My post was simply an addition to your topic, to show where the annoucement was made.
So where should important community announcements be made then in your opinion? Out of plain sight?
Important community announcements can still be made by using a banner for example. People are also still able to read everything on meta and will also be notified in unread (new message in an existing thread)/new(newtopic in ‘meta’) when they enter the forum.
The Community category is a great place to share community updates.
Thanks @Al_Kafir, this did need a more prominent announcement IMO. I added some explanation too:
Moving Meta Discussions
Meta is for established members to discuss forum issues. It probably should never have been on the front page, but had been relatively quiet for so long it wasn’t previously an issue.
We moved meta from the front page because (as with off topic previously) it was blotting out anything about the network itself - which would not help new visitors find what they want, or anyone returning to catch up with what’s happening with SAFEnetwork.
This is primarily a place for people to learn about and discuss SAFEnetwork, so regardless of meta discussions, off topic and anything else, as moderators we continue to make that our priority.
We didn’t do it to stop discussion - and clearly that continues. Yes it makes these things less prominent, so it’s a compromise.
Of the frontpage is fine for a lot of discussions. I have great replies/debates over there with Warren and Jannitor and others. Including humor, stockcharts, arguments, counter-arguments etc. I’m very happy we allow these discussions here on the forum, even if you need a extra click before you get there. I mentioned a discussion about moderation in the last Forum Update. Here’s what I said:
I included the link to the topic for everyone to join. After that we had other topics about moderation:
- “On topic” citations should stop"
- “Let the Users decide if something is off topic not the mods!”
- “Proposal: Simplify Moderation, Accept it or Vote on it”
- “Request for consistent moderation towards reasoned arguments”
Name me one forum where mods replied to so many requests in so many different topics about moderation. But this is us, we’re always open to debate. But you need an extra click to get there. The frontpage is used for Project SAFE. We’re growing 133% faster when it comes to new users than 30 days ago. So that’s a lot of new people on our frontpage .
Don’t move threads to off topic becomes don’t move whole categories off the front page. Something is wrong.
Warren, it was done because visitors see the front page when they visit the forum. Clutter was one of the main reason, and its one of the reasons for categories - to reduce clutter. A few categories show on the front page and other ones are not. The meta category is not part of the central forum, but rather a category about the forum itself.
Many forum programs only show the categories on the front page. Discourse allows a selection of new posts to show on the front page and the categories are accessed from a pull down list.
If you honestly feel that the community wants meta back on the front page rather than a click away, then do a Poll and let us all see if the community supports (or not) the community members who suggested it, which the forum admin agreed was a good idea.
This. Right here. This.
It´s obviously meta, but you already know that, right? TBH I think your understanding of this forum as " a place for people to learn about and discuss SAFEnetwork" to quote @happybeing goes more into a club-house-like format. Certainly a nice and cosy place, but not at all feasible as a source that provides all sort of user (particularly readers, new users and occasional users) with relevant information.
No that’s not even credible on its face. It was simply a retalitory, punishment oriented act against criticism. Had nothing at all to do with clutter. Also hypocritical.
If you want to have a vote about which mods to remove, that’s fine. It would belong on the front page. But some stuff is just ethically obvious stuff, and you just do the right thing.
Some tech is the furthest thing from politically neutral. That is the case with SAFE. Its utility comes from making certain types of abuse impractical. And yet we hear from some posting on the forums that politics is irrelevant noise. And some conservative mods treat political stuff as off topic because it doesn’t fit their immature world view. This is SAFE, we don’t need fear based ideology censoring stuff. We have the sponsored media already doing unlimited danage, the site that describes this radically liberating tech should not be shill based.
It may be a place to ask questions about SAFE, but its not a lawn with a housing association making sure it meets standards. Its not a pamphlet. Its not a PR effort. Its a movement and a conversation.
There are some good kinds of conservatism, but the site is now moving in the direction of stupid conservatism. Might as well rename it “friends of the mods”. The insularity has to be reversed. Its in need of some transparency. I am hoping after launch David Irvine will take notice and clean it up or just shut it down. There are Seneca(s) out there who will re-launch. Blindsite already took a shot.
