About the new "guidelines"

I haven’t responded to this anymore here but it was about the entire mod team and it has been both ‘you do sound fascist’ and ‘you’re basically nazi’s’.

That was after me pushing to get more out of his proposal than ‘make a sticky post on the frontpage and let people discuss about the forum all the time’, of which I indeed don’t think it’s a good idea.

1 Like

OK, I see how the second comment would upset you. The first, a bit more what I was talking about. Fair enough.
EDIT: I still think he meant something substantive, but put it a little too strongly.

I don’t necessarily think it’s a good idea to have a topic that is constantly stickied on the front page. But I certainly think that we could have one for a period of time during a time when people are able to come in to the topic and weigh in, discuss, propose, agree, disagree and attempt to reach consensus on a set of guidelines that are user-driven.

I think if we went through that process, whatever the outcome, we would end up with a stronger community as a result.

1 Like

This is what we did with the guidelines, has been on the frontpage for 48 hours. I will check that topic again later today but I don’t remember that there was one person that wanted to discuss certain guidelines in a normal way and that’s why I wanted to know if that sticky was what he proposed.

1 Like

Well, I have to say, this is really frustrating. Let me be clear, again, about the difference.

What we are proposing is not:

  • The mods confer and come up with a set of guidelines, declare them, and then ask for comment

What we are proposing is:

  • That the community discusses what the users see as the overall direction/goals of this forum, debates, discusses etc about what guidelines best represent that direction and those goals, and come to a consensus on that community-driven list.

It’s fundamentally different, as in the first case: You (mods, collectively) are figuring out a bunch of guidelines, then stating they are the new guidelines, then asking for comment.

In the second case, the guidelines come from the community itself.

Can we at least agree that these two situations are entirely different?

1 Like

Yes we can agree on that, although why can’t you see it as proposed guidelines which could have lead to people picking out guidelines and editting them for example? They were there to discuss (input is what you want right?) and nobody did that.

That was the second proposal. Here’s the first:

So he did propose to remove the guidelines and that’s fine. I don’t support the idea and I made critical comments to it.

That’s why I quit interaction. If you can’t have a normal conversation with normal comments it’s over.

Thank you for being in this discussion as well. This is our forum and I’m always open to new ideas (even when I make critical notes about them ;-)). This is your forum as much it’s mine. We’ll see a lot of new people and a lot of changes coming to this place in the coming years. We have to figure out what to do.

I couldn’t agree more Just jump in meta, open a topic with a title like: Discuss guideline: not allowed to talk politics on the frontpage. And see what people say about it. And people say there’s nobody reading meta, well look at this topic in off-topic. Not that many people around there but 7 people liked the post. Her we have 8 likes in another off-topic. And when I look at this topic, we have 539 views (way more than the 2 examples) but nobody seems to get these amount of likes. A user posts some PM’s and get’s 5 likes and a mod replies and also get’s 5 likes. Not to close down any discussion but I keep asking where everybody is. look at the Forum Update. We introduced a new set of rules, 2 new mods and get 20 likes for it. The critical replies doesn’t get that much. Even while they were in plain sight as well. Same here, we added a new mod and everybody agreed. I only spot positive comments (on the frontpage for days).

Show me the weight of user support for your power structure and guidelines?

So far all I can see is 100% of users not happy with it.

Silence cannot be taken as agreement.

Most users never stray from the front page. I’m one of them. A thread entitled forum guidelines will not be read by many (I didn’t bother). Hardly anyone looks in meta or off-topic. Most people only look on the front page and for threads that look ‘interesting’.

Why are you guys so scared of having a discussion topic on the front page? What exactly is it that you’re scared of? Until it’s there with a title that actually makes users want to click it and read it, it will not really be read or looked at.

I am quite sure that the majority of users who did hear this debate would want change… all the users who’ve spoken up in this thread want it… where’s your support? Silence does not = support. No one is saying anything because no one really knows the debate is happening.

Besides, as I said, the forum is the 2500 people, the community is the tondas, the team_, the safety1sts and the mods. The community is what is being harmed here, not the forum.

