::scr Mostly meta (was Re: Welcome To "scr"!)

[Richard Clamp]

On Sat, Jul 07, 2001 at 10:03:02PM +0100, Paul Mison wrote:
> On 07/07/2001 at 01:37 +0100, Richard Clamp wrote:
> >...bridges can be computery.
> 
> And you can geek over them (cf NY).

You can geek over anything if you try hard enough -
http://www.google.com/search?q=fan+site gives ~1,720,000 hits, if your
trust the summary bar.

> Apparently Dave suggested Senior Common Room. You know, like in those
> posh universities I never went to.

Common rooms strike me as more an A-Level thing.  You know, like in
that A-Level system I didn't go through.

> Damn, can't find the URL now. We used it on Wednesday or so, though, so
> Simon should have it handy somewhere.

http://www.catalog.com/vivian/lifecycle.html - googling for 'mailing
list lifecycle' suggests that 10,500 people liked it enough to webify
it in some way.  

I'm referring to points from that as (n) in the rest of this, and I'm
patching this note in now where it's obvious to introduce it.  Think
too much, me, never?

> A particularly good example. It happens all the time on (void). (And,
> indeed, it goes the other way, too. But how do you deal with that? It
> might, concievably, go *back* on topic. Best just to leave it.)

People try to start on-topic threads?  I'm not going to argue too
harshly, since you read it all more attentively than I do, but I'd say
it's the exception, not the rule.

> >Based on some random pop psychology that I'm making up right now,
> >that's likely to form really dull consensus.
> 
> That's my conclusion too. For what it's worth.

See, we're doing it already :)

> What *is* the problem? Is it that (void) goes off-topic? Is it really
> that much of a problem?

That's not actually a problem, unless enough (or maybe the 'right')
people decide they want an on-topic list, then it's against the spirit
of the thing.

Before then it's just cheating :)

>                         We've all posted to off-topic threads. (Even
> Richard...)

<hyperbole>
I've also been in a car crash, drank to the point of making myself
ill, been evil towards my family and unpleasant to women.  None of
these I'd consider suitable things to do, so I'm intending on not
doing them again.
</>

Off-topic on a list past (4) is very much the easy, seductive path of
the Dark Side.

Everyone's a hypocrite, and the ones who generalise deserve a slapping
for being lazy.

In the pub earlier Celia made a point along the lines of "if you want
to see more $foo, post more $foo".  Now I agree with that, but with
the caveat that kind of posts you'd consider on topic can sometimes be
bloody hard.  Actually being on topic here[0] is kindof easy right
now, becuase I'm more just unloading what's in my brain[1] but I can
see a point when all of it is done, being at a form of (6).

Also I'm tempted to take that life cycle thing and cut it down to the
bone.  My version of (4) would come out as

4. Community
   4.1. Rejoicing the topic
   4.2. At the expense of the topic

Please contradict me wildly, but we all seem to be concerned about
4.2, else this list wouldn't have been started wouldn't be here.

>            Don't forget drinking.)

I did, maybe it was the drink...

What?  You put the temptation there, what else is a girl to do?



[0] metaness[4] about what would make a meta-technical list stay on
track, I think

[1] an argument for not keeping a static[2] list is that you risk
    losing out on juicy branes, leading to stagnation

[2] not specifically open or closed, just the same members[3]

[3] hmm, possibly there's benefit in culling the old-timers, so that
    they can't bitch about covering old topics again, but only if you
    can be sure of finding warm bodies

[4] that keeps scanning as meatyness.  I should advertise dogfood

-- 
Richard Clamp <richardc@unixbeard.net>