I do, for many reasons, need to cut back. I'll give it a try.
I wonder what it would be like if we had a day where everyone got 5 comments and that's all they could post in a day.
Or per thread, because what if you blow your allotted comments before something great gets posted?
Or, even better, if the quota was imposed only once a thread hit, say, 30 comments. (Sometimes it takes a while for things to get going.)
proposal: have a day where all threads get closed after 300 (500?) comments. see what happens.
The reason why there are 300 comments whenever you step away from the computer is that the AIs that simulate human posting behavior for spam purposes have gotten that good.
3 - It would mean that I would get some work done. Since I am a mad scientist bent on world destruction, probably not a positive outcome.
3: Make it 100, and something interesting might happen. More posts, possibly?
The only problem with the limit, of course, is that if a good discussion does spring up, it will be artificially limited.
Make your shit count, is what the woman is trying to say.
The only problem with the limit, of course, is that if a good discussion does spring up, it will be artificially limited.
Ah, but then our benevolent bloverlords can reward good discussions with new posts.
Here's another idea: what if there were, like, colony blogs that split off from the main blog. I wistfully think of the days of 2005 when I could actually keep up. I can keep up with 3-500 comments a day. Thousands? Not so much.
I don't want to go back to those days, because (although I'd love it if Weiner commented again) there are too many great new commenters (Knecht Ruprecht, Frowner, Di Kotimy, many others), but geez.
Is it really the case that, out of so many solutions to this commenting problem, there have been no pyramid schemes suggested? Allow me to correct that oversight: Create a commentariat caste system. Let x number of blogs constitute the Unfogged universe, with y being the outer rim, z being an inside track like tenure, and place Mineshaft in the center. Construct an elaborate system that allows blog commenters to move between levels, and like Swedenborgianism or Scientology or college basketball or the Talking Points Media Empire or whatever charlatanry you want to design it after, conduct expensive online seminars that explain how "You, too, can reach Unfogged!"
Besides, it's not like Ogged doesn't already act like L. Ron Hubbard.
So, so pwnd. (sigh.) What Chopper said.
11: Might make the discussion more manageable, but would probably kill the blog.
14: My real fantasy is to pick the 50 coolest commenters and 3 coolest posters and start another blog someplace else, except that then I wouldn't get to join.
Alternatively, I could just make one up. "Over at SeekretUnfogged, Cala and Apo were being soooo funny about the most recent post. What, you don't have access? Umm, never mind."
13: I thought you were expanding on my idea, and being much funnier than I.
IRL I'm trying to learn to shut up more, because I'm one of those people who always has something to say and I'm enough of a control queen to think that I can say it better (usually meaning more clearly) than others. Not true most of the time, but a cherished myth.
While I do not have the same obnoxious egotism about my ability to explain/discuss things well in writing, I do, to some extent, the same here. If I feel like I just have to jump in with Something That Must Be Said, I try to wait to see if someone else makes the point, which often happens. Or else I have enough time to consider that there's a more interesting point to be made, or that the world can keep turning without my keen insight.
This is not a suggestion for anyone else, just my particular strategy.
17: Alas, no! Simultaneous discovery.
The idea of limiting the number of comments by each person recalls some of the systems that women in civil rights and leftist groups in the '60s and '70s used to break into discussions dominated by Wise Men.
There were things like each person got 5 or 10 or whatever chips at the start of a meeting and had to throw one into the middle of the circle each time s/he spoke. When you ran out of chips, you didn't get to speak anymore.
I have to say, the threads attached to posts at the same time as explodo but not participating in explodo were pleasant and manageably sized.
I'm not sure what implications this has.
Ok everyone listen up! I've run out of things to say.
Wait, can I rollover my excess comments if I don't use them over the weekend? Better yet, can I sell them to maxed out commenters? A chance to comment on a really good thread ought to be worth a bundle.
Rollover comments last 18 months if you don't comment during that time. Want to extend your rollover comments? Simply comment at Unfogged or an Unfogged-approved site and the 18 month clock resets.
