New K1 subforums?

[no name 1]

My suggestion is perhaps there should be some people who only have one "job". A couple of people lock threads, a couple of people do the "requesting to change thread titles to the members" and then the movers. That way no one does more than another, no one gets too big for their boots and everyone is pretty equal. And, more importantly, no one could be defined as a moderator at all, which I know we are trying to get away from.

Does that make sense to anyone but me? Or is that just far too complicated?

I do think asking someone to change titles may get ugly. Just my .02 - newbiews aren't fond of being told to look at guides, let alone change a title!

[Captain Ewok 1,900]

- Ability to lock threads with clear TOS violations. May I suggest that if you are worried about abuse that locking a thread require more than one "deputy" to confirm the lock?

Good in theory...however, what if you are asked, you say no and then that person asks someone else and it gets locked? If that route was followed you would have to have clear defining rules.

My suggestion is perhaps there should be some people who only have one "job". A couple of people lock threads, a couple of people do the "requesting to change thread titles to the members" and then the movers. That way no one does more than another, no one gets too big for their boots and everyone is pretty equal. And, more importantly, no one could be defined as a moderator at all, which I know we are trying to get away from.

Does that make sense to anyone but me? Or is that just far too complicated?

Very interesting concept (the giving differnet people different abilities). It does addess many of the concerns I had and would allow the work to get done and spread out. Comments anyone?

I am going to enable members to edit their titles now (I hope that helps some). Lets give that a chance and see ow it goes first on that topic.

[Jenn! 918]

I think spreading out the responsibilities is a fine idea.

I'm thinking along the same lines as devilette regarding having the OP change their own titles. I think improperly-titled threads often are created by either non-native English speakers or people with a general lack of understanding about the process. Maybe the "title police" could simply send PMs like, 'Please change the title of your thread to "______"'.

[Otto 83]

I think spreading out the responsibilities is a fine idea.

I'm thinking along the same lines as devilette regarding having the OP change their own titles. I think improperly-titled threads often are created by either non-native English speakers or people with a general lack of understanding about the process. Maybe the "title police" could simply send PMs like, 'Please change the title of your thread to "______"'.

I know this is not directly related to Jenn's comments..but why not insert some language next to/near the "Topic Title box" when someone starts a new thread? (Example(s), hints, the words BE SPECIFIC, etc..w/out making it to labor intensive on Ewok.)

Can do the same for the "Topic Description Box" - I know it has to be brief/small because of space, but might help (if the fields are editable).

I think OP being able to edit their title is a good thing.

[Mags 112]

Maybe the "title police" could simply send PMs like, 'Please change the title of your thread to "______"'.

Yup, that's exactly what I was trying to get across!

[Captain Ewok 1,900]

I think spreading out the responsibilities is a fine idea.

I'm thinking along the same lines as devilette regarding having the OP change their own titles. I think improperly-titled threads often are created by either non-native English speakers or people with a general lack of understanding about the process. Maybe the "title police" could simply send PMs like, 'Please change the title of your thread to "______"'.

I know this is not directly related to Jenn's comments..but why not insert some language next to/near the "Topic Title box" when someone starts a new thread? (Example(s), hints, the words BE SPECIFIC, etc..w/out making it to labor intensive on Ewok.)

Can do the same for the "Topic Description Box" - I know it has to be brief/small because of space, but might help (if the fields are editable).

I think OP being able to edit their title is a good thing.

Great idea. I will do that right now ! Added.

[William33 110]

- Ability to lock threads with clear TOS violations. May I suggest that if you are worried about abuse that locking a thread require more than one "deputy" to confirm the lock?

Good in theory...however, what if you are asked, you say no and then that person asks someone else and it gets locked? If that route was followed you would have to have clear defining rules.

My suggestion is perhaps there should be some people who only have one "job". A couple of people lock threads, a couple of people do the "requesting to change thread titles to the members" and then the movers. That way no one does more than another, no one gets too big for their boots and everyone is pretty equal. And, more importantly, no one could be defined as a moderator at all, which I know we are trying to get away from.

Does that make sense to anyone but me? Or is that just far too complicated?

Very interesting concept (the giving differnet people different abilities). It does addess many of the concerns I had and would allow the work to get done and spread out. Comments anyone?

I am going to enable members to edit their titles now (I hope that helps some). Lets give that a chance and see ow it goes first on that topic.

The most gratifying work, among the outlined "jobs", would be locking "out of control" threads. I have moved threads for months, necessary work indeed, yet I feel that I can contribute more on an analytical basis.

Perhaps rotating duties among the "mini-mods", every quarter? I know that concept would add more load to you Captain, but you would have an assurance that no individual would burn out or grow an inflated ego.

[Captain Ewok 1,900]

Good point .

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Great thread. Not sure how I managed to miss it

[Captain Ewok 1,900]

We are in the chatroom for any interested parties.

