On 3/7/06, Tim Erickson <<email obscured>> wrote:
> I don't think that there is anything "MAGIC" about 2 posts in 24
> hours. In general, I think it works pretty good and I think that most
> of the long term users of the our local Issues Forum would agree.
>
> For me, the main purpose of the 2 post per 24 hour rule IS to
> encourage participation. Its to encourage quality participation from
> a diverse group of participants.
Well we've done it "your way" for the past 12 months and frankly I
have not noticed any unusual patterns of activity such as the
liberation of the usual majority of lurkers, only frustration by
people who are also giving their time by attempting to participate in
debate only to find their messages are getting rebuffed by senseless
robots.
> Anyone who has ever participated in a "talking circle" or "circle
> dialogue" that uses a "talking piece" can speak to the POWERFUL ways
> that putting some limitations of discussion, can actually open it up
> to more participants and increase the quality of what is said.
I'm not sure I am familiar with a talking circle and think anyone
would be brave to admit to having participated, but in any case I
can't see how this might be analogous to what we are discussing.
> As a facilitator, its very clear to me, that whether online or in
> person, there are some people for whom participation comes easily and
> other for whom you must both encourage and allow space for their
> participation. A "talking piece" is one face-to-face tool that does
> that. In our Issues Forums, the 2 post per 24 hour limit is the
> closest we've come.
Again I am not really familiar with talking pieces, but are you really
saying that people feel intimidated of stepping in to a debate with a
relatively high rate of exchanges in relation to the passage of time?
> By restricting the quantity of everyone's speech, we hope that we'll
> make the space more OPEN to a larger quantity of participation. My
> fear is that looser restrictions will result in a fewer number of
> participants dominating the discussion even more. The more this forum
> becomes about a few individuals, the less interesting it is for
> elected officials and community leaders (or so the theory holds).
Well I think the past year has proved that you can't change the
fundamental laws of nature that appear to lead to the majority happy
to participate in a debate as spectators, and I should add that there
is nothing wrong with that if that's their wish.
> So - I would suggest thinking about the posting limit as a
> facilitation tool designed to encourage a diversity of folks to
> participate. What exactly is the ideal limit per day, half day, or
> week - is still an open question. Any researchers want to help us
> figure it out? It might also vary from community to community, I
> don't know.
For my sins I belong to a huge number of lists. I suspect that many
people are similar. None of these lists put an arbitrary limit on the
volume of messages, and most are dominated by about 5% of the list's
population. And I haven't seen a proper inflammatory exchange for
about 3 years now.
Actually I think there is a lot of self censorship, not just from
lurkers (whatever their motivation), but for example I know that if
anyone attempted to discuss whether the council should switch from PCs
to Macs would simply never get started now.
I suspect that you are basing your experiences on the usenet flamewars
of old that have actually moved on since. It's good to have a living
memory of these as people should still be aware that there are areas
that are likely to cause more heat than light, but I still fail to see
how you can control the content of the message simply by limiting its
volume.