What improvements would you like to see in this discussion forum?

[GostHacked]

Ya, I don't like 'likes' either ... but some posts are awesome and some way of recognizing them would help raise the quality of posts by providing good models. Here's a thought: Some kind of connection to a person's blog or profile to identify the post (leave a link?) and comment there about great posts? Maybe an annual or semiannual 'vote' on top ten posts ? (I don't like single-winner competition. Too arbitrary.)

And maybe a few of the worst trollish posts too? Again, as 'models' of what not to do.

.

We can dispense with the blogs as well. I feel they won't add anything to the site. We need more participation in the threads. Many will resort to simply blogging and not give people the ability to comment on it. Some do not like their views challenged or scrutinized.

If Greg wanted to go to an ad-revenue system for the forums, I would appreciate it if he also offered the ability to disable ads by donating $20-25/year to the forum.

Or one can simply use an ad blocker. I do. If Greg is looking for donations, great, but I'll do what I can to avoid advertising. Ad blocker with Firefox means NO adverts when watching Youtube. It's really nice.

Suggestion: Limit of one "Status Update" per day, to avoid over-posting by individuals.

I vote for trashing the status update sidebar. A fluff item that does not help the forum threads at all.

[Charles Anthony]

Paid members get to organize and hold debating challenges for fun. A separate Debates subforum is created. This could involve the voting/poll feature. The rules are simple: whoever gets the most votes in favor is the hero or not --- with a link to reference his wonderful debating heroicism!

Here are some possible ideas that can all be determined by the willful debaters:

Only paid members get to debate. or Only a select few member (forming a tag-team) get to debate.

Everybody gets to vote.

or

Only paid members get to vote.

or

Only members with a specific seniority --- either defined by registration date or post count or arbitrary selection.

------

Selective visibility of posts/likes for paid members

or

Reverse Ignoring

For non-paying members, the forum looks and operates the same. For paying members, there will be the possibility of EXCLUDING members from being able to view and respond to your post. This is the general format of the FaceBook game.

Before submitting each post to the public, the member will have a drop down list with different permissions for who can view and respond to his post.

To paid members, the forum will appear very different. These selective permissions posts have a highlight color or an extra button. Upon toggling the post/button, the thread will branch off to display the side comment or thread drift.

If a non-paying member is tangled with a paying member, the non-paying member automatically gets permission to participate in the branch and to toggle visibility.

This will purposefully create multiple tiers of discussion that will seem unfair. I propose that its use be linked to the following rules:

If a paying member excludes somebody (either a paying member or a non-paying member) then:

- ALL non-paying members are excluded from both viewing the post and responding to it

and

- All members can see who is excluded

A paying member will never be forced into a flame-war with this feature. A member will always have the permission to post his response to be viewed by the open public for all to see. That way, paid members will not be able to control debate or secretly bully other members under cover of their membership.

One change however, I'm going to start a NEW thread on moderation and we can discuss that issue separately (let me start this thread, as there are a few things I want to announce first). Lets keep this thread going with non-moderation suggestions.

Permit me to drop a seed.

Folks, please consider my last idea on its own and in terms of how it may function to enhance community moderation. Moderators would have the over-riding ability to take a borderline off-topic thread-drifting nag-a-thon that is teetering onto the brink of inter-personal flame-war out of public view --- either temporarily so that it does not escalate or permanently if it does and needs to be resolved in a separate sanbox --- without having to lock it.

This idea can be used to incorporate paid members into consulting with moderators concerning moderation of posts and habits. Please think this over, folks. I am sure you all can possibly think of ways this rough idea could be enhanced. Hold your thoughts until later and tell us what you think when Greg starts a new thread on moderation.

[Shady]

Suggestion: Limit of one "Status Update" per day, to avoid over-posting by individuals.

I like that idea!

[waldo]

I like that idea!

but... but... it means severely limiting your Obama Derangement Syndrome status updates! It means you'll have to shift your ODS to actual threads.

[Shady]

but... but... it means severely limiting your Obama Derangement Syndrome status updates! It means you'll have to shift your ODS to actual threads.

That's ok, it should go in conjunction with a once per day comment on said status. That way people will be limited in spamming me.

[BubberMiley]

That's ok, it should go in conjunction with a once per day comment on said status. That way people will be limited in spamming me.

You could always use your own self-control rather than asking the moderators to restrict you. Personal responsibility can do wonders. Just look at the New Rob Ford...d'oh!

[WWWTT]

The like/dislike is a horrible idea. Might work for other things like Youtube, but not in such a small community like this.

I don't like the idea either.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

I like that idea!

Not here!

What if you make a mistake?

Your only given a small space to write your update, its not the same format as replying to a topic.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Paid members get to organize and hold debating challenges for fun. A separate Debates subforum is created. This could involve the voting/poll feature. The rules are simple:

Something tells me that this site is going the "pay" route.

