DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Religious Convictions
HTML https://religiousconvictions.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Notices and News
*****************************************************
#Post#: 3417--------------------------------------------------
Possible Site Changes
By: Gaffer Date: December 6, 2015, 2:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You may have seen where I said I was thinking of doing a little
advertising to try to attract new members. If it works here, I
may do a little at Love God Only too. That site already has
formal rules while this one doesn't. I was thinking of trying
to make this site more interfaith while keeping LGO mainly
Christian. I am reluctant however to do anything to attract new
members at this site without any rules.
When Mike started this site, he also promised members they
could express their views without the fear of being banned.
While I didn't make that promise, I still thought it best to
honor it to avoid any misunderstandings. I took that promise
down however; and frankly I would not want to promise all new
members that they can't be banned.
If someone can't answer yes or no, ignore the poll. If you
answer yes, I'd be interested in hearing what rules you would
like to have.
I've been toying with an idea of having a panel of three members
-- not necessarily including me -- who could approve the first
ten or so posts of each new member in order to prevent spam or
other unpleasantness. If no one approved a post, it simply
wouldn't show up. If a new member was rude or stupid or posted
insane or ignorant trash, why should it appear?
I am not announcing this topic. I don't care if members who
aren't logging in vote or not. Why should they be invited to
vote if they aren't involved in posting?
#Post#: 3420--------------------------------------------------
Re: Possible Site Changes
By: bradley Date: December 6, 2015, 9:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I think the 3 person panel approving/disapproving the first ten
posts of new members would be good. And although no specific
rules would be good, it would be good if those 3 persons also
"edited out" any nasty unkind posts that came to fruit whether
it be new or old members.
#Post#: 3445--------------------------------------------------
Re: Possible Site Changes
By: Kerry Date: December 11, 2015, 10:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It would be wonderful to have a site without rules, but this is
not an ideal world, Brad.
My theory on editing posts is this, Brad. If it's a new member,
why bother? If he is posting such outrageous things that a
moderator needs to edit them, do you really want him as a
member? It could be a mistake trying to keep him as a member.
If his posts do need editing, perhaps he should do it? I've
done that with a few people at LGO. I told one fellow his post
couldn't show up because it was an attack on a group of people.
He was attacking Catholics as a group. He did remove that from
his post and then I approved it and it showed up. The reason
I wanted him to do it was to encourage him to take
responsibility for his own words.
I can see a moderator tinkering here and there with an older
member's posts -- if the relationship between them is positive
and the poster won't see it as an attack on him and as an
attempt to censor him. Some infractions are so tiny, it's not
worth making any fuss about them; others are so small and
probably not intended, a little tinkering won't matter.
But moderators altering posts can cause its own problems.
Members aren't sure who wrote what. If it is allowed, then I
guess we'd have to have "last edited by . . . " so people could
see the post had been edited and by whom. That can cause
problems too though. Some people might be embarrassed to have
others see their posts had been edited.
In a way, the editing of posts is also an attempt to revise
history. Some people are apt to post trash and then want to
pretend they didn't. Some people also post trash and then want
to delete it later after the damage has been done. Allowing
posts to stand as they originally appeared has its problems but
also advantages. Readers have more certainty that they know
what's going on.
Also if the day comes when a member is banned, it can be useful
to have his "bad posts" around so any of his allies can't
complain that he was treated unfairly.
At the moment, I'm leaning towards not editing posts -- but
allowing moderators to suggest to members to avoid certain
things in the future -- either by PM or by gentle suggestion in
the thread.
If someone has a habit of making unkind remarks, why edit them?
Perhaps the solution is to get rid of him? This can show
other members what to avoid -- by making an example of the
offender. As I said, I think gentle suggestion or PM is best
at first; and if the person persists, then take a stronger
approach. But if the day ever comes that the member is banned,
everyone else will know why. It would be in the record.
#Post#: 3451--------------------------------------------------
Re: Possible Site Changes
By: bradley Date: December 12, 2015, 10:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Sound and wise leadings there Kerry!
*****************************************************