From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Jun 30 2003 - 16:04:02 BST
Hey David, Sam, Horse, and all
> dmb says:
> I think the idea was just to keep everyone on a single topic. It was about
> staying FOCUSED with the aim being a more careful and thorough
examination.
> Based on the earlier attempt, I'd say limiting the number of posts and
> pre-determining the duration of the topic did nothing to serve that end.
RICK
I think slowing the pace and limiting the posts does help us focus.
Sitting down at the computer after a couple days and checking your MoQ mail
only to find dozens of waiting messages can be quite daunting and
'unfocusing'. You see threads you want to chime in on that have long since
passed the point you wish to discuss. You wind up jumping into the middle
of conversations instead of following them through from the beginning.
Conversations you were participating in have moved on as well or splintered
into several new tangents...etc. Slowing down the pace helps to counter
this effect and increase the focus in contrast to the MD.
Moreover, I think if you can't post as frequently, you'll only post your
better thoughts. That is, knowing we'll only get one chance to chime in
every few days, I think most of us will use that opportunity more wisely.
Unlimited postings just makes it too easy to waste posts, splinter the topic
into tangents and create the kind of intellectual noise that kills focus.
> dmb says:
> Right. And there's no sense ending it after a month if we're still
hammering
> away.
RICK
Agreed. I would still suggest a vote at the end of every month, but
"continue the topic" should always be a candidate in the vote.
DMB
Further, I don't see why the moderator can't be replaced with a sort
> of gentleman's agreement, and that goes for the ladies too, that we all
> agree to remain on topic and focus and we all agree to scold those who
stray
> off the topic or otherwise refuse to co-operate.
RICK
Nice idea, but I'm not sure this would work. I mean if (oh let's say)
Squonk starts scolding you for straying off the topic, would you really
care? I think there would be too much disagreement about what is or isn't
"on topic enough". The final decision has to rest with someone (or a small
panel of someones). Moreover, if the MF has unlimited postings and no
moderator then what exactly distinguishes it from a given thread in the MD
(other than the letters MF appearing in the subject line)?
DMB
> Finally, I'd encourage Sam to go along with putting the focus on LC by
> simply reminding him that he'd be perfectly free to introduce his
Eudaimonic
> thoughts.
RICK
That's what the vote is for, right?
DMB
Surely we will be grappling with the nature of the intellectual
> level as we explore LC, so staying relevant and on topic will be no
problem
> at all. Everyone would enjoy a similar freedom within such a discussion,
no?
RICK
I don't David, that sounds alot like the MD to me. I think the "focus" that
is supposed to separate MF from MD comes from the reasonable enforcement of
a single topic and a slower pace that fosters deeper and more meaningful
consideration of the single topic.
anyone else?
take care
rick
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 30 2003 - 16:07:49 BST