I can get a new laptop if I sign a contract?
[Offer not available in all threads. Banned where prohibited. If you are experiencing unexplained calf pain, stop commenting immediately.]
For awhile I've been pushing the colony solution, on the Amish principle of amicable fission. I just have no idea how the split would be done. The best I've come up with is just to take the frontpage people, divide them in half, select a few new people, and flip for who gets the original URL and who has to start from scratch.
I think that the non-Ogged blog will end up realizing how indispensable Ogged is. He really doe regulate the flow in his invisible way, including both accepting abuse and instigating conflict as needed.
I suppose that you could just choose sides like in sports, with Ogged being one captain (Hitler) and someone else being the other.
But then we'll have Unfogged, the schismatics Slightly Occluded, the Reformed Occludists, the New Demystified Congregation, and the First Site of Latter-Day Commenters.
See, the Amish split amicably. They just recognize that face-to-face communities can get only so large.
We should all reduce our comment footprint.
What about comments that add value?
This one for example. My new TV gets DC channel 49, broadcast station of the Alternative Knowledge Genre. Did you people even know it existed?
Why does it exist?
At SeekretUnfogged, someone was just talking about that, Emerson.
For those of you afraid to click that link, but still wondering what Alternative Knowledge might be, here's the WUFO TV list:
UFOs
Aliens
Abductions
Ancient Astronauts
Ancient Knowledge
Annuanki
Astroarchaeology
Atlantis
Crop Circles
Sacred Texts
Secret Teachings
Pyramids
Big Foot
Face on Mars
Our Dark Binary Star
Thunderbirds
Lost Cities
Tesla
Gnosticism
The Holy Grail
Ive Age Kingdoms
Expedition Reports
Mythology
Stargates
Metaphysics
Mary Magdalene
The God Particle
See, the Amish split amicably.
I'm trying to imagine Unfogged rumspringa. Unsuccessfully.
realizing how indispensable Ogged is. He really doe (sic) regulate the flow in his invisible way, including both accepting abuse and instigating conflict as needed.
You can only mention this in off blog communication or, if really necessary, in a thread where ogged has been especially abused. Otherwise it messes with the exact dynamic you're describing.
Posts like this encourage me to de-lurk more often and comment a bit more. Not as much as a "frequenter-regular," as my tendency is to drop in for about the length of 40 comments, say five or six things and leave.
This limits my Unfogged experience, but it makes it more manageable. I come to say what I want to say (and I only say something if it's a real comment, not a conversational IM kind of comment), respond to people if they say something to me (okay I admit this is more conversational), and then I leave.
Anyway, thank you, Becks. I feel a little more welcome here now that you said explicitly things I've been wondering about, like "do people care if you're not a "regular"? If quality is the new litmus test, then my way of dropping in only occasionally seems okay. I can control for quality and be substantive but rarely, or at least not as often as the quick pace/volume of Unfogged threads would demand it!
I'm trying to imagine Unfogged rumspringa.
You're coming to DC in December, right? No need to imagine.
Have each poster set a comment limit per thread, say, anything between 50 and 500. Thread closes automatically at that point. Different posters can experiment with different limits for different kinds of threads. I'd also be okay with per-user limits per thread or per day.
Capping threads seems likely to be irritating. I think the only answer is to acknowledge that being an Unfogged completist is no longer possible: you pick your threads and stick with 'em to the end. But you can't possibly read them all.
Having more posters and most posts per day seems to be getting short shrift.
For the entertainment value of that horse-race alone, do it.
Between the ages of 16 and 18, Unfoggetarians typically give up commenting in favor of brewing crystal meth and appearing in gay porn before making the decision to permanently commit themselves to the discipline of the Mineshaft.
You're coming to DC in December, right?
I wish. You'll post video, won't you?
Cell phone video. It's the next wave, I assure you.
Between the ages of 16 and 18, Unfoggetarians typically give up commenting in favor of brewing crystal meth and appearing in gay porn before making the decision to permanently commit themselves to, taking their first steps toward the discipline of the Mineshaft.
