I'm really confused because I can't tell if you're casting yourself as the gatekeeper or not and, for either side, what's being argued? I think I swooped in on some drama when I was killing time at work and don't have full context, so there are some side points that I don't quite get. As for pushing through the growth points, I don't doubt that hubski has hit them, but if that group of 50 has been roughly the same group for months or years, then I'd have to argue that you haven't moved through it since there's been no growth, just lateral movements to new social problems for similarly sized communities. Lastly, I'm not sure the hubski structure fosters politeness. To me it seems much better at fostering consciousness which, in you and in many, seems to manifest as politeness. The difference being, if new group of 50 came here with the intention of being impolite, they could use the social tools of hubski to create that atmosphere. The catch is that they would have to choose to create that atmosphere with a conscious effort to build that rude community. It would be difficult, but it could be done. It isn't, I would guess, because there's never a large enough conscious effort. Once new individuals become conscious of the current community they seem to feel self consciousness and have to choose to decide how to act - conforming politeness, rebellious trolling, anarchic self direction, or meta. At this point, though, we're using the word hubski for two different things - the platform and the community. All I'm saying is the platform seems more flexible in the face of growth than the community.
The question is: do people change Hubski or does Hubski change people? My argument is that Hubski changed me, I didn't change Hubski... and we can both agree that I'm one of the strongest personalities here. Another argument is the only personalities stronger than mine came here with me, but couldn't bend Hubski to their will so they left. Check the account ages. Some have been here 1500 days. Some less than 30. As mentioned before. And for the third time, they've tried and failed. I think you aren't paying attention. I'm repeating myself.I'm really confused because I can't tell if you're casting yourself as the gatekeeper or not and, for either side, what's being argued?
As for pushing through the growth points, I don't doubt that hubski has hit them, but if that group of 50 has been roughly the same group for months or years, then I'd have to argue that you haven't moved through it since there's been no growth, just lateral movements to new social problems for similarly sized communities.
The difference being, if new group of 50 came here with the intention of being impolite, they could use the social tools of hubski to create that atmosphere.
I think I swooped in on some drama when I was killing time at work and don't have full context, so there are some side points that I don't quite get.
Even in the time I've been here, I've seen a change in how you interact with others. Imagine this conversation on reddit: I like to think I've improved my content since.
First time I remember seeing you, you posted your band's album to the weekly music thread and had to be persuaded to give it its own post rather than hide it there. You started out just fine. I came with one of the bigger migrations, didn't notice when Hubski returned to a much slower pace after it ended, and flooded the place with everything I saw, enjoyed and hadn't seen before for a very long time. In retrospect I'm kind of surprised everyone didn't filter me.
I'd say it doesn't, strictly speaking. 'Hubski tends to foster (or enable?) politeness among those who expect and respect it', is possibly closer to truth.Lastly, I'm not sure the hubski structure fosters politeness.