1 Like

No problem. I start here; http://www.revforum.com/misc.php?do=vsarules

All ideological/political threads that are pro-capitalist in any way are moved to the Opposing Views forum by the Moderator(s) of it.

So it seems people are forced to think anti-capitalistic otherwise they’re moved to Opposing Views with their ideas. I don’t feel invited at all to join a discussion to be honest.

They have Basic rules and General Rules and Basic rights for members.

Basic right for members

  1. All members of this community have the right to participate in all aspects of the community. They are allowed to post in all forums, they are allowed to join any open group, they are allowed to become Moderators and Administrators, they are allowed to vote in the Members Forum after 10 posts if they have not been barred (see: Opposing Views, article 1 and 2), they are allowed to use any function that is available to the general membership. This right is not something to be gained or granted - it is the basic right of all members. However, it is a right that can be lost (see: Basic and General Rules).

Emergency Articles

We have seen the community slowly but surely disintegrate over the past weeks. A group of members is systematically abusing their position on the forum to harass both new and old members, sowing discord whenever they can and in the process fostering a hostile, toxic environment. We believe this cannot continue, for if it will, the community will surely perish. In order to save it from this fate, we have gathered together to form a ‘free association of producers’, in accordance with the following articles:

Well, I actually love our simple guidelines. I wanna hug them now :grin:.

And that other forum, well: they are planning as far as I can see. I read their guidelines as they are now:

Each rule is set in an Infraction Tier by default, and but violations of that rule may be downgraded to the tier immediately below the default tier if mitigating factors are present, or upgraded to the tier immediately above if aggravating factors are present.

Seems like quite a study to me. But I would like to see how all their ideas with elections etc work out.

Additionally, whilst we aren’t planning to leave rules changes up to a vote, we are all agreed that we will publicly consult the forum community about any possible rules changes before they take place, so we can gather and act on their feedback (you may have noticed we’re sort of doing this already, hence this post :stuck_out_tongue: ).

Ah, no votes but people can make their voices clear. I miss a meta category, but it seems people are allowed to reply to Temporary forum rules V3. Looks to me they posted a Forum Update and asked people reply to it ;-).

Well, they weren’t presented as proposed guidelines. They were presented as, and I quote, “New Forum Guidelines” and “check out the updated Forum Guidelines for yourself”.

They were up for 48 hours. As @polpolrene keeps pointing out, we have 2500-some users on this forum. He also pointed out that have roughly 150-250 logins per day. So at the absolute maximum, only 1/5 of the members even got to see the topic while it was open for comment.

(By the way, the main problem I have with the whole ‘guidelines’ issue is simply that they didn’t originate with the community. Aside from that, I’m mostly happy with them, although there’s one or two that are way open to interpretation, and I’ve already mentioned the issues above that I’m unhappy about.)

Well, whatever. I’m not really that interested in that, as I already said above. At least, unless that was what the community wanted.

And as I said above, ‘Fair enough’. That’s up to you. I don’t think it was necessary, as there are ways to cool that situation off, but I do support your liberty to make that choice, of course.

I looked this up.
The way Discourse works is that it accumulates views on this basis, 1 per user per ip per day. They’re not unique views, and so it very likely, in fact it certainly, isn’t the case that 539 people have viewed the thread, providing this functionality is still the same.
If you have looked at this topic every day, that’s 8 views (for 8 days). Same for me, same for every other person who’s come here to view the further postings.
So the number of users who viewed this topic could be as low as 67 (unlikely). Also, the 14 users/mod-users who have commented here, could account for a full 112 of those views.

Yes, I think that topic was highly likely to be one that people would read, like and forget, without coming back to it. So it has a much higher chance of having most of it’s 400 views be unique views. More people probably saw it. Because it was on the front page… :wink:

I went to thread and tallied all the votes in favour of your position.
For the overall thread likes, the 20 likes you mentioned, close to a third of them were likes from other moderators. 6/20. So really, it’s 14 likes, right? Because of course you guys liked it, you made it!

