Continuing the discussion from The Admin-ing:
This exercise is me asserting points, which are for either accepting, or breaking out in discussion. 
talkgroup is a talk in the park.
talkgroup benefits from courage.
talkgroup seeks the crux, except when not.
talkgroup relies on ahisma.
talkgroup is a glass house.
talkgroup is slow, like a staring contest.
talkgroup is unusually dense with nerve endings.
talkgroup is the atrium to at least one person’ heart… tread lovingly.
talkgroup is parfait. I mean an onion. I mean inception! 
talkgroup is an augmented reality game… filter.
talkgroup is social proof.
Talkgroup is a salon?
1 Like
Talkgroup is the spot on campus where you keep running into your friends.
1 Like
Talkgroup has felt like a Smash Brothers weekly meetup. There’s lots of people there and they talk the same way you do, you just have to ask somebody to rumble so you can bump fists and make friends!
2 Likes
talkgroup is safe! at least i want it to be.
3 Likes
I had this bright idea in my head: post your ideas in this weird maiki-koan datapoints, and then folks will be like, “wow, could you explain that, you’re so brilliant maiki”, or, “oh yeah, I agree, and I want to jump on this point but kinda miss what brilliant maiki was thinking”, and then I would respond all wizenly and it would make for a brilliant community guide (at least the in the mind of the OP).
Then y’all went and starting contributing without really doing what I had in mind, and I was like, ha! I’m gonna show them! Be all like:
@trashHeap: Nope.
@tim: Nope.
@draloff: Kinda.
@judytuna: Nope.
But that ain’t right. Something is off, I’m being, um, guarded about something precious to me, and then cool next step is to embrace you all, you lively people, and work this out.
Aside: each of the posts I presented were intended as breakout discussions. They technically still are. 
Okay, let’s get into this!
So correct! But not complex, nor confusingly enough. I’d say it was, “a movable feast”. Why? Because the type of salon it emulates is one of courageous self-discovery, while being strangely meta. That’s why a better term to describe our meetings of the minds is the title of a memoir compiled posthumously based on an anecdote comparing a phase of life with a peculiar method for choosing which days more full of holes.
Confirmation bias! You weren’t running into your friends in the same spot, it’s just where the vending machine happened to be. There are several profound truths there, all under $2.
You’re new, so I should apologize for the deception; that is merely a recruiting mechanism, one of many, where we emulate local paracosmic standards of elevated connectness for a variety of niche sub-culture groups.
Talkgroup is like Smash Brothers. Full stop.
Safety is a knob quantum-entangled in too many ways for me to accurately predict. In relative terms, yes? No? ??
Talkgroup is not safe for many people. Safer for others. Not evenly distributed.
We should celebrate our safety! Because the fact of the matter is: we can’t be all to all. Some people risk too much to participate here. I’ll do my best, and we have a ways to go. I don’t expect talkgroup to securely, privately protect people, but I do hope to contributes to those efforts. I hope our knowledge management helps our species.
And safety remains a knob.
If we said we are this safe, what are we saying? Can it last? Will something drastic happen? I’d sooner say @judytuna is safe. And since it is quantum-entangled, it’s probably all the same, ne?
Okay my peeps, you picking up what I’m laying down? 
So in all honesty im a bit lost; mostly because I had proposed:
I think a common prerequisite for a lot of those questions is just clear concise explanation of what Talkgroup is and what it’s values are; and have it posted/stickied fairly prominently.
In that I thought we wanted something as a easily digestible corner stone for telegraphing what Talkgroup was for new users. That being said
I kind of feel strongly and not relativistic about the safe space thing. If talkgroup were to ever grow significantly in size; I wouldn’t be interesting in being an admin any longer unless we had a non relativistic definition of what that would be.
1 Like
I feel that quoted sentence captures what I mean. Currently we all want it to be safe, and currently there is no force in place to ensure that.
I don’t even know what most of you said means:
- significantly in size
- an admin
- a non relativistic definition of what that would be
If Judy says, “I think we are safe”, I look at all the parts I’m responsible for and I don’t feel safe. I look to see how norms are enforced, and you are one of those “forces”, by example and interaction. So I go, as long as I keep those bullet points in a happy state for Wes, I’ll have one of my insurances for “safe”…
I don’t know, maybe I’m just a stickler for details. From my point of view, I’m being transparent, rather than making promises I can’t keep. This is covered by “talk in the park” and “relies on ahisma”. It’s risky. I think we should know, if not embrace that fact.
Here’s an update/clarification: I don’t think new users for talkgroup, or the onboarding experience, or whatnot, I don’t think they are important. That includes new users.
I want you to have an understanding of talkgroup as I see it. So we can collaborate more! If you think new user understanding is important, your advocacy (just discussing, I’m open! 
) is needed to bring my attention to that aspect.
user population
I should have said mod/staff per.
We would have to build such a thing. A code of conduct, a value statement, or some other doucment that set the tone of behavior.
I honestly have lost the thread of what I thought was going on here, and may have less of an understanding than when this conversation started. Im not groking something, but im at a loss at articulating what im missing.
2 Likes