Given the success of the last "consensus" in stopping these fights, I'm
sure we need another one right?
I think it is important to demonstrate what the current readers of the
group prefer to alleviate such discussions. The original was based on
the majority who presented opinions, why should that be different now?
I'm thinking of a great many who preceeded me here who no longer
participate and I see a great many new members. It is a dynamic
situation in which discourse occurs due to the all too stringent
principles that applied by the majority that expressed an opinion over
~2.5 years ago.
I'm seeing a great many who prefer a slightly broader definition of
what is on topic. The noise from the signal/noise ratio is large due
to the application of the agreed apon principles of many people who
aren't currently present being imposed upon many new people who have a
slightly different perspective on what is on topic. The differences
are not really that great. The noise level is, however.
Recently there was a period of MINIMAL "corrective" posts and it was
the most peaceful I've seen this group. It did not go to pot. It did
not begin recommending lower quality wares. In short, signal/noise was
the closest ratio I've seen in my time here.
Again, a fresh consensus is very valuable. If positive posts are made
to those seeking answers and we bite our tongues when we have no
better recommendations to offer you would be surprised at just how
smoothly (and friendly) this group can be. That is the highest degree
of productive reading possible for those who read in here.
This is an unmoderated group, so corrective posts are simple wastes
that tend to blow up into huge threads. It has been suggested that
someone with the time and a strict view start a moderated group where
things will flow smoothly. I'll read both, for certain. There were no
takers, however. This is the best solution IMO and it is not an act of
congress to make it so.
I can find a google link that begins at ~1400 posts derived from the
simple mention of a cover CD. I imagine that thread would have ended
with less than 20 posts if unmolested. Following this the censors
withdrew somewhat and the group ran perfectly for a period of time. It
was friendly, to the point, productive, there were no exploding
threads and it stayed on topic; the best I've seen. It will require
reading 2-3 months of googled posts to see the drastic changes, but
I'll supply the link if you (or anyone else) wants to study it.
If the above is read it will be clear that a more relaxed atmosphere
provides the most productive environment possible in this unmoderated
group. Given the posts offered here recently I can see a pretty large
change in attitudes, but they are very minor in the grand scheme of
things.
So, yes. I think a fresh consensus is indeed a good idea. If those who
clung to the "majority rules" (I don't necessarily) they should think
of making adjustments in corrective posts.
My wish is for a group that flows smoothly to assist and to further
knowledge to all concerned. I don't mind making a stand from time to
time about my wishes. In the end it depends on the voluntary
cooperation of all involved though.
