Posting Policies - Next Steps

Status
Not open for further replies.

SteveColes

Steve
Corporate Member
I think it is time for us to move on to actually reviewing and modifying the policies. There a few things that I am beginning to believe. ( not rigidly, just a starting point).

If you look at the current Policy, you will see that it is written with sections that attempt to make the reader understand why we have the policies and what it is we are trying to accomplish with them. I suspect that when I wrote them, I skimped on the goals and perhaps detailed the specifics too much, not sure, but definetly skimped on the goals area.

In many of my private discussions with some of you and members of the board, I spoke about moderating based on the "spirit" of the policies more than the words of the policies. Whether or not that should be the way, let's wait until we are ready to dissect the procedures.
Most of you actually display a very good understanding of what I intended. Barbara, said one of them, civility. I can add welcoming both directly and indirectly. Helpful,. would be another. Of course, just those words by themselves don't get all of it.

I have to confess, I knew what I wanted to achieve and I wrote a whole list of don't's. Then I wrote the goals. That is backward. So I propose we use this thread to start develop a new goals section for the policies that better define the both the spirit and some specifics of what we want to accomplish.

I beg you to participate in this discussion. If we do this right, then rules and and even the gray areas will be easier to deal with.

BTW, as you think about this, ignore the off topic forum. Pretend we only have woodworking and site related forums. I will explain why, in another thread.

Again please participate.
 
Last edited:

b4man

New User
Barbara
Steve,
I've read both threads and feel good about your approach and even your wording:gar-Bi

Thanks for taking this first big step.

Barbara
 

Glennbear

Moderator
Glenn
The primary thing that originally attracted me to the site was the following:

"The friendliest woodworking site on the net"

I see that is not listed as a goal in existing policy. We all have opinions on machines and processes and some of these are pretty strong. It drives me bonkers when someone refers to Craftsman machines as "Crapsman" but I realize that is another's opinion and should be freely expressed based upon their experience. I disagree and have a shop full of Sears grey tools :gar-La; My point is that our membership should be made aware that we are a diverse lot and we should respect our diversity when posting and not attempt to force our opinions on others. Although it may be a poor example a lot of you may recall the Glennbear vs Alan in little washington debacle. Alan has his opinions on dust collection and absolutely refused to accept the opinions of others and repeatedly denigrated the ideas of others. This kind of posting is absolutely counter to the goal I posted above. :no:
 
Last edited:

froglips

New User
Jim Campbell
I'd like to throw out a suggestion that we extend an invitation to interested members of the community to contribute to the creation of this policy update.

Right now, those of us on the staff have a "one sided" view of the policy, mostly from an interpretive and enforcement perspective. Which is totally normal.

I'd suggest we take the private committee approach so discussions can be "more heated" than normal.

It might be early in the process of policy work, but then again, it could help us shape a policy that meets both our needs and the desires of the broader community.

Goals:
- More clearly define prohibited, limited and scrutinized topics
- Focus on the "intent" of the Original Post
- Foster civility, while expanding tolerance for differing opinions (may necessitate more editing for civility)
- Delineate non-woodworking from woodworking topics and denote that non-woodworking posts may be more heavily moderated
- Hold any Board or Staff position of responsibility to the same and higher standards of conduct. Until one is not in such a position, any post made will carry some degree of authority.
- Empower the Moderators to edit the Subject of any thread. We have so many threads who's Subject is quite far from the content. It may work to have more people read more threads. Examples are plenty and numerous.
- Establish tiered intervention.
- A PM suggesting something
- Back and forth exchange on modification to a thread
- Moderation via editing
- Moderation that removes posts or thread
- Close vs. Removal of threads

Hope that helps, its a big job!!!

Jim
 

froglips

New User
Jim Campbell
Oh, might also help to keep a hot list of scrutinized topics.

Wouldn't be too difficult, SawStop, Dust Collection, BBQ......

This documented list would give us clearer "authority" to intervene when we run up against someone asking a legit SawStop question that ends up moderated.

Might be a spiffy plugin to do a keyword scan of a post and warn the poster of a hotlist item.

Jim
 

Mt. Gomer

New User
Travis
I'd like to throw out a suggestion that we extend an invitation to interested members of the community to contribute to the creation of this policy update.

Right now, those of us on the staff have a "one sided" view of the policy, mostly from an interpretive and enforcement perspective. Which is totally normal.

I strongly agree with this suggestion. Being a relatively new moderator, I can tell you that the view from this side is very different than from the other. The more transparency and collaboration with the members we have on the process the better (and hopefully more universally accepted and understood) the final product will be.
 

