board77

Well, OK, if you insist.




Hey, this "spamming" thing is fun!

I am utterly astonished and amazed at Wampuscat’s ability to read my mind so perfectly and completely. I’m an INFP, but with some strong Thinking tendencies. I feel a strong affinity for the board as it is, but I think that Prim is right, that opening is the only way to ensure its long term survival.

I will vote to open. Option 3 sounds best to me. The beginnings of a mission statement would also be good.

Ah, Voronwe...........you caught me with your sig link. Seems like someone's ummm, shall we say, "enthusiasm" for a certain Ranger, may be contagious.

Soooooo, now that I'm here, I'll add my two cents.

Yes, I think your poll should be put up for a vote. It is, not surprisingly , extremely well-thought out and inclusive, and should give people here a very concise.......and more importantly, precise, way to clearly demonstrate their view.

Right now, I think that b77 is rather reminding me of Lorien: safe and "unstained", protected from the woes and wickedness of the outside world. And it is wonderful.

But in being "changeless", Lorien (and b77) is also, in many ways, "embalmed", not part of the dynamic, "living, breathing" world surrounding it, which can, despite its many flaws and dangers, generate wholly new and surprising events to the benefit of all. And that unknown potential is also wonderful.


If this place is like a warm and welcoming inn, it must be open to all who wish to come through its doors. Some will look around and quickly leave, others will rest here a while before they depart, some will cause trouble and will be shown the door, and still others will ask for rooms with a long term lease and have dibs on the comfy chairs by the fire.

I realize that "preparations" will have to be made, and certain important safeguards put into place before a grand opening, and I have every confidence that the wisdom and logic and good sense of the committee members, and of the board at large, will insure that this happens. And when it does, I'll be very pleased to welcome our new guests, knowing full well that some will remain just familiar faces across the room , some will irritate and anger me to the point of , and some will become good friends and respected voices that will challenge and inform and hopefully goof around from time to time. And that will be wonderful!

Ath and V, as much as I understand your longing to open up a wrm and welcoming true "homely board", I must remind you on how hidden and protected Imladris is (was?).

The constitution has to be fixed and voted upon before we let anyone in; we cannot open the gate too early: or we will run the chance to get amendments en masse. There are some principles which cannot be changed even in a democracy; these principles have to stand firmly.

I expect some serious fighting with the opening of b77. If it doesn't come, all the better; but everyone should better be prepared for it.

Good points, everyone. Especially Athrabeth very much put my feelings into words by comparing b77 to Lothlórien.

Re: spammy one-word post threads, I'm not in favour of those. Granted, in my early TORC days, I used to participate in them - just because it was a good means for upping one's post count. But, they got quite boring after a while, and somebody always screwed even those ones up... Fun threads don't have to be spammy, just think of the ones like "Dear Galadriel" or the "Mad Libs" which really require thinking, or even "The Wrong Answers Game".

And, re: multiple identities, I second the suggestions about checking if the registered identity is primary or additional, and banning all additional ID:s that come out and are not just for roleplaying. Most of the boards I visit don't even allow more than one ID per person, not even for RPG purposes; and, I'll have to say that, the multiple ID:s has always been one thing that bugs me in TORC.

As for the Thinking of England board, could it be possible to make giving one's birthdate obligatory at registering, at least for those who want access to that forum? So, it could be easier to check that no one under 18 gets access there. (Of course, there should be an option to keep the birthdate hidden from everybody but the admins.)

I agree with Mummpizz. So rather than reiterate what he said I'll simply:

I really want to see this place open. But I want it to open when we're ready. And that for me, does mean having the systems of government in place.




Rowanberry, this board requires a different email address for each different ID. So in that respect there is a sort of check on it, although of course nothing to stop people having many email accounts.

Regarding the spammy threads, is it possible to simply hide postcounts? I honestly believe that postcounts are used by people as a sort of status symbol. What you say and how you say it should be your measure on this board, not how often you say it.

Alatar

I'm all for hiding postcounts. They definitely tend to be some kind of a status symbol for some, and I've even seen attitudes like "what do you think you have to say in this, with only so-and-so many posts" by more prolific posters.

Quote:

this board requires a different email address for each different ID. So in that respect there is a sort of check on it, although of course nothing to stop people having many email accounts.

