“A solution in search of a problem.” A striking thought, @wundayatta. But I tried it on and it doesn’t quite fit. There was definitely a problem that needed to be dealt with. As I see it, the tone and atmosphere changed, the quality of discussions changed, and the changes were causing disaffection among those who helped sustain the positive culture we had had, which was therefore eroding fast, over a period of just a few months. Again, I emphasize: this was my perception and interpretation. But there was more than a rumble, there was an outcry, so people were seeing something amiss. So something had to be done.
I am guessing here (if I really knew, I wouldn’t dare say this—I can say it only because I am guessing), but I think this might describe what we’re seeing:
Here’s the problem. And here’s a change we can make. Let’s see if this change helps solve the problem.
In other words, I don’t think these changes were devised for the purpose of solving the culture problem. I think they were in the works or available for use and were implemented with the hope that they would mitigate the problem. But they were not in fact created in order to address it.
I see this as an instance of doing stuff just because we can and not because we should, which is a trap we’ve fallen into with our science and technology many times over the generations and the centuries.
The more fluther gets broken down, labeled, and compartmentalized, the more it is fragmented and structure-driven, the less it looks and feels like the place we joined. The less of what attracted us older members is here. And that’s all right if the point is to move on, appeal to a different audience, let the old go. But if that is not the aim—if the aim is to sustain what was good and not retire it and replace it—then moving away from the model seems counterproductive to me.
