Member Z

[RichP714 3,122]

Member Z hasn't joined yet, but whatever I do I always try to consider member Z

look at this chart:

 

 

In MY mind (and I'm a habitual sorter) there's no judgement there; one status isn't superior to the next (well, maybe the 'VETERAN' one)

 

In MY mind, the chart represents ONE experts opinion (hindcliffe) on what happens within a community

 

In MY  mind, it all boils down to orientation, familiarity and comfort

 

A new registrant is GIVEN orientation (this place has quirks, peculiarities, flaws; it's different)

 

A novice BECOMES familiar (according to the chart, the ACTIVITY he uses to become familiar is called ENGAGEMENT)

 

An insider SEEKS comfort (he's orientated and familiar, now he SEEKS to enjoy)

 

whether I'm right or wrong doesn't matter, what matters (to me) is member Z

 

 

 

Member Z has his OWN radio; I try to provide different STATIONS for HIM to tune into

 

One each station, I try to provide as much SIGNAL with as little NOISE as possible

 

If member Z tunes HIS radio to a station labelled Rock, he EXPECTS rock (that's the signal)

Opera and Country are noise on channel ROCK

 

If member Z tunes HIS radio to a station labelled 'CARVERfest' he EXPECTS signal

What is it, who goes there, how can I be involved?; THAT's the signal

 

finger pointing an accusation and condemnation is NOISE

 

If member Z tunes HIS radio to a station labelled 'FIGHT CLUB' or 'RANDOM DECOMPRESSIONS' he EXPECTS bickering and accusation and condemnation

 

NOW, those SAME words are the SIGNAL

 

Likewise, if member Z tunes to a station that is trying to express a subtle nuance between two different concepts, he's not EXPECTING 'whatever dude, I know what I know"

 

 

 

It's all a matter of what's APPROPRIATE to each STATION

 

It's NOT a matter of 'my voice is more important than yours'

 

It's ALL important, but some of it can be expressed on a more appropriate station

 

Give member Z a chance 

[fill35U 1,833]

I agree with the model, your interpretation, and your implementation, and I prefer it.

 

However, other approaches have their own merits, so it's understandable that other people prefer them, or that preferences can depend on a variety of criteria.

 

Consider a hypothetical post asking: "Which amp has more power: A or B?" Regardless of what the OP really thought they wanted to know, allowing a broad response has several advantages:

 

1. Education (or at least exposure) to technical details, definitions, and considerations.

 

2. History lessons, not only of equipment design and production, but use by celebrities and other members (networking for future resources).

 

3. Anecdotes which may reveal unconsidered situations or possibilities, and which may raise further discussion.  

 

4. The process of discerning and influencing goals and opinions, which may very well change during the discussion.

 

All of the above contributes to the original question. By seeing how, what, and why people respond, we gain a feel for the quality of their information. It also gives us more opportunities to network and form bonds on many different levels and through multiple subjects. 

 

This may even help engage and retain newcomers, who might otherwise be "fly-by's". And it encourages elders to engage in threads where otherwise they might feel they had no value. 

 

Noise can have patterns. Investigating noise and its sources can be rewarding. And noise itself can be very useful!