Quote
Has Serious Discussion ever been placid? I don't jest; I want to know because if it had been at some point I might be doing my job wrong.
Well, not really. But in recent years it has been overrun with constant rehashing of the same topics (religion anyone?) and members like devilesk who throw the "law book" of logical argument at anyone they disagree with, or otherwise blast their post for not having Wikipedia-style citations. But also, we are not the community of gentlemen-mappers (I use the term like "gentlemen-explorers" of old, noblemen who dabbled in the military without being career officers or being particularly good at it) we once were, and there is only so much you can do as a moderator to change what people have to say. It might be better now, as to be honest I haven't opened the Serious Discussion forum in a while.
Quote
I have seriously been meaning to organize such an effort in an attempt to examine the growth and eventual splintering of volunteer organizations. I've seen something very similar to the SEN/Maplantis rift happen to the improv comedy sector in Oklahoma City recently. I'm hoping to figure out a solution since my time as president of the film club at my college is coming to an end in April, and I want to leave some advice behind to avoid a similar splintering with the group I helped found. Since I'm on winter break, I may just go through with this.
Yeah, I don't know. But when a group grows beyond a certain size, friendship-based management where everything is done implicitly and indeed for the common good (Communism, essentially) begins to break down. Especially if you have many conflicting ideas or people fight the institution of a bureaucracy to codify government, things fall apart. It's inversely related to the product of the group size and how much sway the group's decisions have on the lives of individual members. Sometimes people can't even manage a group of size two. Look at marriage.
None.