Life In 19x19

Bantari wrote:I think it is generally a good idea to let the community have input into how a forum is run. Even if this input gets ignored for whatever reason.

I disagree.

Rules should be tried for a while and then set. Once they are set, It can be interesting to have a suggestion box, but that's all. A decision that follows the set rules can't be grounds of rethinking the rules.

Essentially, I don't care about the decision and I'd just rather keep the forum as it is today, and was when we decided to stay in this forum instead of another.

The rules can't be reset every time a very vocal minority starts crying about freedom of speech (as in every other forum). I don't want to have to be involved in every angsty teenager river of tears just to protect a stable and well running forum.

Bantari wrote:I think it is generally a good idea to let the community have input into how a forum is run. Even if this input gets ignored for whatever reason.

I agree. There are basically three reasons that this forum exists.

1) The community needed a new forum
2) Jordus made it for us.
3) A group of people from the community volunteered to run it.

Here we see that the motor for the forum is the community, and by extention, we can say that it is the community in the form of its selected representatives that have made the rules and whose job it is to enforce them. There's no reason that these rules should be interpreted as having been written in stone. Certainly, those responsible have put in a good deal of work and thought into them - but that doesn't mean that the rules couldn't be better. Nor should we assume that those doing the enforcing are infallible.

I think it's fair to say that the mods and admins are all doing their best, and in fact, the forum is still active and thriving so they can't be doing everything wrong, but does that mean that we shouldn't consider improving things. The old adage says: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it," but what do we consider "broke?" Is a few unhappy members "broke?" Probably not. Is it when important contributors no longer post for whatever reason? Maybe.

It's worth mentioning that the fact that it could be better doesn't mean that it couldn't be worse. As much as I disagree with some of the decisions of some of the moderators, I am indeed aware that they are doing their best and I can imagine other people doing their best doing the job worse. I certainly appreciate that those who have volunteered to be moderators have managed to keep the forum a place that I like to visit.

The question is: How to ensure that the forum is being run as well as it can? Disallowing discussion has the advantage of not rocking the boat, but also the disadvantage of preventing good ideas from being presented. Without this brief discussion here for example, the moderators would not have had the opportunity to hear the opinions and ideas of a forum member more experienced in moderation than themselves. And Boidhre is not the only one of us with good ideas.

I think that the forum is us, and although it's silly to talk about changing the rules every time they rub someone the wrong way, it's these conflict situations where we have the opportunity to see if they are working as well as they should. Private conversations are good for private matters, but they seem inadequate for dealing with matters of general interest. I would applaud efforts to include rather than exclude the community in such matters. Whether they be through more transparency, through voting, through discussion or some sort of committee, I believe that we don't need to make the forum members feel that they have no say. After all, we are a discussion forum, aren't we?

daal wrote:Whether they be through more transparency, through voting, through discussion or some sort of committee, I believe that we don't need to make the forum members feel that they have no say. After all, we are a discussion forum, aren't we?

The problem is that the most people who discuss, vote or argue the information given by transparency are those who're unhappy with the current situation. This is not our countries' elections, there is no push towards giving your opinion when you agree with the status quo.

If you ask for a vote about a mod decision you'll get a result biased towards a certain type of forum user. What I'm trying to convey is that I would rather not have the forum rules decided by that certain type of user.

Alguien wrote:

daal wrote:Whether they be through more transparency, through voting, through discussion or some sort of committee, I believe that we don't need to make the forum members feel that they have no say. After all, we are a discussion forum, aren't we?

The problem is that the most people who discuss, vote or argue the information given by transparency are those who're unhappy with the current situation. This is not our countries' elections, there is no push towards giving your opinion when you agree with the status quo.

If you ask for a vote about a mod decision you'll get a result biased towards a certain type of forum user. What I'm trying to convey is that I would rather not have the forum rules decided by that certain type of user.

Nor would I. I'm not saying that everything needs to be on the table all the time, but that if there are ways of including the community - those for whom this forum exists - it would be better to do so as opposed to giving the unhappy members the sense that rogue mods can do whatever they want unchecked. Look at KGS - even BigDoug has gone out of his way to discuss his standpoint on banning.

As Boidhre said, the task is finding a balance.

daal wrote: I'm not saying that everything needs to be on the table all the time, but that if there are ways of including the community - those for whom this forum exists - it would be better to do so as opposed to giving the unhappy members the sense that rogue mods can do whatever they want unchecked. Look at KGS - even BigDoug has gone out of his way to discuss his standpoint on banning.

As Boidhre said, the task is finding a balance.

Would you agree with the following?:

- Decisions shall be "defined". (e.g.: "The guy was banned because he repeatedly broke rule 74 even after being told politely to stop.")
- Decisions shall not be discussed but rules can, with no retroactive effect whatsoever. (e.g.: "rule 74 should be clarified by including the guy's actions as example of unacceptable behavior. Or even, "Rule 74 should be removed; we like people doing what the guy was doing".)

