Considering full moderation

[psy]

Considering the mess this entire board has become, Ginger and I are for the first time seriously considering full moderation.  It's not the topics discussed that's the problem, it's the lack of organization and the constant derailing of threads.  For example, there do not need to be so many threads on the same topic, regardless of what it is.  You might not like it, but right now nobody new is showing up which is not the way the forum used to be.  It's become a funny farm. A total disaster area.  If we decide on full moderation, rules might be:

1. If a thread already exists on a topic, use it.
2. Don't derail threads by changing the topic. Start a new topic.
4. Post your topics in the appropriate forum.
3. No outing of personal identifying information of parents, or teens in programs.
5. Multiple usernames are disallowed if you use them for sockpuppetry (anonymity purposes are fine, for example, if you are going to post in the "I Just" thread).  Sockpuppets will be outed and may result in a ban.
6. No attacking other posters with insults (this includes driving parents off). You can make your point with civility.
7. One unmoderated forum will remain (open free for all) however it will be opt-in, similar to the drama box.

Punishments for violations would not be retroactive.

Something like this:
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=30541#p363935

This isn't a democracy.  You're on private property.  If we decide to do this, you'll just have to deal with it.  Just to make it clear, these rules would not ban Whooter, Max, Danny, or whoever for disagreeing with the majority.  They'd apply to everybody equally, regardless of personal views.  Hopefully, if the forum is better organized, more traffic will return.

Yes, we are aware this is a total compromise of the ideals intended originally for the forum.  However the experiment failed, and now something needs to be done.  Reactions?  Rules you think are good?  Rules you think are crap?

[RobertBruce]

I personally would be a fan of this. People like Whooter, Suck It and Danny are going to be the only ones upset by this because they're the only ones playing games. Moderate away, it will prevent the good information from getting lost in the fray.

[Botched Programming]

All in favor of moderation here as well... It may stop alot of the drama !!!

[DannyB II]

I personally would be a fan of this. People like Whooter, Suck It and Danny are going to be the only ones upset by this because they're the only ones playing games. Moderate away, it will prevent the good information from getting lost in the fray.

Obviously you did not read the post, Robert. This is what Psy is talking about, the constant derailment. This is not just about me, it is about folks and there petty vendettas, derailing threads.
Now would be the time to stop with all the negative bashing and let it go.

Psy and Ginger, I personally have no problem with organization so we can attract membership. I will say this Psy, you can say all you want this is not a democracy and Sekto can do what ever he wants on his forum. One problem though, folks don't have a tendency to go to forums that are totally controlled, look at the traffic over the last few years. So if this is the way you want to go, good luck. You may be liberal in your moderation here but so is facebook, myspace, twitter, and other various sites that deal with specific programs.
Organization could look like folks staying on topic in their rightful forum. I do believe AA should have its own forum and have it moderated so it remains civil, so we can possibly debate the merits of the Orange Papers, Vailiant, Bill Wilson and Ebby. Cult issues, Thought Reform, MKP Warrior Training, James Ray Sweat Lodges, AA/NA could all go into this forum.
I do agree the Open Free for All Forum, should be structured the same way the Drama Box is. I think I am changing my mind on this. Then it would not be "distracting" as you said. This forum does have a tendency of dominating the discussion board with topics that are not helpful to others in their nature.

[Botched Programming]

I personally would be a fan of this. People like Whooter, Suck It and Danny are going to be the only ones upset by this because they're the only ones playing games. Moderate away, it will prevent the good information from getting lost in the fray.

Obviously you did not read the post, Robert. This is what Psy is talking about, the constant derailment. This is not about me only it is about everyone and there petty vendettas derailing threads.
Now would be the time to stop with all the negative bashing and let it go.

Robert was not derailing the topic, He made a statement that said the good information now will not get lost in the fray of petty bull crap name calling and derailing that has been going on, so now everybody has to be on good behavior Danny or they will get consequences.

[Whooter]

Robert was not derailing the topic, He made a statement that said the good information now will not get lost in the fray of petty bull crap name calling and derailing that has been going on, so now everybody has to be on good behavior Danny or they will get consequences.

