In lieu of my submission for Organization Round 3

Napoleoff (INTP)
Full Member

Posts: 102

In lieu of my submission for Organization Round 3 Oct 14, 2018 18:33:05 GMT vennyflennard (ENTP-A) likes this

Quote

Post by Napoleoff (INTP) on Oct 14, 2018 18:33:05 GMT

It can be said as of now (October 14th 2018) that Organization Round 3 has not yet taken place, seeing as none of the three participants (including myself I confess) have submitted their posts. My excuse is that I was busy, sick, fatigued from my busy week in general and also burnt out from the massive amount of effort I put into my submission for Rightist Art Research Round 2 the previous week and so the Organization Round 3 deadline passed me by before I knew it. I think Ken's Rightist Art Round 2 research team produced great results though.

These excuses are of course neither here nor there and nobody cares. However, I think we should certainly try again soon to hold Organization Round 3, but the fact that our Organization research has ground to a (I hope temporary) halt has inspired me to write this post with a few thoughts about what went wrong:

1. I think we had too few participants for Organization Round 3 and so nobody was inspired and it ran out of steam. This was partly caused by the fact that for whatever reason people missed the initial roll-call (aarvoll speculated in his livestream #17 Hysteria and Effeminacy at the 45th minute of the stream that maybe the roll-call page was not posted in a visible enough space).

2. The rules for Organization Round 3 were too relaxed to provide a concrete framework for people to work around, and this might partially account for the poor response. I think the way we were doing it before was much better, where each person was allocated a day especially for their submission and there was a long rule-sheet posted with the schedule, than in this abortive attempt at Round 3 where a deadline was just posted and everyone was told to submit their piece by the same deadline, which is not a schedule (a schedule in my understanding is made up of more than one date). Basically, this research works best as a structured discussion just like we started off doing with amazing results. The more well-structured the research is the better people's creativity and intellectual energy can be focused on the question at hand.

3. Both the above complaints stem also from a lack of growth in membership of the forum and therefore a fall in participation. Since people tend to leave organizations, if there is no addition to membership or additions are too few and far between the result will tend towards a net fall in membership or participation. From this complaint therefore we get into the subject of recruitment, which we have already discussed briefly including in this short thread:

deepright.boards.net/thread/60/recruitment

I would like to take the opportunity here to say that we need to get serious about doing recruitment. In this post I expressed my preference in these early formative stages of our academy project for recruiting people ourselves by approaching them, an idea which I speculated would allow for quality control (which was really just me expanding on a suggestion initially put forward by aarvoll in this post at the start of the thread). I would like to iterate this call now; if you spend any time at all idling on forums or on Youtube or even twitter and you see interesting intelligent passionate rightist-minded individuals who compose well-written coherent and thoughtful comments or posts, then you should approach these people by private message with an invitation for them to participate in our forum. Each of us should try to approach 5 people every week, wherever on the internet you are and rightists also are this can theoretically be done.

Below the line is a template you might use for these private messages. If you think it is worth using then you should copy and paste it into a text document on your computer. You should suggest below edits for it if you think it's too unfocused or rambly, because I thrashed it out in a few minutes. I will use this message myself. It's not overly-formal.

I invite you to participate in our new rightist academy project on our forum at deepright.boards.net/

We are dedicated to structured academic team research into rightist subjects of interest which will allow us to expand the aggregated working knowledge of the rightist sphere so as to make it useful and accessible to people. Our research is divided into time-limited rounds, currently set at two weeks for each round, with a maximum of 6 members on each research team who are all assigned their own day to submit their contributions to the subject at hand (the whole team normally gets the first week for research so contributions are required only in week 2). We want to grow our membership to create a flourishing online academy which can act as an alternative to the inadequate and misguided official academic institutions currently operant, and we hope to provide wholesome lively and truthful education to the masses and in doing so help people to develop an integrated and logical worldview of their own so they can function without the confusion and vexation that seems almost to be mandatory for people these days. Our academy uses a meritocratic ranking system to apportion forum rank based on the quality of your contributions so there is the opportunity if you are a talented and dedicated contributor to influence the organizational aspect of the academy. All we ask are sincere and hopefully good-quality contributions from conscientious individuals interested in the rightist sphere of thought.

