Setting it in stone page 1
charlou
22nd December 2011, 12:30 AM
We came to some good consensus at the discuss forum about most points, I think.
Here we can work towards clearly defining our ideas, putting them into practice, and communicating them to all future members.
Here we can work towards clearly defining our ideas, putting them into practice, and communicating them to all future members.
Cunt
22nd December 2011, 02:09 AM
Everyone is welcome to take on the responsibility of posting, forever.
So is everyone else.
MindRomp will make no policies or rules which reduce the participation of posting members. (could someone help with the phrasing here, please)
If your personal information is posted here, you may remove it by public request.
All administration actions must be proposed by one administrator and seconded (and reviewed or executed) by another administrator.
To request an administration action, post in the admin request forum with your request. One will propose it, when another 'seconds' the action, it will be implemented (this just occurred to me, let me know what you think)
There are probably more.
So is everyone else.
MindRomp will make no policies or rules which reduce the participation of posting members. (could someone help with the phrasing here, please)
If your personal information is posted here, you may remove it by public request.
All administration actions must be proposed by one administrator and seconded (and reviewed or executed) by another administrator.
To request an administration action, post in the admin request forum with your request. One will propose it, when another 'seconds' the action, it will be implemented (this just occurred to me, let me know what you think)
There are probably more.
nostrum
22nd December 2011, 02:29 AM
Is the personal info that posted by others, or includes those who later decide to raze their posts?
Cunt
22nd December 2011, 03:03 AM
I think it's simplest if we are willing to delete personal info no matter who posts it/requests it deleted.
People can make mistakes.
People can make mistakes.
oblivion
22nd December 2011, 03:35 AM
I think it's simplest if we are willing to delete personal info no matter who posts it/requests it deleted.
People can make mistakes.
agree.
People can make mistakes.
agree.
charlou
22nd December 2011, 04:06 AM
^ Ayep.
Is the personal info that posted by others, or includes those who later decide to raze their posts?
No-one will be able to raze their posts .. There will be either:
a small edit window .. the Discuss forum poll consensus was two hours, iirc ..
or it was later discussed that no editing would be allowed at all.
We've yet to settle on which we will implement.
Is the personal info that posted by others, or includes those who later decide to raze their posts?
No-one will be able to raze their posts .. There will be either:
a small edit window .. the Discuss forum poll consensus was two hours, iirc ..
or it was later discussed that no editing would be allowed at all.
We've yet to settle on which we will implement.
charlou
22nd December 2011, 04:22 AM
Everyone is welcome to take on the responsibility of posting, forever.
So is everyone else.
MindRomp will make no policies or rules which reduce the participation of posting members. (could someone help with the phrasing here, please)
A few more ...
* The role of admins will be technical only, and there will be no structural heirarchy of membership or rulebook moderation of membership interaction.
* All admin/technical actions will be logged in a locked thread (include thread title here), viewable by all members, with the following exceptions >insert exceptions eg security stuff<
* All reports will be public and viewable to all members.
* If personal/identifying information is posted, a request to have it removed can be made by reporting the post/s in question using the post report system.
* Spammers etc will be banned deleted whatever (this needs work)
* Illegal content will be removed.
* Illegal activity can be reported to the relevant authorities by any forum member. (or something along those lines?)
* Our internal message system is called Postcard Messages. While members may send those messages among themselves in private, the forum will not protect the privacy of members. It is up to members to be responsible for their own interactions with other members.
* Something about no editing ... or limited editing ...
All administration actions must be proposed by one administrator and seconded (and reviewed or executed) by another administrator.
To request an administration action, post in the admin request forum with your request. One will propose it, when another 'seconds' the action, it will be implemented (this just occurred to me, let me know what you think)
What kind of proposals do you have in mind here, Cunt?
So is everyone else.
MindRomp will make no policies or rules which reduce the participation of posting members. (could someone help with the phrasing here, please)
A few more ...
* The role of admins will be technical only, and there will be no structural heirarchy of membership or rulebook moderation of membership interaction.
* All admin/technical actions will be logged in a locked thread (include thread title here), viewable by all members, with the following exceptions >insert exceptions eg security stuff<
* All reports will be public and viewable to all members.
* If personal/identifying information is posted, a request to have it removed can be made by reporting the post/s in question using the post report system.
* Spammers etc will be banned deleted whatever (this needs work)
* Illegal content will be removed.
* Illegal activity can be reported to the relevant authorities by any forum member. (or something along those lines?)