Bas

Recovering tool addict
Bas
Corporate Member
My $0.02

The purpose of North Carolina Woodworker is to provide a friendly, open place for woodworkers in North Carolina and surrounding areas to collaborate. The site policy is to ensure that discussions are conducted in a civil manner and free of profanity or personal attacks. Central to this idea is the notion of respect for the individual, regardless of race, nationality, age, gender or social status. Furthermore, the policy strives to make anyone feel welcome. People should not feel intimidated or excluded because of their skill level, woodworking experience, choice of projects or tool collection.
Because North Carolina Woodworker is a regional site, participation by its members can be very personal. The policy encourages people to share what happens in their lives provided this does not detract too much from the site's primary purpose: Woodworking


This is more of a goal for moderation, not the site policy, but it's all related, and it wasn't entirely clear from your post which goals you were after:

North Carolina Woodworker is run by a staff of volunteers who try to make new members feel welcome, answer questions, and resolve problems. The staff also acts as a moderator in the discussions. It is easy for comments in an on-line forum to come across as "harsh" because of misinterpretations, or for discussions to get off topic. To maintain the friendly and open atmosphere, the staff will occasionally edit a post. Every attempt will be made to maintain the original message in the post, and only remove the argumentative or offensive part. In rare circumstances, discussions can become so heated or controversial that the staff has to delete posts or even close the discussion thread.


 
T

toolferone

Wow, so whens the last time you heard from me in the moderation forum?

I just went back and read the site policy's. I tried to read it as an outsider (very hard). It does define some things pretty well, but for those that wish to push the spirit of the policy. I do understand the spirit of the policy. I am one of those people who just wished everybody got along (I mean the whole world). I am naive enough to still hope and dream for that. Time and time again people show that vague rules will be pushed as well as firm rules. I know I am not being much help yet. So I feel if we try to firmly address every possible outcome there would be no one that would want to post here. but a handful of the really polite and some what boring folks (we don't want that). With as many members as we have we will somewhat mirror society and all it's good and bad points. Where is the happy medium? Does it really exist? I read many of the posts that we find problems in and I miss seeing it sometimes. I am a pretty easy going guy and my feathers don't get rumpled to easy. I wish this was the case for more people. One of my favorite lines is " Life in moderation". That sounds very different when talking about our kind of moderation. I will keep reading this thread and see if I can learn what I am missing.

As always, thank all of you for being way smarter then me and giving your time to "the friendliest woodworking forum in the world'
 

b4man

New User
Barbara
I'd like to throw out a suggestion that we extend an invitation to interested members of the community to contribute to the creation of this policy update.

Right now, those of us on the staff have a "one sided" view of the policy, mostly from an interpretive and enforcement perspective. Which is totally normal.

I'd suggest we take the private committee approach so discussions can be "more heated" than normal
.


I agree with Jim and others about getting opinions from the membership with one change. I suggest we ask members to contact any staff member by PM with their input and opinions instead of using a public forum. Then the receiving staff member can share the results with the rest of us or committee.
I am hesitant to make this process public until decisions have been made.


Barbara
 

SteveColes

Steve
Corporate Member
.


I agree with Jim and others about getting opinions from the membership with one change. I suggest we ask members to contact any staff member by PM with their input and opinions instead of using a public forum. Then the receiving staff member can share the results with the rest of us or committee.
I am hesitant to make this process public until decisions have been made.


Barbara
I am very much against getting the general membership involved in this process for a variety of reasons.The most important will be that what you will most likely get are things that do not address any of the issues that really need to be addressed. Or, those with axes to grind will use the opportunity to grind their axes and cause even more disruption.

HOWEVER<:gar-La; the idea of doing it strictly via PM works for me. Barbara, would you like to make the announcement or do I have to make it:icon_scra:dontknow:. My only caveat is that the announcement thread be closed concurrently with it posting. Otherwise people will just use the thread to push their agenda.
 

