Private Subforums

[MacGuffin]

For a while now there has been some discussion of private subforums at INTPc.

These would be small in nature, and the members of the private subforum would decide who had access to them.

Over at MBTI Nebulous (http://mbtinebulous.com/forum/) they have these private subforums. Originally an admin made a user the mod of one subforum and that subforum-mod could decide who to give access to the private subforum.

Recently, however, they changed forum software (on my birthday too! :banana:) to vBulletin, the same software as INTPc. Setting up these private subforums is now more difficult than before (http://mbtinebulous.com/forum/showthread.php?p=7261#post7261).

Plus there are other negatives:
Divisiveness
Concern they would pull posting from the main part of the forums
Generating more conflict

On the postive side:
Allow people a place to post with people they enjoy
Avoid people they don't enjoy
A measure of privacy

We do have them here, like the modbox (http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?MacGuffin) and what this subforum used to be until recently.

From where I sit, it seems like a pain in the ass to set them up, and the negatives outweigh the positives.

But I want to know what you all think.

Should INTPc have them?
Who decides what groups have them?
Who decides who gets access to a certain group?

In short, private subforums - good idea or bad idea?

I am mostly curious to hear from those that I haven't heard from.

[Hustler]

I'd like a subforum in the Local Pub or MBTI Talk where only INTPs can post but where all of our many non-INTP fans can read, sort of like how this subforum has layered access (layered access is a model I like as an alternative to purely private subforums*). My chief argument for INTP-only threads is that INTPs contribute to and derail threads in a way that is far more interesting to me (and probably to other INTPs) than non-INTPs do. Secondary arguments include developing a sense of community and making it easier for INTPs to find other INTPs with whom to connect. Forget for a moment the logistical problems with setting up such a forum, and ask yourselves if you think this would be a decent resource, in theory, for INTPc. It's not exactly a private, INTP-only subforum, but it's a nice compromise between one and doing nothing. Sometimes, the threads there will spark sister threads out in the Local Pub or other forums, and that will be great. Maybe some NF just has to say something about a topic there, and so we can see different perspectives develop in parallel.

If nothing else, it could be an interesting experiment. As for traditional private subforums, I still think the negative outweighs the positive. As discussed in this thread ( http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=14416), I think Dunbar's number represents a very real challenge for an internet community like this, but I don't think private subforums are the answer. I think alternatives like the one I've proposed should be explored instead, and I'd like to hear other alternatives brought up as well.

*First proposed by Park in a post where she put up a graphic to illustrate it, a post that I think has since been deleted, and something I've seen used on other forums, albeit not quite in this way.

[Geoff]

How about making use of the "public groups" to set up groupings for subforum based on, say, type, or country, or clique.

-Geoff

[MacGuffin]

I'd like a subforum in the Local Pub or MBTI Talk where only INTPs can post but where all of our many non-INTP fans can read, sort of like how this subforum has layered access (layered access is a model I like as an alternative to purely private subforums*). My chief argument for INTP-only threads is that INTPs contribute to and derail threads in a way that is far more interesting to me (and probably to other INTPs) than non-INTPs do. Secondary arguments include developing a sense of community and making it easier for INTPs to find other INTPs with whom to connect. Forget for a moment the logistical problems with setting up such a forum, and ask yourselves if you think this would be a decent resource, in theory, for INTPc. It's not exactly a private, INTP-only subforum, but it's a nice compromise between one and doing nothing. Sometimes, the threads there will spark sister threads out in the Local Pub or other forums, and that will be great. Maybe some NF just has to say something about a topic there, and so we can see different perspectives develop in parallel.

If nothing else, it could be an interesting experiment. As for traditional private subforums, I still think the negative outweighs the positive. As discussed in this thread (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=14416), I think Dunbar's number represents a very real challenge for an internet community like this, but I don't think private subforums are the answer. I think alternatives like the one I've proposed should be explored instead, and I'd like to hear other alternatives brought up as well.

*First proposed by Park in a post where she put up a graphic to illustrate it, a post that I think has since been deleted, and something I've seen used on other forums, albeit not quite in this way.
Who determines who is INTP?


How about making use of the "public groups" to set up groupings for subforum based on, say, type, or country, or clique.

-GeoffNot sure how technically feasible this is with the software.

[nottaprettygal]

My chief argument for INTP-only threads is that INTPs contribute to and derail threads in a way that is far more interesting to me (and probably to other INTPs) than non-INTPs do.

How can I learn to derail a thread like an INTP? By calling someone an SJ? Or do I brag about my high IQ? Perhaps discuss my inability to get laid?

Teach me!

[Avengardh]

Aren't cliques already a reality?

From experience, they might get old, and people could grow to resent them.
It might also go against the "nature" of intps aside for the logistics aspect.

What exactly are you looking to gain from this as a forum?

[Hustler]

Who determines who is INTP?

I would ask again that you ignore the logistical hurdles for a moment and decide whether it is an idea that is theoretically useful (in light of needs of members, Dunbar's number, and so on). If it would, in principle, be a good addition to the forum, then the details can be worked out. I have ideas for that, but I don't really want to get bogged down in them until we decide it is an idea whose theoretical merit makes it worth pursuit.

[MacGuffin]

How can I learn to derail a thread like an INTP? By calling someone an SJ? Or do I brag about my high IQ? Perhaps discuss my inability to get laid?

Teach me!
That was a good start!


What exactly are you looking to gain from this as a forum?
I don't see much to gain, honestly. Especially from an administrative standpoint.

[Geoff]

It might be fun, to have subforum by country, say.

Or, as Hustler suggested, by type.

[MacGuffin]

I would ask again that you ignore the logistical hurdles for a moment and decide whether it is an idea that is theoretically useful (in light of needs of members, Dunbar's number, and so on). If it would, in principle, be a good addition to the forum, then the details can be worked out. I have ideas for that, but I don't really want to get bogged down in them until we decide it is an idea whose theoretical merit makes it worth pursuit.
Ok, sure. I think it would be quite interesting to have a place where only INTPs can respond to your (speaking as an INTP) posts. Even more interesting if other types can see the posts but not respond directly.

[Hustler]

How can I learn to derail a thread like an INTP? By calling someone an SJ? Or do I brag about my high IQ? Perhaps discuss my inability to get laid?

Teach me!

One possibility would be just watching threads with exchanges between INTPs instead of posting in them. Since you seem so genuinely interested in learning, then perhaps you would like a forum where only INTPs can post but where you could watch us. It would be like a fishtank of INTPdom where you could learn how to derail threads like us. You wouldn't even have to ask me to teach you, because it would all be laid out for you.

[Geoff]

How can I learn to derail a thread like an INTP? By calling someone an SJ? Or do I brag about my high IQ? Perhaps discuss my inability to get laid?

Teach me!

I am afraid one has to be born to it.





Look, we dont have much else to offer, ok?

[nottaprettygal]

Ok, sure. I think it would be quite interesting to have a place where only INTPs can respond to your (speaking as an INTP) posts. Even more interesting if other types can see the posts but not respond directly.

But what if everyone just started all of their threads in the INTP only subforum? I have wisdom to dole out!

[abathur]

Don't worry, I'll still let you give me advice. I already get the INTP part, how much good advice can they give me? ;)

[Hustler]

But what if everyone just started all of their threads in the INTP only subforum? I have wisdom to dole out!

