I think I'm about as bad (or good) about posting now and then with either system. I suspect the present system creates more formatting work for the RGM (though there was always a good deal of that, by the RGM and hir minions -- i.e. Cal -- behind the scenes; things got cleaned up and accompanied by awful but somehow appropriate graphics and such on a regular basis), but does reduce the chance of major kerfuffles erupting at the precise moment the RGM looked away for a moment.
I'm also very much in the "whatever works for the RGM works for me" camp.
I posted more and sometimes enjoyed life more when it was the old way, but correlation is not causation. I'm just grateful that CM has been here. But the RGM already knew that because the RGM is all-knowing.
Upon seeing this post, my initial thoughts were, I am in favor of whatever the moderator(s) want and think is best, for they surely have the most complete understanding of what it takes to keep the lights on here. I am just happy this place exists at all.
What follows are some observations (not complaints) that have rattled in my cranium over the past few days.
What I liked about being a correspondent: I felt plugged in and personally responsible for creating content for the good of the enterprise. In the dashboard, I could see if other correspondents had things in the prep, and if they didn't, I accelerated my pace. I could format my posts for aesthetics and readability, add a shitty graphic, etc., preview the result, and (I believe) very little work was required from the RGM for my posts, or those most of the other correspondents.
What I like about the email submission process: The RGM can set the pace of the postings. The RGM does not have to maintain a list of correspondents. There is a single tier of contributors, and the "in crowd" is everybody who submits material through the same pipe. The RGM is another set of eyes (beyond the author's), a check and balance if you will, to save us all from something sketchy going live.
As for the question in the title of this post, I think I was slower to rebuild momentum for submitting material when we switched from correspondents to email-only. Is that being dissuaded, or is it just not feeling as encouraged? I didn't contribute nearly as much as I'd wanted to to AWC or AMM, which were also email-only. But as Bubba points out, correlation is not causation. Ultimately, I had to get over myself, get over my apprehension that I was going to cause the RGM undue trouble, and just send something in warts and all.
In retrospect, relative to when I was a correspondent, thinking of myself now as somehow the opposite of "plugged in" is perhaps like attending a party and feeling like I'm the opposite of connected with the gathering because the host has not allowed me to keep a toothbrush in the bathroom and a few changes of clothes in the dresser.
Whatever technical issues may stand in the way of how it runs now, I think we can work through them. I'll even help develop a set of instructions in the hope of minimizing headaches for the RGM, vis-a-vis formatting, "hidden HTML", etc. I already know a few things not to do from previous failed experiments (more correctly, experiments that failed to confirm incorrect hypotheses).
Thanks for reading. And thanks to all RGMs past and present.
I like being able to e-mail it and it seems like this way, maybe the RGM can plan out when posts go up....?
ReplyDeleteI soooooo need this site!!! Trust me! Whatever works for the mods!
ReplyDeleteI think I'm about as bad (or good) about posting now and then with either system. I suspect the present system creates more formatting work for the RGM (though there was always a good deal of that, by the RGM and hir minions -- i.e. Cal -- behind the scenes; things got cleaned up and accompanied by awful but somehow appropriate graphics and such on a regular basis), but does reduce the chance of major kerfuffles erupting at the precise moment the RGM looked away for a moment.
ReplyDeleteI'm also very much in the "whatever works for the RGM works for me" camp.
I never had posting rights, and I'd say that my contributions are about the same.
ReplyDeleteI posted more and sometimes enjoyed life more when it was the old way, but correlation is not causation. I'm just grateful that CM has been here. But the RGM already knew that because the RGM is all-knowing.
ReplyDeleteI'm also happy with whatever the RGM prefers, and grateful for this site. It's whatever the opposite of gaslighting is.
ReplyDeleteUpon seeing this post, my initial thoughts were, I am in favor of whatever the moderator(s) want and think is best, for they surely have the most complete understanding of what it takes to keep the lights on here. I am just happy this place exists at all.
ReplyDeleteWhat follows are some observations (not complaints) that have rattled in my cranium over the past few days.
What I liked about being a correspondent:
I felt plugged in and personally responsible for creating content for the good of the enterprise. In the dashboard, I could see if other correspondents had things in the prep, and if they didn't, I accelerated my pace. I could format my posts for aesthetics and readability, add a shitty graphic, etc., preview the result, and (I believe) very little work was required from the RGM for my posts, or those most of the other correspondents.
What I like about the email submission process:
The RGM can set the pace of the postings. The RGM does not have to maintain a list of correspondents. There is a single tier of contributors, and the "in crowd" is everybody who submits material through the same pipe. The RGM is another set of eyes (beyond the author's), a check and balance if you will, to save us all from something sketchy going live.
As for the question in the title of this post, I think I was slower to rebuild momentum for submitting material when we switched from correspondents to email-only. Is that being dissuaded, or is it just not feeling as encouraged? I didn't contribute nearly as much as I'd wanted to to AWC or AMM, which were also email-only. But as Bubba points out, correlation is not causation. Ultimately, I had to get over myself, get over my apprehension that I was going to cause the RGM undue trouble, and just send something in warts and all.
In retrospect, relative to when I was a correspondent, thinking of myself now as somehow the opposite of "plugged in" is perhaps like attending a party and feeling like I'm the opposite of connected with the gathering because the host has not allowed me to keep a toothbrush in the bathroom and a few changes of clothes in the dresser.
Whatever technical issues may stand in the way of how it runs now, I think we can work through them. I'll even help develop a set of instructions in the hope of minimizing headaches for the RGM, vis-a-vis formatting, "hidden HTML", etc. I already know a few things not to do from previous failed experiments (more correctly, experiments that failed to confirm incorrect hypotheses).
Thanks for reading. And thanks to all RGMs past and present.