But what you missed in Psy’s post, Botched , and what I think you struggle with is that people like yourself and Bruce would not be allowed to just jump in the middle of a discussion and start name calling or insulting people because of their view on the particular topic.  Its okay that you spend your time placing fliers on peoples windshields but you have to respect the fact that there are many people who don't find this to be a productive use of someones time.

People need to stay on topic, respect the fact that there are many opposing points of view and  allow them to express their opinions and not attack the other person.  From reading I know that this is a challenge for you, Botched and for Bruce… (as well as many others).

I am all for a moderated forum if it means increasing the traffic.  2 years a go we had spikes of 461 visitors a day, we dont see near that level now.  so I agree that a change is in order.  Forums need to be fluid and it never means it is forever.  Lets try something different!!



...

[Hedge]

I really like this idea.

As a noob around here, I can relate to the idea that some users might be getting lost in all the "I think So-and-so is a douchebag!" posts and not coming back again.

More traffic and more credibility with the same freedom of speech? Sounds good to me.

[Botched Programming]

Robert was not derailing the topic, He made a statement that said the good information now will not get lost in the fray of petty bull crap name calling and derailing that has been going on, so now everybody has to be on good behavior Danny or they will get consequences.

But what you missed in Psy’s post, Botched , and what I think you struggle with is that people like yourself and Bruce would not be allowed to just jump in the middle of a discussion and start name calling or insulting people because of their view on the particular topic.  Its okay that you spend your time placing fliers on peoples windshields but you have to respect the fact that there are many people who don't find this to be a productive use of someones time.

People need to stay on topic, respect the fact that there are many opposing points of view and  allow them to express their opinions and not attack the other person.  From reading I know that this is a challenge for you, Botched and for Bruce… (as well as many others).

I am all for a moderated forum if it means increasing the traffic.  2 years a go we had spikes of 461 visitors a day, we dont see near that level now.  so I agree that a change is in order.  Forums need to be fluid and it never means it is forever.  Lets try something different!!


...

Who ... here go already pointing fingers at other people and not looking at your own actions. Above you are singling mostly Bruce and myself out and not looking at how you treat others and derail subjects and jump in the middle of conversations that you have no knowledge of expressing what you think not what you know..If you look when I was talking ton Danny I had nothing to say about you, however you felt so compelled to jump into a conversation that was Danny and myself. You were not included, and you have a very bad habit of doing this. I have told you on more than one occasion that you were not invited to discuss on the topic however you still do which is a form of disrespect.

[SEKTO]

Considering the mess this entire board has become, Ginger and I are for the first time seriously considering full moderation.  It's not the topics discussed that's the problem, it's the lack of organization and the constant derailing of threads.  For example, there do not need to be so many threads on the same topic, regardless of what it is.  You might not like it, but right now nobody new is showing up which is not the way the forum used to be.  It's become a funny farm. A total disaster area.  If we decide on full moderation, rules might be:

1. If a thread already exists on a topic, use it.
2. Don't derail threads by changing the topic. Start a new topic.
4. Post your topics in the appropriate forum.
3. No outing of personal identifying information of parents, or teens in programs.
5. Multiple usernames are disallowed if you use them for sockpuppetry (anonymity purposes are fine, for example, if you are going to post in the "I Just" thread).  Sockpuppets will be outed and may result in a ban.
6. No attacking other posters with insults (this includes driving parents off).  You can make your point with civility.
7. One unmoderated forum will remain (open free for all) however it will be opt-in, similar to the drama box.

Punishments for violations would not be retroactive.

Something like this:
viewtopic.php?f=31&t=30541#p363935

This isn't a democracy.  You're on private property.  If we decide to do this, you'll just have to deal with it.  Just to make it clear, these rules would not ban Whooter, Max, Danny, or whoever for disagreeing with the majority.  They'd apply to everybody equally, regardless of personal views.  Hopefully, if the forum is better organized, more traffic will return.

Yes, we are aware this is a total compromise of the ideals intended originally for the forum.  However the experiment failed, and now something needs to be done.  Reactions?  Rules you think are good?  Rules you think are crap?

Agreed.  I'm all for better and more professional moderation, always have been.

IMO a policy of the use of one username only per registrant should be applied as well.  No more multiple usernames, period.

Other than that, no further suggestions.