45: Unf'DCon will almost certainly, as before, be live-blogged. Live-vlogging: who knows. Possible.
"bring sticky notes to class in two colors. Hand them out at the beginning--two of one color, one of the other. Tell them that two of the notes are for offering a comment or a response to a question, and the third one is for asking a question." but then that bastard SEK beat me to it.
I know this isn't being literally proposed, and the underlying sentiment isn't wrong ... but, argh, enough of my life is in lecture or seminar format as it is.
I don't think capping threads is the way to go. If anything, I think that would cause people to comment even faster in the hope they could get what they want to say in before the thread gets closed.
And for the people who say "more posts" (and those of you who shout "new post" when a discussion bores you), I don't think you understand the amount of work that would entail. We all already spend a lot of time keeping the site running, writing posts, and moderating discussions. Even bringing on more posters and the behind-the-scenes coordination it takes to manage more posters is more work. And I like being able to write what I want to write when I'm inspired, not "I just need to throw some shit up to feed the blog".
I don't like the thread-cap idea, either. Isn't the idea to check out the changed dynamics within a blog? Yeah, I know that it might effect how a thread ends, but I don't find that interesting. I think your 5 posts/person is a great idea as a one-time experiment. I have some thoughts on what would happen, but definitely not certain. Be fun to see.
We all already spend a lot of time keeping the site running, writing posts, and moderating discussions.
And inviting people into your home. And working a job that seems to require considerable travel. And maintaining an actual real life (so far as can be seen from afar). It's a damn poor guest at your virtual home who complains about the fare.
I was going to suggest on one of the earlier political threads that the dream ticket for 2012 would be Becks/Megan. Geographic balance, to be sure, and some balance of temperament too, I think. People would have fun, sure, but, man, shit would get done.
I posted this in the Lurker thread, but I will post it here as well so that maybe it will get read (I demand to be heard!).
Like anyone is gonna read this, after 1000+ comments, but why not. I've stated this before, here even, but I'll do so again. I am a lurker only because my online access can be sporadic so I miss whole days sometimes (like I totally missed this thread) and I am in Europe, which means I miss the prime commenting time. I either get these threads at the very beginning and then am gone for the rest, or I get them really late, where all the funny shit has been said.
However, internally, I feel like a regular here, as I generally read almost every thread, but rarely actually contribute anything (mostly to the music threads). Hell, my wife knows half your guys' handles because of all the funny crap I read here and tell her about. There ain't nothing you guys could do to make a lurker like me participate more. But for Pete's sake, don't stop. This is my daily fix of fun.
I'll add that I could actually post more often here than other fora because there is less of an argument feel to this place but rather more of a discussion. So I guess the hit-and-run style that I kind of have to maintain wouldn't be so annoying here. That, and the fact that most of y'all probably don't give a crap what I have to say anyway.
Though I didn't read past about 500 of the "Hey, Lurkers?" thread, some people seemed to feel that the discussions are perhaps more comity-filled than is truly desirable. In that spirit, I'd like to interject a possibly divisive, but hopefully not explosive, question I've been considering.
When eugenics was popular, it almost always targeted people with "defects" - things people acquired through birth, like race or disability. We are well rid of that.
But what about eugenics targeting people's actions? This seems more like an honest, defensible collective social decision to select against certain behaviors. For example, everyone convicted of first-degree murder, or violent rape, could be sterilized. We would have to do something very serious about race/class prejudice in the judicial system, but assuming that could be surmounted, I can envision it as a social good.
I'd be interested in people's reactions. Is there some important moral concern I've forgotten? I don't hold with an absolute right to give birth, but I suppose in practice it's been a constant of many societies.
assuming that could be surmounted
That seems like an awfully big assumption.
Minivet, I don't agree with the use of that punishment in any cases, but it would be particularly ineffective for people who are either already parents or already sterile.
I'd certainly want to see more data on the heritability of these behaviors. Does the daughter of a rapist do bad things? Actually, does propensity to rape -- assuming such a thing even exists -- come from a father in any way, either nature or nurture? (I'm not suggesting that it comes from a mother -- and only pose the question the way I have because we're not talking about sterilizing women for engaging in violent rape).
