. :)
How many of "the usual suspects" who like to cause shit ever contacted my CC when I invited them to? None. Go figure. :)
I don't think I'll ever give out my phone number, but I'll have more business cards at ICC. :)
Re: I tried that, too...
Date: 2002-08-01 04:42 am (UTC)The vast numbers of people who hide behind email depress me, and when they whine that "I don't like the telephone", I tend to feel that if their problem is so piddling they can't put aside a personal reservation for twenty minutes, then they aren't really that serious.
The other side of that is telling people you'll call them at a particular time to discuss their problem. I guarantee that 75% of them will be out when you call, or will refuse to give their phone number.