SEKTO

[none-ya]

So I guess we can stick a fork in the i just.... thread. I have a username that I've only used there. How dod I delete it and not the good one?

[Whooter]

Who ... here go already pointing fingers at other people and not looking at your own actions. Above you are singling mostly Bruce and myself out and not looking at how you treat others and derail subjects and jump in the middle of conversations that you have no knowledge of expressing what you think not what you know..If you look when I was talking ton Danny I had nothing to say about you, however you felt so compelled to jump into a conversation that was Danny and myself. You were not included, and you have a very bad habit of doing this. I have told you on more than one occasion that you were not invited to discuss on the topic however you still do which is a form of disrespect.

I posted in that thread to express my opinion.  I was open, and up front, about the fact that I was not up to speed on the subject.  I noticed Anne Bonney and a few others posted in that thread also and they were not invited either, but you singled me out because I wasn’t agreeing with your thinking from the start.  Do you really think that when I am posting in a thread that I go out of my way to invite RobertBruce or yourself over or do you think you and he just decides to do this on his own (uninvited)?

Maybe you could talk to psy about having an “invite only” thread or firm  up the rules so that people can have private conversations.

Once this conversion occurs I can almost guarantee that posters like Bruce and Dysfunction junction will never participate (or will fade out slowly)  because they are only here to disrupt the flow of the conversation and try to make it difficult for opposing views to be heard.  But only time will tell.



...

[psy]

So I guess we can stick a fork in the i just.... thread. I have a username that I've only used there. How dod I delete it and not the good one?

Like I said.  Multiple usernames would be fine for the purposes of anonymity...  just not for sockpuppetry.

[DannyB II]

I would like to see folks have only one username myself, but how in heck do you enforce this rule, with proxies out there.
T-rex has been my only other name and I primarily considered making this my new name because I screwed up and let way to many folks posts from my account. I am still considering before this new rule goes into effect. DannyB II may have to much negative fibes attached to it. I am not skirting around my responsibility for the crap that came out of this name, I said a good deal myself.
Thinking of new beginnings.

[Maximilian]

If this were a democracy, I'd vote no on moderation. But this is a dictatorship so my opinion doesn't matter much I'm sure. I think fornits was better when people didn't have to sign in and that is why more people posted back then, it was easier and more anonymous.

However the experiment failed, and now something needs to be done.  Reactions?  Rules you think are good?  Rules you think are crap?

That's a pretty big statement right there.

I predict that 99% of the discussion is now going to take place in the last unmoderated open free for all forum.

[Botched Programming]

Who ... here go already pointing fingers at other people and not looking at your own actions. Above you are singling mostly Bruce and myself out and not looking at how you treat others and derail subjects and jump in the middle of conversations that you have no knowledge of expressing what you think not what you know..If you look when I was talking ton Danny I had nothing to say about you, however you felt so compelled to jump into a conversation that was Danny and myself. You were not included, and you have a very bad habit of doing this. I have told you on more than one occasion that you were not invited to discuss on the topic however you still do which is a form of disrespect.

I posted in that thread to express my opinion.  I was open, and up front, about the fact that I was not up to speed on the subject.  I noticed Anne Bonney and a few others posted in that thread also and they were not invited either, but you singled me out because I wasn’t agreeing with your thinking from the start.  Do you really think that when I am posting in a thread that I go out of my way to invite RobertBruce or yourself over or do you think you and he just decides to do this on his own (uninvited)?

Maybe you could talk to psy about having an “invite only” thread or firm  up the rules so that people can have private conversations.

Once this conversion occurs I can almost guarantee that posters like Bruce and Dysfunction junction will never participate (or will fade out slowly)  because they are only here to disrupt the flow of the conversation and try to make it difficult for opposing views to be heard.  But only time will tell.



...

Who first off pretty much everyone who was posting in that topic had experience in having gone to AA and reading AA literature with the exception of you, I gave you links to where you could read the literature and advised you to go to some meetings firsthand. I advised you that we the people who had experience were discussing the topic... For the most part I have started leaving you alone with the exception of when I cracked on you about the seceret meeting that Fornits admin and select members had in a closed down burnt out gulag regarding how long of a stay it takes to acquire survivor status... Which in all sincerety had me rolling in the floor... best joke I heard that day..


Peace
 :peace: