Is it time for a statement from the Webmaster...

[TracyP]

This thread is in relation to the off topic forum. After a daring and deliberate post from Ken Massengil in the off topic forum that was in blatant disregard of policy, I am thinking we need to post a stern warning to the members about proper posting to the off topic forum. And the consequences that policy violations in posting unacceptable things in the any Forum can bring. We are no better than anyone else on this site, but I feel we need to post this stern statement to the members. I will write it, author it, post it, get my butt kicked by it, and furthermore have to abide by it, but the habitual offenders need to know where we, they, stand. They are testing us. We as the BOD of NCWW should not be tested by the folks that voted us into office. There are only a few of them, but they have many followers. My point in all of this is that we are a friendly ww site that has allowed some of our most active members to taint the values we strive to instill. It is time to act in my opinion, I will leave this up until ALL SEVEN MEMBERS have responded. The only other option in my opinion is to CLOSE the off topic forum. I really don't think that is what any of us want.

 

[ScottM]

We did talk about this at the BoD meeting. We were all in agreement that if this continued we should issue a warning and then close the forum if the abuse continued. I agree it is time to enact the first step.

Let me know if yiou need help with the wording.


For the record if one of use takes the heat we all take the heat.

 

[Travis Porter]

I can go either way on this.

I will say that not everyone abuses the off topic, and when you publish a blanket message, the non-offenders get offended. Would it not be appropriate to write the message and send it to the offender instead of the world? Reggie even commented the thread wouldn't stand and knew it wouldn't stand, and I was a bit surprised the moderators let it stand as long as they did.

 

[Tar Heel]

Ken was way out of line and squashing that post as soon as possible was the right thing to do. The membership does need to know the concerns the moderators and Bod have about that forum. However, as I stated in a recent post, I believe the BoD needs to address several issues concerning the forum. There is no need for me to repeat my thoughts here since the post I'm referring to was made only a few days ago. I would suggest that we consider these issues before making a get tough post. Such a post most certainly needs to be made after we have a healthy, in-depth discussion of the off topic forum. Until we have this discussion, the offender can be notified of our concerns on a private basis. I just believe that whatever we do should be done in a thoughtful, well planned manner. Confront the issues head on and come to some type of resolution.

 

[Douglas Robinson]

My opinion is that if a statement is made to the membership it be made clear that we are informing everyone but the problem has been caused by a few members. We should let the members know that we will also be informing the offenders directly, and then do so. There is value in telling the membership that the deliberate posting of violating posts will not be tolerated.

MTCW

 

[Douglas Robinson]

Ken was way out of line and squashing that post as soon as possible was the right thing to do. The membership does need to know the concerns the moderators and Bod have about that forum. However, as I stated in a recent post, I believe the BoD needs to address several issues concerning the forum. There is no need for me to repeat my thoughts here since the post I'm referring to was made only a few days ago. I would suggest that we consider these issues before making a get tough post. Such a post most certainly needs to be made after we have a healthy, in-depth discussion of the off topic forum. Until we have this discussion, the offender can be notified of our concerns on a private basis. I just believe that whatever we do should be done in a thoughtful, well planned manner. Confront the issues head on and come to some type of resolution.

I suggest we post our thoughts and continue the discussion in this thread for now.

 

[McRabbet]

I agree that a statement needs to be made and that it is because of repeated abuse by a few members. Further, the message should make it clear that membership probation, suspensions and banning can be a consequence of improper posts and that such actions have been taken in the past. We should applaud the great posts made by the majority of members but make it clear that we will moderate policy violations and may take more punitive action when a member continues to use the same poor judgement.

My opinion is that if a statement is made to the membership it be made clear that we are informing everyone but the problem has been caused by a few members. We should let the members know that we will also be informing the offenders directly, and then do so. There is value in telling the membership that the deliberate posting of violating posts will not be tolerated.