Secondly, collectively on that thread, mods received a total of 9 likes for their comments. 4/9 of them, 44%, were from other mods.

Think the figures might be inflated some?

1 Like

As am I, until recently.

Exactly.

I agree, but that’s no worse than here, besides the blatant bias against one politico-economic standpoint. It carries some stigma to be sure. The difference here is that all political speech gets moved out of topic.

I will concede that I wouldn’t feel welcome there either. But then, I feel like my views/expertise are unwelcome on 90% of the active threads here, sooooo…

1 Like

Same for my examples as well.

Yes, maybe a bit. But where are the replies by critical members? If you don’t like something, you can speak out. Look at a topic like pay-the-producer. People jump in quite fast when they don’t agree. And for the other “likes” by critical members, they might be inflated as well. We could argue that some clashed with moderation or where “banned” for several weeks and now vote for all critical topics about moderation. Their number is quite small (total people banned over time <5) but is does bring your inflation as well. Especially in a topic where only a few different people respond.

Haha, seriously? On a forum you get moved to “Opposite Views” when you’re not anti-capitalistic and we are doing things like it as well. Come on, you can’t be serious. That forum is a political forum, they probably move your talk about some software form the frontpage as well. We allow all views on politics in off-topic. No matter if it’s left or right. Show me a Linux Forum where they do allow politic discussions as well.

I can’t help you with that. And I think nobody but you can. I go to other forums as well, quite a number of them. I go to the Ethereum Reddit as well now and then. Have had some great discussions. Even while I’m NOT allowed to talk politics and a lot more there.

This quote is one of the many good qualities I’ve noticed about you @Team_2E16 that I really appreciate. You have a keen ability to route out the source of miscommunication in order to clear and weed it out. You will make an excellent farmer on the SAFE network my friend.

Well said!. Ooooo that gave me chills and that’s what I’m talking about! I hope you can feel my awkwardly long hippy hug. :grin:

All I’m waiting for now is for @tonda, @janitor and @Al_Kafir to come back and join in.

@whiteoutmashups is still here because he (to paraphrase) ‘quit college and left his home in Hawaii to live in SF–out of a van because this is the most important thing in the entire world, economically, politically, etc etc.’

I’m with you @whiteoutmashups. Who else is with us?

If people feel like I have in the past, they are a little afraid to speak up.

I was in that space after I saw some of the more zealous interventions on the part of the moderators in the past. It took me getting to the point of not caring anymore whether I was welcome here in future to speak up. Others don’t like to rock the boat. Others have only seen the blow-ups that occur (including in the update Forum Guidelines thread) and don’t want to ally themselves with people who seem to be overblowing things, and sometimes are. I was also in that group for quite a while, despite my disagreements with the mod actions.

Think about it this way:
It’s politics. How does politics work? Well, when there are two opposing groups, one pushes their viewpoint further one way, and the other pushes them the other way. I’ve seen a small number of very vocal people here have complete meltdowns after mod actions and come out, guns blazing, ready to burn the place to the ground. Who wants to join that team?

It’s a polarisation. The proposal is an attempt to stop that polarisation once and for all.

I think you missed my point. They have a clear bias, and move opposing views into their own special category. I’m not saying it’s equivalent at all.

What I am saying is that instead of getting my personal political views moved into their own special topic (which is awful! I wouldn’t do that to socialists myself, despite my complete disagreement with their positions), I can’t bring political context into a topic that is not expressly political, period. SAFE has political implications, and sometimes, there are strong points of argument that are relevant to the topic being discussed on a feature, for example. Sometimes, the underpinnings of an economic argument are based in political positions, such as the right to private property. Safecoin is affected by economic laws, and so any discussion of safecoin, with changes to the fundamentals (like one user’s push to get rid of the issuance cap and rely on inflation), inevitably leads to the economic argument, and then people ask you to justify that argument. Some of that argument can rest in political theory. And the difference is rather important, if it has a chance of affecting the outcome of the network itself…

I’m not saying we should be able to go off on lengthy side-chains that drag the topic way off course; I just think that some leniency could be given here, rather than a solid ban on posting political opinions/concepts/ideas outside of ‘off-topic’.