* Our internal message system is called Postcard Messages. While members may send those messages among themselves in private, the forum will not protect the privacy of members. It is up to members to be responsible for their own interactions with other members.
* Something about no editing ... or limited editing ...
All administration actions must be proposed by one administrator and seconded (and reviewed or executed) by another administrator.
To request an administration action, post in the admin request forum with your request. One will propose it, when another 'seconds' the action, it will be implemented (this just occurred to me, let me know what you think)
What kind of proposals do you have in mind here, Cunt?
oblivion
22nd December 2011, 04:38 AM
I'd kinda like to see a discuss-to-consensus model. if a change only takes 2 admins to agree, that's a very low bar.
but maybe we are talking about extremely minor changes?
IMO if, say a member requests that we add a new forum, and several members chime in to agree, we'd want to take a look at the quantity of current threads that would fit in the new forum, add some fudge factor for "if you build it they will come" and then decide.
On the other hand, pure whimsy is part of the fun of a message board. An admin gets a crazy idea to add a new thread prefix or forum, and it quickly becomes enshrined in the forum's memescape.
I think bigger changes would benefit from discussion with members and among staff, driving toward consensus. A lot of suggestions die on the vine because discussion doesn't result in consensus. And that's probably a good thing.
but maybe we are talking about extremely minor changes?
IMO if, say a member requests that we add a new forum, and several members chime in to agree, we'd want to take a look at the quantity of current threads that would fit in the new forum, add some fudge factor for "if you build it they will come" and then decide.
On the other hand, pure whimsy is part of the fun of a message board. An admin gets a crazy idea to add a new thread prefix or forum, and it quickly becomes enshrined in the forum's memescape.
I think bigger changes would benefit from discussion with members and among staff, driving toward consensus. A lot of suggestions die on the vine because discussion doesn't result in consensus. And that's probably a good thing.
charlou
22nd December 2011, 05:04 AM
I'd kinda like to see a discuss-to-consensus model. if a change only takes 2 admins to agree, that's a very low bar.
but maybe we are talking about extremely minor changes?
IMO if, say a member requests that we add a new forum, and several members chime in to agree, we'd want to take a look at the quantity of current threads that would fit in the new forum, add some fudge factor for "if you build it they will come" and then decide.
I think even these small decisions can be membership driven and decided.
On the other hand, pure whimsy is part of the fun of a message board. An admin gets a crazy idea to add a new thread prefix or forum, and it quickly becomes enshrined in the forum's memescape.
True, but such things can backfire too .. and members who don't have admin privileges can feel the admin/s concerned are taking advantage ... got to be careful there ...
I think bigger changes would benefit from discussion with members and among staff, driving toward consensus. A lot of suggestions die on the vine because discussion doesn't result in consensus. And that's probably a good thing.
Yes ... I'd say the discussion is just among members, though ... admins just being regular members who happen to have access to the tools to implement what the membership decides.
And I like straw polls.
but maybe we are talking about extremely minor changes?
IMO if, say a member requests that we add a new forum, and several members chime in to agree, we'd want to take a look at the quantity of current threads that would fit in the new forum, add some fudge factor for "if you build it they will come" and then decide.
I think even these small decisions can be membership driven and decided.
On the other hand, pure whimsy is part of the fun of a message board. An admin gets a crazy idea to add a new thread prefix or forum, and it quickly becomes enshrined in the forum's memescape.
True, but such things can backfire too .. and members who don't have admin privileges can feel the admin/s concerned are taking advantage ... got to be careful there ...
I think bigger changes would benefit from discussion with members and among staff, driving toward consensus. A lot of suggestions die on the vine because discussion doesn't result in consensus. And that's probably a good thing.
Yes ... I'd say the discussion is just among members, though ... admins just being regular members who happen to have access to the tools to implement what the membership decides.
And I like straw polls.
oblivion
22nd December 2011, 05:12 AM
agree about being careful. it's something that I seldom do at TR. Jet Black, on the other hand, really has the touch for that sort of thing. He's introduced a couple of things as jokes that a year down the road have become institutions.
My forte is inspiring signature quotes.
My forte is inspiring signature quotes.
Cunt
22nd December 2011, 06:14 AM
A few more ...
* The role of admins will be technical only, and there will be no structural heirarchy of membership or rulebook moderation of membership interaction.
* All admin/technical actions will be logged in a locked thread (include thread title here), viewable by all members, with the following exceptions >insert exceptions eg security stuff<
* All reports will be public and viewable to all members.
* If personal/identifying information is posted, a request to have it removed can be made by reporting the post/s in question using the post report system.