SteveColes

Steve
Corporate Member
Bas, thank you that is a good start. Can we please get more of you to contribute on our goals.Please:eusa_pray :eusa_pray :notworthy: :notworthy:
My $0.02

The purpose of North Carolina Woodworker is to provide a friendly, open place for woodworkers in North Carolina and surrounding areas to collaborate. The site policy is to ensure that discussions are conducted in a civil manner and free of profanity or personal attacks. Central to this idea is the notion of respect for the individual, regardless of race, nationality, age, gender or social status. Furthermore, the policy strives to make anyone feel welcome. People should not feel intimidated or excluded because of their skill level, woodworking experience, choice of projects or tool collection.
Because North Carolina Woodworker is a regional site, participation by its members can be very personal. The policy encourages people to share what happens in their lives provided this does not detract too much from the site's primary purpose: Woodworking


This is more of a goal for moderation, not the site policy, but it's all related, and it wasn't entirely clear from your post which goals you were after:

North Carolina Woodworker is run by a staff of volunteers who try to make new members feel welcome, answer questions, and resolve problems. The staff also acts as a moderator in the discussions. It is easy for comments in an on-line forum to come across as "harsh" because of misinterpretations, or for discussions to get off topic. To maintain the friendly and open atmosphere, the staff will occasionally edit a post. Every attempt will be made to maintain the original message in the post, and only remove the argumentative or offensive part. In rare circumstances, discussions can become so heated or controversial that the staff has to delete posts or even close the discussion thread.


 

b4man

New User
Barbara
Steve,
As for the 'Announcement' I would be more comfortable if Bas wrote it. He has a good start in the post he created for this discussion and seems to get thru to the members well.

Thank you for the opportunity tho:confused_

Barbara
 

froglips

New User
Jim Campbell
If it is helpful, I can create a form that posts its results in a thread only visible to the Staff.

It'd also allow us to ask more specific questions.

Jim
 

Bas

Recovering tool addict
Bas
Corporate Member
It would be helpful if we could define the problem we're trying to solve. Is this about substantially revising the policy, or wordsmithing what we have? I think the overall policy we have today is sound. Somewhat wordy, but clear in purpose. In fact, I think the issues we had last year had nothing to do with the policy. There were a handful of people who repeatedly violated the site policy in a blatant fashion. This led to "moderation fatigue" - preemptive moderation, heavy handed moderation etc. The solution isn't changing the policy, it's changing the enforcement. Suspending some users had a very positive effect.

So with that:
If one of your posts is moderated, the staff member will tell you why this was necessary (and if it's not clear, please ask!). Repeated violations of the site policy will result in the staff issuing a formal warning. Subsequent violations could lead to a user being suspended and/ or banned from the site.
 

TracyP

Administrator , Forum Moderator
Tracy
It would be helpful if we could define the problem we're trying to solve. Is this about substantially revising the policy, or wordsmithing what we have? I think the overall policy we have today is sound. Somewhat wordy, but clear in purpose. In fact, I think the issues we had last year had nothing to do with the policy. There were a handful of people who repeatedly violated the site policy in a blatant fashion. This led to "moderation fatigue" - preemptive moderation, heavy handed moderation etc. The solution isn't changing the policy, it's changing the enforcement. Suspending some users had a very positive effect.

So with that:
If one of your posts is moderated, the staff member will tell you why this was necessary (and if it's not clear, please ask!). Repeated violations of the site policy will result in the staff issuing a formal warning. Subsequent violations could lead to a user being suspended and/ or banned from the site.
I think you hit it on the head Bas. Can't believe I'm saying that:rotflm:. The policies are well thought out but need some word tweaking and definite across the board enforcement. No matter who the violator is.
 

SteveColes

Steve
Corporate Member
Oops, we are sliding away from what was intended. Our first task is define the "goals" of our posting policy, before we start to define the details. Bas and Jim, think top down design. We need our functional specs before we do the architecture.:rotflm:

As far as soliciting input, please leave it to the goals. Ask why do they think we have posting policies, etc. NOT what they should be. If we get reasonable and enough on point feedback to this request then we might request further input when we are ready to tackle the details, which we are not yet.

Also, please realize that I was not going to go along with the suggestion of membership involvement until Barbara made her suggestion. So please do not make a big deal of the membership involvement. The main priority is the involvement of the you people in this process. I need to hear from you what you think our goals are, or should be. It is the goals in the current policy that are currently weak and not really defined well enough.I know, I wrote them. I know what I intended:rotflm::rotflm:
 

toolman

Administrator
Chad
policy:

To me it is the same as a Employee Handbook or rules. It should tell our members the do's and dont's of our site. The policy should tell them if you use xxx then we will do #$%^ and if you do not like it you should PM not post there comments. And if they do too many xxx we will do :eek:.

Membership involvement is ok to a point. just keep in mine they want no rule for them and rule for every one else.

:dontknow::dontknow::dontknow:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Premier Sponsor

Our Sponsors

LATEST FOR SALE LISTINGS

Top