Why is dividing OT a bad idea?
makes several points which were completely unaddressed. Instead, the opposition could only muster a weak argument about future imagined activity.
2. The consequences of disturbing a spontaneous order such as OT are poorly understood from the central planner's (Gilligan's) perspective. Think: Soviet Union, and I'll provide more examples:
3. I've discussed a similar topic with non-CC forum hosts and designers. One major problem is the consequences of categorization. For example, constantly framing threads into specific subfora denies the variety of topics which can be discussed within a thread. In Off-Topics, going off-topic is informally acceptable because the benefits offset the costs.
How do I know this? Because the members of OT continually express their preferences through their own posting behavior--which unsurprisingly favors flexible threads. Denying this profitable opportunity, which many enjoy, would ruin the vitality, the spontaneity, and the pure joy of lurking and/or directly participating in OT.
4. Furthermore, this newly enforced policy imposes unnecessary costs on the users' incentives because the Dividers' Rules will remain ambiguous, and enforcement will be uncertain. Jokes and small comments on topic X could easily construed as Political, Religious, or Whatever, thus would become grounds for a ban. Ridiculous. Why burden the community and especially the mods will another jumbled set of rules?
5. The division of OT is only supported by a loud, bumbling minority. I hardly need to comment in any "Divide OT" thread because my fellow ConquerClubbers are already there--rallying against that "tyranny of the minority." (ITT, here
, and many more).
6. Why do some ITT continue to ignore the preferences of the majority anyway? Clearly, dividing OT is not the preferred choice, yet the Dividers and their one or two cohorts still presume that they know what is best for the OT community. Nonsense.
7. Good Intentions, Bad Outcomes. It is too easy for the Dividers to sit back in the chair, and think, "Gee, this sounds great. I only expect great gains with my utopian vision of a Divided OT." How self-serving! But more importantly, this vision unintentionally ignores the people's preferences, which have been unwittingly replaced by the Divider's preferences.
(Note how easily the Dividers can gloss over rds' points and the concerns of the majority. AND, note how Gillipig slips this suggestion in here without informing the OT community. He went behind our backs, which may be a sign of a dishonest, person--thus, his position lacks credibility).
Proper reflection reveals this implicit replacement of the majority's preferences, which if ignored, will come into conflict with the delusional vision of the Dividers' plan. Conflict, no matter how seemingly minor or ignored, is not conducive to an enjoyable and healthy community.
8. Spontaneous orders are subtle and require intensive deliberation before one knee-jerks his way into dividing OT. Without understanding the spontaneous process and its evident benefits, then one will unfortunately create another "good intentions, bad outcomes" story.
9. One does not simply plan the OT; it grows.
Dividing OT is unnecessary and would forever be a waste of valuable CC resources. All ConquerClubbers are welcome in OT and are free to express themselves--within a reasonably enforced set of rules. These rules over time have been modified by the OT community--without the need of a suggestions forum and without the help of that loud minority. Introducing new and unpopular rules like dividing will only incur a net-cost on the community.
The people have spoken, and the Off-Topics Community shall remain undivided and relatively self-governing. The Dividers need only to give up their reckless crusade, dismount from their high horses, and join us as we play in our sunny community with its rolling green hills of lulz and serious business.
Defender of the People,