Well, generally I haven’t seen opposition from many of the users here in the past with political stuff, besides when it’s got really contentious or long-winded and way, way off-topic.

Different policies would indeed help me. And the moderators have control over those policies, for the time being.

As do I. Safe is such a radical concept with such far-reaching implications that I think it is vital to have the fundamentals right.

The Linux forums (many of them) seem to be filled with arrogant, impatient people who feel the need to constantly berate new people for not knowing where to find information before they ask a question about it. It’s not a nice environment for newbs at all. I don’t see how a Linux forum is equivalent to this. This isn’t what we should aspire to.

Besides, this community has always, since the beginning, had a complete different flavour to the Linux forums.

  • Linux forums are mostly there to provide help on development of the software, or to provide an informational resource for new users, or users dealing with problems.
  • This forum started out with a bang, with a focus on tracking the development of this software, but also with people discussing all sorts of ideas and innovations. Exciting stuff. I feel like the magic is being lost (somewhat), because of restrictions.

Of course, some of those Linux forums are great! But Linux isn’t embedded with a crypto-currency, and it isn’t directly targeted at destroying government spying, but rather it is there partly as an alternative product to Windows, which will be mentioned there, without deletion. Safe and political discussion are strongly linked, so it’s inevitable that political issues will come up.
(Note: I use Linux nearly 99% of the time, and have done for over 16 years. I’m at system admin level in terms of expertise and have participated on Linux forums for as long as I’ve been using Linux.)

1 Like

Well, at least my farm won’t be full of weeds :wink:
Thanks :smile:

1 Like

I’ve seen a lot of them as well. I do know what it’s like. I’m 38, I went to quite some forums myself. Some of them are awful. Like you say, ask one question and you get some sort of warning you need to use search etc. Going to a zillion topics about settings for your BIOS. We ask people to use search as well, but when new folks show up with a simple question about transactions without blockchain they get the right links within half an hour most of the time.

I just wanted to point out that SAFE is quite a technical project as well, but opposed to the Linux Forums and other deep tech stuff, we allow quite some more. I don’t think SAFE is political at all. It’s open tech that might have some political implications as well in the future. But I think the people that use it will make the real change. And they use TOR, Facebook and others as well.

Actually they don’t have a front page at all. Its similar to PHPbb forums that present the categories and you have to enter the category to see the topics. Discourse shows the latest topics on the front page which is where the “front-page” issues arise and the need to have some categories not show their topics on the front page.

And the revolution forum really isn’t all that open with their different set of rules.

And following their system of moderation/administration they have found the disruptive element of the internet are now playing havoc on their forum. They are resorting to paid membership after admitting their system of forum admin is resulting in seeing “the community slowly but surely disintegrate over the past w”

I would have loved to see an actual example of a community forum that has been able to integrate open voting on actions to be taken in place of moderation and forum guidelines. Or one where the guidelines are fully community created.

Unfortunately the second example was for a 2nd tier of moderators with post edit/delete privileges akin to phpBB forums where each category is its own mini forum. Discourse does not work that way but more a complete community forum with sections. And we do not have the capability of 2nd tier moderators. The second example still has its moderators and guidelines for the whole forum. And as you say the voting has yet to be agreed to and implemented, its more a proposal.[quote=“Team_2E16, post:132, topic:8253”]
But I certainly think that we could have one for a period of time during a time when people are able to come in to the topic and weigh in, discuss, propose, agree, disagree and attempt to reach consensus on a set of guidelines that are user-driven.
[/quote]

Maybe a way to achieve this is to have a topic that appears on the front page that points to a series of topic where each guideline & new suggestions are discussed. The topic is pinned so that once a person has read it and been alerted the topics in meta exist then it becomes unpinned as is discourse’s way.

And a forum that went part way to this has experience serious problems and was presented to us as a working example. (see up in my post). Unfortunately this does not fill me with confidence as to the effectiveness of going guideline less till people agree.

