Chat room vs. discussion forum (was: Partly on Posting limits Plus ...)

[cubfanbudwoman]

SSSusan wrote: 
> > Contrast this to the recent Pippin-Renee discussions of Lupin.  

Potioncat/Kathy:
> Just out of curiosity, did Renee and Pippin manage to carry out 
> that debate with just three posts a day? I'm sorry I missed that 
> one.  This is what I'm afraid we'll lose if we set posting limits. 
> 
> I am beginning to agree on a limit, but I don't like it.


SSSusan responds:
Actually, *pretty* much, yes.  In that Lupin thread:
Feb. 4:  2 posts by Renee
         1 by Pippin 
Feb. 5:  3 posts by Renee [one of which was responding to Neri]
         3 posts by Pippin to Renee [+ one to Shaun, 1 to Neri]
Feb. 6:  [change in subject heading]
         1 by Renee
         1 by Pippin

Since I've been suggesting 3 or 4 posts per day, I think this shows 
it could work.  It *might* slow things down, yes, if the person has 
been involved in more than one thread, but this might(?) be a good 
thing -- give other posters an opportunity to join in as well?
 

SSSusan earlier: 
> > Here are some problems I find in posts at HPfGU:  
> > 1) knee-jerk responses
> > 2) responses made before finishing out the thread
> > 3) responses made to multiple posts within one thread
> > 
> snipping Susan's solutions
 
Kathy/Potioncat:
> I agree, but I second the motion that these solutions be explained 
> to the members when the limits are announced. I think for many of 
> us, we will have to change the way we read HPfGU. 

SSSusan:
Oh, and I third that about an explanation.  

I think you're right, too, about this changing the way we read HPfGU, 
as well as how we post.  I may get into deeeeeep doo-doo with this 
remark, but I think what this would ask of us is to be more 
deliberate, and less [eeek! I'm going to say it!] lazy, posters.  

I mean, let's face it.  Can't responding w/o reading the whole thread 
often be explained by uncontained excitement *or* laziness?  Isn't 
responding to individual posts instead of combining several a matter 
of convenience or, stated more harshly, laziness?  Isn't firing off a 
quick "Me, too" post sometimes just laziness, too?  Instead of 
waiting 'til a thought is more fully fleshed out or until one has his 
books in front of him, the poster just wants to get his opinion 
registered?

Keep in mind that I'm one who struggles mightily to keep up.  I work 
full time, I have two small kids, I'm super busy in my community.  
So "laziness" [or, more nicely stated, quick bursts of activity w/o 
much combining of posts] has sometimes been my modus operandi at 
HPfGU.  The question is whether that's been best for the group as a 
whole, if lots of us are doing it that way.  For those who favor a 
really informal, chat type of feel, it probably IS okay.  For those 
who would prefer a lower volume, lots-of-content-per-post type of 
feel, it's probably not.

 
Kathy/Potioncat:
> It may also mean we will have to decide which thread to participate 
> in when there are several interesting ones going. As there are sure 
> to be once HBP comes out.

SSSusan:
And this is a very good point that I'm not sure how to answer, except 
as I did above, about slowing down a discussion.


Kathy/Potioncat: 
> I vote for closing off new memberships at peak times. I think it 
> will be very difficult to maintain quality while managing volume 
> with a membership that is familiar with the canon-thumping debates. 
> It would be very hard with droves of newbies coming in. I was 
> overwhelmed in the summer without a new book out.


SSSusan:
And for me, I dislike this.  Not that it would have been a terrible 
loss to HPfGU, but if y'all had closed off membership around the time 
when OotP came out, I'd not be here.  I joined June 18, 2003, just 
before OotP's release date.  I find cutting people off altogether 
more problematic than limiting posts.  How many people would come 
back later if, all excited about the new book & joining up, they were 
told, "Sorry, all full"??  

Other possibilities:
Maybe the post limit could be effect only in the summers?  
Or only for a certain # of months post-book release?

Siriusly Snapey Susan, not trying to offend but suspecting she might 
have done.