Policy discussions like this would greatly benefit if people could resist the urge to use them to express their gratitude, trust and loyalty to the platform and its admins. Turning policy discussions into a loyalty contest gives them a very unhealthy spin. When open criticism on how things are done is (and can be) published on the platform itself that is the biggest show of trust already.

i have been here for few years and i dont see mods or admins abusing their power.
they are generally fair on their decisions and i dont see any problems with their policy.
they give their valuable time to keep this place in order and they are doing above average job.

if i happens to disagree with their policy then i will write them my issues and if that doesnt get fixed..i will leave.
it is that simple.

PS: i dont know what happened recently but it would be nice to keep such info public since we are all one family.

It's worth recognizing that most of the rules of this community come down to "what will people report" and "what is the judgment of the individual moderator looking at a thread today?" What counts as an interesting theoretical discussion (what I say...) vs. thread derailment (...the things you people do)? Or overtly political posts? When does posting about a go related book or service count as advertising?

I don't mean that it's a bad thing, but the application of the rules we've set for ourselves requires a lot of individual judgment. The only way to avoid that would be to have no rules at all.

hyperpape wrote:When does posting about a go related book or service count as advertising?

For myself, if it is in the announcement section with it's own thread, a go related advertisement would be kosher.
If it's an advertisement on someone else's thread and the post smells like spam, then most likely someone should report it for handling if an admin or mod hasn't noticed it.
If there are reports from members on posts regarding inappropriate advertisement, then that's probably a judgement call for mods and admins whether it should be acted upon.
When someone posts a go related book or service which has relevance to the discussion on a thread, that's probably ok in most cases.

Alguien wrote:A decision that follows the set rules can't be grounds of rethinking the rules.

I couldn't disagree more. Applying a rule in a situation where that leads to a clearly perverse outcome, is an excellent reason to rethink that rule.

Since Jordus abstained from any ownership influence when L19 was founded, this forum is run by the community.
This makes L19 very special and one can't compare it with privately owned forums.
The officials can't claim to represent the will of a "divine" owner, rather they represent the will of the majority of the active community.
L19 is a representative democracy with the advantages and disadvantages of this form of government.

To make the decisive actions made by the officials public, is is no way the same as having every decision open for debate.
The admins decisions would still stand, but the community would be provided with a feedback that I believe is necessary if we want L19 to continue to be an open community run forum.

Joaz says that he wants to handle things privately. If that meant silent diplomacy and ongoing communication I would be all for it...

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

tapir wrote:Policy discussions like this would greatly benefit if people could resist the urge to use them to express their gratitude, trust and loyalty to the platform and its admins. Turning policy discussions into a loyalty contest gives them a very unhealthy spin. ...

As noted in the TOS, if you are unhappy with another member's post, you should contact an admin. We're here to help.

Insane wrote:Since Jordus abstained from any ownership influence when L19 was founded,..

This is not even close to being true. Jordus merely abstains from daily influence. But everything that happens here happens the way he wants it. And when things don't happen as he wants, he steps it and commands that things be changed. When that happens, we admins/mods do exactly as he says or we offer our resignation.

You might not see him. You aren't privy to the commands. But don't let that lead you into false assumptions. It still it private propery and Jordus still owns it. And he is the final arbiter.

Joaz Banbeck wrote:This is not even close to being true. Jordus merely abstains from daily influence. But everything that happens here happens the way he wants it. And when things don't happen as he wants, he steps it and commands that things be changed. When that happens, we admins/mods do exactly as he says or we offer our resignation.

You might not see him. You aren't privy to the commands. But don't let that lead you into false assumptions. It still it private propery and Jordus still owns it. And he is the final arbiter.

This is crazy making. When L19 was being created, the refrain was "community, community, community."

• http://senseis.xmp.net/?ReplacingGoDiscussions
• http://lifein19x19.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=59
• viewtopic.php?f=14&t=64&start=20

Maybe there's some kind of point when everything changed, and we said "Jordus does whatever the heck he wants to, when he wants to", but I can't find anything hinting at that in the early discussions.

I get that legally, Lifein19x19.com is a domain name that is registered by Jordus, as an individual, that requests go to a server (or shared hosting) for which Jordus is the customer of some hosting company. Legally, these are the only things that give anyone (namely Jordus) any rights. My point is about how we view this forum in a nonlegal sense.

Let me be clear: I have few if any points that I would like to complain about concerning the administration of this forum, and can't remember any time I have had any complaint with Jordus in particular. This is not a vote of no confidence. But I do want to know how things work.

I think now would be a reasonable time to point out that although Jordus legally owns L19, it is paid for by the community. I would argue that this does give him some responsibility to respect the wishes of the users.

That being said, the current system is pretty good, generally speaking