Private party?

[Tlaloc]

...leadership...leadership...leadership...leaders...leadership...

and:

...leadership...To lead...Lead...Leadership...

Gee whiz Phil, you sound like the head of the National Socialist Party. How do these two extraordinary tirades about LEADERSHIP relate to the original subject of this thread which was the fact that a vanishingly small minority of NSS members dominates the rap on the NSS forums? Does being a know-it-all demonstrate LEADERSHIP?

[NZcaver]

How do these two extraordinary tirades about LEADERSHIP relate to the original subject of this thread which was the fact that a vanishingly small minority of NSS members dominates the rap on the NSS forums? Does being a know-it-all demonstrate LEADERSHIP?

Not necessarily, but being an effective communicator and a good listener usually does. Having knowledge and coupling it with sound people skills exhibits good leadership traits, like being able to discuss differences without resorting to pettiness. I agree this is getting slightly off-topic.

Your mention of the minority who 'dominate the rap' on this forum triggered a realization. We are not an isolated case. We can't really fight it, and I don't think we should. It's the nature of the beast. If you read other caving forums and email lists in the US (and elsewhere) you'll see similar results everywhere. Often even more pronounced than here. This happens with non-caving forums too, of course. Some are virtually just newsgroups, with the same people posting newsworthy articles and announcements and little real discussion involved. And when there is discussion, like here, it can often be influenced by those regulars who make the effort to get involved.

A key difference between our forum and many others, and I think this is a point Bill is trying to make, is that we are technically an official function of the NSS. However the reality is that we're functionally no different from most other forums. Virtually anybody can join and post regardless of NSS status, which is great for diversity of ideas and can even encourage forum members to become NSS members. On the other hand I doubt there ever be a large portion of the NSS membership represented here, probably because they're simply not interested in participating in an online caving forum. And that's fine.

Some may consider the most active posters (like myself) to be part of what they perceive as a problem with the forum. But really, does the average forum member feel that certain people are a problem just because they post regularly? I'd be interested to hear.

[Bill Putnam]

Me? Trying to make a point?
I have learned (the hard way) not to do that, at least not around here.


"I don't give 'em hell. I just tell the truth, and they think it's hell." - Harry Truman

[Herman Miller]

viva de partido revolucionario de hodag

[Phil Winkler]

Warren, my intent in posting about leadership/communicating in this topic was to highlight the fact that many of our leaders are not participating here on the forum.

Frankly, I think the fact that so many do not post is a strong indicator of a lack of necessary leadership skills in some of them who are responsible for managing the business of our society.

I still see this forum as sitting around the campfire at a convention, TAG, whatever. I think there is value in many of the discussions here. I also agree that some of them have little value.

But, the same can be said about many campfire discussions that happen late at night when everyone is exhausted, filled with firewater, etc.

But the dialogue, give and take, point-counterpoint is communication. And that is what is critically missing from our leaders on several issues posted here.

The NSS officially sponsors this forum, pays for it, has one or more special sections for official postings, yet where is our leadership here?

I don't profess to know everything, but I am passionate about the NSS and its goals and how it is managed.

[kmstill]

Some may consider the most active posters (like myself) to be part of what they perceive as a problem with the forum. But really, does the average forum member feel that certain people are a problem just because they post regularly? I'd be interested to hear.

I don't follow many on-line forums, cavechat excluded, but do religiously follow a few professional listserves, and lurk more often than not on all. While these all "suffer" from a select group of prolific posters, they are great information sources. On the professional listserves, I really appreciate several of the more prolific posters, as they really are authorities on the topic at hand. Of course, there are always a few members who's posts I frankly skip as soon as I see the signature line. Cavechat is no different. I also find that it helps interpreting when you know the people behind the avatars, especially since sarcasm in text generally falls flat

I don't find it burdensome to ignore particular posters or threads if I don't feel that the information is of personal value. Also, I often wind-up on other forums during google searches. Reading the crap and needless dissing posted on other sites really make me appreciate the high level of respect that is generally shown among posters on cavechat (with help as needed from the moderators, of course - thanks guys! ).

Back to generally lurking.
Kelly

[NZcaver]

Reading the crap and needless dissing posted on other sites really make me appreciate the high level of respect that is generally shown among posters on cavechat (with help as needed from the moderators, of course - thanks guys! ).

Thanks, Kelly! It'll be nice to catch up again in person at NCRC. Also looking forward to hearing more about your adventures in South Korea.

(Of course, some may consider NCRC to be a 'private party' too!)

[Bill Putnam]

Nah, there are far more than a dozen people who make major contributions to NCRC. Oddly enough, some of them are also major contributors here. It seems the troublemakers tend to rise to the top in any organization.

[Bill Putnam]

(Of course, some may consider NCRC to be a 'private party' too!)

Thou dost protest too much, methinks.

[NZcaver]

(Of course, some may consider NCRC to be a 'private party' too!)

Thou dost protest too much, methinks.

...says the pot to the kettle.

In about a week I might be ready for that drink that I don't really want but you promised me anyway. Another path to slow death!

[Bill Putnam]

You got it, bro.

[Teresa]

Narcissistic? I don't think so, and I hope not. Nearly all cavers, including myself, I know are self-effacing, maybe a little socially awkward, but they bloom when they are amongst friends with a common interest. In the grand scheme of things, being a cave "expert" and $2.50 gets you a McDonald's mocha latte. Most of us know that.

