I also think it might prevent problems down the road if one or both of those documents discusses the issue of commerce.
Tiara wrote:To bring things back to the general/theoretical level. . .
My interpretation of what I've read in several forums is that consensus is favoring a "rules" document as well as a statement of community guidelines and principles. The former would attempt to describe the things that are specifically not ok, and the penalties for engaging in those things. The latter would be more proactive, giving advice on the nature of the community and how to interact, netiquette tips, a reminder to look for answers on the general site before asking questions, etc.
Is that generally in line with what you all are thinking?
Tiara wrote:I think that the guidelines/principles document should also address the various top level folders, and the types of queries and discussions each is designed to host, with a notation that anything else can go to General Discussion.
Tiara wrote:I also think it might prevent problems down the road if one or both of those documents discusses the issue of commerce. As the event gets closer, I'm sure we'll see more commercial type spam from people selling things of real or imagined use to the Burn community. It was an issue on the old board, and I'm sure it will be an issue again. One potential solution would be to confine such posts to the I Need/I Have section.
Chai Guy wrote:Right, I wasn't trying to imply that it was and either-or situation.
Some people have come on in the past trying to sell things like Art Cars, or cars that could be made into art cars. I've seen some people get flamed and others seem to be ignored or embraced. I just like giving people the rules up front, instead of trashing them for violating some invisible policy.
but you know that commitees within the llc are veritable hydras of control and responsibility, and the people who do the work aren't always the people who get to decide how it actually gets done.
III wrote:i would like to offer my appolgies to the community (sort of).
in an effort to get *something* going, i wrote up the above guidelines, and submitted them to the etf list, in the hope that they would provide an appropriate starting point.
it does indeed seem to have spurred a responnse, though it bears little resemblance to anything that has been discussed here. the end product being proposed at this point hasd intentionally excluded community input, including what i've presented above.
i apologize for presenting the appearance that feedback might mean something..
Chai Guy wrote:sock puppet säk 'p&-p&t (noun)
A separate login account created by a user for the purposes of, but not limited to; lending credence to one's own posts through corroboration or other tactics, acting as a cheerleader or nemesis for the primary user, lashing out at other users (with out fear of being identified), being a voice for your second, third and fourth personalities, etc.
Ron Meiners, who is my most committed and most experienced community management resource, offered up a set of guidelines and rules, based on some of his previous work, for discussion. Discussion has ensued.
when are we going to be able to see it, who is going to be able to have input on it, and when will it be implemented?
III wrote:> I haven't heard a peep put of you on the ETF list addressing these concerns at all.
i addressed them to ron, and was dismissed with a "we can'[t let *those* people decide, it's up to us to tell them how we want it to be" response.
he hadn't participated in any of the previous discussion, has from what i can tell not once parrticipated on this board, and came up with his set of guidelines out of whole cloth, based on, as he said, a community that didn't work very well. the combination of ignoring previous input, and expressing a desire for no feedback from the ocmmunity at large left me with with a very bad taste in my mouth.
Anonymous wrote:when are we going to be able to see it, who is going to be able to have input on it, and when will it be implemented?
Second that. And looking at the traffic that's been happening here (or not happening) the much-discussed changes ought to come along in pretty short order, if it's not already too late. Or maybe the new year will bring enough of an influx of new people to make up a new community.
III wrote:i started things going, and solicited input here (and presented the initial steps) with the assumption that close user feedback would be welcomed. upon realizing that this would not be the exact case, i felt like i'd set up false expectations with what i had presented.
Curious that changes to improve communication here need to be discussed in an unrelated communication medium.
Chai Guy wrote:Curious that changes to improve communication here need to be discussed in an unrelated communication medium.
I agree with Booker on this one. Unfortunately I encounter this kind of thing all the time. I work in a community technology center where everyone seems to be afraid of utilizing or implementing technology. I think a Wiki page or even a group IM chat would be better than a teleconference. Of course I would love to see the discussion take place here, which seems like a reasonable place for all of our other discussions.
No matter, such is the case- I'll be there!
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests