Radio Paradise

Posted: Jun 28, 2014 - 6:13am

Actually, I'm not sure why I'm here, except that I'm truly fond of the folks, and deeply appreciative of the creative force and people behind the site itself. Even though I do have often strong opinions sometimes, I guess I rarely engage in many of the discussions, but I do enjoy reading what people have to say about the varied topics from the emotionally driven to the critically mundane. I'm inspired by the talents on display and moved by the highs and lows of the regular members. I realize that my own input has always had a sort of trajectory, and though I'm the conscious purveyor I must say that there is much ado in collaboration with the sub conscious that goes on with my stream, even decreasingly as the posts are of late. I've always felt an organic pull to this orbit of RP; a natural inclination to the hearts and minds on the other side of the display screen. I care very deeply about the input of others and I feel very personally about the quality of my own input. I would not wish to be thought of as a trivial person. My intent is toward the positive aspects if I can stay focused. But that's just me, and in spite of my frequent protests I am human; at least the parts that play wither to the hourglass.
Thank you for this journal, Winter (and Steeler earlier)
It asks questions and speaks volumes to the bottom line, that being what is a community, and what is it for? To serve, or to be served...after all, aren't they both one in the same?

Posted: Jun 27, 2014 - 10:16pm

Honestly, it doesn't annoy me terribly to see the same topics keep popping back up, what with me not participating and all. Frankly that was exactly the point of my decision to scale way back: if coming here and engaging in serious discussion did more to infuriate than enlighten me, it seemed like a very "stop hitting yourself" choice to me. So I've managed my reactions on the matter to my own satisfaction.

But since there's been a decline in participation on the Forum, and FB often gets the blame, it seemed like there was a bigger question worth asking.

I get that some people like digging in deep, even on the contentious topics. But I have to wonder if this is the place for it. It's one thing, to use the metaphor Steeler and I have been talking about, to go to a party and have a quiet conversation about something maybe the rest of the guests would prefer to steer away from. We're all adults, we all have our own interests.

But if it drives people off - people who'd otherwise like to participate in the Forum, maybe even in the more serious threads - how should that be addressed? For that matter, should it? Do we accept that it's all about kitty posts and cartoons on one side, deep dives and debates on the other, and occasionally the twain shall overlap, and not many will find it as compelling or welcoming as they once did?

Political fora exist and thrive. I haven't participated in them because I just don't find fighting about politics as fun as I used to. I'm inclined to agree with recent research that suggests people aren't so rational about their views as we'd like to think: often the more you give someone contrary evidence, the more they dig in and the less they trust you. (You've argued with enough truthers to have seen this.

) All that aside, how much participation have they lost to FB? I don't know, but I suspect not much - the people who frequent those boards live for the deep dive, for that give and take about who's right, who's wrong, etc. Or there are those with the occasional idea that's a bit outside the mainstream, and they can find a willing audience at sites like that. I don't know. I'm just guessing here, having no actual evidence or experience.

I'm not sure that's as true of the general audience here. I think people come for the music (or perhaps the waters) and stay for the friendship. And some of those happen to be people of passion and position who like to talk politics or philosophy or what have you. And since they're among friends, they naturally want to share their passions. Why shouldn't they? But if their indulgence of those passions becomes off-putting to those of a different disposition, wouldn't we suggest they dial it back a notch?

Suppose someone was utterly fascinated by Hello Kitty. They opened up threads about the history of Hello Kitty, collecting Hello Kitty, Hello Kitty fan-fiction, Hello Kitty sightings, upcoming Hello Kitty products, and so on. And they kept bringing them back up into the RAFT and bumping the more generally appealing threads down and out. And they bring Hello Kitty into virtually every conversation. Wouldn't we suggest maybe they rely on more Hello Kitty-centric sites for that level of discussion and keep it a bit more general here?

We could let the Forum turn into a few political threads and a couple of jokes, with no more participants than you can count on fingers and tes. Or do we figure out a way to let people have their cake and debate it too by figuring out a better way to manage the balance?

Again, I don't know. I just think that if something so many loved has turned into something most choose to avoid, the choice is either let it happen or do something different. Many people who came here for the conversation seem quite content to interact on FB - to play in the shallower end of the pond. And most of them steered clear of the deeper threads to begin with.

Posted: Jun 27, 2014 - 9:42pm

EDIT: Are you guys still talking about this? Kind of going over the same ground over and over, aren't you? ;)

————

Interesting journal - thanks for a thoughtful post.