I'm way too much of an attention whore to do that. I'm going to want to get all the responses possible for a lot of my threads. I think there are plenty of others who are in the same boat. Well, maybe they aren't shameless, attention-whoring slingers of voluminous bombast, but they want "different perspectives" and shit like that, so they'll still be starting their "can't get laid" threads in the relationships forum. Some threads will always be better suited for other forums, but a select few may thrive better in a forum where only INTPs are exchanging input. In a way, I think it's something we owe to the INTP members of a place called INTP Central.

[nottaprettygal]

In a way, I think it's something we owe to the INTP members of a place called INTP Central.

Wow. Since when did you start thinking that you owed people here anything?

Meh. This just seems like some sort of needless power move to rid this place of non-INTPs to me.

[zhang_bob]

I don't really like the idea of private subforums. As I fear it would divide groups on INTPc even more, and would become nothing more than a popularity contest.

I think it is like communism; it is a good idea in principle, but it is unworkable.

[abathur]

just have a private girls-only subform where all you talk about is sex, and then make fun of the excluded INTPs on the other forums, quoting suggestive bits of information. Plant the seed of revolution!

[Hustler]

Wow. Since when did you start thinking that you owed people here anything?

For a long time. (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=4255) And, now more than ever. I wouldn't have accepted a position in management if I didn't feel some desire to help keep INTPc great, and that must have been borne of a feeling of obligation to this place as a community.


Meh. This just seems like some sort of needless power move to rid this place of non-INTPs to me.

Now you're attacking my motives. Who cares what my motives are? What about the merit of the idea? An idea (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=15044), mind you, which has been proposed by a non-INTP in the recent past, and a non-INTP at that who surely doesn't want to see me rid the forum of non-INTPs. I have gone back and forth on the idea of an INTP-only subforum, and one of the things that made me think it was a bad idea is that I'm not in favor of private subforums in general (I would even be in favor of opening up the modbox, but that's a topic for another thread) as being the best solution for the problems growth in membership presents for a community such as this. The alternative model of layered access, so that nobody is left wondering what is being discussed behind closed doors, makes it possible to have a place where INTPs discuss things without interference from other types. I find that very appealing. There are some types of threads I'd like to see play out without non-INTP opinion influencing their course.

[nottaprettygal]

Now you're attacking my motives. Who cares what my motives are? What about the merit of the idea?
. . . There are some types of threads I'd like to see play out without non-INTP opinion influencing their course.

The motives behind an idea matter to me almost as much as the idea itself. Don't get defensive. I'm not attacking your motives, I am merely questioning them. Certainly you don't think that I'm naive enough to consider you a trustworthy, non-manipuative member of this forum. And I mean that as a compliment.

I am interested in hearing which threads you think would be better with only INTP responses. I realize that this is an INTP forum, but I don't understand the need to place yourselves in an even smaller box.

Boxes are soooo SJ.

[C.J.Woolf]

If there are private subs, I suppose there are two questions:

1. How many OPs would start threads there instead of in the public forum (i.e., thread shift)?

2. How many OPs would start threads there who wouldn't have started them in the public forum (i.e., new threads)?

If n2 is significant then there would be a net benefit in spite of n1.

But then again, I've started maybe two threads, so what do I know.


How can I learn to derail a thread like an INTP? By calling someone an SJ? Or do I brag about my high IQ? Perhaps discuss my inability to get laid?
That's just the obvious, overt part. The real essence of an INTP derailment is a certain je nais c'est what. :ph34r:

[int]

I have to admit I like the sarcasm and cynicism present in this thread. But I've hated the idea since it was put in front of me a long, long time ago (in INTP Central years).



Aren't cliques already a reality?

From experience, they might get old, and people could grow to resent them.


Exactly. Divisive and cliquish. I get enough of that everywhere else. At least here it's somewhat minimized.

Plus I've always thought of this place as a way to get perspective from all sides, rooted from my own.

[bergenski]

I don't think it will work.

[Rhu]

I don't think it will work.
Well played, Hustler.

[bergenski]

Well played, Hustler.
I have no idea what that is about, but I meant the INTP-only subforum.

[Hustler]

I am interested in hearing which threads you think would be better with only INTP responses.

A few recent examples:

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=15628
http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=16462
http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=17244
http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=16655
http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=16966
http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=16905
http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=15243


I realize that this is an INTP forum, but I don't understand the need to place yourselves in an even smaller box.

Boxes are soooo SJ.

You've been here as long as you have and you still don't understand it? Maybe the fishtank idea would be useful for you. Anyhow, many of us self-identify as INTPs. Sometimes, we just want to hear opinions from other people who self-identify as the same, because we relate to each other better than outsiders. I know that's how it is for me, at least.

[KuJo]

yeah that would be interesting. if they cause trouble we could just take them down, right? maybe i just dont understand the problem at hand.

[s0978]

For the record, I am reversing on previous statements I have made and leaning more and more against.

"Divisive and cliquish" never satisfied me because I didn't see how this was inherent to private subs or, perhaps better, inherently objectionable attributes. Previously I have argued that more intimately scaled interactions can also foster cohesion to the larger community.

Still haven't seen much great theory against, but in practice, now having played around in some, I think I have seen how it can lead some of the most open-minded thinkers to engage in a kind of group mindset. Often unconsciously, we shape each others' opinions here constantly, and I don't think any of us are entirely above being somewhat influenced by others' (mis)conceptions simply because they belong to our friends, people with whom we like to socialize. This seems greatly exacerbated by private sub contexts. Even when the pretext is social, they get political.

Re INTP-only subforum with viewable access by all, I don't really see the appeal. I don't wanna be in no stinkin fishbowl -- that's why I used to like private subs so much. (Why won't they just go somewhere more friendly to them!)

[nottaprettygal]

A few recent examples:

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=15628
http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=16462
http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=17244
http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=16655
http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=16966
http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=16905
http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=15243


How do you know that the authors of these threads only wanted INTP responses? I think that if someone creates a thread and doesn't want input from other types, s/he could briefly state it in the OP. This solution is a lot simpler than creating a totally separate subforum. Sure, some non-INTPs wouldn't take the hint, but most of us would.


You've been here as long as you have and you still don't understand it? Maybe the fishtank idea would be useful for you.

Oh please. Don't patronize me.

I'm not convinced that non-INTP responses are the forum wide problem that you're making them out to be. As an INT, I enjoy creative discussion and different perspectives, which can come from any type. You're telling me that most people would rather read pointless replies from headphonez and bergenski as opposed to a well thought out reply from Ivy? I'm not buying it.

[Dr. Haight]

For the record, I am reversing on previous statements I have made and leaning more and more against. Yeah, me too. :ph34r:

[bergenski]

How about a thread-marker for "INTP only"?

[Rhu]

When did people lose the ability to pick and choose what content they read and respond to, again?

[Madrigal]

I'm in favour. Maybe you can start your own sub if you've been on the forum for at least a year and have more than 1000 posts. And a second sub after you reach 3000 posts and have been here for at least 2 years. There can be a maximum of 2 private subs per member. That way, both your participation and your seniority on the forum can be taken into account. And you don't start too many of them.

The reason why this will obviously not have a negative impact on the rest of the forum is because, simply, if you don't want certain people to read what you post, you will never post it on the main forum in the first place. Hence, the threads destined for private subs will have never been started anywhere else. That's the logical thing to do. If you aren't logical and wish to start perfectly forum-worthy threads in a private sub, I'm afraid it's really none of anyone else's business to dictate that you must socialize with the entire forum. (Once the subs have been set up, of course. Right now it's the admins' business.)