WWWTT

[jacee]

Paid members get to organize and hold debating challenges for fun. A separate Debates subforum is created. This could involve the voting/poll feature. The rules are simple: whoever gets the most votes in favor is the hero or not --- with a link to reference his wonderful debating heroicism!

That might appeal to some.

I'd be more interested in opportunities for interested people of diverse views to create possible solutions for issues.

[Michael Hardner]

I have always been interested in aligning the rich amount of opinion and dissent online with our actual channels of governance. As such, I have monitored open government and open data initiatives around integrating the web into governance. It has been beyond disappointing, and indicated to me that old institutions will not change - maybe until a new generation of politicians and bureaucrats graduate into power.

I would like to see more efforts to push this platform out into the public view. Any suggestions would be welcome.

[cybercoma]

I have always been interested in aligning the rich amount of opinion and dissent online with our actual channels of governance. As such, I have monitored open government and open data initiatives around integrating the web into governance. It has been beyond disappointing, and indicated to me that old institutions will not change - maybe until a new generation of politicians and bureaucrats graduate into power.

I would like to see more efforts to push this platform out into the public view. Any suggestions would be welcome.

What's dangerous about this is that populist sentiment isn't always just, fair, or right.

[Michael Hardner]

What's dangerous about this is that populist sentiment isn't always just, fair, or right.

Yes, but we're not publicizing sentiment here, we're publicizing opinion.

[Greg]

Something tells me that this site is going the "pay" route.

WWWTT

I am more interested in hearing ways we can improve the forums for everyone, than restricting access to only paid members.

I don't know of a single successful forum where you have to pay to contribute. However, I am considering certain premium features, which would be available to members who want to pay. Removing ads from the forum display, is one of those features which could be provided via a Premium Membership. However, lets not drag this great discussion into the specifics of a premium membership. We can address that if it comes up in another support thread.

[GostHacked]

That's ok, it should go in conjunction with a once per day comment on said status. That way people will be limited in spamming me.

Replies to a status update should not be limited. Just the status updates. Or lock the status update.

Edited January 22, 2014 by GostHacked

[Shady]

I think we should have a swear room. Kind of like a chat room, or a section of the forum where it's permitted to call GH a bleeping bleep head.

[Argus]

I think we should have a swear room. Kind of like a chat room, or a section of the forum where it's permitted to call GH a bleeping bleep head.

Is that the only way you feel you can properly express yourself?

[The_Squid]

Is that the only way you feel you can properly express yourself?

STRAWMAN!!!!

[Shady]

Is that the only way you feel you can properly express yourself?

No.

[GostHacked]

I think we should have a swear room. Kind of like a chat room, or a section of the forum where it's permitted to call GH a bleeping bleep head.

Usually swearing is a sign of frustration. Used to get point across when all other avenues of discourse has been exhausted by the poster.

[Moonlight Graham]

We should have a "Welcome" forum for new users to introduce themselves & we can welcome them to the board.

[cybercoma]

They should also tell us what their usernames were before they registered the new accounts.

[cybercoma]

Can we ban the use of the word "ilk." It's only ever used to attribute the characteristics of a group (usually a strawman group) to individuals, which is an ecological fallacy. It makes the speaker look really ignorant, so to save them the embarrassment let's just ban it.

[Moonlight Graham]

Well Greg hasn't created the new thread on moderation yet so I'm just going to say what I was going to:

- The very best thing this forum can do to retain members on MLW is for Greg and Charles to treat posters with respect (i've seen no problems/complains with Michael Hardner). I've seen a big improvement in this since we all talked about it a couple months ago and Greg also fixed the reporting system, so I can't criticize you guys right now you've been doing a good job since then. But there's been a loss of some really good members over the past year or 2 (ie: smallc, punked), & some (smallc) have said it was the heavy-handed and/or uneven moderation on here. I've been on other forums where the mods were total jerks & only one ridiculous suspension or locking of a good thread will drove me & others away forever.

Also, yes people need to follow the rules but the punishment must fit the crime, suspensions that are too frequent or too long will drive away posters since while they're suspended they will go post on other forums like newspaper comment sections (which are far more popular than MLW) and never come back to MLW. So when suspensions are given over warnings they should be given with forethought of the pros and cons. Hopefully this problem has been solved but I think it explains why membership seems to have drifted the last year or 2.

Edited January 26, 2014 by Moonlight Graham

[Michael Hardner]

Thanks for the good words, Moonlight Graham. I also feel that Greg and Charles care a great deal about keeping the forum civil and therefore vital.

I also feel that we're making progress in slowly creating a rockbed of posters who care more about the quality of the discussion than about the individual politics of the posters, and who therefore set a great example with every post.

I ask posters to discuss this in my thread below:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/23324-what-do-forum-members-have-in-common/