Well, that was interesting...

[jducoeur]

Memo to self: it is difficult to ask the question, "Should we have a discussion?" without accidentally starting that discussion. I should have expected that, but it still caught me broadsides.

As I noted in an edit to my previous entry, I'm shutting down the previous thread, preparatory to moving it over to the Baronial mailing list. At this point, I don't think LJ is the right place to actually talk the subject through (partly due to the pull nature of the medium, partly because it's still a little too alien to a little too much of the Barony), and my meta-question was turning into the debate itself, ranging far beyond what I'd been looking for.

It also appears that we need to have the meta-discussion about the role of LJ within the community; I knew that was coming soon, but it sounds like it's pretty much time. However, I'm hoping we can hold that off until we've talked about the more important and timely issues first. (The LJ discussion should happen soon, but I'd really like the "state of the Barony" one to play out a bit before September, so it's calmed down and generated some ideas before demo season starts. I'd personally prefer that we not get distracted by the LJ discussion until then.)

Comments

[hfcougar.livejournal.com]

Argh! I didn't get to reply to your replies to my replies yet, but I can do it privately. I suspect we have some things to talk about regarding recruitment whether or not we do so on LJ, and some common ideas.

I hope that the comments are only hidden, and not lost. (Not that I think you'd delete them permanently, LJ just does stupid things sometimes.)

[jducoeur]

They *should* just be hidden -- I tested it out with another message first (locking and then unlocking comments), to make sure it did what I expected. I certainly don't want to lose the comments: I just want to stop the chatter over in my journal, so we can instead migrate it over to where it belongs...

[cvirtue.livejournal.com]

It's also hard to not have a discussion in a forum meant for discussions. Especially if you start it out with a long discussion/essay of your own. I'll look forward to the topic on the email list.

As for the meta-issue, well, I'll restrain myself until you start that discussion.

[alienor.livejournal.com]

I believe the button you need is 'freeze' (which looks like an ice cube). Freeze each thread, people can no longer comment, but the existing comments will still show up.

I'd be interested to read the discussion...

[jducoeur]

Interesting -- I hadn't noticed that feature. If I could apply it to the whole thread from the top, it would be *exactly* what I want. (As it is, I'll have to go through a lot of messages and freeze them individually.)

Thanks for the pointer...

[siderea]

You're supposed to be able to freeze whole threads. Check the FAQ.

[jducoeur]

Hmm. The FAQ doesn't seem to provide for a way to freeze the *post* (which is really what I mean by the "whole thread"), which is what I'm trying to do. You can freeze comments, but not posts, which is kind of inconvenient when the post has several dozen top-level comments.

Indeed, it seems like the Freeze function is still a bit immature, because you also can't apply the Mass Action capability to freeze. Pity, since that would do me just fine for this case.

Actually, from a programming POV, this is rather interesting. I get the impression that posts and comments must be seriously different objects, given that Freeze is not available on posts. That's a little surprising, since I would have expected them to heavily share a common base class, and implement things like Freeze there. In retrospect, I suppose this difference shows up in other ways, like the fact that you can't mark a comment as a Memory...

[siderea]

1) I could have sworn there was something about "the thus and such icon freezes a whole thread".

2) Yes, they are different. What happens when you retroactively (edit) change a post to be "no comments"? (Maybe you should test on a different post, no?)

3) Check your email. You should have a note from me. Please read it before doing anything rash.


ü

[jducoeur]

1) I could have sworn there was something about "the thus and such icon freezes a whole thread".

The problem seems to be that the LJ definition of "thread" applies to a single comment and its children, *not* to a post and its children. At least, that's my best interpretation based on the various statements I'm seeing.

What happens when you retroactively (edit) change a post to be "no comments"?

Exactly what I did to the previous post, actually. The good news is that it prevents anyone from posting additional comments. The bad news is that it hides the existing ones. (And yes, I tried going back and forth a couple of times with an innocuous post, to make sure it is reversible, before doing it to the important one.)

3) Check your email. You should have a note from me. Please read it before doing anything rash.

Read and replied to. I'm looking for input, but I am looking for it soon...

[selkiechick]

Seems I am too lste to jump in and leave my observations as a Carolingian, and as the currently (farily admittedly derelict) Magsitra.

Emmanuelle

[jducoeur]

Well, the question I was really trying to get an answer to was, "do other people see some issues here?", and the answer is clearly that a fair number do. I'm still working out the appropriate next steps, but this is far from finished...

[liamstliam.livejournal.com]

Justin: I am really baffled as to your concerns about LiveJournal.

I don't see any need to discuss it on the baronial list at all. If people are interested, they can explore it on their own or ask people who have it.

I see the Carolingia LJ as a secondary adjunct to the baronial list. I don't think there's any need for them both to be really active lists. I look at the LJ one as one for LJ users who happen to be Carolingians.

I do think it's clear that (here and in other instances) that there are a lot of people who do not know about/understand/like LiveJournal.

Liam

[jducoeur]

I am really baffled as to your concerns about LiveJournal.

It's not so much a matter of *my* concerns about LJ, as about, as you say,

I do think it's clear that (here and in other instances) that there are a lot of people who do not know about/understand/like LiveJournal.