Can you hear yourself @Warren? We mods work very hard to keep this forum a useful support resource for the SAFEnetwork project and to find ways of ensuring we listen to and reflect the broad consensus of the community. And now, flying in the face of free speech, you say you want to shut the forum down.
Watching this is very hard, as someone who is very committed to the project, and works hard to ensure this forum is vibrant, inclusive, and supportive of the project. I’m part of a diverse team who “share the same attitudes” - in that respect - and who do a very difficult job well IMO.
I’m really surprised to see you and @Al_Kafir are unable to see that, as such longstanding members who must know myself and several of the mod team well by now. Maybe take a step back and take a look at the list of people you are accusing?
So I’m quite shocked to see you both show so much distrust and negativity, and cynical questioning of our values and integrity like this. Obviously I have got to know these people better than you will because I work with them most days, but I’m sure you know one or two of us well enough to wonder how can what you say be so, or even how might it affect them?
We are not perfect. We do get things wrong, we certainly infringe the guidelines ourselves (well I do as I admit it when I realise). But we are committed to the project, and we work very hard in the ways I’ve explained to create the best forum we can.
I’m very sad reading the repeated criticism from you, but the fact a small number of people want to criticise but are unwilling to put their complaints to the community and have them tested, means you are stuck with this until someone does so.
So, with respect, put up or shut up, please, for the sake of the project. I do trust that you are a supporter of the project, so am hopeful you can hear this request, and understand that, that is my motive for making it. This is not censorship, it’s a request that you make something happen because at this time we need to get behind the project. And that is what most of us here are here for.
Whoa…you culled the first part of Warren’s sentence to suggest a different intention.
@Warren clearly indicated his preferred wish for DIrvine to “clean it up”, failing this to shut it down (and start again is my reading). Warren in no way stated he wanted to shut down free speech.
This is the kind of thing I’m on about…it’s yet another straw man!
My arguments are on principle and it’s not personal - I said this when I spoke to you and all other mods. I could turn your statement around and ask why do you not trust/believe me?
It is (some) mods who keep trying to make this personal. Why not just address the arguments - my experience has been that whatever I’m arguing is “taken” as personal and often arguments are mis-represented, dishonest arguments made etc. This can be supported by evidence.
I do know you, yes…and you know me…do you think I’m just totally talking out of my arse or saying what I say for any other reason than that I have serious concerns about the structure of the forum because of the potential inherent dangers. My preference would be for mods to take my concerns seriously, address them, put measures in place in regard to mod recruitment/website ownership and address where modding is falling short ie - get on the ball with the “reasoned argument” bit - this is a potentially disastrous thing to ignore and to actually engage in it as a mod raises different concerns and leaves yourselves open to not only accusations, but will lose the mods credibility - same thing with the recruitment process.
I feel your hurt feelings and it upsets me a bit…it’s not about that. If anything it’s the opposite intention - sort it out, take me seriously and we can all move on.
I have one simple question to ask and would like a clear answer please from the mods:
“Why was the Meta category moved?”
That’s done in several topics:
“On topic” citations should stop"
“Let the Users decide if something is off topic not the mods!”
“Proposal: Simplify Moderation, Accept it or Vote on it”
“Request for consistent moderation towards reasoned arguments”
You got a lot of arguments and opinion from almost all mods.
Yup, that’s already done in the topics above. You got a lot of replies to all the points you made.
This was answered before. You replied on it:
No, I quoted the whole sentence, but just the part of the paragraph I was responding to.
My arguments are on principle and it’s not personal - I said this when I spoke to you and all other mods.
I didn’t say it was personal. I didn’t say I don’t trust you either, or disbelieve you. I said what I said. If any of it needs clarifying, let me know, because most disagreements are I think about mistrust and misunderstandings that arise out of it.