That, I think, is the case with most messageboards. And, as there are dozens of free e-mail account providers, checking suspicious cases by some means would be good - for example, if they tend to post from same IP addresses as someone else, and it is quite clear that they're not for example different members of the same family.

Alatar wrote:

is it possible to simply hide postcounts?

*Thumbs up!* That would take the initiative out of many a spammer.

And for Leoba ... thank you!

The comparison of B77 to Lothlorien makes a great deal of sense to me. When I first read LOTR at a tender age, I used to imagine the joy of living in the timeless beauty of Lorien. But as I became more immersed in the world, I found Rivendell's welcoming way-station more to my liking. I can see taking a place by the fire and listening to the tales of whatever stranger is passing through.

(I would rather not stay at the Prancing Pony, however. Nazgul ...)

And Tinwe, we thinking, NC INFPs need to stick together!

I think I am up for hiding post counts. I have seen too many people look at it as a status symbol. I have never lt it deter me though. Although it is fun to have post count parties. Maybe we should say some kind of statement about a post count. Have that in the constitution, no ones post count can be used against them.

I will say here that I have only skimmedthis thread so please ignore this idea if this has been suggested before.

I feel we will be doing a lot of leading by example. With that in mind and thinking of Voronwe's options. How about a staggered invite after a certain part of the constitution has been made up? Yes I know some people will think it is unfair that votes will be restricted (I don't like it either), but we will still have new people coming in and high quality people that can lead by example once we are open. We still have that list of people that we someday want ot invite. Maybe after a certain part of the constitution is done we invite them and explain the situation and why they can't vote. Also before we have any voting don't we discuss things first?I know the convention commitee people were available to PM if there were any concerns those outside of the committe came up with. Why don't we have that option available to these people who come in before we open but can't vote? I would not mind people PMing me if it meant more people coming in. After we have those first set of people for invites maybe at a later stage of the constitution, we could come up with a new list and invite some more people. But if we do staggered invites, we can only have like 2 or 3 (or 4) and with each group of selected pre-invitees there can only be a certain number (50, 60, 80?), that way we can still have a desire for new people coming in, since I am sure that there are more then 150 people we want on here. Who gets on list first is by who suggests them first. Any major objections (like a run in) can be taken off the list.

I really believe in some form of staggered invite before we throw the doors open. I think there are about 150 of us? Imagine the day we open that number jumps to 1000? 2000? We really need some seasoned people for that huge onslaught, and I do not think 150 will be enough.

Also I really think people want to do this it needs to be set up quickly and informally. rather then discussing people for 9 days, have 2 or 3 days to add people to the list. Have either 2 or 3 days for people to look at the list and only post in the masse invite thread if there is a major oblection with a person.

I'm against hiding postcounts (cries of booooo, spammer' ensue). For me they provide an incentive to post- and by that I mean getting involved properly, not just spamming. They show you how much imput somebody has had in a web community. You could have joined on day one, not post for a year and in your first post n00bs would assume you knew all about the place.

No. It just makes me really uncomfortable.

*~Pips~*

I would also support the hiding of the post counts (sorry, Pips). If people have something to say, they will say it. If they don't have anything to contribute, there's no need to encourage them to post just to round up their post count to the next zero.

Wilma wrote:

I really believe in some form of staggered invite before we throw the doors open. I think there are about 150 of us? Imagine the day we open that number jumps to 1000? 2000? We really need some seasoned people for that huge onslaught, and I do not think 150 will be enough.

A staggered invite might make sense. I have suggested this before, but we could open the registration to everybody and process a certain number of people each week, as admins can manage.

I think it extremely unlikely, though, that we'll get 800 or 1800 new people the day we open. Where would they come from? Why would they want to? It is possible, I suppose, that many TORCers will want to READ the board, but if we are open, they will be able to do it without registering. I doubt that we can expect more than a hundred or two of active posters to join any time soon.

[Stern admin voice]This thread is not about the dangers of spam. It is not about hiding post counts. It is about opening the board, and the propriety of conducting a poll to determine the membership's opinion on when and if to do so. If, sometime in the future, a problem arises with what people consider "spammy" threads, we can address that question then. Or, if someone thinks its really important to discuss it now, start a new thread, or ask me or one of the other admins to split the discussion off from this thread. But please don't sidetrack this discussion with an issue that is only peripherally related to the issue at hand.[/stern admin voice]

Thanks.

