[MD] Changes in 2011

Tue Jan 4 21:37:47 PST 2011

Dan,

you have laid a solid foundation for an interesting forum.  I would have
to put some real thought into it to see if I thought I could come up
with any improvements, perhaps a trial period would be the most
effective method in the end though.  However, I don't know that this
forum, at least not here and now, is the proper one.  I am new of
course, so my opinion comes with this caveat.  Are there a lot of highly
qualified people on the sidelines, sitting out because this is too much
an unruly mob of a forum?  What is the problem you are trying to solve
with your forum?  It seems to me that the rules are geared towards a
situation when the forum would otherwise be too big and unruly.  I
haven't seen this here, in my short stint.

I get the desire for structure, and for commitment, and for
thoroughness, and for preparation, but I also think that the
free-flowing nature, teh ability to broach a topic when it comes up, is
the natural default for a reason.

Dan, I would ask you, what topics would you propose?  How many could you
come up with right now?  And which of those would you say are highly
interesting to you at the moment.  For my part, I have been wondering if
I would stick around very long because I am pretty much tapped.  I had a
few things I wanted to discuss after I read the books, I was stoked to
find this site, I had some pretty worth-while discussions about them,
and I could be done.  Other people come up with interesting things that
get my attention, but this is hard work.  Maybe it is the amount of work
that people see as the problem.  hmmm... that would make some sense.  we
noise makers (I implicate myself only in this) make a bunch of noise,
and we do the work to extract the philosophical nuggets, and that's
okay.  But all the work may be a turn off to some.  I can understand
that.  I can even sympathyze with it.  But I just don't see how shutting
down the noise will help: the noise will dry up, taking the nuggets
along.  Maybe there is a solution as simple as a designation for some
threads as 'highly concentrated'.  There could be some simple rules, but
I think people would respect such a designation.  In fact, if there is a
highly concentrated thread, and we noisemakers want to make noise, we
could confine our noise to a mirror noisy thread.

Anyway, about topics, I think a general brainstorming, and perhaps some
light planning would help elevate the level of discussion - but this is
based on other people being more creative than me.  Like I said, I'm
pretty much tapped.  The one thing I was thinking, Horse and John seem
also to be thinking.  Horse suggested politics.  In case they should be
different, I will say I suggest talking about moral patterns of social
interaction, and what does an evolved intellect have to say about that.

Tim

On Tue, 4 Jan 2011 14:29:44 -0600, "Dan Glover" <daneglover at gmail.com>
said:
> Hello everyone
> 
> This has been tried numerous times, and each time the discussion
> seemed to flounder and die. I'd suggest something a little different:
> 
> 1) Membership limited to:
>        A) 12 members - each member takes one month as moderator
>        B) Invitation only to fill vacancies
>        C) New members approved by 5 member committee
> 
> 2) Members promise to make good faith effort at answering every post
> addressed to them to the best of their abilities.
> 
> 3) If a member fails to post for 30 consecutive days, they are dropped
> from the discussion group.
> 
> 4) Waiting list is established to fill vacancies by recommendations of
> present members. Any member can nominate anyone they wish.
> 
> 5) Last five days of the month, the next moderator picks three topics
> to be discussed, and why they think each will further the discussion.
> 5 member committee approves one by majority vote.
> 
> 6) 5 member committee made up by the next five months and the
> moderators assigned to them. Each month one member drops out and
> another is added. This way every member participates in the committee
> over the course of a year.
> 
> 7) To begin, applications will be accepted outlining why the member
> believes they belongs, and how they can add to the discussion. If
> there are more than 12 members applying, the first 12 members are
> chosen by tenure. Each member is assigned a month by Horse drawing
> names.
> 
> What does everyone think about this?
> 
> Any additions to this list are welcome.
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Dan
> 
> On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Magnus Berg <McMagnus at home.se> wrote:
> > Hi Horse
> >
> > One option could be to relaunch the moderated MoQ Focus list. I'd be
> > interested. Perhaps it doesn't even need to be moderated if we can't get a
> > decent list of moderators (and with decent, I mean quantity, not quality).
> >
> > The noise level on MD is a tad too much for me to muster for very long at a
> > time.
> >
> >        Magnus
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 2011-01-03 19:58, Horse wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Ian
> >>
> >> Happy New Year to you too - and to all the rest of you.
> >>
> >> I'm not making the term Reification taboo any more than I have made the
> >> terms SOM or Intellect or Intellectual or similar terms taboo. They're
> >> just words.
> >> What I am doing though is killing the whole SOM as Intellect debate and
> >> any avenues that lead towards it. Marsha's Reification is, from my point
> >> of view, just another way of expressing that debate.
> >>
> >> Something else that I would like to see emerge in 2011 is a debate about
> >> Politics and the MoQ. This is something that really hasn't occurred here
> >> yet - I think the reasons are obvious - but maybe I will be able to
> >> facilitate this during the coming year.
> >> In case anyone is thinking of jumping in about here, could I please ask
> >> you to hold on for a while (that's a polite request) as I would like to
> >> make sure that the general level of debate is back to it's usual caustic
> >> levels first!
> >>
> >> One thing that I have been putting a lot of thought into recently is how
> >> to balance the right to speak freely with the right to be heard.
> >> It's a tricky one - how do you balance the interests of those that don't
> >> scream and shout the loudest with those that do?
> >> Who upholds the rights of those who wish to have moderate and reasonable
> >> debate?
> >>
> >> Hmmm!
> >>
> >> Horse
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 03/01/2011 09:34, Ian Glendinning wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Horse,
> >>>
> >>> Glad to see MD is not a democracy, but as I've consistently said any
> >>> good democracy has good regulation too. You have my support.
> >>>
> >>> One observation on the edict itself. The term reification cannot
> >>> itself be made taboo (I hope, it has valid uses in our discussion - eg
> >>> misplaced concreteness of named objects), but in this context, as a
> >>> rhetorical cover for SOLAQI etc ... then the point is clear.
> >>>
> >>> Happy new year BTW,
> >>> Ian
> >>
> >
> > Moq_Discuss mailing list
> > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> > Archives:
> > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> > http://moq.org/md/archives.html
> >
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
-- 

  rapsncows at fastmail.fm

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - Or how I learned to stop worrying and
                          love email again