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.
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.
It’s all 100% community which is great. There will be bumps in the road, I believe the mods do a huge job and yes be great to pay them for their effort if we had cash and if it was not seen as a MaidSafe takeover of a community thing
I have tried many many things to make everyone equal in the company which is similar and I know 100% it’s excruciatingly hard to hold on sometimes and stick hard to the road to help everyone, sometimes even as they make amazing accusations. I have had investors try and take over a company, managers try and kill a company (so they get government 3 month payout for redundancy), people demand shares, people demand to be board members, staff accuse me of all sorts of things, all while I have been head down trying with all my effort to make the project work and let everyone benefit. Even in MaidSafe there have been some crazy accusations that would hurt like hell if I could not see them as a person crying for help via lashing out. These are people who did not fit and that is also cool. It all happens when you are not paying attention to peoples feelings and instead getting the job done, some folks need a lot of time and talking, others don’t so when there is a lot to do and work to be done folk feel scared and left out. Every team sees this, every single one and I think every community will, except communities sometimes attract destructive influences that only want destruction, so it’s amplified. I don’t think we have seen that here yet, but we will.
Maybe the forum will have to split at some stage to an app/developer/SAFE specific one and maybe a more general purpose one, I don’t know, but I know the software here is not sentient and needs humans right now. I think we have an amazing bunch and I don’t agree with anyone all the time either, but that is what makes it great.
I for one cannot thank the mods enough so far and having come through slashdot/reddit/bitcointalk even I fully understand how these things can get killed and I am also acutely aware there are folk employed to kill such places. Lets all be stronger than that, I am pretty sure we are and as communities evolve then who knows, we may have the first forum that breaks through.
@Al_Kafir made his points clear in another topic. Here’s the quote:
I replied to all f them. Here’s the link. Others where free to reply as well. And a number of members and mods did. So to make all these points again and again in different topics is not good for the discussion IMHO. More like posting the same opinion over and over again in different topics.
No, I’m pretty clear and think I have been pretty clear too
Let’s just keep it to what I have posted, because I can’t answer for Warren and we’re not in agreement on everything…lol. Yes I questioned how much deliberation went into removing the meta category (as it appeared to be done rather quickly) I also quoted a “nope” given immediately as an answer from another mod to a request I made. These are reasonable questions with reasonable grounds for inquiring further.
Look, by framing it as “Why don’t you trust mods/individuals etc” really is missing the point. You may as well ask DIrvine who he doesn’t trust to come up with a trustless Network - it’s the same reasoning. We shouldn’t have to trust individuals insofar as that is possible. Mods need more legitimacy for the positions they hold - they can only get that from the Community, not other mods - do you get me?
I’ll ask you the same simple question I asked Polpolrene - why was the meta category moved. Be careful here… …you know me…
I believe it is yes and no. Originally both were @David’s, but MaidSafe began paying for hosting very early, and when @David ducked out, I think the domain was taken over by @frabrunelle. The “official” position though is that it is not owned by MaidSafe, just supported, and that it belongs to the community at least in spirit though legally an individual owns the domain (maybe @frabrunelle).
To decentralise control I think @ioptio is the main admin though, along with @frabrunelle who actually does the work AFAIK.
Hopefully they will correct anything I’ve got wrong here!
I believe it needs to be specific enough to be voted on. That can be a suggestion with a request for feedback to make it something to vote on. But what @Al_Kafir has done is said what he wants, and left it there, with the implication he thinks we mods should then do what he has proposed. Because? That’s where I’m stuck!
So I’m asking @Al_Kafir, and/or @Warren and/or anyone who wants the mods to do something, to go through that process, and not just expect us to address a shopping list, or act on a particular item in it, without demonstrating support from the community for what is to be changed, and how it is to be changed.
@Al_Kafir I explained I don’t know why you are not doing that, but you have chosen not to address that. Fair enough, but you now know I’m not going to do what you want just because you keep repeating the same points. That’s not helping anyone.
We’re going round in circles, and I explained several times now why I don’t think there’s anything I or the team can do to take this forward. The ball is in your court, and it’s time to do something different if you really want something to change. You obviously believe it’s important, so come on! I’d actually appreciate it, really, even though I disagree - you might well be right. Let’s find out.
I asked you and you linked to a different non-answer, I asked Happybeing and now see his post - hardly over and over…
There wasn’t an off-topic previously was there? I thought this came about because I lobbied long and hard to have all the topics removed that were “blotting out” discussion of the Safe Network itself - in the face of massive opposition from mods as I recall. So could you please explain how discussions about the Network forum are “blotting out” discussions about the Network more than all the ridiculous threads we used to have everywhere?
Are you saying that you had to do it there and then, not earlier and not after discussion had finished, but during it? Did you not during your deliberations think this needed community support first or that there would be any objections?
You moved an ongoing conversation concerning modding to a place where it would have a much smaller community audience - effectively shutting it off.
If by your own admission the meta category is hardly used then why not wait for the discussion to just die/end?