Will it be divisive and cliquish? Not any more than what we can already see here. The way I see it, when people don't appreciate a member's opinions on the main forum, they are either flamed or ignored. If there are divisions, they are perfectly expressed already. Same with cliques and the way you can see them engaging in clique-specific conversations on the main threads. Private subs will only give these groups an opportunity to speak amongst themselves, as if they had their own private chatroom on IRC or something. No big deal. If their discussions are not meant to be public, then there is nothing lost.

What is gained? Just another feature for members to engage in private discussions, be it about women, making money, having children, coping with an addiction, opening up about sensitive issues among only trusted readers, etc. I don't understand where the boogieman is here. Sounds like a very interesting feature for a forum dominated by introverts.

[MacGuffin]

I'm in favour. Maybe you can start your own sub if you've been on the forum for at least a year and have more than 1000 posts. And a second sub after you reach 3000 posts and have been here for at least 2 years. There can be a maximum of 2 private subs per member. That way, both your participation and your seniority on the forum can be taken into account. And you don't start too many of them.
Let's see, about 125 members with 1000+ posts...


Private subs will only give these groups an opportunity to speak amongst themselves, as if they had their own private chatroom on IRC or something. No big deal. If their discussions are not meant to be public, then there is nothing lost.

What is gained? Just another feature for members to engage in private discussions, be it about women, making money, having children, coping with an addiction, opening up about sensitive issues among only trusted readers, etc. I don't understand where the boogieman is here. Sounds like a very interesting feature for a forum dominated by introverts.
These are good points in favor of private subs.

I just don't think they will ever be truly "private".

[bergenski]

snip
The point of a forum is to have a community, not a bunch of little communities.

[Rhu]

The reason why this will obviously not have a negative impact on the rest of the forum is because, simply, if you don't want certain people to read what you post, you will never post it on the main forum in the first place.
Mistrust and disgust tend to feed and breed upon themselves. Concerns tend to grow and warp as the light of limited perspective is shined upon them, and people start jumping at grotesque and monsterous shadows resembling paranoid delusion. The divides created by this isolationist practice become difficult to resolve because there little to no communication across the rifts created.

Easing communication between community members who have problems with one another tends to be more constructive. Giving them places to groan about eachother is rather destructive.


Hence, the threads destined for private subs will have never been started anywhere else. That's the logical thing to do.
I disagree. Perceptions change, people mature, and problems grow smaller when one takes a step back and examines them. Ideally, the reluctant will cease to fear coming out of their shells and post whatever it is they feared to say.


Private subs will only give these groups an opportunity to speak amongst themselves, as if they had their own private chatroom on IRC or something. No big deal. If their discussions are not meant to be public, then there is nothing lost.
If it is the wish for others to have privacy, they can make use of the private message system, instant messaging programs, emails, letters, phone calls, personal discussions, etc.


What is gained? Just another feature for members to engage in private discussions, be it about women, making money, having children, coping with an addiction, opening up about sensitive issues among only trusted readers, etc. I don't understand where the boogieman is here.
Also gained are formalized, discrete dividing lines for segregating groups of users.

[Madrigal]

Let's see, about 125 members with 1000+ posts...

You can increase it to 1500 and 2 years seniority, or 1.5 years, etc. Plus, just because you're qualified to have your own sub doesn't mean you will have it. I don't have a sub at nebulous, for example, and I know I can start one. You can even make a rule stating that ownership has to be shared with two other people. That means you have to come to an agreement with two other members on what the theme would be about. It's a good way to make sure there aren't too many repeat-theme subs. That one sub owned by three people is worth three subs, one for each, get it?


I just don't think they will ever be truly "private".

They won't be read by just about any anonymous user that's surfing the net from anywhere in the world. I think that's a pretty good guarantee of privacy. Also, admins and mods that are uninvited can be trusted not to read. They're not the problem.


The point of a forum is to have a community, not a bunch of little communities.

Don't worry, bergenski, you'll still feel that warm community spirit even if private subs exist. :D

[Madrigal]

Mistrust and disgust tend to feed and breed upon themselves. Concerns tend to grow and warp as the light of limited perspective is shined upon them, and people start jumping at grotesque and monsterous shadows resembling paranoid delusion.

That's beautiful. :) I agree this may happen.

BUT. The character flaws you describe - tendency towards unfounded suspicion and paranoia - are something to be overcome, not accepted. Just as any conflict that may arise on the board can be seen as a solution waiting to be achieved. We shouldn't base our expectations of people on the basis of the lowest point we are capable of dropping to, and conclude beforehand that the worst in us will prevail. Will there be paranoid delusions? Maybe from some people, but can we foster an environment in which that paranoia can be dissipated? Why not.


The divides created by this isolationist practice become difficult to resolve because there little to no communication across the rifts created.

There are communication channels for people who have built up animosity against another member. They can choose whether to subject the board to their flamewars, or not. It will probably continue to be this way with or without those subs.


Easing communication between community members who have problems with one another tends to be more constructive. Giving them places to groan about eachother is rather destructive.

See, it may or may not be used to groan about other people. I mentioned a series of example uses for the subs, that have nothing to do with groaning about other members.


I disagree. Perceptions change, people mature, and problems grow smaller when one takes a step back and examines them. Ideally, the reluctant will cease to fear coming out of their shells and post whatever it is they feared to say.

But why? Why is being open with everyone on the internet the "right" thing to do? Is it better to be extraverted or introverted? Neither. Should we appoint ourselves to draw people out of their shells into a completely public space? I don't see the need for it.


If it is the wish for others to have privacy, they can make use of the private message system, instant messaging programs, emails, letters, phone calls, personal discussions, etc.

We already facilitate private discussions by making the blogs, personal threads and mature discussions invisible. People can certainly start a blog somewhere else or discuss sexual positions through PMs, but the board facilitates a certain level of privacy. We have started this Public Administration forum for some users only, and I don't see an insurrection about to happen over it.

Hell, we can even discuss MBTI and our INTP-related issues through private channels, but this public Board provides specific advantages (and disadvantages) for them. Private subs would be just another kind of space with its pros and cons, like any other.

[kuranes]

I have no strong opinions in either direction. Might not work out. But maybe it would, blah blah. No way to find out without trying it, but I will not lose sleep over it if it never takes place.

I often prefer "one on one" discussions, and I can have those with PM's and email.

[Madrigal]

I have no strong opinions in either direction. Might not work out. But maybe it would, blah blah. No way to find out without trying it, but I will not lose sleep over it if it never takes place.

I often prefer "one on one" discussions, and I can have those with PM's and email.

Yeah, I'm not going to lose sleep over it, just like I won't lose sleep over anything else related to the internet. But the idea that "if people have the chance to make trouble, they will" isn't as predominant among the forum leaders anymore since a few people decided to leave the board, namely Claverhouse. He was one of my favourite members, but I certainly won't miss that side of him. I think that the air has been cleared a bit.

[Rhu]

That's beautiful. :) I agree this may happen.
I thought you'd like that. ;)


BUT. The character flaws you describe - tendency towards unfounded suspicion and paranoia - are something to be overcome, not accepted.
Exactly. I would say that the subforums are a method by which these tendencies are accepted and even encouraged. That is what I don't want to see. Even my playful and careful hand has come to resemble to myself and others what it wasn't or had no business being.