Above all, we are constructive and positive in our philosophy, and so engagement and production on our forum can provide a good alternative to what rightist-minded people often tend to do on the internet (namely talking in circles about how depressing world events are). If you spend, or perhaps waste, a lot of time pessimistically talking in circles in rightist chatrooms, Twitter or Youtube comment sections then you might be interested in taking some time off from those activities to contribute to our rightist academy reseach projects and expand your mind and educate yourself in the process of having to look into, understand for yourself and explain to others the intellectual concepts you are grappling with. If you gain enough in rank and there are enough members you can even get the opportunity to form your own research team to investigate questions you think would be interesting and useful to people. We are an open-minded academy and we can accommodate research into whatever your area of interest is so long as we have the numbers and interest exists for it among the members; the research is very much driven by the members.

These are the ground rules of the forum for anyone who is interested in creating an account and taking part: deepright.boards.net/thread/3/rules-remain-online

This video explains how our academy is structured and how the research teams work: www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVDT7O-gCHY

If you are interested in participating then visit us, make an account and we will be glad to have you on our forum.

This is an attempt at a controlled non-public recruitment drive and if it doesn't work out after a few weeks of trying then we should think about getting aarvoll, since he is the highest-profile contributor, to do what he suggested he might do which was make contact with rightist Youtubers and putting advertisements out on their channels and so on. Recruitment-wise, we have to get this show on the road. I would appreciate if people would respond to this post with their thoughts or personal plans because I think this is quite important.

Thanks for reading everybody.

Last Edit: Oct 14, 2018 19:41:57 GMT by Napoleoff (INTP)

flimp (INTJ)
New Member

Posts: 42

In lieu of my submission for Organization Round 3 Oct 14, 2018 23:54:53 GMT

Quote

Post by flimp (INTJ) on Oct 14, 2018 23:54:53 GMT

1. I think we had too few participants for Organization Round 3 and so nobody was inspired and it ran out of steam. This was partly caused by the fact that for whatever reason people missed the initial roll-call (aarvoll speculated in his livestream #17 Hysteria and Effeminacy at the 45th minute of the stream that maybe the roll-call page was not posted in a visible enough space).

2. The rules for Organization Round 3 were too relaxed to provide a concrete framework for people to work around, and this might partially account for the poor response. I think the way we were doing it before was much better, where each person was allocated a day especially for their submission and there was a long rule-sheet posted with the schedule, than in this abortive attempt at Round 3 where a deadline was just posted and everyone was told to submit their piece by the same deadline, which is not a schedule (a schedule in my understanding is made up of more than one date). Basically, this research works best as a structured discussion just like we started off doing with amazing results. The more well-structured the research is the better people's creativity and intellectual energy can be focused on the question at hand.

I agree that we had too few participants for round 3 and so it ran out of steam. If we look at an example of a round that I liked, rightist round #1 (http://deepright.boards.net/thread/31/rightist-art-round-1) I see that the thread is organized into sections. Explanation/context, rules/guidelines, roll call. The post was short and to the point. Not too vague but not too complex either. Perhaps we should take a look at the best rounds and see what the structure of the initial thread was and use that as a guideline for future rounds.

3. Both the above complaints stem also from a lack of growth in membership of the forum and therefore a fall in participation. Since people tend to leave organizations, if there is no addition to membership or additions are too few and far between the result will tend towards a net fall in membership or participation. From this complaint therefore we get into the subject of recruitment, which we have already discussed briefly including in this short thread:

Lack of growth is an issue but I want to address another issue first, and that is why people are leaving. If we can come to a consensus or contact the people who left or have a thread dedicated to difficulties experienced in the forum, then we can target the problems and fix them. For growing the number of members we need to first fix forum and make the forum into a user friendly and easy to understand concept. Have some sort of agreed to mission statement, a constitution. Perhaps a place for informal discussion. This and more needs to be done before I think we can retain and gain members. As for growing our numbers, perhaps we should have a thread/ round dedicated to understanding how we can grow the organization.

In this post I expressed my preference in these early formative stages of our academy project for recruiting people ourselves by approaching them, an idea which I speculated would allow for quality control (which was really just me expanding on a suggestion initially put forward by aarvoll in this post at the start of the thread). I would like to iterate this call now; if you spend any time at all idling on forums or on Youtube or even twitter and you see interesting intelligent passionate rightist-minded individuals who compose well-written coherent and thoughtful comments or posts, then you should approach these people by private message with an invitation for them to participate in our forum. Each of us should try to approach 5 people every week, wherever on the internet you are and rightists also are this can theoretically be done.

