[Big Dave]

[Edit by mmccarthy: Due to cross discussions I have merged two threads on this issue. The real discussion on Forum Rules begins around post #34. I hope this doesn't cause too much confusion.

Post #105 has the list of the suggested rules as they currently stand. ]


Would somebody please tell me who the new owner is? I've been away, and I've seen references to a new owner, but never been able to find any threads on it!

Honestly, I've not seen any changes. If you feel there's something wrong, qtwerp, then you're right to leave.

(I would see you over on UF, but I'm banned!)

[c.dric]

Originally Posted by qtwerp Because of that and the fact that some of my favourite forumites have either left or been banned, I don't feel as though it's worth staying on any longer.

who has been banned ?

[MRiGnS]

Originally Posted by c.dric who has been banned ?

I don't know if he means them but apparently rjwood and Iammyaspectofus got banned.

[sdkub]

Hey,

We have only banned people who have been spamming. So if you know of a contributing member that has been banned, let me know. We'll set them back in.

Also, what changes haven't you liked? Some feedback would help us. All we've done is broadened the categories, outside of that mathew decided to leave but that wasn't our decision.

Anyway feedback is always welcomed and we'd hate to loose you.

KUB

[rocknrolf77]

I don't like the merging of all the computer categories. And where did the games go. The old ui was easier to navigate. My opinion at least.

[Big Dave]

Originally Posted by sdkub Anyway feedback is always welcomed and we'd hate to loose you. KUB

Can I please ask a simple, sincere question?

Who are you?

I've heard about a new owner of the forum, and how the forum has been taken over - and apparently that's you. I've searched the "Forum Feedback & Help" section, and have seen absolutely no mention of this anywhere.

Maybe I'm just missing something, but I think it would be very important (not to mention a welcoming gesture) of you to introduce yourself in a thread, and outline the plans you have for this forum (if any).

Thanks.

-Dave

[sdkub]

Seems like rjwoods was banned by one of the other admins. That wasn't suppose to happen, especially since i personally thanked him for the great work he did on his recent How To. I went ahead and reversed all the actions.

To avoid such behaviour the admin has been demoted down to moderator and we will be restructuring the organization of the staff so it's more conducive to our main goal and that is be a place to discuss all topics.

I'd personally appreciate it if you stuck around to help this community grow and become a destination where people are invited to join discussions and express their opinions.

KUB

[MRiGnS]

post deleted because sdkub answered before I posed the question.


It's magic

[Big Dave]

Originally Posted by sdkub To avoid such behaviour the admin has been demoted down to moderator

Why weren't you aware of this in the first place? Restructuring needs to be concentrated on better communication amongst staff members, rather than demoting people for a single harmless slip-up.

[bns]

Originally Posted by Big Dave Why weren't you aware of this in the first place? Restructuring needs to be concentrated on better communication amongst staff members, rather than demoting people for a single harmless slip-up.

If you'll notice, sdkub is the only administrator now. It looks like a general restructuring rather than a "demotion for bad behavior."

[Big Dave]

Originally Posted by bns If you'll notice, sdkub is the only administrator now. It looks like a general restructuring rather than a "demotion for bad behavior."

No, it doesn't.

If you read his post, he said "to avoid such behaviour." That sounds, to me at least, as though he is removing KiwiNZ's admin privileges for banning RJ, and so that he will be in total control and it can't happen again.

In my opinion, that's a bad move.

[bns]

Originally Posted by Big Dave No, it doesn't. If you read his post, he said "to avoid such behaviour." That sounds, to me at least, as though he is removing KiwiNZ's admin privileges for banning RJ, and so that he will be in total control and it can't happen again. In my opinion, that's a bad move.

I'm just a lowly on-looker.

[sdkub]

BNS is right, this is more of a general restructuring.

We are doing more work behind the scenes with active members to get a better idea of what's needed and how to implement it. Your feedback is welcomed, please PM me with your ideas and thoughts on how we can improve.

[sdkub]

Originally Posted by Big Dave No, it doesn't. If you read his post, he said "to avoid such behaviour." That sounds, to me at least, as though he is removing KiwiNZ's admin privileges for banning RJ, and so that he will be in total control and it can't happen again. In my opinion, that's a bad move.

Well to have someone move from admin to moderator is basically a demotion, i don't know any other way to put it. If it sounded harsh, i apologize for it. That is not my intention.

As far as "avoiding such behavior". The behavior we are trying to avoid is the "ban because i can or the ban because i didn't like what was said". We'd all like to be able to put in our two cents without the fear of being banned.