Just as any conflict that may arise on the board can be seen as a solution waiting to be achieved. We shouldn't base our expectations of people on the basis of the lowest point we are capable of dropping to, and conclude beforehand that the worst in us will prevail. Will there be paranoid delusions? Maybe from some people, but can we foster an environment in which that paranoia can be dissipated? Why not.
Yes. I do agree that I'm employing a sort of slippery slope fallacy back there. I can't predict the end result as I don't have a significant ammount of data on the subject, but there is a trend of the inquisitive to resent that which is secret.

Further, I don't see how creating private groups would do anything to actually dissipate this trend from growing.


There are communication channels for people who have built up animosity against another member.
They are limited and and can find themselves here to be dependent upon interventionism by introverts.


They can choose whether to subject the board to their flamewars, or not. It will probably continue to be this way with or without those subs.
Agreed. But casting dividing lines, while interesting from the detatched perspective of a person toying with the idea of experimenting with small-scale interpersonal politics, it isn't attractive from the point of view of someone who has invested a sense of attachment to the groups they find themselves members of. Do we want to have teams of dedicated diplomats to resolve interpersonal issues between the walled fortresses of the private subforums?


See, it may or may not be used to groan about other people. I mentioned a series of example uses for the subs, that have nothing to do with groaning about other members.
I agree that the private subforums, if each is given some sort of driving purpose, might work out great for a time.

What worries me is that they may end up becoming rival social halls.


But why? Why is being open with everyone on the internet the "right" thing to do? Is it better to be extraverted or introverted? Neither. Should we appoint ourselves to draw people out of their shells into a completely public space? I don't see the need for it.
Like I said before, there exist private spaces where people can create ad-hoc organizations and usergroups to discuss concerns like that, and as soon as the concern dies, so too does the interest group.


People can ... discuss sexual positions through PMs,
Expect a PM soon! :smooch:


but the board facilitates a certain level of privacy. Hell, we can even discuss MBTI and our INTP-related issues through private channels, but a Board provides specific advantages (and disadvantages) for them. These subs would provide just another kind of space with its pros and cons, like any other.
I'm skeptical and unconvinced that the pros would outweigh the cons.


No way to find out without trying it, but I will not lose sleep over it if it never takes place.
My concern is that it stands the chance of irreperably alienating some members. Unless it alienates the ones I dislike*, in which case everything is swell.



*I love all of you. Except Rajah.

[Madrigal]

just like I won't lose sleep over anything else related to the internet.

Holy crap, I said that? The internet is my life. :)

[Madrigal]

Rhu, I'll get back to this later, I've got a deadline. Ugh.

Anyway, for now I'll say I think that the reticence to start private subs is largely based on people's experience with OS. I'm not ready to generalize on the basis of that one private forum. It wouldn't be fair to use it as a template forever. I've also had my share of negative feelings over it, just like I was unhappy to find out about a think tank here to which I was never invited. I'm assuming we can leave "unofficial secrecy" behind and embrace "constructive privacy" from now on. I am even posting on this thread as if expecting someone to actually consider what I'm saying - see, I haven't been scarred for life. Nothing is this way or that per se, there are a lot of contextual factors to consider when it comes to explaining when and why something potentially good started going wrong.

If you ask me, the think tank was wrong because nobody knew about it except those invited. I'm not asking for explanations here, it's clear that the criteria for inviting members seemed to have been, logically, "we think your input is useful." But If I had found out about it's existence before it was revealed to the rest of the forum, I certainly would have cultivated some resentment over the secrecy of its existence.

There would be equality and transparency, however, in making the existence of private areas official, and their creation within the reach of anyone who has dedicated a fair amount of time and energy to the forum. What we are discussing now is making these private spaces public knowledge. Not some "you don't talk about Fight Club" bullshit. There is a difference there.

[digesthisickness]

I am even posting on this thread as if expecting someone to actually consider what I'm saying - see, I haven't been scarred for life.

hey! i've been reading everything you've said, and have taken it into consideration, just as i have what rhu and others have said. i happen to respect your opinion, so i do that. also, sometimes, my mouth kind of hangs open a little bit because i can't believe you put so much thought into things sometimes. however, i'm glad you do. you provide a great way to see things differently. (or do a lot of the thinking on a subject for me... like this one.)


Not some "you don't talk about Fight Club" bullshit. There is a difference there.

BUT, this is just going too far. you've gone and completely changed the meaning of that phrase. now, it means, "well, if you're just going to talk about 'fight club' like that, then don't talk about it at all!"

[Rhu]

I agree that the private subforums, if each is given some sort of driving purpose, might work out great for a time.

What worries me is that they may end up becoming rival social halls.

Okay, just had a thought on this: each application for a private subforum is given a limited time to live, created to solve a specific problem or work on a specific project.

If that private subforum needs an extension because the project that it is dedicated to isn't complete maybe they can apply for an extension or something.

Maybe we could create separate "classes" of private sub with different kinds of default lifetimes, perhaps. Maybe not.

The review board for private subforums should totally be entirely an admin thing. Poor bastards with their heaps of thankless work.

[Rajah]

*I love all of you. Except Rajah.What the hell! I wasn't even in this thread. See what happens when you're busy "debating" FranG?

[MacGuffin]

the idea that "if people have the chance to make trouble, they will" isn't as predominant among the forum leaders anymore
That is what I think!

NO PR0N, LOSERS!

[MacGuffin]

The review board for private subforums should totally be entirely an admin thing.
ZOMG I hate you.

[Rhu]

What the hell! I wasn't even in this thread. See what happens when you're busy "debating" FranG? making unprovoked attacks on one of our most prolific members?
Fixeded! :D


ZOMG I hate you.
Hooray! Preemptive anti-delegation rules!

[Rajah]

Fixeded! :DI'll debate you next.


Jerkface!

[Hustler]

How do you know that the authors of these threads only wanted INTP responses? I think that if someone creates a thread and doesn't want input from other types, s/he could briefly state it in the OP. This solution is a lot simpler than creating a totally separate subforum. Sure, some non-INTPs wouldn't take the hint, but most of us would.

I don't know that those people only wanted INTP responses. That wasn't the question. Your question was for example of threads I would like to have seen created in an INTP-only forum. Those are examples. I think all of those threads would have been more interesting to me if they'd only contained INTP responses.

Asking for input from INTPs only doesn't work. Most taking the hint is not the same as a strict prevention of non-INTPs from posting on a thread. I believe mgbradsh actually started an experimental thread to test and see, where he asked only INTPs to respond, and his request failed to keep out the non-INTPs.


I'm not convinced that non-INTP responses are the forum wide problem that you're making them out to be. As an INT, I enjoy creative discussion and different perspectives, which can come from any type. You're telling me that most people would rather read pointless replies from headphonez and bergenski as opposed to a well thought out reply from Ivy? I'm not buying it.

No, I'm not saying that. You're now making illogical conclusions. It is, once again, a case of correlation. Maybe I would rather hear your input on any given thread than headfonez's input, but that does nothing to undermine my position on this. It doesn't mean I'd rather potentially hear your input and every other non-INTP's input on every thread than restricting responses to just INTPs for certain threads.

This place is INTP Central. Sometimes, I want to have an INTP-only discussion. Not always! Just sometimes. If enough other INTPs feel this way, then what's the big deal with having a forum at, again, INTP Central where we can do that? By making it publically viewable, we also give the non-INTPs, many of whom ostensibly come here to learn about INTPs or because they like INTPs, the chance to observe and enjoy the threads in that forum as well.

[Hustler]

Will it be divisive and cliquish? Not any more than what we can already see here.

