Posted by Minnie-Haha on May 31, 2005, at 12:59:51
In reply to Re: my two cents » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on May 31, 2005, at 9:57:32
> > Most people who are against small boards already feel included on the main Babble boards. They are worried about feeling excluded from the small Babble boards.
>
> I'm not "worried" about feeling excluded, as I don't want to be included in the first place. To me (remember, this is just *to me*) being excluded from a small group would be much like being excluded from a Mexican prison.I think Alex made some good points in the post you're referring to. I could see how some might disagree with the assumption that most people who are against small boards are worried about feeling excluded from smaller Babble boards, but I think there's is truth behind the argument that most people who are against small boards already feel included in the existing, larger Babble boards.
I also don't know if anyone else feels this way, but I felt offended by the notion that being included in a smaller group would be like being in a "Mexican prison" (by which I guess you mean a completely distasteful place by ALL accounts, since no healthy, happy person wants to be in any prison). This is the kind of attitude I ran into when I started my Babble women’s group and it baffled me that such emotion was directed toward the idea of such a group.
> > So one way to see it is to focus on those who will feel excluded if there are small boards. But another way to see it is to focus on those who do feel excluded currently on the main boards.
>
> There is a difference here, you know. On the current boards no one is *physically* excluded.
> Where, on the small boards there *would be* a physical exclusion. period.
>
> One is fact, the other is perception.It is exactly perception, even the idea that Psycho-Babble is infinitely inclusive. It is a support and education resource for the mentally ill. You have to register to participate fully, though non-members can listen in all they want (if they have access to the Internet). And I doubt that the system Bob uses could handle it if every person on the planet tried to register, so actually there are physical limits here too.
I see the difference as how some people might feel at a large convention. Perhaps when the group/convention started out, it was much smaller. In the beginning, the group was small enough for the members to get to know each other pretty well. That doesn’t mean they all like each other, but when they communicate, they’ve got that foundation. And they get to know new members as they join in. And this might work pretty well while the group measured in the dozens. But once it hits hundreds or thousands – well, there are some people who would walk into that convention hall and turn right around and walk back out. And there would be some in that convention hall (some old-timers and some newbies too) who would eventually be overwhelmed by the size of it all too. They’d look for a smaller room to meet in. And that room would only accommodate so many people. But as some wandered out, others would be welcome to wander in. I don’t see it as uncivil that some might want to meet in a smaller group, unless they get selective about who can come in.
> > But what about the people who don't feel included on the main Babble boards? They may feel included on the small Babble boards.
>
> Is this true? I had a hard time at first, believe me. For a while I felt ignored. Then, by accident of timing, I was taken to be a troll. If the option of small boards had been there I might have joined one – and then I would have quit trying on the other boards.
>
> Sure I would have felt included more at first. But in the long run it would have paled in comparison to what I have now.Does one have to suffer being ignored and misunderstood before becoming a bona fide member of the group? And isn't it possible that after being a member of a smaller board, some might feel more courageous about posting on larger ones?
> So - to sum it up - I don't "resent" the idea of small boards, I wouldn't feel "excluded" or "envious" or any of those other things. I just don't like them on principle, and I don't (personally) think they would be good for babble.
But are they necessarily *bad* for Babble? To me, it seems trying them out would be no worse than all the discord that's surrounding the debate. People have threatened to leave and predicted that Babble will die, or never be the same, if smaller groups (change) are “allowed” to happen. But change, IMO, is inevitable, especially when a group has grown to the size of this one. (The group HAS changed.) People will continue to feel excluded and misunderstood (like you and I and many others have) regardless of the structure. The key thing is getting the rules into place to minimize that as much as possible, IMO.
poster:Minnie-Haha
thread:500533
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050530/msgs/505788.html