The restructuring period should help us establish better ground rules, a stronger leadership and hopefully a well defined direction for the community.

[bns]

Originally Posted by sdkub The restructuring period should help us establish better ground rules, a stronger leadership and hopefully a well defined direction for the community.

All good things. I hope the forum is still a great place when the dust settles.

[Big Dave]

Originally Posted by sdkub Well to have someone move from admin to moderator is basically a demotion, i don't know any other way to put it. If it sounded harsh, i apologize for it. That is not my intention.

It's more the timing than the semantics I disagree with. You demoted KiwiNZ just after he made a decision you did not agree with - to the average on-looker, that appears suspicious to say the least.

Originally Posted by sdkub As far as "avoiding such behavior". The behavior we are trying to avoid is the "ban because i can or the ban because i didn't like what was said". We'd all like to be able to put in our two cents without the fear of being banned.

Absolutely.

Originally Posted by sdkub The restructuring period should help us establish better ground rules, a stronger leadership and hopefully a well defined direction for the community.

I'd love to see this site succeed.

That said, I will debate to high heaven if you do something I disagree with (those who have experience of me can attest to this). I've been an admin myself on several sites, and I know what it's like. From my experience, very frank, honest feedback from the membership can be unbelievably helpful.

[Rasczak]

Sdkub, thanks for filling us in. While you are taking suggestions and feedback, and in light of all the reversals, etc., can you please redo the forum rules?

If you reversed those bans, it looks to me like anything goes, and if that's the case, that's what the forum rules should say.

For example, if a user openly and aggressively insults a moderator, and repeats an action he has been told not to do, what else would you ban someone for?

With the forum rules as they are, things are left very much to interpretation. That doesn't make a comfortable situation for anyone, and you're opening yourself and your moderators to claims of being inconsistent or biased in your moderating.

[rjwood]

It is my opinion rules should not be necessary at all. If everyone here remains civil, respects one another and stays out of conversations they don't have anything constructive to add to, everything should be just fine.

It seems to me, there are only two reasons to feel rules are needed as guidelines in a forum:

1)If a person intends to be antagonistic towards others and wants to know the boundries because civility is not a part of his or her agenda.

2)Moderators who have a distorted idea of authority and abuse that authority needs them to have excuses to exercise their power over those with less power.

I think a forum community which acts adult-like towards one another is quite capable of making anyone who would abuse other members realize they had better shape up or ship out.

That is how communities are supposed to operate. Not with a bunch of rules and power hungry moderators acting like police to create a sense of fairness through fear.

[mmccarthy]

Originally Posted by rjwood I think a forum community which acts adult-like towards one another is quite capable of making anyone who would abuse other members realize they had better shape up or ship out.

I agree this is the ideal situation.

However, the nature of a site like this is going to lead to personal conflicts between members. There is a reason that a lot of sites ban topics on Politics and Religion. A basic set of guidelines outlining what is acceptable means no one is in any doubt if they cross the line.

My view on this is if a discussion deteriorates into a personal to and fro between two members then they should be left to it. Unless a member is being victimised in some way and unable to defend themselves or the insults go beyond the bounds of decency then I don't think they should be interfered with. They will eventually get fed up and move on to something else.

If two members develop an antagonistic relationship which is constantly interfering in other members threads then there needs to be some conflict resolution where if they can't learn to get on then they either avoid each other or agree to stay out of other members threads. This kind of thing can only be dealt with on a case by case basis and I don't think you can set up rules for it.

This is just a personal opinion and not an official stance by any means.

[rjwood]

Originally Posted by mmccarthy I agree this is the ideal situation. However, the nature of a site like this is going to lead to personal conflicts between members. There is a reason that a lot of sites ban topics on Politics and Religion. A basic set of guidelines outlining what is acceptable means no one is in any doubt if they cross the line. My view on this is if a discussion deteriorates into a personal to and fro between two members then they should be left to it. Unless a member is being victimised in some way and unable to defend themselves or the insults go beyond the bounds of decency then I don't think they should be interfered with. They will eventually get fed up and move on to something else. If two members develop an antagonistic relationship which is constantly interfering in other members threads then there needs to be some conflict resolution where if they can't learn to get on then they either avoid each other or agree to stay out of other members threads. This kind of thing can only be dealt with on a case by case basis and I don't think you can set up rules for it. This is just a personal opinion and not an official stance by any means.

I totally agree. My post was more philosophical. There needs to be rules, of course. My main point is if someone is bent on knowing them, they may have something other than civil discourse in mind anyway.

Thanks mmccarthy!