* Spammers etc will be banned deleted whatever (this needs work)
* Illegal content will be removed.
* Illegal activity can be reported to the relevant authorities by any forum member. (or something along those lines?)
If you find illegal content here it is your responsibility. No-one here is going to police the internet for you. This is your place, look after it that way.
Report it and we will remove it, but remember that we are not the police.
* Our internal message system is called Postcard Messages. While members may send those messages among themselves in private,How about 'in relative privacy'? the forum will not protect the privacy of members. It is up to members to be responsible for their own interactions with other members. ...interactions and disclosures.
* Something about no editing ... or limited editing ...
What kind of proposals do you have in mind here, Cunt?
I was simply suggesting that any admin action (such as removing personal information) be either seconded by another admin, or reviewed (when a situation calls for speed)
The reports could reflect this standard.
I'd kinda like to see a discuss-to-consensus model. if a change only takes 2 admins to agree, that's a very low bar.Sounds decent. It seems that is what got us this far.
You may have missed what I was suggesting the 2admin thing for...
but maybe we are talking about extremely minor changes?
IMO if, say a member requests that we add a new forum, and several members chime in to agree, we'd want to take a look at the quantity of current threads that would fit in the new forum, add some fudge factor for "if you build it they will come" and then decide.
On the other hand, pure whimsy is part of the fun of a message board. An admin gets a crazy idea to add a new thread prefix or forum, and it quickly becomes enshrined in the forum's memescape.Delighted to. Any two admins could change the landscape forever by calling a new forum Sphincter Photos from the Animal Kingdom.
Any two admins could trash it if it turned out no-one else thought it was funny.
I think bigger changes would benefit from discussion with members and among staff, driving toward consensus. A lot of suggestions die on the vine because discussion doesn't result in consensus. And that's probably a good thing.
Agreed. Consensus should serve us to get started, at least.
* The role of admins will be technical only, and there will be no structural heirarchy of membership or rulebook moderation of membership interaction.
* All admin/technical actions will be logged in a locked thread (include thread title here), viewable by all members, with the following exceptions >insert exceptions eg security stuff<
* All reports will be public and viewable to all members.
* If personal/identifying information is posted, a request to have it removed can be made by reporting the post/s in question using the post report system.
* Spammers etc will be banned deleted whatever (this needs work)
* Illegal content will be removed.
* Illegal activity can be reported to the relevant authorities by any forum member. (or something along those lines?)
If you find illegal content here it is your responsibility. No-one here is going to police the internet for you. This is your place, look after it that way.
Report it and we will remove it, but remember that we are not the police.
* Our internal message system is called Postcard Messages. While members may send those messages among themselves in private,How about 'in relative privacy'? the forum will not protect the privacy of members. It is up to members to be responsible for their own interactions with other members. ...interactions and disclosures.
* Something about no editing ... or limited editing ...
What kind of proposals do you have in mind here, Cunt?
I was simply suggesting that any admin action (such as removing personal information) be either seconded by another admin, or reviewed (when a situation calls for speed)
The reports could reflect this standard.
I'd kinda like to see a discuss-to-consensus model. if a change only takes 2 admins to agree, that's a very low bar.Sounds decent. It seems that is what got us this far.
You may have missed what I was suggesting the 2admin thing for...
but maybe we are talking about extremely minor changes?
IMO if, say a member requests that we add a new forum, and several members chime in to agree, we'd want to take a look at the quantity of current threads that would fit in the new forum, add some fudge factor for "if you build it they will come" and then decide.
On the other hand, pure whimsy is part of the fun of a message board. An admin gets a crazy idea to add a new thread prefix or forum, and it quickly becomes enshrined in the forum's memescape.Delighted to. Any two admins could change the landscape forever by calling a new forum Sphincter Photos from the Animal Kingdom.
Any two admins could trash it if it turned out no-one else thought it was funny.
I think bigger changes would benefit from discussion with members and among staff, driving toward consensus. A lot of suggestions die on the vine because discussion doesn't result in consensus. And that's probably a good thing.
Agreed. Consensus should serve us to get started, at least.
charlou
22nd December 2011, 07:00 AM
A few more ...
* The role of admins will be technical only, and there will be no structural heirarchy of membership or rulebook moderation of membership interaction.
* All admin/technical actions will be logged in a locked thread (include thread title here), viewable by all members, with the following exceptions >insert exceptions eg security stuff<
* All reports will be public and viewable to all members.
