Lets run with the metaphors: WAS: Re: Thoughts on exclusion and culture

[Haggridd]

--- In HPFGU-Feedback at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" 
<dfrankiswork at n...> wrote:

> The first metaphor is that of the party.  This has been put 
forward 
> in discussions before, certainly within the admin team but I think 
> also on OTC.  In this metaphor, we imagine groups of people 
holding 
> conversations.  People may join or leave a particular group, or 
> participate in more than one conversation at once.  A conversation 
> corresponds to a thread on HPFGU.  In this metaphor, each person 
> knows more or less who is in the group (on HPFGU there is an 
unknown 
> number of lurkers but this does not affect the argument), and 
> addresses their remarks to that group.  In list posting terms that 
> may lead to in-jokes and other forms of behaviour that may seem 
> excluding to other people not in that group at that time.  In the 
> metaphor, that's acceptable, because those people aren't there - 
> they are on the other side of the room, having their own 
> conversation, or sitting quietly in a corner.  On a list, though, 
> there is no definition of who is 'in' a thread: potentially any 
list 
> member may be trying to join in by reading posts.
> 
Me (Haggridd):
Your metaphor of a party seems more closely descriptive of the 
dynamics of the list than that of the seminar.  You yourself admit 
that the seminar was an assumption on your part.  Anyay, back to the 
party.  It is a big party, with many groups carrying on 
conversations, playing party games, or having sing-alongs.  This 
party is also a long party, where party-goers break for sleep, or to 
eat from the buffet, and have little one o one conversations with 
persons who had previously been in said conversations, playing said 
party games, or singing along said songs.  Where your analysis of 
the mtaphor breaks down is that these little groups within the party 
are not exclusionary, and having posts and threads that do not admit 
others to join in.  Even at the physical party, it would be rude, or 
at best maladroit for a party goer to ask all thjose playing the 
game to stop and explain all the rules and strategy of the game 
right there during the game.  But during those tete-a-tetes at the 
buffet table (offline emails to friends, Sunday chats, etc.) the 
party-goer can learn what the game is about, how to play basicallh, 
and then he can play to the best of his ability later in the night, 
learning strategy as he plays.  I woun't spell out a similar process 
for the sing-alongs, but leave it as an exercise for the interested.

The alternative to this is one of thise parties where they 
determinedly try to keep everything general.  These are quite often 
boring, with everybody forced willy nilly to play charades, or Simon 
Says.  Give me a freewheeling toga party anytime.


David:
> 
> My second metaphor is that of the academic seminar.  (I personally 
> have always felt uneasy about the party metaphor, largely because 
> the seminar metaphor was the one that I naturally assumed when I 
> started here.


Haggridd:
Even ranting your admitted assumption, I contend that the seminar 
metaphor breaks down because there is no moderator of the seminar, 
either of each thread, or one who decides when it is time to move 
from one thread to another.  Perhaps a bull session, with its 
relative informality, is more descriptive of the frank discussion 
portions of list intercourse, than that of the seminar.  I still 
prefer the party metaphor, though, where the gameplayers can play 
TBAY all they want, and the filkers can sing along at the top of 
their lungs, and everybody is having fun in the process

Haggridd.
> 
> I suppose the main conclusion is that all this is a matter for 
list 
> members, not list administrators.
> 
> David

Amen.  H.