That's where we disagree. Maybe you aren't aware of the feelings of others, but these things do breed resentment (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=14327)! Just look at the misunderstandings and resentment flying back and forth in that thread! And why? Because constituent members of a community were saying things in closed forums and other members wondered what was being said. That is fundamentally what is going on. People felt left out, and your theory about how it's not secret and it's out in the open counters that is basically rendered completely invalid by that thread's mere existence (everyone knows about the existence of the Modbox). You're probably above this sort of thing, and it doesn't affect you that much (Le Comite notwithstanding?), but it does register harder with other people, and resentment or the feeling of ostracization breeds division.


The way I see it, when people don't appreciate a member's opinions on the main forum, they are either flamed or ignored. If there are divisions, they are perfectly expressed already. Same with cliques and the way you can see them engaging in clique-specific conversations on the main threads.

How can you even call yourself a communist?

Anyhow, this form of divisiveness, the social kind, is but one aspect of private subforums I don't like. It also divides the talent pool, and often threatens to place this scarce resource (posting talent) in private places where few can enjoy it.

[bergenski]

On INTP-only threads mods could delete non-INTP postings.

[MacGuffin]

On INTP-only threads mods could delete non-INTP postings.
I HATE deletions.

[Hustler]

On INTP-only threads mods could delete non-INTP postings.

This is less effective than just preventing it from happening in the first place. It's also more labor-intensive. We've got very important things to do, you know, like moving threads and, uh, yeah. Moving threads.

[nottaprettygal]

I don't know that those people only wanted INTP responses. That wasn't the question. Your question was for example of threads I would like to have seen created in an INTP-only forum.
Those are examples. I think all of those threads would have been more interesting to me if they'd only contained INTP responses.

You're right. I did specifically ask for your personal opinion. But do you think that the INTP collective would find those threads more interesting if they only contained INTP responses? After all, your quest to create an INTP-only subforum is clearly not just some sort of arrogant power play, but rather a way to reach out and help the INTPs here. You think that you owe them something. I just wonder if they agree.


By making it publically viewable, we also give the non-INTPs, many of whom ostensibly come here to learn about INTPs or because they like INTPs, the chance to observe and enjoy the threads in that forum as well.

Oh yes. If this idea is implemented I certainly will keep my eyes glued to the subforum and refresh my browser every five seconds just to see the gems posted by Xander and FranG. Every once in awhile I'll glance up at the "I *heart* INTPs" poster in my room and let out a sigh. "God. If I could only be that perfect."

[Hustler]

You're right. I did specifically ask for your personal opinion. But do you think that the INTP collective would find those threads more interesting if they only contained INTP responses? After all, your quest to create an INTP-only subforum is clearly not just some sort of arrogant power play, but rather a way to reach out and help the INTPs here. You think that you owe them something. I just wonder if they agree.

I think the INTP collective will know the answer to that only after such a forum has been implemented and been put to use for a while. Maybe they won't end up finding it interesting; maybe they will. If it turns out to have been a miscalculation so what? We scrap it and do something else. We're not INTJs around here...we can try stuff out and, if it doesn't work out, we can get rid of it and try something else out. We don't need to plan and anticipate everything. But, if it does turn out to be enjoyed by the INTPs here, then that's great, and it's a good addition to the forum. It isn't as though we're taking a giant risk or engaging in pure frivolity to experiment with such a thing.


Oh yes. If this idea is implemented I certainly will keep my eyes glued to the subforum and refresh my browser every five seconds just to see the gems posted by Xander and FranG. Every once in awhile I'll glance up at the "I *heart* INTPs" poster in my room and let out a sigh. "God. If I could only be that perfect."

I know you will be. Just as I have a sense of obligation to the INTPs here, so too do I feel a sense of obligation to our fans (beyond the obligation I feel to constantly remind them of their inferiority and how there are loads of other sites non-INTPs will surely find enjoyable). That's yet another reason why I want to go with this model, where you'll be able to see the threads and enjoy basking in our greatness reading them instead of the model whereby we have a private INTP forum. Say what you will about posters on your wall, but you are here nearly everyday, on an INTP forum. You must love us.

[Madrigal]

That's where we disagree. Maybe you aren't aware of the feelings of others, but these things do breed resentment (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=14327)! Just look at the misunderstandings and resentment flying back and forth in that thread! And why? Because constituent members of a community were saying things in closed forums and other members wondered what was being said. That is fundamentally what is going on. People felt left out, and your theory about how it's not secret and it's out in the open counters that is basically rendered completely invalid by that thread's mere existence (everyone knows about the existence of the Modbox). You're probably above this sort of thing, and it doesn't affect you that much (Le Comite notwithstanding?), but it does register harder with other people, and resentment or the feeling of ostracization breeds division.

I already explained the difference between privacy and secrecy. I'll explain for you in case you didn't get it the first time: The think tank was wrong because it was created (by the INTPc forum leaders) for certain members whose input they wanted, or wished to pretend they were listening to. Whichever. The problem was that they never told anyone else on the Board that this forum existed. If someone (like me) had found out it existed (and I very well could have, why not?) while it was still a secret, then I certainly would have breeded resentment. NOT because there are private discussions going on - after all, I know there's a modbox and I don't resent it's privacy - but because there is some kind of committee set up for discussing how to improve the forum, official enough to have it's own sub, and unofficial enough to be a secret. That's what breeds resentment.


Anyhow, this form of divisiveness, the social kind, is but one aspect of private subforums I don't like. It also divides the talent pool, and often threatens to place this scarce resource (posting talent) in private places where few can enjoy it.

It's just fear of the unknown, you keep working on that assumption and ignoring that private threads would be of a different nature than public ones from the start. That's why there should be nothing lost. But maybe neither you nor me can prove one thing or the other.

However, why do you guys keep posing this question? Just because you're bored? Everytime you pose it there isn't a single forum leader that's open to the idea, so why do you waste my time asking? Seriously. There are other threads I've been wanting to post on, and I haven't had time these days. I took three days to post here because it didn't look promising, I see now that I probably should have let you guys talk about this without wasting my time.

[meshou]

That's where we disagree. Maybe you aren't aware of the feelings of others, but these things do breed resentment (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=14327)! Jesus tittyfucking Christ! I only saw the late pages of that! Get a divorce and take your fucking pills! God!

If you ever want to drive me nuts, just make me a mod. If it's anything at all like that paranoid politicing bullshit in the mod box, you're all insane.

Anti private subforums here. They apparently make us all fucking nuts.

[Hustler]

I already explained the difference between privacy and secrecy. I'll explain for you in case you didn't get it the first time: The think tank was wrong because it was created (by the INTPc forum leaders) for certain members whose input they wanted, or wished to pretend they were listening to. Whichever. The problem was that they never told anyone else on the Board that this forum existed. If someone (like me) had found out it existed (and I very well could have, why not?) while it was still a secret, then I certainly would have breeded resentment. NOT because there are private discussions going on - after all, I know there's a modbox and I don't resent it's privacy - but because there is some kind of committee set up for discussing how to improve the forum, official enough to have it's own sub, and unofficial enough to be a secret. That's what breeds resentment.

What if you didn't know who the moderators were or had no idea what we talk about there? It's all very much out in the open about the Modbox, so your comparison is a stretch. But what about subforums? You won't know who's invited. You won't know what gets talked about there. Secrets will invariably be posted in private subforums. Secrets about the community. What if all the moderators and administrators are in some very active private subforum and you're not invited? And what if you didn't invite me to your subforum!? OMFG I'd blow a gasket.


It's just fear of the unknown, you keep working on that assumption and ignoring that private threads would be of a different nature than public ones from the start. That's why there should be nothing lost. But maybe neither you nor me can prove one thing or the other.