* If personal/identifying information is posted, a request to have it removed can be made by reporting the post/s in question using the post report system.
* Spammers etc will be banned deleted whatever (this needs work)
* Illegal content will be removed.
* Illegal activity can be reported to the relevant authorities by any forum member. (or something along those lines?)
If you find illegal content here it is your responsibility. No-one here is going to police the internet for you. This is your place, look after it that way.
Report it and we will remove it, but remember that we are not the police.
No disagreement there ... I would say "an admin will remove it", though, because it sounds less "us and you"
You seem to have a different view of this in the parallel discussion about avatars and sigs, Cunt ... wanting to police what people use?
* Our internal message system is called Postcard Messages. While members may send those messages among themselves in private,How about 'in relative privacy'? the forum will not protect the privacy of members. It is up to members to be responsible for their own interactions with other members. ...interactions and disclosures.
'in retalive privacy' .. and 'interactions and disclosures' works for me.
* The role of admins will be technical only, and there will be no structural heirarchy of membership or rulebook moderation of membership interaction.
* All admin/technical actions will be logged in a locked thread (include thread title here), viewable by all members, with the following exceptions >insert exceptions eg security stuff<
* All reports will be public and viewable to all members.
* If personal/identifying information is posted, a request to have it removed can be made by reporting the post/s in question using the post report system.
* Spammers etc will be banned deleted whatever (this needs work)
* Illegal content will be removed.
* Illegal activity can be reported to the relevant authorities by any forum member. (or something along those lines?)
If you find illegal content here it is your responsibility. No-one here is going to police the internet for you. This is your place, look after it that way.
Report it and we will remove it, but remember that we are not the police.
No disagreement there ... I would say "an admin will remove it", though, because it sounds less "us and you"
You seem to have a different view of this in the parallel discussion about avatars and sigs, Cunt ... wanting to police what people use?
* Our internal message system is called Postcard Messages. While members may send those messages among themselves in private,How about 'in relative privacy'? the forum will not protect the privacy of members. It is up to members to be responsible for their own interactions with other members. ...interactions and disclosures.
'in retalive privacy' .. and 'interactions and disclosures' works for me.
Cunt
22nd December 2011, 07:52 AM
No disagreement there ... I would say "an admin will remove it", though, because it sounds less "us and you"Yup.
You seem to have a different view of this in the parallel discussion about avatars and sigs, Cunt ... wanting to police what people use?I don't mind if it is hosted somewhere else, but if WE are to host the image, I can't help but think it could be abused.
I am certainly NOT 100% decided on it all.
[QUOTE=Elouise;193]
You seem to have a different view of this in the parallel discussion about avatars and sigs, Cunt ... wanting to police what people use?I don't mind if it is hosted somewhere else, but if WE are to host the image, I can't help but think it could be abused.
I am certainly NOT 100% decided on it all.
[QUOTE=Elouise;193]
Magicziggy
27th December 2011, 05:04 AM
Hmmm... illegal content...
IS it our responisbility? I'm wondering...
If defamatory material is posted, we get sued. Not the member who stumbles upon it.
How about...
"If you find material that you believe is illegal in your jurisdiction, you have a responsibility to report it to an admin ..."
Avatars...
Can we block all images from being hosted here? Sorry if I've missed this elsewhere.
IS it our responisbility? I'm wondering...
If defamatory material is posted, we get sued. Not the member who stumbles upon it.
How about...
"If you find material that you believe is illegal in your jurisdiction, you have a responsibility to report it to an admin ..."
Avatars...
Can we block all images from being hosted here? Sorry if I've missed this elsewhere.
oblivion
27th December 2011, 06:09 AM
right now, all images are blocked from being stored. If we turn avatars back on, they will be stored on the server.
charlou
29th December 2011, 12:24 AM
Hmmm... illegal content...
IS it our responisbility? I'm wondering...
If defamatory material is posted, we get sued. Not the member who stumbles upon it.
How about...
"If you find material that you believe is illegal in your jurisdiction, you have a responsibility to report it to an admin ..."
Ah ... do we want to adjust what we are free to post down to the lowest tolerance of the jurisdiction of any one of our members? I'm not in favour of this idea.
The defamation issue Stefan has raised is a concern, but I hope we can work something out that allows the greatest possible freedom to speak our minds.
What constitutes defamation, anyway? Is it a real potential danger area? We need to be clear on our understanding of it, and on how we want to deal with it, if at all.
The other legal issue is copyright .. we want to encourage members to include a link to source material, or give proper reference to it - although most people do this already, and many will ask for it if someone neglects to do so.