It is my understanding from things you and @Warren have posted, that you don’t trust the mods are doing what we say we are (you recently questioned my explanation of how we deliberate for example) or that we are genuinely trying to reflect the community’s wishes, with regard to how we do what we do. I don’t understand why that’s the case, as I explained.
I do know you, yes…and you know me…do you think I’m just totally talking out of my arse or saying what I say for any other reason than that I have serious concerns about the structure of the forum because of the potential inherent dangers.
As I said above, I’m very surprised, even shocked. Also, I don’t have an explanation for you not being willing to accept the existing process and yet, still not be willing to seek support from the community to make changes you believe are necessary. That’s what I would do. I accept you and I differ in this respect, but I really don’t know how to address your issues, without finding out if the community wants the changes you feel are necessary.
I’m not actually clear what you want changed - I could speculate you might want mods elected, or even no moderation, but I’m not sure, and I’m not sure if you and @Warren even want the same kind of changes. And what of others’ views?
My preference would be for mods to take my concerns seriously, address them, put measures in place in regard to mod recruitment/website ownership and address where modding is falling short ie - get on the ball with the “reasoned argument” bit - this is a potentially disastrous thing to ignore and to actually engage in it as a mod raises different concerns and leaves yourselves open to not only accusations, but will lose the mods credibility - same thing with the recruitment process.
Ok, so this is where we are. This is what you want doing, but firstly, I don’t agree with everything you say here and I don’t know how many people do agree, disagree, or don’t have a view.
So this is what I think you need to do: work out and propose - yourself or in discussion as you wish - what changes would address these issues. This needs to be specific IMO so people can ask about them, what X means, why, what might work, or not etc, and refine if necessary, and then take a vote.
I guess you have some objection or problem with doing that, because you haven’t done it, but your alternative (which I quoted above) is not sufficient for me to make those kinds of changes for the reasons I’ve given.
Not reasoned arguments in the main and I wasn’t particularly interested in the mods opinion.
It was not answered there unless the answer was because the mods thought it was “a good idea” - was that it…seriously… I’m now getting bored of this now tbh. It’s a very simple question.
So what was his statement about then in your opinion, just out of interest? I don´t think it was about shutting down free speech either, but certainly it was about addressing one person having a special authority about content, isn´t it?
And what does @dirvine think about the forum? Does he think as well that mods are hypocritical and do not provide any transparency? Does he believe that this forums needs to be “cleaned up”? I think a statement could help to put these discussions to rest?
Just one question to @moderators since I lack of knowledge about that: who pays for the forum and who is the legal host of the domain. It´s not Maidsafe, is it?
That’s the only point that matters here - so why make out it was?
It was about re-structuring the forum, issues around Community input to mod recruitment (to avoid any potential accusations of “clique” forming behaviour and to give legitimacy to the authority given to mods). You would have to ask Warren about what his reason for accusations of hypocrisy, but in my own view it would be because mods do all the same transgressions as they are judging others on.
That’s part of it, yes and leads on to the structure aspect about website/forum ownership etc.
Is that a good idea at this point? It would be a possible distraction from important work I think. Maybe we should thrash this out some more first, then as suggested, the Community can come up with ways to address the identified issues and come up with a proposal to vote on. Nothing to do with guidelines though.
That’s one of the issues
Ehm, I wasn´t so why make out I was? Would you mind talking to me when i am talking to you? Thank you.
more precisely…restructuring the forum by the ideas of one man (who - as far as I see - has pretty much no increased interest in doing so).
YES, it is. Normally I wouldn´t say so, but @dirvine and his SAFE philosophy have been quoted as argumentum ad autoritatis several times, so, yes, it would be a good idea.
What does that even mean? “The Community” won´t come up with anything. Only individuals will come up with something and until now I didn´t see any concrete proposal. Unless you, @Warren or whoever thinks that stuff is handled badly by the moderators come up with some concrete proposal that either forum members can vote on (pretty problematic due to ghost accounts) or the administrators can decide about it´s just talk.
You said it was Maidsafe, may I ask you for your sources? I came late to this forum so I may have missed it.