Here's my thoughts on the topic/your journal, in no particular order.

It seems hard to distinguish when you have FB in mind vs here, in a number of your illustrations & examples, so I gots confuzed there.

I also note that conversations among multiple participants on FB don't go on anywhere as long as here - a week is a long time on FB. Part of that I attribute to the shorter attention span for a given post/thread one has on FB, as there are just so many things blipping by on FB to read/like/snort at. The other reason convos on FB are not especially long-lasting is FB does not make it easy to follow a thread you're participating in, after a day or so. Many updates to the thread you'll never see - unless you search your own posting history and dial the thread up there. Of course FB does have a notification feature for a post, which admittedly, I rarely use - because I don't think of it. And thus I doubt many of our FB friends use it all that often either - if they're even aware of it. So yeah, FB is a miserable failure compared to most discussion forums, and most certainly compared to this forum, IMO.

That said, this forum is great for group discussion, IMO. And unlike FB, it's even easier to look back at one's own posts to blip back in to a thread and see what, if any, further activity transpired since our last post. And unlike FB, this forum has the ability to help you find something you only have an inkling recall of. Someone once said something about a favorite bacon recipe, but you can't remember who? No problem - search bacon here, or use google to search bacon site:radioparadise.com. Try that on FB. Nuh-uh.

Something in your journal that struck me as odd - it seems that you have a low tolerance for topics you dislike appearing on the RAFT. I'm honestly surprised - I would have assumed that we all have learned to ignore or not read threads we have little or no interest in. I most certainly don't read the latest posts in every thread or even the 10 threads at the top of the RAFT. I have zero interest in the Counting with Pictures thread, but appreciate that others find it entertaining. Because that's really what a discussion forum is all about - different topics for different interests. What makes this forum unique though is the RAFT. Most forums don't have anything like it. I find the RAFT a useful instant measure of whether or not there's anything recently posted that I might be interested in (and we all have our own ruleset of how we quantify 'interesting'). Your journal post suggests that the RAFT listings often annoy you. I'd like to suggest you need to work on that a bit. The 'quality' and number of the RAFT listings is a direct indication of the current at the moment participation levels on the forum. If you're not seeing topics you want to engage in, I'd like to suggest that may be due to the declining number of participants - and therefore a decline in the variety of interests. Only through increasing the participants will the overall 'quality' of the RAFT content improve. To carry out your apparent suggestion that there should be fewer topics on the RAFT is a certain recipe to drive away others from the forum or increase the incidence of disinterest. If an infrequent or new visitor to the forum sees nothing of interest appearing on the RAFT, where's their incentive to participate? That first post / first new topic created is a giant hurdle to many new to any forum - not just here. There's etiquette and forum conventions to observe via lurking for many, before they'd consider a first post/participation.

And another thought... while there are most certainly several topics we each may look upon with dismay (list of topics will vary), one thing that's become quite apparent (at least to me) after all these years is that many of us explicitly trust each other - because we've gotten to know each other, if not in person, most certainly virtually. There are no false facades that can withstand this number of years or reading each others posts. While we may not be bestest pals evah with each and every one, I'd wager that if most here were asked for a favor within our powers, we'd grant those favors - because we 'know' each other - and often - trust each other. Even if its a virtual 'know'. Contrast that to FB. For me at least, my FB friend list is overwhelmingly made up of people I've met personally and many who I see in person often. Conversations on FB with FB friends are almost universally not as deep or extended as here - and those conversations on a topic most certainly don't go on for weeks or months on end. FB is all about the quick hit update. Hit and run (on to other things), for the most part. Or at least, that's how I use it. And FB has, to me, an implied response time, similar to email. It's good manners to respond promptly on FB. Whereas, here on this (or other) forum, what might be seen as a tardy response on FB is of no concern here - the discussion goes on and one can jump in and out as it pleases them.

Over the years, I think I've really got to know most here - to the point where I consider y'all trustworthy (with rare exception). I've done things for several that I've never met, some I've talked to on the phone, and some I've done business with (but never actually met). The forum offers an advantage that I don't think FB has or ever will have - the ability to get to know - and like - total strangers without ever actually meeting them. That doesn't work on FB - as your FB friends already have some kind of a connection with you.

So I guess in summary, my thoughts would be you get out of the forum what you put in it. (And I've certainly varied my own interest and participation levels off and on) I don't think it productive to allow the RAFT content to annoy you. Nor do I think it wise to suggest some kind of restriction on topic matter on the forum. Especially so with the dramatic decline in forum participants we've all witnessed in the last few years...

That's my 2cents Canuckian. Pointless ramble or train-o-thought with a useful bit here or there, I'll let the reader decide.

And no, I will not ship any of our genuine Canuckian tundra-snow to the RPeeps in FL or TX, so stop axing.

Posted: Jun 27, 2014 - 9:07pm

Odds are several people have already tuned this whole business out as a big rehash. :)

Posted: Jun 27, 2014 - 8:48pm

Agreed. There are degrees.

but maybe the more apt analogy is that it is a house party and different things are going on in different rooms. I go into a room and find 2 people obviously engaged in a private conversation. I am going to quickly exit that room. I have been in relatively long conversations with one person at a party and sometimes another friend will return and say: "you guys still talking about that?" Maybe he or she would like to change the subject to something he or she finds more interesting or that might be of more interest to a larger group. Nothing wrong with that or that kind of overture. But also nothing wrong with the original engagement. The reality is that folk go to social gatherings looking for different things. The respect has to run both ways.

I am tired, so need to break off and perhaps return with more cogent thoughts.

Edit: Right now, the two of us have had this room to ourselves and, at some point, another forum denizen is going to come in here and say: Are you guys still talking about this? Kind of going over the same ground over and over, aren't you? ;)

Posted: Jun 27, 2014 - 8:02pm

And that's valid, certainly. I don't think anyone wants the conversations to stay shallow, or to keep people from talking about the more intense stuff.

But there are degrees. If the people in the corner having a deeper talk keep yelling at each other, or keep going over the same ground over and over, the other guests may encourage them to dial it back or perhaps talk about something different. Likewise the romantic couple who get a little too romantic and are asked to "get a room". There's a certain level of intensity that leaves others uncomfortable and dampens the spirits of the party, I think.

Posted: Jun 27, 2014 - 7:50pm

Using your cocktail party metaphor, but starting with a different premise: Three guests are engaged in a deeper discussion in one part of the room. Others who come up realize that the discussion is a deeper one than they wish to have, so they move on. There are a lot of people at the party, and lots of other opportunities. The three are engaged. This is not a case of a boor who keeps moving from group to group, making it difficult for others to enjoy themselves. The three are pursuing their interest and their version of fun. They are not intruding on the conversations of others. They are preoccupied, so they are not circulating that much, but that's really no different than 2 people who have isolated themselves, perhaps in pursuit of a romantic moment. That is part of the smorgasbord and is accepted as such.

Posted: Jun 27, 2014 - 7:35pm

Steeler, I think what you see as a deeper conversation others might call something more like correspondence: the inevitable time delays imposed by the medium (often magnified by the need to source data or compose an appropriate response), the long strings of thought carefully composed and addressed to particular individuals. There's your post, then a long response by kurster, long responses from Islander or Lazy8 or me or whoever else feels like weighing in, and so on ad fleas that bite 'em.

I guess I would say this: other than the openness that allows anyone to jump in anytime, how is a deeper conversation here really that different from an email exchange (or even a chat on FB?). And given how the more intensely conversated threads tend to be populated by the same seamsters, how much would be lost by turning them into private chats?

I go back to my cocktail party metaphor (which reminds me, I need to buy vodka): let's say a couple of people really want to talk monetary policy and its impact on income inequality, and most others would rather stick to lighter fare. Those focused few can go off to a quieter corner and dig deep to their hearts' delight while everyone else trips lightly through the small-talk tulips. Or they agree to talk more later and stick to the party talk.

I don't know. I don't want to shunt the political/philosophical wanks off to a corner, because they have every bit as much fightworthy right to the party as anyone. I'm just thinking that the constant resurgence of the same controversies over and over wears thin and sends the guests home for pajamas and Haagen-Dazs sans shouting.

Posted: Jun 27, 2014 - 7:01pm

Interesting. I will ponder it. Thanks for writing it.

Right now, I will just say that it is difficult to have an ongoing discussion on FB, which, to me, leaves the conversations somewhat lacking in substance. They generally are lighter, which, most of the time, is just fine. But, as you say, the topics and discussions are like little blips. Fleeting.

Here, when the discussion works, it is rather enthrallIng. I don't think you can reach those high points at FB. But you do not sink to the low points, either.