Forum Access Changes

elizabeth wrote: I think your wrong recent discussions haven't led to understanding and having someone step in to calm things down not stop conversation would help. Or at least stop people being jerks. Even warning them can stop some of the disrespectful behaviour.

I think you're wrong, too. That doesn't stop me from thinking you're a good person, or wanting you involved in the threads here. We can be wrong. There's nothing wrong with being wrong. Wrong is generally an opinion, something most people here at the Temple prize above and beyond any kind of objective facts.

That said, there are only so many ways you can moderate a conversation online without taking sides. In my opinion, the first warning should be to the offending member in a pm, because the moment you call out behavior in public, you're pointing fingers, no matter how you word it. That sets up one of those lovely "us vs. them" dichotomies that destroys conversation.

Steamboat said
That said, there are only so many ways you can moderate a conversation online without taking sides. In my opinion, the first warning should be to the offending member in a pm, because the moment you call out behavior in public, you're pointing fingers, no matter how you word it. That sets up one of those lovely "us vs. them" dichotomies that destroys conversation.

Agreed a warning can be done privately no reason not to. Stepping in doesn't need to be done in public and your right pointing fingers just makes things worse even if the conversation was to be ended it can be done without blaming any party.

I thought I was done, but seems not.

We use the term "members" for those who have "officially" joined the temple, but we have guests who have been around longer than some members, some even longer than some knights, and are more actively engaged than some of our knights. We have visitors from other groups who are already cut off from so much of what we do which fosters feelings of elitism and suspicion.

This seems a lot like those instances where the rules get changed so nobody can do something anymore because a couple of idiots abused the privilege.

There are what.... 3 maybe 4 people who regularly get under peoples skin? And how many that don't?

And what about the guests who never cause any trouble but don't want to take the oath and officially become members for whatever reason. Who will no longer be able to participate in wider discussions.

And those that simply take their time before they make a decision? Ive seen more than one person take months before deciding to become a member. How many will we alienate and lose because we cant find another way to deal with the fact that trolls come round and a small handful of people rub us up the wrong way.

More "members only" forums is not a bad idea. Creating them so that we can encourage people to insulate themselves, or to punish a handful of difficult characters is disappointing.

Again, not a very popular opinion, but it feels like this is being driven by an unwillingness to deal decisively with situations. Whether its things that need confronting, or people who need removing. and punishing people who are innocent in the process.

not very Jedi.

Brenna wrote: And what about the guests who never cause any trouble but don't want to take the oath and officially become members for whatever reason.

Can we take a moment to discuss this point, because I think it's very important and not many people have brought it up before. Yes, this is a Jedi temple, but its members are highly syncretic in practice, and there may be a great many people who's "home religion", upbringing, or thought patterns preclude them from taking *any* oaths, and they are effectively shut out from this community entirely, even though they may want to join. This motion just made that a bit worse.

Brenna wrote: And what about the guests who never cause any trouble but don't want to take the oath and officially become members for whatever reason. Who will no longer be able to participate in wider discussions.

Not necessarily, it depends entirely on where the discussions are being held. It creates a choice for members to have member only discussion - that's about it.

This can be viewed as limiting to non-members if you like... but in of itself does not realistically represent the reality that guests can still reply, create topics and discuss things with members exactly the same as before. Heck, even if a member is having a member only discussion, it can be read and referenced in the main discussion area by guests.... so I do not really see any negative operational impact except that (I think) all guest posts will be more centralized.

steamboat28 wrote:

Brenna wrote: And what about the guests who never cause any trouble but don't want to take the oath and officially become members for whatever reason.

Can we take a moment to discuss this point, because I think it's very important and not many people have brought it up before. Yes, this is a Jedi temple, but its members are highly syncretic in practice, and there may be a great many people who's "home religion", upbringing, or thought patterns preclude them from taking *any* oaths, and they are effectively shut out from this community entirely, even though they may want to join. This motion just made that a bit worse.

I think its a non-issue. Its just a structural change to add a capacity for member only discussion... and not remove a capacity for guest discussion. Though I could be premature in my assessment, but that is my understanding to date.

Adder wrote:

Brenna wrote: And what about the guests who never cause any trouble but don't want to take the oath and officially become members for whatever reason. Who will no longer be able to participate in wider discussions.

Not necessarily, it depends entirely on where the discussions are being held. It creates a choice for members to have member only discussion - that's about it.

This can be viewed as limiting to non-members if you like... but in of itself does not realistically represent the reality that guests can still reply, create topics and discuss things with members exactly the same as before. Heck, even if a member is having a member only discussion, it can be read and referenced in the main discussion area by guests.... so I do not really see any negative operational impact except that (I think) all guest posts will be more centralized.

So guests can see the posts, but not reply?

So will they then start new threads on the same topic in the "guest" area, "referencing" existing topics and threads so there will be double posts and topics.

And you dont see any negative operational impact to that.

Adder wrote: I think its a non-issue. Its just a structural change to add a capacity for member only discussion... and not remove a capacity for guest discussion. Though I could be premature in my assessment, but that is my understanding to date.

You're free to think it's a non-issue in regards to the discussion forums, but it's still an issue in regards to membership. Which is what these forum changes are prioritizing.

Brenna wrote: So guests can see the posts, but not reply?

So will they then start new threads on the same topic in the "guest" area, "referencing" existing topics and threads so there will be double posts and topics.

And you dont see any negative operational impact to that.

I think so yes, they can read the member discussion. The nature of how that might be mirrored would depend on the intention of the author. You can view that as negative, or see it as having great potential.

Adder wrote:

Brenna wrote: So guests can see the posts, but not reply?

So will they then start new threads on the same topic in the "guest" area, "referencing" existing topics and threads so there will be double posts and topics.

And you dont see any negative operational impact to that.

I think so yes, they can read the member discussion. The nature of how that might be mirrored would depend on the intention of the author. You can view that as negative, or see it as having great potential.

I see it as having great potential to be a mess of identical threads creating confusion and redundancy on our forum.

Adder wrote: I think so yes, they can read the member discussion. The nature of how that might be mirrored would depend on the intention of the author. You can view that as negative, or see it as having great potential.

As a former server admin on other sites with similar posting guidelines, i will tell you this is setting up for a nightmare in terms of forum administration. Maybe our admins are magical faeries with super-powered nuclear wands to keep things in line, but if it were me, I'd be tearing my hair out at the possibility Brenna just presented.