I just want to make sure that we don't wind up with a have/have-not factionalization around LJ. I mean, there really has been no communication in the Barony about LJ, except *on* it, with the result that there are a lot of people who are rather suspicious of it. That has side-effects -- for example, when non-LJers hear that the Barony is being talked about on some peoples' LJs, they feel like they are being excluded from discussion that is relevant to them.

I'm not advocating massive changes or heavyweight policies, or anything like that. But I do think it's important that the LJ users understand the concerns of the non-users, and the non-users understand the medium well enough to grok what's going on with it. One thing that's become very clear to me in the past few days is that some of the non-users have *very* inaccurate impressions of it, and many are worried about it...

[liamstliam.livejournal.com]

Justin: I want to repeat that I think you had the best interests of the barony in mind when you suggested the nascent discussion be on LJ.

But I do want to comment.

*****
One thing that's become very clear to me in the past few days is that some of the non-users have *very* inaccurate impressions of it, and many are worried about it...
*****

I don't know about "inaccurate," but I think non-LJ people have every right to be concerned about what are basically private discussions about the barony. (I say private because they don't know about them).

Example: I am sure there are non-LJ people who would be interested in the LJ discussion about "Mummers' Angst."

Some of the most devisive things I have read concerning people or groups im the barony, both recently and in the past.

I know I have erred in assuming that everyone knows what's going on in LJ. There were a number of folks at baronial archery who wondered where you and Caitlin were, and we were surprised that they didn't know she had been in the hospital. (I am not saying you should have posted it to Carolingia, I am just saying is all). I am also surprised at the nunber of people who don't know about LJ at all.

Liam

[rufinia.livejournal.com]

Example: I am sure there are non-LJ people who would be interested in the LJ discussion about "Mummers' Angst."

Some of the most devisive things I have read concerning people or groups im the barony, both recently and in the past.

Well... think of it as a conversation that was held in the Common. It's in a public space, anyone could walk up and join in, but there's no need before any conversation in Common to put up a notice somewhere that says, "BTW, we're having a conversation in Commmon about topic X. It may morph into topics Y, Z, G and Q."

[liamstliam.livejournal.com]

My point is that it's not in a public space.

I would consider the regular Carolingia list the Common.

Liam

[jducoeur]

In what way is it not a public space? It is *easier* to get to than the Carolingian list. The mailing list requires you to jump through some hoops to subscribe to it, but anyone with a web browser can read most journals.

I really think you're misthinking this. Just because some people haven't yet found out about something does not, in any meaningful sense, make it "private". It simply indicates that we should be somewhat better about communicating about what's out there...

[liamstliam.livejournal.com]

Justin, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree here.

I understand your point that these discussion have gone on for ever and always well.

But here's somnething I was thinking about last night: Right now, as far as I know, the original discussion on LJ is locked by your choice. (Perhaps not a bad idea. I am not criticizing the decision). But that could not have happened on the baronial list.

I will be interested to see where this experiment goes. I do not think things are quite as bad as you and some others paint them, but I have only really been here for two years. If you compare what we are doing in this barony with most other places, we are still far ahead.

Liam

[jducoeur]

If you compare what we are doing in this barony with most other places, we are still far ahead.

Perhaps, but dynamics systems are all about trends. And as far as I can tell, we're on a serious, long-term downswing right now...

[rufinia.livejournal.com]

Except that it *is* public. The mummers angst community, you can read it even if you aren't an LJ user.

The Carolingia list is more like a town hall. By the Common I mean literally sitting with a bunch on friends by the Frog Pond, soaking your feet, discussing whatever. Anyone who happens to wander by can hear you, and may join in if they choose.

This is no different than having conversations in any physical public space.

[jducoeur]

I think non-LJ people have every right to be concerned about what are basically private discussions about the barony. (I say private because they don't know about them).

Do they? I mean this seriously. People talk about what they want to talk about; if they don't do so here, they're going to do so over coffee, or in email, or wherever they like.

Not everything is public. Not everything *should* be public. Considering everything to be everyone's business simply inhibits communication.

Nor do I accept the label of "private" in this case. Most of these discussions are *not* private, any more than discussions on, say, the sca-dance mailing list are "private". Different people seeks out different sources of communication, and get different things out of them.

The *real* problem is that communication within the Barony is currently rather weak. That isn't because we aren't posting every last message to the Carolingian Mailing List; it's because people aren't talking to each other enough. That's a general problem, having little to do with LJ per se.

Some of the most devisive things I have read concerning people or groups im the barony, both recently and in the past.

Well, think about this. People didn't start thinking these things because LJ suddenly exists. Those thoughts were stewing already. However, there are things people are *not willing* to say on the Baronial mailing list, due to the dynamics of mailing lists.

In other words, LJ is causing communication to happen where it wasn't happening before. Yes, that can be painful at times. But I don't see it as a bad thing: I'd far rather know what folks are thinking...

I am also surprised at the nunber of people who don't know about LJ at all.

I quite agree; I was a little surprised by it myself. But that seems another illustration of the fact that internal communication isn't what we might wish...