S-s-s-so w-when should the p-poll go up? S-sir?

Personally I'd be surprised if more than a couple of dozen people signed up, and I think we'd know most of the people who did.

<goes all offended at Frelga >

*~Pips~*

Wilma, in the last discussion we had on this subject, the idea of inviting some people in before we fully opened was roundly rejected by too significant a percentage of the membership to ignore. I do not consider that an option at this time.

I think we should let this discussion run for another day, and if no objection doing the poll arises, I will start it. I think it would be better if the last choice were a little less final sounding. Instead of "I do not want the board to open" I think it would be better for it to be something like "I do not want the board to open in the foreseeable future."

As for target percentages, I'm not sure that it is possible to specify exactly what the target would be for a clear concensus on when to open. I think if a clear pattern emerges, it will be obvious. However, I am open to suggestions, if people think we should specify a specific amount (e.g., 80% constitutes a concensus). What do others think?

I would like a clarification.
Do you want to know if we should open up ever, or now?
There is a large difference.
Why is this necessary at this time?
Isn't the whole point of the convention to protect the board against the potential evils of opening?
I believe the general consensus has always been that we would open one day. No not everyone agreed to that, but heck we can't even all agree on a smiley.
What is the latest catalyst for another round of this discussion?
Hadn't we, just a short time ago, quasi decided to wait until certain things were in place?
Are we going to have another poll asking when we should open?


Why can't we just finish the business at hand and take one step at a time?
Voronwe, I am guessing that you have a certain motivation for starting this thread. I am guessing that motivation is that you hate this closed board idea. Fine, I have no problem with that. I agree as well.
However you came to this place, as we all did, to a closed environment.
We knew what we were getting in to. We also knew that it would take a bit of time and work to change that.
We set about making plans for the future. We set about making plans to someday open and set up the needed criteria. This isn't going to happen overnight, and if you really look at the calendar, hardly anytime has passed. I understand the impatience, with friends on the outside looking in and all, but lets not start jumping the gun ok?
Lets finish what we are doing and go from there.
If we have to lets shorten the process. We have spent a lot of time discussing the Bike Racks. In great detail. Why not just put the rudiments of every artical in place and amend as needed? That way we could open sooner.
There is no way this place is going to remain closed now. That horse has long since left the barn. This place is nothing like it once was.
We are obviously going to open at some point, and I ask all to just be patient and wait.
If not then why bother to finish the convention?
I would like to remind you of your recent stances regarding this issue, and I would ask if they are still true today.


In another thread,

Voronwe_the_Faithful wrote:

My thinking has changed again. I now think that, rather than immediately opening the floodgates, or keeping them keeping them completely shut until the constitution is ratified, we should let everyone on the list of potential invitees at the Invite forum in right away. After all, these are all people that someone here can vouch for; there won't be any trolls in the bunch. Then there will be less pressure to open fully until the constitution is finished, since that is obviously still going to take a significant amount of time. And there will be less negativity about people kept out.

That is my current opinion. I wonder what my next opinion will be.

In the same thread,

Voronwe_the_Faithful wrote:

I strenuously object to completely opening the board before we have a mission statement in place. There are a number of issues that I have been waiting to raise once we start discussing that critical portion of the constitution. But if we are thinking of opening to the general public before that is in place, then I need to raise them right away, particularly if opening means incorporating as well, as we have discussed. But we certainly cannot incorporate until we have a mission statement. So does that mean we are going to open before we move to the new board? It makes so much more sense to me to let in all the people that the people here want to be here, which primarily involves all of our friends left from TORC, as soon as we have at least guidelines for performance of admin duties (that becomes more important to me not that I've offered to become one ), but not open to the general public until we are really ready. I think that would at least reduce the negative energy that one can feel building up as board77 remains a closed society.

I'm so confused.

If you want to consider what I have said an objection, then so be it.

"1. As soon as the charter provisions regarding the admins are ratified"

(even though I actually voted against it!!!) Let's just got on with it (the only thing that gives me a little pause is the Thinking of England issue, but that was attached to a choice that otherwise I'm not particularly fond of)