1000 characters left?
More like 951, am I right?
VivoDePyre joined on Apr 24th, 2010, since that has made 155 posts that are still accessible today, 14 of which are threads. Helping shape the community, VivoDePyre has given 188 upvotes, and was last online on Apr 16th, 2014.
Wow, this thread sure did become a clusterfuck. This kind of stuff is one of the main reasons I don't invite friends to this forum. Our old, foundational members can't talk about meta anything with becoming a shit storm. Every time I come back from a break, I hear "Oh yeah, there was a shit storm about x between y and z". It gets tiring to see staff last a few months, ownership change, bashing threads, etc.
For the record, @Kirn, I think your tone is terrible. It's bad to attack an argument specifically for it's tone, but that tone is part of another issue for another day. That out of the way, I agree with the sentiment that this didn't start in the miserable place it ended up. It was initially a prompt to create more intelligent and robust content. We've had incredibly similar threads in the past, but not one recently. All that is well.
I come back a little ways later and it's the internet equivalent of the great Chicago fire. Do you all seriously hate each other that much? It's ad hominem out the ass in here. We have a serious issue to consider, the revitalization of CL. We need to talk about how the site can improve, how we should treat our userbases (old and new), and how we can increase traffic/activity. If you all can't set aside differences long enough to just talk about that, I don't think CL needs to be revived. If we seriously cannot have a calm rational discussion, this forum should die off and we should all go our separate ways. I know I'll leave if it keeps up. I know that this has been a simmering hate-fest for the past half year easily.
I'm sorry to treat you all like children, I understand I'm being very disrespectful. All of you contributing to the fight right now, defending yourself or going on the offensive, are acting like petty children. While I have no authority over you all, nor have I been active enough to act like I have a significant stake in the place, I think it needs to be said.
Now, let's get back on topic. There seems to be some mention of new users and their place in the CL ecosystem. How forgiving should we be of new users? How should we punish new users who break rules/guidelines? If users don't meet the minimum criteria for being "good users", how do we treat them? As for issues of activity, can you all think of anyway to encourage activity? Maybe some kind of mundane point system would work. People seem to love increasing numbers that do nothing (gamerscore, trophies, achievements, etc).
Now for fuck's sake, discuss.
Alright, fine. I'll stand down. It's a pet peeve of mine, but it really isn't worth an argument. Sorry to bother y'all.
@Cenica One, no need to be patronizing and call me a kid. I'd appreciate if you not do that. Two, I have an issue with somebody calling this Psychology. It implies that this is indeed some kind of empirically valid measure of personality. If it was "Fun personality quiz: Colors", I wouldn't gripe. Psychology is a science, and the opening post tries to claim that this test is part of it.
I'm actually moderately familiar with Lûscher's work, we covered him briefly in a personality course I took. While the test does show moderate levels of consistency and precision, there is little proof of validity. It falls victim easily to the Barnum Effect (statements regarding a person are vague enough that any person can see relation to themselves). Luscher himself didn't even provide validity statistics to support his argument. It wasn't until later when some researchers tried it and found some mild results that a person could even consider it a worthwhile personality measure. I could talk a person's ear off as to why this test is bad.
That being said, it's not as bad as your average facebook quiz. It's only bad when compared to actual science.
I agree with your post and I think it boils down to one big element. CL is sorta dead. Some of us die hard regulars hang around, but very few of us. A few dedicated people doesn't make a community. I think your writing contest was a great idea. I think the deadlines and what not were fair. However, I hate writing narrative and only signed up because I figured I needed to. Not a lot of a good I did anyways, I didn't turn in anything and completely forgot to critique due to final papers.
I digress. The point is, our community is too inactive to warrant starting any projects. There is a bare minimum number of people needed to have an active discussion thread, and we can just barely meet that. We need to have fresh blood flowing into the site some how before we can be more involved content. I think the priorities should look something a bit like this:
*Stabilize staff applications *Polish site content to look more coherent (inviting welcome banner, clean up some junk threads, etc) *Start/plan a few projects and discussions that can be easily joined into *Begin recruiting people from other discussion groups (While abiding by said group rules!) *Accept the colorless is going to change because the current dynamic is determined the current group. *Work on improving content and discussion
I think it's important that, by the time we start recruiting again, we show our capacity for higher thought. However, subdividing our tiny community may be a bad idea. We can start asking users to improve their content after we have enough users to support content improvement. Until then, we hang tight and wait for the new staff to be ushered in.
It's actually not too hard to keep the conversation up. The hard part is getting people to take 1-2 hours out of their week to watch and discuss. Once people get into the habit of it, it's a lot easier. I'm currently watching a good 6-10 hours of film each and another 5-6 discussing it every week in class. I know everybody has the potential to talk and discuss, just need to form habits for it.
I'm endless impressed at your ability to say nice things while still feeling incredibly back handed about the whole thing, @Kirn. Still, I do love me some medium-heavy discussion topics. They are harder to make though than simply wishing them into existence. One can put a ton of work into a post and only get a response or two. Posting reviews are easier (which DC and occasionally myself) than starting discussions.
That being said, I do have a suggestion. Structure a weekly discussion similar to a book club. Watch x movie. Play to a point in a game. Watch x episodes of an anime Read this many chapters. I've seen it work for /r/Anime and /r/Trueanime. My film classes work on similar discussion structure. It works for book clubs obviously. \
By having the same, bite-size source to work from, everybody can easily join in. The weekly aspect is habit forming, builds some traffic back up for the site, and would fit into most schedules at least somewhere. Other mediums may change this time, video games may want a guaranteed month of discussion before folks buy. Broken into week segments probably (like a book club), but nothing is mandated.
The important thing is we would need people to run said "clubs". Someone willing to pull together potential topics, hold polls to decide what to watch/read/listen, monitor discussion occasionally, so on so forth. Not much more than maybe an hours work each week, but it'd need to be consistent. It'd be miserably unorganized to have multiple people running the same clubs parallel, there needs to be clearly division and leadership.
— n a discipline or approach that pretends to be or has a close resemblance to science
Example: This fucking thread.
@Teru, Yes please. Just watched it recently, none of my friends get the appeal. Going to go with a newer classic today, a la GaoGaiGar.
Sad that I couldn't make it in on time, but thank you DC for all the effort put into this contest. Also to the participants for actually submitting something! Glad to see contests finished and people follow through.