I completely agree with the idea that we should try to avoid publicly advertising unless that is the only option left. I think approaching smart people is a better option. I like the idea of having a template statement for invitations. Perhaps we could have someone who is really good a rhetoric to come up with a sample invitation that any member can use if they want to invite someone. The reason why I think we need a standard and accessible invitation statement is because people will only spend a minute reading and so they need to be hooked.

we have to get this show on the road.

If we stall too long, we sink. We got to get the engine running continuously and smoothly even if that means we have to put all of our members into one round.

Last Edit: Oct 14, 2018 23:56:16 GMT by flimp (INTJ)

Napoleoff (INTP)
Full Member

Posts: 102

In lieu of my submission for Organization Round 3 Oct 16, 2018 0:07:37 GMT

Quote

Post by Napoleoff (INTP) on Oct 16, 2018 0:07:37 GMT

Oct 14, 2018 23:54:53 GMT flimp (INTJ) said:

Lack of growth is an issue but I want to address another issue first, and that is why people are leaving. If we can come to a consensus or contact the people who left or have a thread dedicated to difficulties experienced in the forum, then we can target the problems and fix them. For growing the number of members we need to first fix forum and make the forum into a user friendly and easy to understand concept. Have some sort of agreed to mission statement, a constitution. Perhaps a place for informal discussion. This and more needs to be done before I think we can retain and gain members. As for growing our numbers, perhaps we should have a thread/ round dedicated to understanding how we can grow the organization.

I completely agree with the idea that we should try to avoid publicly advertising unless that is the only option left. I think approaching smart people is a better option. I like the idea of having a template statement for invitations. Perhaps we could have someone who is really good a rhetoric to come up with a sample invitation that any member can use if they want to invite someone. The reason why I think we need a standard and accessible invitation statement is because people will only spend a minute reading and so they need to be hooked.

If we stall too long, we sink. We got to get the engine running continuously and smoothly even if that means we have to put all of our members into one round.

I have read your reply and will try to formulate a more focused invitation for private message use. I will also write a more complete response to your points some time tomorrow. I think you bring up some important points, and I agree in full with your suggestions for making the academy more user friendly. Right now you need to seek out the info you need whereas all you need for engaging should be at your fingertips (I have so far kept abreast of the thing by clicking 'recent posts' on the home page, a button which is very useful for following everything posted on the forum).

Last Edit: Oct 16, 2018 0:08:34 GMT by Napoleoff (INTP)

slotahimself (INTP)
New Member

INTP

Posts: 46

In lieu of my submission for Organization Round 3 Oct 16, 2018 12:45:06 GMT

Quote

Post by slotahimself (INTP) on Oct 16, 2018 12:45:06 GMT

I think another course of action that would give us some momentum is if we got a domain that's either just a wordpress or a standard site and host our blog there with the winning entries and some of the colloquium posts. I know that was in the cards for the future but if people were to see a refined product emerging out of our efforts, it would likely give people a sense of worth to their efforts that's higher than what it is currently. Maybe even put a couple of the runner-up posts or just other ones of high quality on there too.

Napoleoff (INTP)
Full Member

Posts: 102

In lieu of my submission for Organization Round 3 Oct 16, 2018 23:44:04 GMT

Quote

Post by Napoleoff (INTP) on Oct 16, 2018 23:44:04 GMT

Oct 14, 2018 23:54:53 GMT flimp (INTJ) said:

1. I think we had too few participants for Organization Round 3 and so nobody was inspired and it ran out of steam. This was partly caused by the fact that for whatever reason people missed the initial roll-call (aarvoll speculated in his livestream #17 Hysteria and Effeminacy at the 45th minute of the stream that maybe the roll-call page was not posted in a visible enough space).

2. The rules for Organization Round 3 were too relaxed to provide a concrete framework for people to work around, and this might partially account for the poor response. I think the way we were doing it before was much better, where each person was allocated a day especially for their submission and there was a long rule-sheet posted with the schedule, than in this abortive attempt at Round 3 where a deadline was just posted and everyone was told to submit their piece by the same deadline, which is not a schedule (a schedule in my understanding is made up of more than one date). Basically, this research works best as a structured discussion just like we started off doing with amazing results. The more well-structured the research is the better people's creativity and intellectual energy can be focused on the question at hand.

I agree that we had too few participants for round 3 and so it ran out of steam. If we look at an example of a round that I liked, rightist round #1 (http://deepright.boards.net/thread/31/rightist-art-round-1) I see that the thread is organized into sections. Explanation/context, rules/guidelines, roll call. The post was short and to the point. Not too vague but not too complex either. Perhaps we should take a look at the best rounds and see what the structure of the initial thread was and use that as a guideline for future rounds.