[Captain Ewok 1,900]

I would like to thank about 15 people from this thread and in general who were able to come to the chat room and discuss this with me. I think we came up with some great ideas and terrific compromises that will accomplish everyone’s goals.

Regarding the concept of member moderation… We discussed this and it was agreed that one issue is that I can not be online 24 /7 to reply to crazy long gone threads and are flame wars. To this end we discussed how this type of situation is dealt with. The typical response is to lock it (which may take me some time until I get on to see it). The idea we all decided that would work is that just like the "movers" we would add a tool to a few very trusted members’ accounts that will allow them to lock threads, pending admin review. They would only lock threads that were out of control and clearly a detriment to the site and / or a violation of the TOS. They would then be required to email me documenting what thread they locked and why. I would review it and if it was a non issue I would re-open it or leave it closed if it was a real issue.

In our group conversation we all agree that members should never be given any tools that give private information to them such as IP addresses and other information. That would include people not having the ability to suspend people (that would only be able to be done by me). We looked back over the past year or so and only in a rare occasion would it be required that a member be banned immediately and that waiting a short while for me to do it would not a problem (namely for spammers). We also agreed that members should never be able to edit or change another person’s text. That can only lead to problems and privacy issues. I will be enabling members to change their own thread titles at any time in the very near future. Members with any extra tool will not receive 'reported threads' not any other confidential information.

I think a big theme we discussed is that we should make this just another "tool" that members have and not start parading around moderators. Ego's are the only thing that are typically satisfied by that name and that can lead to problems. If the best interest of the site is at heart there is no need for anything other than a few members to check in time to time when they are online and if there is something really bad going on to close the thread and email me to review it as soon as possible. This accomplishes the stop gap measure to react in the near term and retains the separation of members and the site.

The last point we all agreed on is that the locking of threads should be a last measure and used infrequently. Locking a thread should not be about an ego trip or anything else; it should truly be when a topic has become harmful to the community and not just one persons ego or opinion.

Oh, and I am open to adding other tools such as merging threads/splitting/etc as needed. The main theme we had is that no one had all the tools in their basket so we may have another small group of people to check for duplicate posts and merge them as they see them. This would help everyone and be a way to smooth out things. Again they would just be normal members with an extra tool to help organization.

I think that many people here wanted member moderators, but after the same people and I talked about it we agreed that the 'title: moderator' was less important than what really needed to be done to help smooth out the planks. It is just a name and if an alternate method can do the same thing equally well and avoid some of the pitfalls than why not try that instead.

I am very hopeful that this will help smooth things out when I can not be online to respond to reports or to see things in real time. I also think that it is a really good thing that this is an open door, open window policy so that everyone knows that some people are able to pitch in with these tools. I will select people that I trust to help and if they want to have the tool on their account I will enable it. I hope that no one feels left as this is not about egos or power trips, but simply about a way to improve the little things. To be clear as well, members with these tools will have to report when they make thread closures and if anyone abuses this they will lose the tool from their account.

Thank you all and I hope you can understand why I was hesitant to react quickly. I was not trying to be stubborn. I just did not want a knee jerk reaction and I think that this method is pretty well thought out although I welcome feedback!

[meauxna 15]

The last point we all agreed on is that the locking of threads should be a last measure and used infrequently. Locking a thread should not be about an ego trip or anything else; it should truly be when a topic has become harmful to the community and not just one persons ego or opinion.

I realize it's a bit of Monday morning quarterbacking as we say here and I'm sorry I couldn't join the chat at that time, but I do have a comment about the above.

I think that you are trying to piecemeal solve the individual complaints that come along, with pieces of solutions. What I still see missing is a definition of this 'community'.

Depending on my mood, I could see 50 threads a day that should be locked, or one. This is nothing to do with my ego, it's to do with how I am perceiving the role of VJ on that given day.

We don't really know what is acceptable behavior here (other than the blatently obvious) and we have very different ideas of it. Rob thinks he should be able to post about Jesus all day and no one should mock him. Andy doesn't like the term 'post #######' and finds it borderline anti-TOS. Lisa thinks there should be as little interference as possible because we're all adults. People make fun of a woman using babelfish to translate her serious question, and it becomes a VJ classic, and I was on the sticking-up-for-her side getting trashed along with her. Members *consistantly* join with false aliases to have fun with made-up posts. Those posts take answers away from people in genuine need. Polite requests are replied to with a STFU (look it up if need be).

One thing you've got to give to the Usenet groups--at least there is a standardized code of behavior, and most people follow it. Silly ####### like the above gets pruned out and no one complains. The group is for information. We still make friends, but we keep the group on topic.

When you asked earlier today what exactly it was that people were asking for, I was astounded. I was simply going to go back through the thread and clip the things I had already posted here. You did come back and say you had re-read the entire thread, so I saved the post gathering for another time (never).