What exactly in that discussion was any more “blotting out” than numerous other threads?
The meta category by your own admission would not normally “blot out” conversation about the Network (as hardly used) so we can definitely 100% infer from that that it was something to do with that particular discussion why the topic was removed. Otherwise, with all the careful consideration the mods put into things, the topic category would have been removed a long time ago.
All the circumstantial evidence would point to an unconsidered and knee-jerk reaction in my view.
Lol…I’m addressing the community, not the mods…this is the major bit none of you get…lol
Actually meta issues are not at all related to the network, they are only related to the forum and that´s mostly relevant to (active) members, not to the people who are just checking in to read about SAFE.
Let´s be clear, what you are implying is that moderators were moving the topics away from the frontpage because they disliked the opinions, when moderators justify the action with the functionality of the forum. Apparently you want moderators to admit that you are right. But what if you´re not? I don´t see how further discussion will solve this conflict.
I’m saying the circumstances and timing under which it was moved could certainly give that impression. Just that fact alone indicates to me that possible community objections and “how it looks” were not given due consideration, which suggests a knee-jerk reaction…to something.
Anyway, aren’t we now “blotting out” more Network conversation here?
If meta is now considered to be off-topic and treated as such, then why wasn’t it placed in off-topic? Is meta off-topic or not?
I think ‘meta’ is technically off-topic but not part of the category ‘off-topic’. On-topic ‘meta’ would be if this forum was hosted on SAFE.
@Al_Kafir I wasn’t following when the actual change happened but I highly doubt it was a reaction to censor a specific thread.
For the record, yes… I’m technically an admin along with @frabrunelle but he does all the work… I guess I’m just back up in case he goes rogue.
And also for the record, hiding non-SAFE network related discussions that are cluttering the front page makes sense. I voted for hiding off-topic when we originally decided to do that and I also support this decision. Perhaps it’s worth mentioning the fact that both off-topic and meta are hidden in the welcome post? That way, the people who are more interested in joining the community will probably check that post out and see that they exist while others just passing through looking for an answer or whatever won’t be distracted/turned off by meta/off-topic threads.
Preciously few of the community seem to be interested in these discussions, it’s almost only mods in here and dirvine because he was tagged. I agree with the idea that when there are concerns about moderation and mods, that the community should speak up (so far I don’t see community-wide concerns though).
To me it seems that some moderators are putting far too much time and energy into these discussions. You’ll burn yourselves out if you’re not careful. I suggest to only fully engage such discussions after there is broad demand for them. There’s no way we (as in the community) will get unanimous consensus on exactly what this forum should be and how it should look. I said before that I personally wouldn’t mind additional categories (Politics, Philosophy, etc) but the consensus seems to be that this forum is meant to be a landing page for people looking for information or help concerning SAFE. Then it’s logical that anything that’s not closely related to SAFE doesn’t belong on the main page.
There is the issue of what is right aside from current community interest.
Had more time to reflect. I think the site in its highest and best form and most contributing function is as a never ending brain storming session for the tech and the adaptive social response related to the tech and spreading privacy, security and freedom.
A possible way to get at currated conciseness but retain the tangents crucial to brainstorming may be a culture where posters who don’t mind doing so simply summerize threads at various points as the thread develops. This would complement the summary of thread function. Those summaries might be highlighted and there might be an easy way to tab among them. Presumably there will be a diversity of people creating these waypoint summaries across the progression of the thread so it will be easy enough to go back and check the papertrail of way points for consistency without getting lost in the tangents that people need to move their cognitive process along to progress the thread.
In this way we get both concise informational summaries satisfying the mod info curation goal and eliminate the need to police on topic. Maybe at the head of the thread the various waypoints would be clickable and maybe in the most recent there would be a “take me to the most recent way point.”
Now if people want to go tangential in text highlighted as a summary, well that would be pushing it. But even here the best response might be to withhold the tabbing link pending clarification. And of course there may be disagreements on the proper summary. But successive summaries would not pro con viewpoints and the bifurcation of analysis.
I’m talking the reasons given for removing the whole category was because it was not “on-topic” of the Network, ergo it is considered"off-topic" for which we already have a category. - But this is apparently a special case of off-topic for some reason, so there’s a recognition I think that it isn’t really off-topic. This decision seems to just cause more problems for mods who will now have to remove any posts that are about the running/structure of the forum to “meta”.
I’m not getting how any of this helps new users in any way, certainly with navigation. I still totally disagree that the meta category “blots out” anything. For a start it is hardly ever used. It’s either a topic worthy of being discussed in front of all the community on the front page, or it’s off-topic as far as I can see.
Why not just re describe off-topic as Philosophy/politics etc and any ideas or suggestions about how the forum could be improved and remove the meta category altogether?.
Sorry @Al_Kafir but this is getting silly. @happybeing wrote precisely why it has been moved, you´re just trying to make this a black-white thing. There is a clear difference between what has been discussed in Off-Topic and what was discussed in Meta - that doesn´t change the fact that Meta “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”. Anyway, I think everything has been said. I´m off.