Until this thread, I never even checked my stats (why should I? It never even occurred to me) and apparently I'm over 1000 posts since Dec. 2005. Bill Putnam's stats argument intrigued me: the stat box also says I've made 1.62% of the posts. I would interpret his agglomerated stats as meaningless, unless there are one or two individuals over 1000 posts who made 10% or more. I suspect a lot of those high-post individuals are or have been moderators...it's their volunteer job to watch the board and post when appropriate.

I agree that 1.62% would disproportionate if one considered me typical of the Society (I don't) and I'm not in any brownie point race-- popularity has never been a measure of success for me, and I really don't comprehend people for whom that is a measure.

I do have a number of excuses for participation here:
a) I don't watch TV, or go to bars or church. Interacting with real people via the typed word is much more rewarding, since it has both an intellectual and emotional component, plus it sharpens my writing skills. You can really get to know a person's mind if you correspond without the distraction of looks, regional accent, physical chemistry and the like.

b) I like to provoke thought. All opinions expressed aren't always my own convictions. Sometimes, I just want to stir the pot, and see what happens. I love to watch intelligence (everyone's) in action.

c) Old SWBell Telco 1960s poster: "Communication is the beginning of understanding."

d) Information (good, bad, spot on, deluded) on this board gives the pulse of what people are thinking about. In some cases,
like the WNS forum, it's a way to get info out there asap...provide feedback to researchers who occasionally check in...speculate and perhaps help shape both the research and management related to this problem. That's what forum means to me...the class room and bar discussion where ideas rise or fall, get pinned to a star, or shot down by being hashed over.

e) I read the forum to hear different perspectives. I post to the forum, not because I am a "know-it-all", but because I think everyone has a piece of most puzzles, and if you don't put your piece up there the picture isn't complete.

f) I've met some really cool cavers here, gotten to know the online versions of some BNCs not in my region, and then met them as new friends at conventions. I don't think you can be a real friend until you meet the actual person off the Net, but it sure lays the groundwork leading up to a meeting.

g) I don't buy the argument that regular posters drive out new ones. Any group, even a face to face grotto, will have old regulars and new people. The old regulars were new people once. People decide for themselves whether they fit in to a group.

But now, my 'real life' calls...

[Bill Putnam]

I would interpret his agglomerated stats as meaningless,

Hey, they're not my stats, they're just numbers from the member list. You add up the numbers and it looks like there have been about 60,000 posts. 1,000 out of 60,000 is about 1.67%. Some people have as many as 3,000. I have no idea how phpBB tracks these things.

Statistics are what you make of them. Personally, I interpret a post count greater than 500 as an indication that I should probably spend more time interacting with people in person and less time doing it via computer, and that I probably have more productive things to do that are not getting done, but hey, that's just me. What do I know?

[Phil Winkler]

I have a high count, but I'm a moderator, too.

In my day job I also communicate with a lot of people who are clients, interview their staff and generally reduce business ramblings to atomic statements of fact to solve a database problem. Get this: I think it's fun, too.
Plus frequent public speaking engagements whether instructional or briefings.

Some people can do this and some can't. Some like it and some don't. I can't see how it is narcissistic if it's simply what you have always done?

I do like Teresa's last post. Very thoughtful and nicely worded. You have to like those Ozark gals.
(My daughter went to college in Branson!)

[NZcaver]

I agree - that was a very thoughtful post from Teresa, whom I've had the pleasure of meeting in person long after meeting her here on the forum.

Hey, they're not my stats, they're just numbers from the member list. You add up the numbers and it looks like there have been about 60,000 posts. 1,000 out of 60,000 is about 1.67%. Some people have as many as 3,000. I have no idea how phpBB tracks these things.

I guess by 'some people' you mean me. FYI - my tally of 3,100 posts registers as 4.87% of all posts, a little less than 1 in 20. I don't have the stats for this, but there are a fair portion of my posts you don't see because they are in the private administration forum where moderators discuss subjects like spam, inappropriate posts, TOS changes, forum software upgrades and issues, and other mundane subjects. Also, long-time forum members might be interested to know that your post counts may be lower than your actual posts. This is because when old non-caving subjects were periodically pruned from the forum, the previous administrator (Wayne) often used to reset the post counts to reflect the changes.

Statistics are what you make of them. Personally, I interpret a post count greater than 500 as an indication that I should probably spend more time interacting with people in person and less time doing it via computer, and that I probably have more productive things to do that are not getting done, but hey, that's just me. What do I know?

Ah yes, the 'Damn, I should really get off the forum and go caving' mantra. Hear, hear!

I agree statistics are what you make of them. Not to pick on a flaw in your philosophy, but time-wise a post count of 500 means little. Over the 3.75 year life of the forum, that's an average of about 133 posts a year. The post-per-year ratio is more relevant to how much time and effort is being wasted spent posting on the forum, but for many it's not a linear scale of course. Like yourself, whose vast majority of posts have been in the last 2 months even though you joined the forum back in 2005. Or for a few of our more prolific earlier posters, who have now virtually disappeared from the forum. When the forum is 10 years old, will 500 posts still seem like a lot?