You either have one person running everything on this site, or you get members to get emotionally invested in the SITE and its information, not just the outcome of their 'class' or friends. Not a handful of people, a CULTURE of people. The only way people are going to bother with keeping info updated and threads in control is when they CARE about the outcome. You don't have that now, so what you have is one guy doing everything, and it is not enough.

I think that your suggested fixes here will calm everything down for awhile, but I don't think it's going to solve anyone's 'problem' with VJ. A handful of people is not enough to keep this machine running, and I see very few new recruits who want to contribute in what I think is the appropriate way.

And, I know that that is just my opinion. I get to make the decisions where I pay the bills.

[William33 110]

The last point we all agreed on is that the locking of threads should be a last measure and used infrequently. Locking a thread should not be about an ego trip or anything else; it should truly be when a topic has become harmful to the community and not just one persons ego or opinion.

I realize it's a bit of Monday morning quarterbacking as we say here and I'm sorry I couldn't join the chat at that time, but I do have a comment about the above.

I think that you are trying to piecemeal solve the individual complaints that come along, with pieces of solutions. What I still see missing is a definition of this 'community'.

Depending on my mood, I could see 50 threads a day that should be locked, or one. This is nothing to do with my ego, it's to do with how I am perceiving the role of VJ on that given day.

We don't really know what is acceptable behavior here (other than the blatently obvious) and we have very different ideas of it. Rob thinks he should be able to post about Jesus all day and no one should mock him. Andy doesn't like the term 'post #######' and finds it borderline anti-TOS. Lisa thinks there should be as little interference as possible because we're all adults. People make fun of a woman using babelfish to translate her serious question, and it becomes a VJ classic, and I was on the sticking-up-for-her side getting trashed along with her. Members *consistantly* join with false aliases to have fun with made-up posts. Those posts take answers away from people in genuine need. Polite requests are replied to with a STFU (look it up if need be).

One thing you've got to give to the Usenet groups--at least there is a standardized code of behavior, and most people follow it. Silly ####### like the above gets pruned out and no one complains. The group is for information. We still make friends, but we keep the group on topic.

When you asked earlier today what exactly it was that people were asking for, I was astounded. I was simply going to go back through the thread and clip the things I had already posted here. You did come back and say you had re-read the entire thread, so I saved the post gathering for another time (never).

You either have one person running everything on this site, or you get members to get emotionally invested in the SITE and its information, not just the outcome of their 'class' or friends. Not a handful of people, a CULTURE of people. The only way people are going to bother with keeping info updated and threads in control is when they CARE about the outcome. You don't have that now, so what you have is one guy doing everything, and it is not enough.

I think that your suggested fixes here will calm everything down for awhile, but I don't think it's going to solve anyone's 'problem' with VJ. A handful of people is not enough to keep this machine running, and I see very few new recruits who want to contribute in what I think is the appropriate way.

And, I know that that is just my opinion. I get to make the decisions where I pay the bills.

My impression of this site is:

1.) A place to get immigration suggestions, support and anecdotal, yet skilled experience. This will fall short of legal advice though, be sure of that!

2.) A place with integrity, which has the members respecting each other. Yet disagreement is fully acceptable and appreciated, but with some level of respect. As we all know, this frequently does not happen, and tends to digress into name calling and bashing.

3.) A place where, "out of control threads" are shut down. As this is once again, an immigration forum. Over the top comments and threads are not needed, and do not promote the intent of the site.

I simply offer that additional admin help, limited to the final discretion of the good Captain, would be appropriate.

For those that feel the need to post any freaking thing they want, well, is it really benefiting those immigrating? No, it is not.

Agreed, I have posted a few off topic items, yet I always try to see both sides. If the site will benefit from restraint, why not promote it?

Self analysis is a useful tool; do you find yourself arguing more than helping the potential immigrant? With respect to the much argued post count, in my case, has been helping and supporting others. How about you?

[Captain Ewok 1,900]

I think that your suggested fixes here will calm everything down for awhile, but I don't think it's going to solve anyone's 'problem' with VJ. A handful of people is not enough to keep this machine running, and I see very few new recruits who want to contribute in what I think is the appropriate way.

What is your definition of he problem as you see it and what type of recruits are you looking for in your example above? Maybe we can brain storm. I know I can never make everyone happy but I can try!

[William33 110]

I think that your suggested fixes here will calm everything down for awhile, but I don't think it's going to solve anyone's 'problem' with VJ. A handful of people is not enough to keep this machine running, and I see very few new recruits who want to contribute in what I think is the appropriate way.

What is your definition of he problem as you see it and what type of recruits are you looking for in your example above? Maybe we can brain storm. I know I can never make everyone happy but I can try!

Mo,

Perhaps you should suggest those contributors that can make a difference, in a PM to Captain Ewok?

It is all about integrity, commitment and the willingness to give up the time to the effort of improving this site.