IS it our responisbility? I'm wondering...
If defamatory material is posted, we get sued. Not the member who stumbles upon it.
How about...
"If you find material that you believe is illegal in your jurisdiction, you have a responsibility to report it to an admin ..."
Ah ... do we want to adjust what we are free to post down to the lowest tolerance of the jurisdiction of any one of our members? I'm not in favour of this idea.
The defamation issue Stefan has raised is a concern, but I hope we can work something out that allows the greatest possible freedom to speak our minds.
What constitutes defamation, anyway? Is it a real potential danger area? We need to be clear on our understanding of it, and on how we want to deal with it, if at all.
The other legal issue is copyright .. we want to encourage members to include a link to source material, or give proper reference to it - although most people do this already, and many will ask for it if someone neglects to do so.
charlou
29th December 2011, 12:40 AM
Avatars...
Can we block all images from being hosted here? Sorry if I've missed this elsewhere.
I think that's the case, ob?
Aside ... I haven't missed avatars here ... I like it .. somehow ... seeing you guys in terms of your thoughts and ideas in words alone ... That may just be novelty, though, I think. I wonder to what degree an avatar has an effect on how a post is viewed by the reader.
Can we block all images from being hosted here? Sorry if I've missed this elsewhere.
I think that's the case, ob?
Aside ... I haven't missed avatars here ... I like it .. somehow ... seeing you guys in terms of your thoughts and ideas in words alone ... That may just be novelty, though, I think. I wonder to what degree an avatar has an effect on how a post is viewed by the reader.
charlou
29th December 2011, 01:02 AM
right now, all images are blocked from being stored. If we turn avatars back on, they will be stored on the server.
Sorry, missed this.
I had thought avatars can be hosted offsite and those that are, are therefore not stored.
Sorry, missed this.
I had thought avatars can be hosted offsite and those that are, are therefore not stored.
Hermit
29th December 2011, 01:38 AM
right now, all images are blocked from being stored. If we turn avatars back on, they will be stored on the server.There might be a workaround for this. Gravatar (http://en.gravatar.com/) seems to be a site that stores images on its site that can be used on any forum, blog or whatever as avatars after installing a plug-in on the relevant software.
Personally, I find the minimalist approach rather appealing. In fact, I'd like it to be even more minimalist than it is at present; no title, no join date, no post tally, no location. Nothing but the alias. The less I am aware of those details, the easier it is for me to read posts for what they say rather than through a filter made of expectations and preconceptions. If anyone feels the need to find out those details, they can always look them up in the user's profile.
Personally, I find the minimalist approach rather appealing. In fact, I'd like it to be even more minimalist than it is at present; no title, no join date, no post tally, no location. Nothing but the alias. The less I am aware of those details, the easier it is for me to read posts for what they say rather than through a filter made of expectations and preconceptions. If anyone feels the need to find out those details, they can always look them up in the user's profile.
oblivion
29th December 2011, 01:45 AM
we can add or subtract info from the postbit. It is a template change, like moving the edit button.
I recognize who made a post nonverbally - picture, name shape, more than verbally, so no avatar will take alittle getting used to.
I recognize who made a post nonverbally - picture, name shape, more than verbally, so no avatar will take alittle getting used to.
oblivion
29th December 2011, 01:45 AM
we can add or subtract info from the postbit. It is a template change, like moving the edit button.
I recognize who made a post nonverbally - picture, name shape, more than verbally, so no avatar will take alittle getting used to.
I recognize who made a post nonverbally - picture, name shape, more than verbally, so no avatar will take alittle getting used to.
nostrum
29th December 2011, 02:26 AM
^ are we really sticking with no avatars?!
Surely we can have a work around. People can always switch off their viewing of them, so why does everyone need to miss out??
Surely we can have a work around. People can always switch off their viewing of them, so why does everyone need to miss out??
nostrum
29th December 2011, 02:27 AM
Re the defamation and Aus situation, I found MZ's write-up to be quite reassuring. I don't have two pennies to rub together and I can't foresee a situation that can't be handled by admins to avoid trouble, so I'm happy to be an admin here.
charlou
29th December 2011, 02:39 AM
^ are we really sticking with no avatars?!
Surely we can have a work around. People can always switch off their viewing of them, so why does everyone need to miss out??
Good point .. thanks for the reminder. :)
FWIW, I had no intention of imposing the no avatar idea on anyone ... was just entertaining my own thoughts on it.
Surely we can have a work around. People can always switch off their viewing of them, so why does everyone need to miss out??
