- #1
- 3,500
- 3,024
Would it be possible to remove or increase the limit on the number of participants (currently six) in a single conversation?
Greg Bernhardt said:What is this large party you are having? Why am I not invited? :D
Conversations with 10 people might as well be a public discussion?Bandersnatch said:I can see why you might not want to lift the limit completely (so as not to create de facto private forums removed from the rest of PF), but maybe pushing it up to 10 or so wouldn't be too much of a problem?
But it's NOT public. We would not invite the crackpots and that's somewhat the point. We agree w/ the forum rules not to make fun of anyone in the public forum, but you got to admit, some of the posts we get on this forum are doozies and we like to banter about them and their creators without hurting anyone's feelings.Greg Bernhardt said:Conversations with 10 people might as well be a public discussion?
Honestly I'm not really thrilled with the idea that there are private cliques, especially out judging people.phinds said:But it's NOT public. We would not invite the crackpots and that's somewhat the point. We agree w/ the forum rules not to make fun of anyone in the public forum, but you got to admit, some of the posts we get on this forum are doozies and we like to banter about them and their creators without hurting anyone's feelings.
Yeah, I can see that and I respect it. I can't speak for anyone else, but you already KNOW full well that I am a judgmental bastard so that can't be any surprise to youGreg Bernhardt said:Honestly I'm not really thrilled with the idea that there are private cliques, especially out judging people.
I thought that was what the mentor badge was for ;)Greg Bernhardt said:Honestly I'm not really thrilled with the idea that there are private cliques, especially out judging people.
The purpose of the conversation is not to be judgemental beyond what is proper, be it according to the forum rules or simple human decency, but to share and preserve the posts that are routinelly deleted by the efficient actions of the mods.Greg Bernhardt said:Honestly I'm not really thrilled with the idea that there are private cliques, especially out judging people.
Perhaps after you've been here a bit longer you'll begin to get a feel for how entertaining some of the crackpot posts can be. The good news / bad news is that the mods are very efficient in removing them quickly and some of us would like to see them but they're gone before we get a chance so the point is to copy those posts over to a private conversation.montadhar said:Even if it does not bring any harm (and that is unlikely, in my opinion), it definitely does not bring any good to the forum. Please do not do it.
The conversation feature is not really meant for long term topical discussion with a group of members. It side steps the purpose and effectiveness of PF which should be as public as possible so all can benefit. I will continue to think this over.Borg said:Other than the convenience and the ability of the admins to monitor the conversations, what's the difference in this respect?
Knowing and understanding your opinion (and agreeing) I would not want to risk being banned over something like this:(, it would need to be really serious crackpottery:D I'll get back to toeing the lineGreg Bernhardt said:The conversation feature is not meant for long term topical discussion with a group of members. It side steps the purpose and effectiveness of PF which should be as public as possible so all can benefit.
I'm mainly commenting here because I am part of the conversation that was mentioned. I agree about the high potential for things like this to undermine PF but I was trying to avoid that part of the equation. The question that I was trying to ask was whether a PF conversation was much different than members sending emails to each other. I'm not sure. I do know that, like the others, we are very watchful for misbehavior in a conversation just as if we were posting in a thread. If you want us to not use the conversation tool in this manner, I will happily comply.Greg Bernhardt said:The conversation feature is not really meant for long term topical discussion with a group of members. It side steps the purpose and effectiveness of PF which should be as public as possible so all can benefit. I will continue to think this over.
This is something that can be discussed in the open, as long as you aren't being specific to a member. After all I am interested in this as well :)Shyan said:I'm really curious about the series of events and thoughts that causes someone to become a crackpot
But without quoting the source material.Greg Bernhardt said:This is something that can be discussed in the open, as long as you aren't being specific to a member. After all I am interested in this as well :)
But this is something that requires much observations. We need to be able to talk about all those crackpot claims subject by subject. We need to be able to address their threads and keep what they write. I think these are going to annoy the staff if seen on public.Greg Bernhardt said:This is something that can be discussed in the open, as long as you aren't being specific to a member. After all I am interested in this as well :)
phinds said:But it's NOT public. We would not invite the crackpots and that's somewhat the point. We agree w/ the forum rules not to make fun of anyone in the public forum, but you got to admit, some of the posts we get on this forum are doozies and we like to banter about them and their creators without hurting anyone's feelings.
Well, lean on him to up it to 10 and you're inZapperZ said:Oh man, this sounds like a lot of fun, despite what Greg said!
:)
Zz.
Bandersnatch said:Well, you know. We've moved the crackpot watch and mocking to a place we deemed safer w/r to forum rules, but we're already at the limit and Om's not even there yet.
My response to a PM said:Hello Z-man,
Unfortunately, my knowledge electromagnetic propulsion is extremely limited, and the complexity of the problem is beyond my current capabilities.
I would recommend following Evo's instructions, and post the question in the General Physics section of the forum.
You should, as I recommended, show that you've studied the problem. If you merely post that you saw a youtube video, and want everyone to explain why it isn't possible, then you will probably be ignored.
Om
Greg Bernhardt said:public as possible so all can benefit. I will continue to think this over.
That was the problem I was avoiding when I initiated the conversation. The thread in GD was not getting out of hand, but ---- uncomfortable.Greg Bernhardt said:as long as you aren't being specific to a member
"Yes," in the same way it's hard not to watch train wrecks. "No," in the sense of hating to be part of an audience to other peoples' embarrassments, be they aware of them or not.ZapperZ said:this sounds like a lot of fun
I think that is a limitation of the software, nothing I can set.Bandersnatch said:@Greg Bernhardt , can we at least have the option of bringing in a new member to the conversation once another one leaves? Right now the limit holds even if every participant unsubscribes.
If someone did leave, you can always just start a new conversation with the 5 existing participants plus the new person.Bandersnatch said:@Greg Bernhardt , can we at least have the option of bringing in a new member to the conversation once another one leaves? Right now the limit holds even if every participant unsubscribes.
The dynamics of a conversation can change significantly when there are more than 6 members involved. With a larger group, there may be more diverse opinions and perspectives, which can lead to more complex discussions and potential conflicts. It may also be more difficult for everyone to have an equal opportunity to speak and be heard.
Some strategies for managing conversations with a larger group include having a clear agenda or topic, setting ground rules for respectful communication, and actively moderating the discussion to ensure everyone has a chance to speak. It can also be helpful to divide into smaller groups for certain parts of the conversation to allow for more focused and inclusive discussions.
The size of a group can greatly impact decision-making in a conversation. With more members, it may take longer to reach a consensus or make a decision, as there are more opinions and perspectives to consider. It may also be more challenging to ensure that everyone's input is taken into account, which could potentially lead to a less effective decision.
Yes, there can be benefits to having a larger group in a conversation. With more perspectives and ideas, there is a greater potential for creative thinking and problem-solving. It can also provide a sense of community and support as individuals feel included and heard in the conversation.
Some potential challenges of having a conversation with a larger group include difficulty managing time and staying on topic, potential for dominant members to monopolize the conversation, and potential for conflicting opinions and tension among group members. It may also be more challenging for introverted or shy individuals to participate and have their voices heard.