Forum Access Changes

steamboat28 wrote:

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.

What does that mean though, how so? You can still have discussions with members as guests, and as pointed out you can even have discussions about the member discussions AFAIK. The only practical limitation is that it adds a capacity for members who choose to limit interaction to members for particular topics of discussion. We might find that this happens very rarely making any concern rather moot about either posting or the possible implication that might have on membership, but as I outlined it does give us extra capacity to shelter the membership during times when adverse posting is causing issues for some members without requiring us to become draconian in clamping down on people when it happens. People's behaviour tends to often change when confronted with conflict and while this has some value, it is often not what members join for, and so the provision of a member only area allows the opportunity to better manage it.

steamboat28 wrote:

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.

Sure, its a possibility, but threads are not being mirrored automatically.

Adder wrote: ...it does give us extra capacity to shelter the membership...

The membership shouldn't need sheltering.

The membership is being actively taught to be introspective, to forgive, to be understanding and compassionate. All our coursework points in those directions. If we cannot exercise this, even though it's almost all we're teaching, then we are all--every @#$^@#$ one of us--failures. As a community, we are a failure.

The membership doesn't need sheltering. The guests do.

steamboat28 wrote:
The membership shouldn't need sheltering.

The membership is being actively taught to be introspective, to forgive, to be understanding and compassionate. All our coursework points in those directions. If we cannot exercise this, even though it's almost all we're teaching, then we are all--every @#$^@#$ one of us--failures. As a community, we are a failure.

The membership doesn't need sheltering. The guests do.

Hehe, I'd agree that's an ideal, but providing an environment for training means protecting the vulnerable who have the hardest to work to reach that ideal, while also accommodating those who want to actively test it.

Adder wrote: but as I outlined it does give us extra capacity to shelter the membership during times when adverse posting is causing issues for some members without requiring us to become draconian in clamping down on people when it happens.

If something that is considered within the rules is causing issues with "some" members then those members need to be addressed. Their concerns need to be worked through with a clergy member, their teaching master or a knight. They should be assisted in learning to become resilient and able to respond in a way that serves them, not lowers them.

Isn't that part of the point of all this?

And if this is not happening and we CANT get our membership to this point, then we are failing.

Instead we want to shield anyone from potentially being upset on the internet? By allowing them the option to post, but only get the kind of responses that they want?

And if its a serious enough disruption that its causing genuine distress, not just discomfort, and its unacceptable on the forum, then remove the cause.

Why are we so terrified of removing people who will not play by the rules? Are we really that delicate?

Brenna wrote:

Adder wrote: but as I outlined it does give us extra capacity to shelter the membership during times when adverse posting is causing issues for some members without requiring us to become draconian in clamping down on people when it happens.

If something that is considered within the rules is causing issues with "some" members then those members need to be addressed. Their concerns need to be worked through with a clergy member, their teaching master or a knight. They should be assisted in learning to become resilient and able to respond in a way that serves them, not lowers them.

Isn't that part of the point of all this?

And if this is not happening and we CANT get our membership to this point, then we are failing.

That's the spirit

Brenna wrote: Instead we want to shield anyone from potentially being upset on the internet? By allowing them the option to post, but only get the kind of responses that they want?

And if its a serious enough disruption that its causing genuine distress, not just discomfort, and its unacceptable on the forum, then remove the cause.

Why are we so terrified of removing people who will not play by the rules? Are we really that delicate?

That is one way to look at it, but it's more like we are adding the option for those to take that refuge if they feel they need it. It's just another layer of member support, and may or may not be used very much at all. I think most people will post in the general open discussion forum because they'll get broader discussion.

So, this is ten pages into the discussion, and I'm still not getting a clear answer on why we didn't make a NEW members-only forum, and instead, removed access to posts guests have already participated in, so they're no longer allowed a voice on those topics...

Adder wrote:

That's the spirit

Adder wrote: That is one way to look at it, but it's more like we are adding the option for those to take that refuge if they feel they need it. It's just another layer of member support, and may or may not be used very much at all. I think most people will post in the general open discussion forum because they'll get broader discussion.

Then add a members discussion forum that guests cannot see. You cant just close off a forum that guests are already involved in. If people need refuge, let them take it in a members only area, not one that people can "see" but not access. That just absurd. Like children sitting in a bloody treehouse having pulled up the ladder so other kids can come up and join them. But they can see all the fun thats going on inside.

And presenting it the way it has been is just.... a step backward.

Brenna wrote:

Adder wrote:
That's the spirit

Sorry, I had a Bladerunner moment.... I always go with them when they pop up :S

I logged out of the forum to see what all the fuss was about as far as visability and posting rights and there is a serious problem. With the addition of the new Guest Forum and the removal of post permissions in the general forum, we are suggesting that we can recreate the liveliness and vivacity of 5 SEPARATE Subforums in one tiny little forum. I should bring to your attention that there are 31 pages of topics in the "Jediism" subforum alone. These topics and others located in other sub forums are things people need access to, not only to decide whether or not they have a question/problem/comment about a topic, but to ask them in the proper topic, where the conversation is.

Originally, I thought we were talking about closing off one forum: http://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/General-Discussions here and that is what prompted my lack of posting and my devil may care attitude about the whole thing. I wondered why people were getting so bent out of shape, but we are not talking about that forum, we are talking about this one: http://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/General-Forum. Please know that as you do that you cut off the lifeblood of the forum.

Jedi, there is a better way to do this. We know what it is. It has been said a few times. Lets do it.