Good point .. thanks for the reminder. :)
FWIW, I had no intention of imposing the no avatar idea on anyone ... was just entertaining my own thoughts on it.
oblivion
29th December 2011, 03:08 AM
I wil check into the gravatar plug-in once I'm in florida and settled in.
Adenosine
31st December 2011, 03:08 AM
we can add or subtract info from the postbit. It is a template change, like moving the edit button.
I recognize who made a post nonverbally - picture, name shape, more than verbally, so no avatar will take alittle getting used to.
:yeahthis:
I need avatars. Luis and Ob's little stunt on TR threw me for ages.
I recognize who made a post nonverbally - picture, name shape, more than verbally, so no avatar will take alittle getting used to.
:yeahthis:
I need avatars. Luis and Ob's little stunt on TR threw me for ages.
Jerome
25th January 2012, 04:29 AM
I'd like it to be even more minimalist than it is at present;
no title, no join date, no post tally, no location.
Nothing but the alias.
2 of those 4 maybe be an alias
no title, no join date, no post tally, no location.
Nothing but the alias.
2 of those 4 maybe be an alias
Hermit
25th January 2012, 04:44 AM
I'd like it to be even more minimalist than it is at present;
no title, no join date, no post tally, no location.
Nothing but the alias.
2 of those 4 maybe be an aliasEver thought of becoming a theologian? You have what it takes to be an excellent one.
no title, no join date, no post tally, no location.
Nothing but the alias.
2 of those 4 maybe be an aliasEver thought of becoming a theologian? You have what it takes to be an excellent one.
Jerome
25th January 2012, 04:47 AM
nope, and plus we have a chaplin, that is good enough from my perspective
Supernaut
25th January 2012, 06:20 AM
Thank you kind sir!
Cunt
25th January 2012, 02:37 PM
I don't mind leaving the location in, because it can be whatever you want it to be. Same for rank. I would agree to removing the join date, though...if you are serious about the idea, please start a poll and invite me.
Grumps
25th January 2012, 03:00 PM
If you're about 'free speech', then stop removing things from everyone's profile. Make each option an individual toggle, otherwise you're deciding what someone else is allowed to say about themselves without their choice.
Cunt
25th January 2012, 03:10 PM
Somewhat fair, Grumps, and I'll think about it. What I would very much like is to have none of it show except when a user wants to show it, and to have NONE of it show by default.
For that matter, there is nothing stopping you from putting your post count in your 'location' field, or your 'rank' field. Making things more complicated often means more work for some admin or code-monkey. I would rather minimize that, so please consider that as well.
For that matter, there is nothing stopping you from putting your post count in your 'location' field, or your 'rank' field. Making things more complicated often means more work for some admin or code-monkey. I would rather minimize that, so please consider that as well.
charlou
25th January 2012, 03:37 PM
Yep, it's the default aspect that needs to go, I think. People can volunteer whatever they want in the fields available to do so.
Grumps
25th January 2012, 03:46 PM
Somewhat fair, Grumps, and I'll think about it. What I would very much like is to have none of it show except when a user wants to show it, and to have NONE of it show by default.
For that matter, there is nothing stopping you from putting your post count in your 'location' field, or your 'rank' field. Making things more complicated often means more work for some admin or code-monkey. I would rather minimize that, so please consider that as well.
Maybe it does, but compulsarily removing them creates more work for every single person who wants them shown.
The real problem here is you're making changes which apply to ALL profiles because some people want them removed. That's a bad precedent to set.
For that matter, there is nothing stopping you from putting your post count in your 'location' field, or your 'rank' field. Making things more complicated often means more work for some admin or code-monkey. I would rather minimize that, so please consider that as well.
Maybe it does, but compulsarily removing them creates more work for every single person who wants them shown.
The real problem here is you're making changes which apply to ALL profiles because some people want them removed. That's a bad precedent to set.
Cunt
25th January 2012, 04:41 PM
We also chose NO BANNINGS.
We chose NO ILLEGAL CONTENT.
We chose YOU. (well, okay, you chose us...)
So what if you have to work to show what you want seen? Should we choose what other things to post about you, too? Previous aliases attached by default? True location?
Percentage of posts in the gays subforum?
How and where the forum's overall opinion counts is still being learned. Can you, using this as a model, figure out how member opinion should affect policy? I think it's a complicated and thorny problem...This isn't a democracy, and isn't run by all the members. I think it can't be, if we are to maintain freedom of expression for everyone.
We chose NO ILLEGAL CONTENT.
We chose YOU. (well, okay, you chose us...)
So what if you have to work to show what you want seen? Should we choose what other things to post about you, too? Previous aliases attached by default? True location?
Percentage of posts in the gays subforum?
How and where the forum's overall opinion counts is still being learned. Can you, using this as a model, figure out how member opinion should affect policy? I think it's a complicated and thorny problem...This isn't a democracy, and isn't run by all the members. I think it can't be, if we are to maintain freedom of expression for everyone.
oblivion
25th January 2012, 06:06 PM
I'm not sure it's easy (or possible) to make everything in the postbit mini-profile optional for members to choose. It will take some research.
charlou
26th January 2012, 01:11 AM
I'm not sure it's easy (or possible) to make everything in the postbit mini-profile optional for members to choose. It will take some research.
I don't think that would be necessary ... Members can go into their UCP > Edit Details > scroll down to Additional Information .. there are four fields that can be used/adapted to include anything one wants: Biography, Location, Interests, Occupation :)
I don't think that would be necessary ... Members can go into their UCP > Edit Details > scroll down to Additional Information .. there are four fields that can be used/adapted to include anything one wants: Biography, Location, Interests, Occupation :)
oblivion
26th January 2012, 01:17 AM
I'm not sure it's easy (or possible) to make everything in the postbit mini-profile optional for members to choose. It will take some research.
I don't think that would be necessary ... Members can go into their UCP > Edit Details > scroll down to Additional Information .. there are four fields that can be used/adapted to include anything one wants: Biography, Location, Interests, Occupation :)
Most of that info doesn't show up in the postbit mini-profile. Only location.
I kinda like Grump's idea of leaving it in member hands what they display in their profile, but I'm not sure it's feasible.
I don't think that would be necessary ... Members can go into their UCP > Edit Details > scroll down to Additional Information .. there are four fields that can be used/adapted to include anything one wants: Biography, Location, Interests, Occupation :)
Most of that info doesn't show up in the postbit mini-profile. Only location.
I kinda like Grump's idea of leaving it in member hands what they display in their profile, but I'm not sure it's feasible.
Grumps
26th January 2012, 05:08 AM
We also chose NO BANNINGS.
We chose NO ILLEGAL CONTENT.
We chose YOU. (well, okay, you chose us...)
So what if you have to work to show what you want seen? Should we choose what other things to post about you, too? Previous aliases attached by default? True location?
Percentage of posts in the gays subforum?
How and where the forum's overall opinion counts is still being learned. Can you, using this as a model, figure out how member opinion should affect policy? I think it's a complicated and thorny problem...This isn't a democracy, and isn't run by all the members. I think it can't be, if we are to maintain freedom of expression for everyone.
A person with a more attractive avatar will recieve more eager responses than someone with an unattractive one. By allowing avatars we upset the balance of the forum, by discouraging conversation with some members and encouraging conversation with others.
I demand we remove all avatars.
We chose NO ILLEGAL CONTENT.
We chose YOU. (well, okay, you chose us...)
So what if you have to work to show what you want seen? Should we choose what other things to post about you, too? Previous aliases attached by default? True location?
Percentage of posts in the gays subforum?
How and where the forum's overall opinion counts is still being learned. Can you, using this as a model, figure out how member opinion should affect policy? I think it's a complicated and thorny problem...This isn't a democracy, and isn't run by all the members. I think it can't be, if we are to maintain freedom of expression for everyone.
A person with a more attractive avatar will recieve more eager responses than someone with an unattractive one. By allowing avatars we upset the balance of the forum, by discouraging conversation with some members and encouraging conversation with others.
I demand we remove all avatars.
Grumps
26th January 2012, 05:10 AM
I'm not sure it's easy (or possible) to make everything in the postbit mini-profile optional for members to choose. It will take some research.
I don't think that would be necessary ... Members can go into their UCP > Edit Details > scroll down to Additional Information .. there are four fields that can be used/adapted to include anything one wants: Biography, Location, Interests, Occupation :)
Most of that info doesn't show up in the postbit mini-profile. Only location.
I kinda like Grump's idea of leaving it in member hands what they display in their profile, but I'm not sure it's feasible.
If it's not feasible, then it's not feasible. But frankly 13 out of 34 responses is not enough to warrant forcing a change on every single profile. If the response rate is 3/4 or more for removal, go head, but 1/3 advocating removal is hardly a serious enough number to warrant making such a superficial change and forcing it on everyone else.
I don't think that would be necessary ... Members can go into their UCP > Edit Details > scroll down to Additional Information .. there are four fields that can be used/adapted to include anything one wants: Biography, Location, Interests, Occupation :)
Most of that info doesn't show up in the postbit mini-profile. Only location.
I kinda like Grump's idea of leaving it in member hands what they display in their profile, but I'm not sure it's feasible.
If it's not feasible, then it's not feasible. But frankly 13 out of 34 responses is not enough to warrant forcing a change on every single profile. If the response rate is 3/4 or more for removal, go head, but 1/3 advocating removal is hardly a serious enough number to warrant making such a superficial change and forcing it on everyone else.
Cunt
26th January 2012, 05:14 AM
there were only 13 other people who cared either way, but I understand your point.
Hermit
26th January 2012, 06:56 AM
A person with a more attractive avatar will recieve more eager responses than someone with an unattractive one. By allowing avatars we upset the balance of the forum, by discouraging conversation with some members and encouraging conversation with others.
I demand we remove all avatars.
Seconded.
Once it's done, you will receive more eager responses from me.
I demand we remove all avatars.
Seconded.
Once it's done, you will receive more eager responses from me.
nostrum
26th January 2012, 09:04 AM
...and you shall get less black-and-white responses from me.
Hermit
26th January 2012, 09:39 AM
...and you shall get less black-and-white responses from me.Shall I use this one instead?
http://rlv.zcache.com/rainbow_yin_yang_ornament_photosculpture-p153352361291472178zv7fr_400.jpg
Without your av you'd probably receive less flippant replies.
http://rlv.zcache.com/rainbow_yin_yang_ornament_photosculpture-p153352361291472178zv7fr_400.jpg
Without your av you'd probably receive less flippant replies.
charlou
26th January 2012, 11:02 AM
They'll take on a sense of porpoise?
nostrum
26th January 2012, 03:02 PM
:hehe: I was just fishing for those replies
oblivion
26th January 2012, 04:53 PM
it's a fin line between doing it and overdoing it. some of yas need schooling
Magicziggy
26th March 2012, 10:21 AM
Sooo.. Maybe we should change something.
Quiet forum is quiet
A forum where anyone can come and say anything. But hardly anyone does.
Ideas
Quiet forum is quiet
A forum where anyone can come and say anything. But hardly anyone does.
Ideas
Hermit
26th March 2012, 11:56 AM
The forum is as open as a forum can be, yet, apart from Mafia and other games, it is almost dead. I suggest we bring in some rules to tighten things up. Like bans for trolls, prohibition of posting particular points of view, a filter on swear words... That could kick people into activity.
Alternatively, we could try to stimulate discussions by starting threads on topics that interest us. Jerome da Gnome is quite good at that. I feel a bit discouraged when a thread dies after three or five posts.
Alternatively, we could try to stimulate discussions by starting threads on topics that interest us. Jerome da Gnome is quite good at that. I feel a bit discouraged when a thread dies after three or five posts.
gib
26th March 2012, 01:14 PM
forum needs more spark - that usually comes from having hate figures
i tried hating Grumps but ended up liking him :whyyou:
i tried hating Grumps but ended up liking him :whyyou:
borealis
26th March 2012, 04:13 PM
Relax and give it time. I thought TR might have been subsiding for the past year, but recently post numbers seems to have surged. Oblivion would know if that's just my perception or reality.
Or induce gib's solution, find a powerful scapegoat and hate on him/her. Make Cunt forum Emperor Goat with powers to arbitrarily restrict posting privileges, then we spend months trying to take him down.
Or induce gib's solution, find a powerful scapegoat and hate on him/her. Make Cunt forum Emperor Goat with powers to arbitrarily restrict posting privileges, then we spend months trying to take him down.
oblivion
26th March 2012, 04:22 PM
I think it comes down to stuff you want to reply to and people you find interesting to read. We just need more of it, and that means doing more.
I don't like to start the same thread on multiple sites. It could be that other members feel similarly, and already have a "place" for certain categories of topics.
I don't like to start the same thread on multiple sites. It could be that other members feel similarly, and already have a "place" for certain categories of topics.
borealis
26th March 2012, 04:52 PM
I will post moar thrads.
gib
26th March 2012, 08:01 PM
agree on Cunt being the hate figure, good suggestion
Cunt
26th March 2012, 08:17 PM
FINE then!
borealis
26th March 2012, 08:29 PM
FINE then!
Damn Goat. :whyyou:
Damn Goat. :whyyou:
Nhận xét
Đăng nhận xét