3. Both the above complaints stem also from a lack of growth in membership of the forum and therefore a fall in participation. Since people tend to leave organizations, if there is no addition to membership or additions are too few and far between the result will tend towards a net fall in membership or participation. From this complaint therefore we get into the subject of recruitment, which we have already discussed briefly including in this short thread:

Lack of growth is an issue but I want to address another issue first, and that is why people are leaving. If we can come to a consensus or contact the people who left or have a thread dedicated to difficulties experienced in the forum, then we can target the problems and fix them. For growing the number of members we need to first fix forum and make the forum into a user friendly and easy to understand concept. Have some sort of agreed to mission statement, a constitution. Perhaps a place for informal discussion. This and more needs to be done before I think we can retain and gain members. As for growing our numbers, perhaps we should have a thread/ round dedicated to understanding how we can grow the organization.

In this post I expressed my preference in these early formative stages of our academy project for recruiting people ourselves by approaching them, an idea which I speculated would allow for quality control (which was really just me expanding on a suggestion initially put forward by aarvoll in this post at the start of the thread). I would like to iterate this call now; if you spend any time at all idling on forums or on Youtube or even twitter and you see interesting intelligent passionate rightist-minded individuals who compose well-written coherent and thoughtful comments or posts, then you should approach these people by private message with an invitation for them to participate in our forum. Each of us should try to approach 5 people every week, wherever on the internet you are and rightists also are this can theoretically be done.

I completely agree with the idea that we should try to avoid publicly advertising unless that is the only option left. I think approaching smart people is a better option. I like the idea of having a template statement for invitations. Perhaps we could have someone who is really good a rhetoric to come up with a sample invitation that any member can use if they want to invite someone. The reason why I think we need a standard and accessible invitation statement is because people will only spend a minute reading and so they need to be hooked.

we have to get this show on the road.

If we stall too long, we sink. We got to get the engine running continuously and smoothly even if that means we have to put all of our members into one round.

OK here is my more comprehensive response:

1. Rightist Art Round 2 was just as well structured as Rightist Art Round 1, and since the standard had already been set in the previous round it produced overall even better (less patchy) submissions than Round 1:

deepright.boards.net/thread/31/rightist-art-round-1

deepright.boards.net/thread/58/rightist-art-round-2

The first two structured focused Organization Rounds were also stellar. So the research was on the right track the way it had originally been set up, across the whole forum.

Here are the introductory threads for Round 2 joint Organization and Colloquium:

deepright.boards.net/thread/33/rules-round-2

deepright.boards.net/thread/34/schedule-round-2-organization-colloquium

The relaxation which took place in Organization Round 3 and the hiccups which have characterised it so far caused contributors' willpower and energy to dissipate into the ether.

2. Finding the information you need to participate on this forum is not always straightforward and you sometimes need to click around a bit to find the set of instructions that will tell you what you need to do in the round you wish to participate in. They can be easy to miss. Rightist Art instructions were in the right place, although even here there might be improvement to be made depending on what you all have to say about this. The problem of the non-intuitive forum definitely needs to be sorted out.

3. For informal discussion, we already have the "off topic discussion" board linked directly from the homepage. If we want to start informal discussions we can just start a new thread on that board. Actually you already did: deepright.boards.net/board/13/off-topic-discussion

4. For General Project Discussion we have the General Project Discussion board linked once again from the homepage. We should start using this to start threads like the one we're in now, and actually now that you mention it I should have started this thread on the General Project Discussion board instead of the Organization Round 3 board. In fact maybe we should migrate over to the General Project Discussion board to continue this discussion over there, and if Ken or Aarvoll reads this maybe they could move this current thread to the General Project Discussion board if they think that's the right place for it. Then again, this current thread is somewhat related to the Round 3 which hasn't happened yet, so maybe Organization Round 3 really is the right place for it.

5. People are going to drop off no matter what we do, but you're right that there are certain things that make people more likely to stay and things that make them more likely to leave. Maybe we can contact by private message some of the people who have not kept up participation and ask them what caused them to stop. More importantly, I think we need to keep up a discussion among ourselves about the difficulties we experience. So yeah I think a special thread dedicated to talking about the difficulties is a good idea and then we can use our discussions there to come to our consensus about the setup that will best retain people.

6. As for a mission statement, Aarvoll's first Research team was supposed to be dedicated to agreeing on the principles articulated in it, but like Organization Round 3, that research round has not happened yet. I wrote a sample statement as requested by Aarvoll in the Round 3 Preamble, as did vennyflennard and you also contributed to that thread.

If I do say so myself, even if we don't ultimately use it my sample statement is a good start in terms of orientation. Vennyflennard's is also good, as is Aarvoll's statement in this thread:

deepright.boards.net/thread/59/roll-call-rules-round-3

"The Deepright Forum is dedicated to the development of an online academy from a Perennialist perspective.
We seek to provide an engine of integration, drawing particularly on intellectual developments from the right, that allows for the construction of a unified and coherent conservative worldview. Our structure is meritocratic and we reward our most talented researchers and content producers with influence over the form and trajectory of project."

- Aarvoll

7. I am still strongly of the opinion that yes, we should try recruiting people by approach and invitation rather than by open advertisement, but if the former approach having been properly tried does not work then we should think about advertising openly. I think we should really try to make this private approach of smart people method work though, because it could be a good early recruitment strategy that would help establish the right tone for the academy in its early stages before we open it up more widely, which could have a salutary effect on the types who come of their own accord later on.

For recruitment, perhaps we could use something very short such as Aarvoll's above mission statement or something slightly longer and more detailed yet derived from one of the above mission statements. Also, before I rewrite my standarized private message template as posted above in the first post of this thread, I would first be interested to know the specifics of what people think of it so I can then make the necessary changes. Anyone's comment on the strengths and weaknesses of my above PM template would be very much appreciated. The message could also be a combination of my template and the info contained in the mission statements we so far have produced. If any of you have your own suggestions or want to submit a sample template for PM then please do so in a new thread on the General Project Discussion board.

Actually, I think we should continue this discussion of this project on the General Project Discussion board. For direct replies to my present post, please reply below, but for detailed discussion of the points above please start a new thread. I will lead the way in this regard by creating a new thread on the General Project Discussion board:

Difficulties using forum: Making it more intuitive to use.

Napoleoff (INTP)
Full Member

Posts: 102

In lieu of my submission for Organization Round 3 Oct 17, 2018 0:42:42 GMT

Quote

Post by Napoleoff (INTP) on Oct 17, 2018 0:42:42 GMT

Oct 16, 2018 12:45:06 GMT slotahimself (INTP) said:

I think another course of action that would give us some momentum is if we got a domain that's either just a wordpress or a standard site and host our blog there with the winning entries and some of the colloquium posts. I know that was in the cards for the future but if people were to see a refined product emerging out of our efforts, it would likely give people a sense of worth to their efforts that's higher than what it is currently. Maybe even put a couple of the runner-up posts or just other ones of high quality on there too.

Yes Ken said that would be done, the blog idea. Seeing as Aarvoll and Ken are the ones running the site, it would seem to fall to one or the other of them to carry this out. Hopefully they read this or if not we can ask them again later. A blog would be a great idea even with very few members because the build-up of winning entries and other good content would stand as an attractive advertisement for our academy. Also I am interested in the journal idea that Aarvoll mentioned in this video:

Napoleoff (INTP)
Full Member

Posts: 102

In lieu of my submission for Organization Round 3 Oct 17, 2018 11:45:32 GMT

Quote

Post by Napoleoff (INTP) on Oct 17, 2018 11:45:32 GMT

Oct 14, 2018 23:54:53 GMT flimp (INTJ) said:

If we stall too long, we sink. We got to get the engine running continuously and smoothly even if that means we have to put all of our members into one round.

Also, this x1000. Yeah as long as there are few of us we should concentrate our members to fill up the rounds.

Perennial Perspective

In lieu of my submission for Organization Round 3

Post by Napoleoff (INTP) on Oct 14, 2018 18:33:05 GMT

Post by flimp (INTJ) on Oct 14, 2018 23:54:53 GMT

Post by Napoleoff (INTP) on Oct 16, 2018 0:07:37 GMT

Post by slotahimself (INTP) on Oct 16, 2018 12:45:06 GMT

Post by Napoleoff (INTP) on Oct 16, 2018 23:44:04 GMT

Post by Napoleoff (INTP) on Oct 17, 2018 0:42:42 GMT

Post by Napoleoff (INTP) on Oct 17, 2018 11:45:32 GMT

Quick Reply