Basically the new guidelines were the old ones with a lot of waffle removed, and so notifying it had been cleaned up etc, was the right way. Then people could review it and tell us if we got it wrong. But if it was substantially modified then I can see the problem and would have been done differently. Its been more that people assume and/or read the waffle and interpreted it one way while it was applied all this time another way.

I would appeal to anyone who feels that any of the new guidelines are wrong to start a topic discussing this in the meta category. There is no reason why the community, which the moderators also members of, cannot discuss the issues without ego and using language that divides the community into them and us and using extremes to try and sway others. Good old productive discussions like you are having will see progress.

4 Likes

Exactly!. I see the forum and the SAFE network it represents as a wide ocean in the dead of night with all different kinds of characters and creatures. The community for me is that light house. This is what we are trying to build here before dawn. This smaller group of characters :wink: includes the devs, mods, regulars and currently active non regulars who are soon to be regulars.

As am I. I usually end up here following a friend.

Notice I was one of 20 likes for the guideline which I stand by. That still does not mean that I don’t agree with others that it would have been better coming from the community.

I don’t and have no desire to. Please stop comparing us to other forums. I couldn’t care less about them. Thank you.

Edit: This is not entirely true. I have joined the Safe Exchange and App Store exchanges since this one. But same group of characters non the less with a less strained atmosphere :slight_smile:

“We allow” Do you here how that sound? How about being in a position to say instead ‘We support the communitie’s preference to keep political views off-topic’.

Thank you @neo my man!

To be clear, we are by no means proposing going “guideline less”.

This is our goal and what we are currently working on in PM to post. So stay tuned. :innocent:

2 Likes

Lol! Been there many a time. Doesn’t matter how much experience you have, buy a new mobo and you’ve got issues! USB not working, but network does. Change the setting. Network on, USB broken! Windows conspiracy!

Yes, I think we do this well, and note the very active lead that moderators and other regular members take on this. It works well.

Yes, this is true.

That’s really what I meant, although I think it has some political implications now. Many people who feel that govt spying is a serious threat see Safe as a major part of the solution. I think at this stage, the economics of the network are my focus. It’s crucial that they be balanced and, at the risk of starting yet another disagreement, I’m not entirely sure they are :wink:

1 Like

Quite a good suggestion. Much appreciated. This would of course solve the problem of clutter also, so people don’t have to forever look at it.

Also: To all, our proposal is not to have a permanent topic on the front page, but rather to put up a ‘foundational’ topic where we can set up a discussion (or series of discussions) to achieve this goal. It would be removed once we had gone through this process.

As @Safety1st pointed out, the current proposal is nothing to with removing all guidelines, but building a new set of guidelines (that may closely resemble the current ones) via the community here. I, speaking for myself, think guidelines are very necessary, unless the community was closed to new members. This forum, like most, is ever-changing and will grow strongly soon (I believe!), and so we do need structure for new members to be able to accustom themselves to. I assume we will also have some enemies, as well. (About 70% of people I mention Safe too, say “that’s really frightening”)

I agree that was a good idea, and I also actually think you guys did a pretty good job. There’s some I disagree with, but the biggest issue is that a couple are too general. I think finding the right balance between waffle and generality is a tricky balancing act.

I appreciate that, and wish to extend my hand in an offer of peace, solidarity and friendship to all moderators. If both sides of an argument are willing to converse on the issues, try to see each others viewpoints, be flexible to some extent, and be respectful, we can make this very special place even more special.

And one more note: It should be heartening for you all to hear that the reason that I feel so passionately about the present and future of this place is that, barring one other forum, it is the only forum on the internet that I have been able to engage with so many like-minded, and yet diverse, people in such stimulating, thought-provoking and in-depth discussions. This place has value, and what I personally am railing against is what I see as the slow and gradual erosion of some aspects of what makes/made this place so unique. For me this is indeed about Safe, but it also about so much more than that. I hope we can move forward in positivity, for the good of all of us here who have the community’s best interests at heart.

3 Likes