MTCW

 

[Douglas Robinson]

I might even suggest that we state that most people have been moderated at some point in time, andfrom experience we have found that most members have not read the posting policies. We have endeavored to inform members of what section of the policies their post violates, and we have found that the vast majority of the members take the moderation well and learn from their error. It is the violators, who seem to violate repeatedly the policies, that do not appreciate the policies or choose to ignore them for whom action may be taken.

We absolutely need to make clear to the repeat violators in PM's, but we just as importantly need to make clear to the membership that we are serious about cracking down on such repeat violators. And that the policies go a long way to providing NCWW with the organizational atmosphere we are cherish.

 

[scsmith42]

My thoughts are that the "blanket" statement that is made to all members should be cordial and frank, but not aggressive.

I would also suggest that a message also be sent via PM or via phone call to the worst offenders, and that message should be clear and uniquivocal.

I feel that we should try to avoid offending the 99% of our members who do not abuse the OT forum, and concentrate our efforts on the <1% that do. By using the word "offending", I am not trying to say that we should avoid communications; my point is the degree of severity and tact associated with communication to the general membership, versus communication to the offenders.

 

[Travis Porter]

I feel that we should try to avoid offending the 99% of our members who do not abuse the OT forum, and concentrate our efforts on the <1% that do. By using the word "offending", I am not trying to say that we should avoid communications; my point is the degree of severity and tact associated with communication to the general membership, versus communication to the offenders.

My thoughts exactly.:icon_thum

 

[TracyP]

Fellow BOD, I appreciate all of the Board entering a reply and I concur with all that has been said. I agree that we have a select few trouble makers that stir the pot. I posted this so we could enter into a proper discussion. I still feel that a blanket statement, not a warning needs to be made, and in that I would also state that the percentage of members that violate the off topic or any other forum is less than one percent of the current membership numbers. I intended this to be FAIR to everyone, The good guys, and The Bad guys. So, in closing I say that I post a statement, not a warning, stating policy, and the necessity that policy be followed when posting to any thread regardless of the forum they are posting in. Tell me if I am dreaming....

 

[Travis Porter]

Call it what you will, statement, epistle, etc, but I don't disagree. Write it, post a thread for us to respond (with a deadline) and put it out.

Oh, and you knew I couldn't resist. You are dreaming. ;-)

Stuart's comments about what the off topic forum is and isn't does have merit. Do we all agree that it is off topic and doesn't have to be woodworking related? To me I don't think it should have to be WW related. The posts on the dryer lint for example are good subjects and there are many other relevant and appropriate examples.

 

[McRabbet]

I've added my comments to Travis' post to simplify.

I agree! Call it what you will, statement, epistle, etc, but I don't disagree. Write it, post a thread for us to respond (with a deadline) and put it out.

Oh, and you knew I couldn't resist. You are dreaming. ;-) But it is nice to dream!

Stuart's comments about what the off topic forum is and isn't does have merit. Do we all agree that it is off topic and doesn't have to be woodworking related? To me I don't think it should have to be WW related. The posts on the dryer lint for example are good subjects and there are many other relevant and appropriate examples. I fully agree!

 

[scsmith42]

Call it what you will, statement, epistle, etc, but I don't disagree. Write it, post a thread for us to respond (with a deadline) and put it out.

Oh, and you knew I couldn't resist. You are dreaming. ;-)

Stuart's comments about what the off topic forum is and isn't does have merit. Do we all agree that it is off topic and doesn't have to be woodworking related? To me I don't think it should have to be WW related. The posts on the dryer lint for example are good subjects and there are many other relevant and appropriate examples.

+2.

 

[ScottM]

I agree a blank statement should be made to level set all the members. Firm but friendly.

I agree the off topic forum can contain threads on topics that are not WW related.

I do not agree to send PM's to our few offenders at this time. That should be done only when they violate the policy.

 

[Travis Porter]

I agree a blank statement should be made to level set all the members. Firm but friendly.

I agree the off topic forum can contain threads on topics that are not WW related.

I do not agree to send PM's to our few offenders at this time. That should be done only when they violate the policy.

100 percent agree.