That's not really much of an argument. It's as though you've just dismissed the entire Wide Open Spaces thread I linked you to. Can you not see the rifts created there by the existence of private forums, both the ModBox and OS? They've made people mistrust and dislike each other for completely ridiculous reasons. It's ugly, and it's not something I'd like to see here in the future, and I think it would happen.


However, why do you guys keep posing this question? Just because you're bored? Everytime you pose it there isn't a single forum leader that's open to the idea, so why do you waste my time asking? Seriously. There are other threads I've been wanting to post on, and I haven't had time these days. I took three days to post here because it didn't look promising, I see now that I probably should have let you guys talk about this without wasting my time.

This thread wasn't my idea; you can take that up with MacGuffin and refrain from using it as some kind of argument against my position, because it's completely irrelevant. But, since it got started, I am taking the opportunity to present my opinions. In case you didn't see that Modbox thread about this very subject that got moved to the Suggestions, Complaints and Notifications forum, it was a deadlocked vote.

[Hustler]

If you ever want to drive me nuts, just make me a mod. If it's anything at all like that paranoid politicing bullshit in the mod box, you're all insane.

Meshou, I would love to drive you nuts, but you self-identify as an INXP and not an INTP, so, you know, I'm afraid I can't nominate you. So sorry.

[meshou]

Meshou, I would love to drive you nuts, but you self-identify as an INXP and not an INTP, so, you know, I'm afraid I can't nominate you. So sorry.Does this mean I'm not going to join such quality posters as Swift and FranG and Imperator in Valhalla?

PS: I will totally change my vote to pro if you call the INTP sooper sekret forum (NO SJS ALLOWED) "Valhalla" and the non-INTP one "Hel."

[Hustler]

Does this mean I'm not going to join such quality posters as Swift and FranG and Imperator in Valhalla?

No, it means you won't be joining such quality posters as Hustler in Valhalla. It's okay, though, you can still find me in Purgatory and all my other usual haunts.


PS: I will totally change my vote to pro if you call the INTP sooper sekret forum (NO SJS ALLOWED) "Valhalla" and the non-INTP one "Hel."
I'm prepared to promise to do what it takes to get your vote.

[Madrigal]

Hustler, I'm not going to waste my time here anymore. There are more things I have on my mind about the apparent trauma caused by OS, which I see everyone will have to keep paying for, but I'll refrain from stating them here. It's pointless.

And my comparison with the modbox was valid. Everyone knows there is one, so people don't care that you discuss things there. Meanwhile, nobody here is noticing the irony of a secret sub having existed on INTPc in the first place. Worse, it was created to decide on forum issues.

Now I'm suggesting that private subs exist, anyone being able to create them after some involvement on the board, and everyone knowing they can exist. I think that's different, you don't. Spare me any further restatements of your opinion. Now we're all against private subs. That's fine. I'm tired, so leave me alone.

[Hustler]

Hustler, I'm not going to waste my time here anymore. There are more things I have on my mind about the apparent trauma caused by OS, which I see everyone will have to keep paying for, but I'll refrain from stating them here. It's pointless.

Okay. Nobody needs to pay for the OS "trauma" anymore. I think it presents a great opportunity to learn from past mistakes. I happen to think that private subforums are a mistake, especially when they have proven divisive in the past, and other alternatives can be explored to meet the need they supposedly would.


And my comparison with the modbox was valid. Everyone knows there is one, so people don't care that you discuss things there. Meanwhile, nobody here is noticing the irony of a secret sub having existed on INTPc in the first place. Worse, it was created to decide on forum issues.

Yes, another opportunity to learn from past mistakes. Yet another private/secret subforum gone wrong! It's why I proposed a public forum to replace it. Isn't this great?


Now I'm suggesting that private subs exist, anyone being able to create them after some involvement on the board, and everyone knowing they can exist. I think that's different, you don't. Spare me any further restatements of your opinion. Now we're all against private subs. That's fine. I'm tired, so leave me alone.

Fair enough. You see a distinction strong enough to make user-created private subs a net postive for INTPc, and I do not. If you want to get left alone, though, you really shouldn't get into debates in a thread like this.

[s0978]

after all, I know there's a modbox and I don't resent it's privacy But many do. And there has been a whole lot of criticism in the past that the administration hasn't been open to the rest of the forum, and unwilling to try new ideas -- this, in fact, has been suggested as the reason for private forums in the first place.

So that is why this thread was started here. There is an effort to respond with a new level of transparency and inclusion/ respect for memberbase input into forum direction matters.


However, why do you guys keep posing this question? Just because you're bored? Everytime you pose it there isn't a single forum leader that's open to the idea, so why do you waste my time asking? Seriously. There are other threads I've been wanting to post on, and I haven't had time these days. I took three days to post here because it didn't look promising, I see now that I probably should have let you guys talk about this without wasting my timeThe last time this discussion happened, the vote was a tie. That was the first thread which happened in the modbox and was pushed out in the open retroactively.

You've made some extremely lucid and cogent arguments, not sure why you seem to be sensing that it has gone unappreciated. You have said better than I ever have- a position very similar to one I used to hold. It's still all being discussed, right?

And yes, the think tank was- misguided. That is why it is now this funny sub.

[Jasz]

BBBBBBOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGG

[s0978]

Now I'm suggesting that private subs exist, anyone being able to create them after some involvement on the board, and everyone knowing they can exist. I think that's different, you don't. Spare me any further restatements of your opinion. Now we're all against private subs. That's fine. I'm tired, so leave me alone.I liked reading your posts. :mellow:

[Hustler]

You've made some extremely lucid and cogent arguments, not sure why you seem to be sensing that it has gone unappreciated. You have said better than I ever have- a position very similar to one I used to hold. It's still all being discussed, right?

Why did you change your mind?

[Hustler]

BBBBBBOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGG

Can't you just come out with it and tell us how you really feel?

[Jasz]

Can't you just come out with it and tell us how you really feel?

i see no added benefit from having private subforums and would not like to be withheld access to any good discussions. private mod forums make a lot of sense though and i would not want to be a part of that even if they'd pay me.

[Madrigal]

hey! i've been reading everything you've said, and have taken it into consideration, just as i have what rhu and others have said. i happen to respect your opinion


You've made some extremely lucid and cogent arguments, not sure why you seem to be sensing that it has gone unappreciated.

Sorry, I'm kinda cranky today. I had a lot of cider last night.

Maybe I'll come back here for more torture later. And thanks. :)

[MacGuffin]

And my comparison with the modbox was valid. Everyone knows there is one, so people don't care that you discuss things there.
That is simply untrue.

Meanwhile, nobody here is noticing the irony of a secret sub having existed on INTPc in the first place. Worse, it was created to decide on forum issues.
That was a mistake too (and why I'm glad I took all those threads and put them in here for everyone to read).

[s0978]

Why did you change your mind?

well, I said above I had started to see how they were in practice, if not theory, "divisive and cliquish."

Meaning, for one thing, as you and Rhu have both well-stated- people feel excluded and alienated- I think this is actually somewhat the genesis for private/ alternate forums in the first place- maybe not precisely exclusion, but lack of recognition, or feeling of not quite belonging. But rather than solving for this, the private subs (secret or not) will over time aggravate and intensify these kinds of sentiments. It is one thing to feel underappreciated by a set of disparate individuals and another to feel that from a group(s). I think this is actually the source for many other forum dramas. Weak Fe. And this is somewhat along the lines of what I was wondering about in that popularity threads thread.