We would have to do something very serious about race/class prejudice in the judicial system
That's where your big improvements will come from.
Is there some important moral concern I've forgotten?
The one where it's never been conclusively proven how much "antisocial behavior" is genetically determined, and how the idea that we can "do something" about class/race prejudice (or whatever will eventually take their place) to the degree that this would not be a massively, terribly bad idea.
I even have some issues with this idea of "targeting people's actions"; I think that sounds dangerously like the whole conservative obsession with the mythologized version of "personal responsibility" that lets them conveniently elide the notion of collective responsibility when it comes to discussing causes for this like, oh, say, violent crime.
But you want to know my reaction? Seriously, this is a creepy subject, and I really don't think it would be the best one to test out a newer, kinder-about heterodox-views Unfogged.
50: live-vlogging unfoggedcon hadn't even occurred to me. clearly what we need to do is set up a mac laptop in the bathroom with imovie at the ready and let people go to town. it can be like our own little confessional.
61:
With a big sign facing the person who is about to vlog, "Are you sure you really want to do this?!?!?!"
For example, everyone convicted of first-degree murder, or violent rape, could be sterilized.
I am personally really uncomfortable with sterilization as a punishment. I'm probably uncomfortable with eugenic-flavored policy, whatever the circumstances. At the moment, I don't think we have even the beginnings of an idea about how genetics, socialization, and who knows what X-factor interact to create action, and under those conditions, I think such policy would be really, really wrongheaded. I don't know that we have the tools to evaluate the effectiveness of such a policy, or understand why such a policy worked or didn't work. And if we did, and it clearly didn't work? Well, after sterilizing a significant number of people, there would be tremendous pressure to pretend it did. What I'm guessing would be fairly sizable class of people--the sterilized and their families--would be pretty angry. And if (assuming the tools) it did work, that flavor of policy would be extended to lesser crimes.
That leaves out class and race, factors which would only make it all the worse. IIRC, an attempt to bribe black women with some number of existing kids and a specific economic profile into either sterilization or Norplant usage was wildly contentious.
If we'd sterilized apo a couple of years ago, the blog would be funnier now, so there's that.
I just clicked over to the RBC, and there was this.
Well, okay, not me personally, but people I know. Well, one person I know.
64: My inner w-lfs-n gestures as possible aspersions about Mrs. Apo.
To respond to various points in no particular order:
1) The questionable heritability of violent behavior: Yes, probably the biggest issue. I posit nothing scientific, but think of it as an extension of our common-sense understanding of the domestication process. Cull the violent aurochs, and eventually you get cows. (Is this a misunderstanding of domestication? It's certainly not all there is to it.)
2) Possible extension to lower crimes: Yecch. I hoped while writing that the restriction to the worst crimes would emphasize it as the final punishment, but that's not assured. It's a hell of a slippery slope, and I might abandon the idea for that reason alone.
3) Whether it's futile because it ignores class causes of crime: Possible, and I sympathize with that worry, but I still think it could help partly. On the other hand, maybe it would create a more subservient underclass, less prone to revolts.
So I'm not totally convinced against it, but I'd never advocate it in this century at least. Thanks for pointing out these issues.
65: Yes, I think that's what reminded me of this.
We would have to do something very serious about race/class prejudice in the judicial system, thereby hopping over the teensy hurdle of one of the most intractable and persistent problems in American history.
Not coincidentally, advocates of brutal tactics already like to think of themselves as advocating eugenics based on people's actions. An example at random.
Just goes to show:
PC Comity is like the sun,
Wherever it shines, it is bright.
Wherever there is PC Comity,
Hurrah, there the people are liberated!
what we need to do is set up a mac laptop in the bathroom with imovie at the ready and let people go to town
That is not what I would prefer to see of UnfoggedCon.
59, 70: When a man is tired of ridiculously optimistic hypotheticals, he is tired of life.
