The Cryptic Permutations...

[Robin]

r.f.

[Robin]

r.f.

[creekster]

Robin wrote

We'll see. It isn't that I don't think they work for the time being. However, when extrapolated over infinity, the current rules, as they are written, will veer toward clique.

My suggestion was to fix the equation before that can happen, because once it HAS happened, it is unlikely that it will change itself.

Your suggetion, selfless though it may be, has its own problems.

1. It ruins the goal of having a less-than-public forum. If time is the only cirteria, new persons would be popping in with varying frequency and would have access, albeit on a possibly temporary basis, to all content. This is precisely contrary to the purpose of CP, as I understand it. So your suggestion doesn't reapir as much as subvert.

2. Your premise is flawed; what makes you think we don't want a clique? You choose to characterize the clique as being a negative thing, but the goal is to have a limited access place where we can discuss/debate things among those we choose. The nature of the clique and the basis for inclusion/exclusion may or not be based on a set of criteria that results in homogeneity. Rather than concluding, as you do, that it will necessarily result in one-minded discourse, I think it will result in both more and fewer disputes, depending on the topisc. Inclusion is not determined on a litmus test basis and topics discussed are unlimited, thus there is alomst certain to be rigorous disputes over time, especially as the number of persons continues to grows. (IOW, more people = greater chance of dispute over unlimited topics)

As for me, I think the rules should stay the same. Your alturistic concern about the possibility of a clique developing is appreciated, however.

[Robin]

r.f.

[creekster]

1. I don't think that time alone would be a good way of determining entry into the crypt. ACTIVITY over time would be the best way to determine entry. If you list the members of CG in order of postiness, you will find that more than half of the people here are total lurkers.

Post-iness? What is that and how do we decide it? Should there be a quality compnonent? Since you agree time alone is not good, and since anyone can see that election based only on the number of posts has serious drawbacks (should the guy that starts the G-O B-Y-U thread every time but does nothing else be allowed in on that basis alone?), what else can you do to refine the process? How to you combine a review of quantity and quality and time? Wait, I have it! How about letting the current members vote on inclusion after they have had time to read an applicant's posts in other forums? Thus time and 'post-iness' are both necessary but not sufficient, and quality of content is a factor. Plus, given that the membership collectively looks in all the other forums, this means there is greater likelihood that all content and post-iness will be considered.

2. So you want a clique? I can't say much about that, other than what we all know about cliques, having watched clique behavior for our entire lives. If you are in a clique, there is a real sense of self-satisfaction. If you would like to be in a clique, but are not accepted, that pretty much sucks.

You call it a clique. I call it a non-public forum. Ignoring for a moment that you completely side-stepped my point that over time there is likely to be more rather than less disputation in CP, depending on the topic, I can only say that the fact that the excluded are diappointed in being excluded is never a good reason, in and of itself, to include them. ANY non-public group will result, by definition, in exclusion. That the excluded might be disappointed must be irrelevant or non-public groups can not exist.

Look, I really don't care that much, and I realize I am not very 'post-y', and I realize that after this turgid series of posts the collective membership of CP might rise up and kick me out. So be it. But I think that your desire to 'improve' CP is rather silly and a cover for your concern and mildly arrogant surprise at the possibility of not being included. Just wait and see what happens; lord knows you're 'post-y' enough. Maybe the group will like you, if you can stand being you long enough for them to decide.

Btw, if they kicked me out, I would be disappointed, but I certainly would not suggest they change the rules to make it more likely that I could come in, even for a while.

[cougjunkie]

I am thinking the AAA is All-American Asshole

I am just assuming thats what he is saying.

[ute4ever]

Robin, CP is not a clique. Look at me, I'm a Ute fan and I've gained admission, as have several of my fellow alums. It's a matter of how the individual conducts himself, and what does he bring to the table.

As for your suggestion of booting people afterwards instead of beforehand, well that just happened a few weeks ago when a bigot was shown the door. I think you might be surprised if you knew who it was. It's been an eye-opener to see how some longstanding members of Cougarboard have conducted themselves without El Jefe or Thibious monitoring.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by cougjunkie

I am thinking the AAA is All-American Asshole

I am just assuming thats what he is saying.

I'm certainly not convinced by the "A"ll "A"meric"a"n schpiel.

[Surfah]

If it works or if it doesn't work is inconsequential to me. So what if it is a clique? CG as a whole can be considered a clique-a group of CB members who are tired of tyrranical censorship.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Robin

1. I don't think that time alone would be a good way of determining entry into the crypt. ACTIVITY over time would be the best way to determine entry. If you list the members of CG in order of postiness, you will find that more than half of the people here are total lurkers.

Activity -- or postiness as you call it -- is the worst way to determine who should be allowed into CP. TacoBurrito was very posty in his time, as was InVinoVeritas. There are dozens of other posters on CB who are only interested in how often they can post and have absolutely nothing to say. No one cares how often someone posts, only that they have something to say and are not just trolling for a reaction.