For another - the small group mindset I mentioned earlier and the political dimension possibly inherent to that. I think there is less tolerance for disagreement and difference of opinions, more insistence on conformity- more difficult to dissent from those with whom one gains his/her social validation, in a sense. Plenty of being kicked out of treehouses or taking toys and playing elsewhere.

[s0978]

private mod forums make a lot of sense though and i would not want to be a part of that even if they'd pay me.

haha, one evil thing I hope to come out of this new call for transparency is for you all to SHARE THE PAIN.

just kidding, it's been all tame and cohesive in there, but, man, some of those old DEBATES.

[Jasz]

haha, one evil thing I hope to come out of this new call for transparency is for you all to SHARE THE PAIN.

just kidding, it's been all tame and cohesive in there, but, man, some of those old DEBATES.

i just can't stand the idealistic hyper-democratic notion of "everyone decides on everything", that only results in chaos and discussions without results.

[headfonez]

How do you know that the authors of these threads only wanted INTP responses? I think that if someone creates a thread and doesn't want input from other types, s/he could briefly state it in the OP. This solution is a lot simpler than creating a totally separate subforum. Sure, some non-INTPs wouldn't take the hint, but most of us would.



Oh please. Don't patronize me.

I'm not convinced that non-INTP responses are the forum wide problem that you're making them out to be. As an INT, I enjoy creative discussion and different perspectives, which can come from any type. You're telling me that most people would rather read pointless replies from headphonez and bergenski as opposed to a well thought out reply from Ivy? I'm not buying it.

My replies aren't pointless. You're just too unintelligent to understand them.

[Park]

Thought I would repost the suggestion.

An alternative to an INTP-only subforum could be the option to start up INTP-only threads - a bit similar to creating AD Hoc groups within larger organizations. A less dramatic solution which could be carried out without the risk of draining too much energy from the main forum like a subforum could do. People are not devided on an overall basis but INTPs have the option to withdraw.

INTP only thread options:
1. Non-INTPs can view a thread but not post.
2. A thread is invisible to non-INTPs (Our reality is what we perceive).

http://www.parkholm.dk/dump/adhoc.jpg

Edited to add:
Hmm, thinking about it, this solution has more potential than just enabling INTPs to withdraw when desired. Dunbars number (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number)were brought up in this post (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=429576&postcount=34). The idea of creating Ad Hoc groups within the forum could also counteract the effect of Dunbars number if another feature was added.

Invitation threads:
I wish to discuss a subject with a limited group of people so I start up a thread which is only visible to the members I choose to invite.

This would enable people to maintain the feeling of being part of an intimate community eventhough the number of high post members raise above 150. Like little Adhoc threads within the main forum but without the potential energy draining effect of real subforums.

Another way to illustrate the forum suggestion is the layers in photoshop.
http://www.sketchpad.net/images/psdlayer01.jpg

[Park]

Heh, well, now you know why I took it down the first time. It was the overwhelming respond, I had to empty my PM box for forum idea related PMs the last time I posted it.

...anyway, it was fun playing with it.

[Rhu]

Heh, well, now you know why I took it down the first time. It was the overwhelming respond, I had to empty my PM box for forum idea related PMs the last time I posted it.

...anyway, it was fun playing with it.
The post before this was sent out at exactly the point in time where most of us were cringing away from our families! I swear, I woulda said something!

Mostly, though, I wonder if temporary post groups/invite only threads could be accomplished easiest by bumping allowable recipients of PMs for senior members up somewhere appropriately high?

[Park]

The post before this was sent out at exactly the point in time where most of us were cringing away from our families! I swear, I woulda said something!

Mostly, though, I wonder if temporary post groups/invite only threads could be accomplished easiest by bumping allowable recipients of PMs for senior members up somewhere appropriately high?

IMO, it wouldn't counter act the effects of Dunbars number as efficiently as the ad hoc threads. The idea above is inspired by larger companies where the overall company *spirit* (gosh I sound like a bloody SJ) is maintained but little ad hoc groups are created for specific purposes. This is not possible via PM.

[Rhu]

This is not possible via PM.

Why? Because you can only see one post at a time in PMs?

[Park]

Why? Because you can only see one post at a time in PMs?

Yes, it is not possible to interact severel people at the same time the same way as it is in a thread.

[Rhu]

Hm. I'm unconvinced. I'll have to come up with a topic and start multi-PMming people, just to get a feel for what the differences are.

[Park]

Hm. I'm unconvinced. I'll have to come up with a topic and start multi-PMming people, just to get a feel for what the differences are.

I think the difference would be like me running around in my company and give severel employees the same message instead of just having a meeting.

[Rhu]

I think the difference would be like me running around in my company and give severel employees the same message instead of just having a meeting.

But... everybody can receive the same PM at the same time! Let's say users could send PMs to up to 15 people at once.

One could thus create an ad hoc private subforum using the PM system with a user base of no more than 15 people. It might get a bit clunky because there isn't a 'reply all' functionality at present, and that regular users have a rather low recipient limit for multi-PMming. The latter of which, at least, could probably be changed if one were to write a convincing argument to the admins.

[Park]

But... everybody can receive the same PM at the same time! Let's say users could send PMs to up to 15 people at once.

One could thus create an ad hoc private subforum using the PM system with a user base of no more than 15 people. It might get a bit clunky because there isn't a 'reply all' functionality at present, and that regular users have a rather low recipient limit for multi-PMming. The latter of which, at least, could probably be changed if one were to write a convincing argument to the admins.

Ehhh dunno, the solution sounds a bit chaotic. To open 15 PMs to keep up with a thread sounds like an awfull lot of work to me.

[Park]

Hmmm, as I read throught the thread one thing surprised me. It seems as if the discussion is less focused on trying to satisfy the simple needs and desires a group of INTP members and more about invalide them as being elitist and anti-social for having these desires in the first place.

If these desires can be satisfied without disturbing the overall board, I don't really see the problem...or I do, but that lies within the question regarding whether it is possible technically to fullfill these desires in the first place.

[Dr. Haight]

If these desires can be satisfied without disturbing the overall board, I don't really see the problem...or I do, but that lies within the question regarding whether it is possible technically to fullfill these desires in the first place.To me, that problem is resolved if all the private forums are viewable, yet only open to posting for a specific group which are members of that particular private forum.

[Park]

To me, that problem is resolved if all the private forums are viewable, yet only open to posting for a specific group which are members of that particular private forum.

Ideally, I prefer the thought about the read only threads but I realize that it probably isn't possible - this forum also seems to work quite well allready.

[int]

Hmmm, as I read throught the thread one thing surprised me. It seems as if the discussion is less focused on trying to satisfy the simple needs and desires a group of INTP members and more about invalide them as being elitist and anti-social for having these desires in the first place.


You're right. I see that too.

My reasoning is a few would ruin it for the whole, based on past experiences - which I don't like but wouldn't like to control either.

We've had little groups pop up here and there (I'm guilty myself) and it unconsciously has caused problems/tensions/jealousy/etc. Then the people involved get annoyed and take it out in the forum. The "alternative" sites get started and take some good members with them - which doesn't help the forum grow and we're left with this sort-of anti-community vibe.

So I think it's easier for some of us to just knock the idea from the start instead of pointing out the predictability.

And I don't like being cynical about it - but that exact situation has happened more than once.

