|
Post by kenlarsson on Sept 30, 2006 8:28:54 GMT -5
I probably haven't seen all the threads but I am very concerned with all the issues over banning, vetting or screening new members, anonymous threads, moderating, ect.
At this point Cribbs set up the forum and appointed moderators. All done with good intent. However, it leaves most "members" of the forum unempowered.
If someone offends someone else and get banned do they have an appeal? Is it a select committee that decides? Does anyone outside of the inner circle have any say in these matters. There is an inner circle by the way. Just look at the way this was set up, by a small group without the knowledge of most of us. I'm not saying this was done with ill intent but it does lay the seeds for this place to become an online aristocracy. I hope it doesn't end up that way but I have to ask. Are we setting ourselfselves up for this becoming an elite club with a status structure based on karma points that the "in" group of friends dole out to each other?
Is there some way we could set up some sort of democratic process to the administration of this forum? Is there someway an appeals process could be worked out for those who are deemed undesirable?
It's the nature of people to form groups within groups. There are some of us who by inclination and temperment don't get included in these groups. I am usually one of those, so this is motivated by my personal concerns and insecurities. In spite of that I think these are still valid concerns.
|
|
|
Post by John B on Sept 30, 2006 9:58:06 GMT -5
Ken, First off, I hope Karma is just a fun, goofy, and ultimately pointless thing. I don't think ANY decisions AT ALL should have Karma as a factor, period. Here are the suggested rules I've seen: From Tim Farney's thread here. There has been discussion over whether or not some people should be prevented from joining. I've named some names of people I don't want to see over here, in haste. But it seems like the general consensus will be that ultimately anyone can join. There is the thread here discussing registration. SOMEWHERE on this forum I saw some suggestions about suggested moderator rules (when to give private warnings, temporary suspensions of accounts, etc.). I can't find it, but I think there ought to be some generally accepted guidelines. I think banning out to be an absolute last ditch resort, and maybe not ever used as long as there are ways to temporarily suspend an account. I support your idea of some sort of democratic process.
|
|
|
Post by kenlarsson on Sept 30, 2006 10:12:28 GMT -5
One point, in the rules it states that "I trust the folks we've picked as mods to be fair". Well, "we" didn't pick the moderators. From what I understand they were selected by Cribbs. I think he did that in good faith but it was not a group selection.
I have a suggestion that we elect moderators, with term limits. It's a responsibility and will be a pain in the butt to whoever serves so moving the position around between forum members would be a good idea from that point of view.
I'd suggest six month terms with no re-election to the post until a year has passed since a person served.
|
|
|
Post by kenlarsson on Sept 30, 2006 10:16:55 GMT -5
I'll also add that I think the karma points will not be a fun thing. I think they will be popularity indicators that will have negative consequences, at least as far as hurt feelings are concerned for those who are considered inconsequential.
|
|
|
Post by Gypsy Picker on Sept 30, 2006 10:55:36 GMT -5
Ken, I believe your concerns are valid and your suggestion of election over appointment also makes sense. That said, I have no problem with Cribb's appointments at this time - better than no moderators, to be sure. My understanding is they are drafting a constitution of sorts that we will all be able to weigh in on and presumably vote for. They very well may already be considering election of moderators, term limits, and such.
|
|
|
Post by kenlarsson on Sept 30, 2006 11:28:46 GMT -5
If "they" are doing that and it's not being done in public it's a problem. A big problem. The more public and open all this is the better.
|
|
|
Post by kenlarsson on Sept 30, 2006 11:35:04 GMT -5
A solution might be that "they" create a thread stating who "they" are and post the dialogs of their emails regarding the constitution they are working on.
A better solution would be to have the open forum elect a comittee to draft the constitution that could be submitted for approval. Right now nobodies been selected, elected or approved by the people of this forum.
At this point the forum is an oligarchy and I would like to see it become a democracy.
|
|
|
Post by Gypsy Picker on Sept 30, 2006 12:15:49 GMT -5
I will second your suggestion for transparency. Mods? Who all is involved in the behind-the-scenes activity? Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Cribbs on Sept 30, 2006 12:28:41 GMT -5
Right now, I am grabbing some common sense rules from other board I mod on, and typing them up to apply to here.
As dysfunctional as our government can be in America, I do like the idea of the power being in the hands of the people here on this forum. I wholeheartedly agree to any council or committee that will review the charter and propose changes or omissions. I also agree to an appeals process. As it stands now, I will ban an IP for only one reason outright, and that is SPAM.
I did ask around initially when there were a handful of people here, who they would recommend for Moderators. I asked several different people, and went with the most votes, albeit on a small percentage of the populace. It was out of mere necessity, as I would likely be away for a day or two and would need someone to tend to the place.
Another thing in favor of Moderator Term Limits is simple -- it's a lot of work. The Moderators may not want that job permanently, and I agree it would be nice to have the forum vote on their next selections.
The Karma/Smite thing was enabled by default, and in the hurry to set things up as quickly as it was growing, I left it enabled. If it becomes a problem, I can disable it with the click of a mouse.
In these early stages, I think we are all watching with curiousity at the process and growth to see how it goes. All suggestions are welcome, because I don't have all the answers. A good forum community is only as good as it's members, and I hope you all want to have a hand in matters around here.
Cribbsy
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Sept 30, 2006 13:35:50 GMT -5
A lot of good points have been made here.
If we can turn off karma, I would. I can't see it causing anything but hard feelings, as it already has in one instance.
I thinking electing moderators is a good idea. We needed some on an interim basis because there was some risk of people dropping in to toss grenades.
I'll keep an open mind but I think the rules Cribbs posted at the outset are the only rules we need. I'm very concerned that if we overreact to our recent divorce, we'll take the zip out of the place. I'd prefer a very lightly moderated place. People need leeway. The occasional loss of temper or snide comment ought to be ignored or dealt with by an off-line word to the wise. This is a good group of people that I expect to be largely self-regulating. Direct intervention ought to be a last resort.
On edit: consider Arch's recent visit here. Tim Farney said exactly the right thing in response. People wisely did as he suggested. So far, at least, nothing more has been needed. That's a much better solution than a locked or deleted thread, in my view.
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Oct 4, 2006 7:41:44 GMT -5
I kinda like the karma thing but not to put any big weight on it.
If it's hurting people's feelings, then it's not a big deal to me. I think it's just a fun thing but not a serious thing.
|
|