11: Chopper, you made my day. Thank you.
Like LB, it would probably do me some good to cut back a bit. A sure sign I've spent to too much time here is catching myself wanting to throw a snarky "Comity!" into an email exchange with the (soon-to-be) ex and only just realizing before I hit send that this would make absolutely no sense at all too him.
For example, everyone convicted of first-degree murder, or violent rape, could be sterilized.
Why bother? Most people convicted of first-degree murder or violent rape are, almost by definition, in prison- the ultimate cock blocker. If you raise the conjugal visit argument, then I'd say that it'd be much easier to eliminate that program than to institute a formal eugenic program.
But what about eugenics targeting people's actions?... I can envision it as a social good.
This used to be a fairly popular idea back in the Progressive era. The Jukes family were probably the best-known subjects of studies concerning the hereditability of criminal behavior. Here's a fun tidbit:
A code book, labeled "classified", was found and listed the real surnames of the "Jukes" family. Hundreds of names were listed, including Plough, Miller, DuBois, Clearwater, Bank and Bush.So maybe there's something to that idea after all.
74: Come to think of it, the version I originally heard involved any existing progeny also being sterilized. I left that part out.
Ironically, I'm not going to read this thread.
Two things: capping threads is likely to make people comment *more* and less substantively, as they rush to pee on the wall before it's taken away. Maybe that would go away after the novelty wore off, not sure. Part of me likes the idea, because anything over 300 comments is just nuts, but part of me doesn't, because sometimes the long threads are long because there's a good argument going, or because enough people just happen to be sitting around doing nothing that day and the thread becomes really fun joking around, and both of those things are the things I like best. Much more than reasonable on-topic discussion of individual posts, I gotta admit.
Re. the five posts/day (or thread) thing: much better idea. Again, I worry about the way this would screw up the jokey banter games, but Apo's too busy with his damn baby these days anyway, and if we only did it once in a while (or on particular threads! Like maybe the feminist ones, since to be honest those are both the ones that seem to bug people most and, I have to admit, the ones where some of us are most likely to just say the same shit we've already said a jillion times anyway) it could be cool.
Re. the spinoff blogs killing unfogged, let's admit it: there are already a few spinoff/satellite blogs, and nothing in the world is gonna kill unfogged.
I lied and read the thread. Re. sterilization as punishment:
Is there some important moral concern I've forgotten? I don't hold with an absolute right to give birth, but I suppose in practice it's been a constant of many societies.
Well, the "right" to give birth is itself a moral concern. First, because it's a fundamental part of what defines a "living thing" (humans being living things). Second, because it's a feminist issue--I think it's significant that what you're proposing seems like it should be gender-neutral, and if anything men get arrested/jailed a lot more than women, but you're phrasing the anti argument as being about a "right to give birth," which men don't do. Reproduction is coded as a "woman thing," and arguing for state control of reproduction is dangerous, dangerous territory. I think it's far too blase to simply assert that "we are well rid of" racial/sexist concerns.
And anyway, if things acquired through birth (race, disability) are things you *don't* want to sterilize people for, then what's the argument for sterilizing people at all?
Much more than reasonable on-topic discussion of individual posts, I gotta admit.
No shit.
nothing in the world is gonna kill unfogged
is this the sound of water skis skimming over the shark?
chasspaz
sigh, I've really got to stop using so many laptops.
56: sterilization, yechh, yechh, horrible idea. Lousy topic too -- as boring as a policy seminar, as disgusting as a perversion.
We're already having enough trouble holding off cruel and unusual punishment in this country.
Re. the spinoff blogs killing unfogged, let's admit it: there are already a few spinoff/satellite blogs, and nothing in the world is gonna kill unfogged
I wondered if somebody was going to point that out.
the version I originally heard involved any existing progeny also being sterilized.
This is some kind of test, right?
I'm trying to imagine Unfogged rumspringa.
Going to the gym, doing my taxes, reading an actual book, calling my Mum, cleaning the house, talking to my partner.
Ok, now I'm ready to come back and focus.