[Dr. Haight]

We've had little groups pop up here and there (I'm guilty myself) and it unconsciously has caused problems/tensions/jealousy/etc. Then the people involved get annoyed and take it out in the forum. The "alternative" sites get started and take some good members with them - which doesn't help the forum grow and we're left with this sort-of anti-community vibe.I think that analysis parallels my own. In other words, it's spot on. :)

However, that happens here . . . we don't have private forums (other than the madmin forum) . . . and this site will indeed grow even larger than it is presently.

So, what is the solution to retaining the sense of community, while still growing at the same, or at a slightly faster, rate?

[Rhu]

So, what is the solution to retaining the sense of community, while still growing at the same, or at a slightly faster, rate?

Sparking a discussion on something exceptionally esoteric, or tailored towards your tendencies when you are feeling creative, boorish, or confused. Then take the reigns of your topic and twist it a little. Encourage a creative outlet for confusion, and you'll have a thread that draws members of different topical preferences together.

Otherwise, collaborative community projects--constructive or destructive (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=17388) will also foster the whole grouphuggy togetherness thing.

[Park]

You're right. I see that too.

My reasoning is a few would ruin it for the whole, based on past experiences - which I don't like but wouldn't like to control either.

We've had little groups pop up here and there (I'm guilty myself) and it unconsciously has caused problems/tensions/jealousy/etc. Then the people involved get annoyed and take it out in the forum. The "alternative" sites get started and take some good members with them - which doesn't help the forum grow and we're left with this sort-of anti-community vibe.

So I think it's easier for some of us to just knock the idea from the start instead of pointing out the predictability.

And I don't like being cynical about it - but that exact situation has happened more than once.

I have a different perspective. I'm going to get my arse slapped for this one (can I use Shum as my stunt woman?).

Anyway here goes:
There exists some INTP needs/desires and at this point, severel N boards which tries to fullfill these needs/desires. On this market, the INTPC is the marketleader. However, competetive boards have succeded in taking away a market shares from the market leader. Problem is that the market followers (the new boards) don't provide the market with a better product. IMO, their boards are basically just watered out copies of the INTPC and peoples motives for their half hearted participation there has more to do with dissatisfaction with the INTPC, loyality towards the members who started up the new boards or plain curiosity than anything else. So basically everybody ends up as loosers. Problem also is that quality debates arise from quality brains and while the new boards do not yet succede in offering a better product, they do succede in taking away some of the best products from the market leader i.e. some of the best posters. On a forum such as the INTPC we are all both buyers, sellers and products.

My point is that if the INTPC can satisfy the needs/desires of it's members better than the competing boards, Dunbar's number do not pose a threat. I think the INTPC failed at doing this somewhere along the road, it makes sense to me that if this wasn't the case, the competing boards which are primarily started up by unsatisfied old INTPC members wouldn't exist in the first place.

Question is if it is possible in the first place to satisfy such a broad spectrum of individual needs, or if it would be better to aim at satisfying the needs of a slightly more narrow INTP segment and let the INTPs who feel that their needs are least fullfilled, live their online life on other INTP boards?

The above is from a PM I wrote to another member.
To sum it up. I run a company, if I can satisfy the desires and needs of my customers they'll keep buying my junk - if not, they'll look for other suppliers. Same thing goes for any internet board.

Another thing, now you also know why I could never do well in politics.

[Dr. Haight]

My point is that if the INTPC can satisfy the needs/desires of it's members better than the competing boards, Dunbar's number do not pose a threat. I think the INTPC failed at doing this somewhere along the road, it makes sense to me that if this wasn't the case, the competing boards which are primarily started up by unsatisfied old INTPC members wouldn't exist in the first place.I agree that INTPc has failed to retain all the active members from the past. And yes, I would like to see them return. However, I believe Dunbar's number is a leading factor in the question of why people leave the site. Yet I believe there are other contributing causes as well.

For instance, my opinion is that INTPs come to the site initially in order to learn about themselves through reading threads and posts produced by other similar minded individuals. However, there is a limited period in which it takes an INTP to reach competency in their endeavor to learn about themselves. So after the standard thread questions are answered, the thread topics begin to repeat themselves in a cycle that is somewhere - in my opinion - around six-months. After which, the member either leaves, scales back considerably - since finding interesting and original threads becomes a laborious treasure hunt - or, stays around due to a sense of new found community, which was built with specific members during the six-months of exploration and learning.
Hence, Dunbar's number comes into play at that moment, since the community ties remains the last string attached to the forum.

The problem is, even if I'm right (:huh:) the question still remains: What can we do about it ? Private forums! Ummm, maybe. However, I can't help thinking that other solutions exist, but someone is sandbagging. :ph34r:



Question is if it is possible in the first place to satisfy such a broad spectrum of individual needs, or if it would be better to aim at satisfying the needs of a slightly more narrow INTP segment and let the INTPs who feel that their needs are least fulfilled, live their online life on other INTP boards?

I am sure that a solution exists. But hell if I know what it is right now.

So allow me to repeat:


So, what is the solution to retaining the sense of community, while still growing at the same, or at a slightly faster, rate?

[Avengardh]

I don't think the solution lies somewhere where people can feel even more secluded if you don't like the same things they do.

Cliques are already a reality, I see it here, I see it in real life, they're everywhere.

It takes a mature person to realize the meaning of a group of people and not turn it into some type of elitist fiasco.

I don't believe INTPcentral has the majority of mature members active.

I also don't think it can be compared to some type of corporation, it is simply a group of people, why not ask them what they would like to see? But I guess if no one is interested you could throw ideas at them just like this, however I see a lot of responses here.

[Park]

Hence, Dunbar's number comes into play at that moment, since the community ties remains the last string attached to the forum.


Originally Posted by Dr. Haight
So, what is the solution to retaining the sense of community, while still growing at the same, or at a slightly faster, rate?

Well, again this (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=501175&postcount=78)was my suggestion but I realize that Ad Hoc treads probably arn't possible technically. In theory it should enable people to have their desire for communicating with others on a more intimate level fulfilled while still maintaining the feel of being part of a larger community.

The other idea was the layered forums - I still perceive the Ad Hoc threads as more ideal though. I do agree about community ties/friendships being the strings binding people to the board after having exploring their INTPness for a certain period of time. Which is why I perceive product devopment as essential to hold on to old board members. It isn't a question of being elitist or unresonable - people just develop new needs/desires.

[Dr. Haight]

Well, again this (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=501175&postcount=78)was my suggestion but I realize that Ad Hoc treads probably arn't possible technically. True.



The other idea was the layered forums ...That's the only thing I can think of as well. It may turn out to be the only avenue to a solution - outside of doing nothing, of course.

[Park]

That's the only thing I can think of as well. It may turn out to be the only avenue to a solution - outside of doing nothing, of course.

...and the advanced PM idea Rhu mentioned but it did sound a bit chaotic.

[Hustler]

It would be kind of cool if people could be mini-kings of their own blog threads. Each person could have up to one thread in the blog forum, and the thread starter would have the option of specifying who could reply to the thread. He'd also be able to delete posts from the thread. All registered users would have view access, but participants would be restricted to a circle of friends (if the thread starter wanted...he would, of course, still retain the option of having it open to replies from everyone). Sort of like a limited version of an actual blog, and conveniently located here at INTPc.

Of course, I have no idea if this is even possible with vBulletin. The layered forum idea obviously is, and I think it's a good alternative to doing nothing, but, who knows, perhaps other options would be possible. That's up for the vBulletin experts to figure out.

[cafe]

I'd like to have the option of restricted viewing if private sub-forums are implemented.