Forum Access Changes

More
19 Oct 2014 16:01 #165009 by Akkarin
Replied by Akkarin on topic Forum Access Changes
In the last few months there has been a lot of, sometimes heated, discussion going on in the Temple and (though I haven't received any messages directly) people have said that some members feel uncomfortable or worried about posting their thoughts in what should be a friendly and productive environment.

We are a very accommodating place of learning and discussions, but as an organisation the needs of our members have to come first. We probably haven't nipped things in the bud as much as we ought to so sometimes things have gotten out of control, this is a way of restoring some control and building confidence.

The problem is, and please I really don't want to offend people here I am just stating it as a matter of history, in recent history it has been people who's rank bars are "Guest" that seem to be at the cause, or near the centre, of much of the disruption. This sort of decision isn't just made off hand, in fact it has taken several weeks to sort it all out! lol.

We aren't preventing Guests from contributing, just from being able to post in two particular places, the rest of the forum is still just as open to Guests as it was before.

This isn't about "worthy" or "un-worthy", and Gisteron was just using a metaphor, this is about disruption vs reducing disruption.

In my opinion I like the name "Visitor's/Guest's Lounge", it is different to General Discussion and shouldn't portray that sense of VIP.

"If a tree falls in the woods and no one's around to hear it except for one man, but the tree falls on that man and kills him, does the man dying make a sound?" - Jon Lajoie

Apprentice: Desolous , Xaii
Master: Br. John
The following user(s) said Thank You: Jestor, Gisteron, user15542, Jamie Stick, Puerh

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
19 Oct 2014 16:03 #165011 by Trisskar
Replied by Trisskar on topic Forum Access Changes

Jestor wrote: When you look at things "in black and white",as in "worthy and unworthy", i can see how that might appear to be the case...


I do not wish to poke my nose into this anymore than is appropriate. :laugh: However as an outside observer and subject to said outside conversations and view points with many many others "Looking In"....I feel it is wise to always keep the "Black and White" in mind. Intentions are rarely seen without deeper investigation, it is what the "Cover" looks like...and the "Cover" often is portrayed in the "Black and White" format expressed.

Just something to keep in mind...."First Impressions" and all *bows*
The following user(s) said Thank You: Br. John, Jestor

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
19 Oct 2014 17:43 #165022 by Jestor
Replied by Jestor on topic Forum Access Changes

Kitsu Tails wrote:

Jestor wrote: When you look at things "in black and white",as in "worthy and unworthy", i can see how that might appear to be the case...


I do not wish to poke my nose into this anymore than is appropriate. :laugh: However as an outside observer and subject to said outside conversations and view points with many many others "Looking In"....I feel it is wise to always keep the "Black and White" in mind. Intentions are rarely seen without deeper investigation, it is what the "Cover" looks like...and the "Cover" often is portrayed in the "Black and White" format expressed.

Just something to keep in mind...."First Impressions" and all *bows*


Of course, first level of understanding being "black and white"...

Anyone who judges the book by the cover is likely missing out...

Thank you for your input...:)

Sith ain't Evil...
Jedi ain't Saints....


"Bake or bake not. There is no fry" - Sean Ching


Rite: PureLand
TOTJO Council
Master: Jasper_Ward
Current Apprentices: Viskhard, DanWerts, Llama Su, Trisskar
Former Apprentices: Knight Learn_To_Know, Knight Edan, Knight Brenna, Knight Madhatter

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
19 Oct 2014 18:18 #165028 by Jamie Stick
Replied by Jamie Stick on topic Forum Access Changes
I understand and agree with the changes, but I am also sad that it has come to this.

Could we perhaps change the non-members general discussion to something more positive sounding? Like, "Guest Hangout" and in the description say that it is place for general discussion topics?
The following user(s) said Thank You: Akkarin, Alan, Exarchias

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
19 Oct 2014 18:59 - 19 Oct 2014 19:00 #165040 by Gisteron
Replied by Gisteron on topic Forum Access Changes
Consider the simple oath and imagine the following scenario:

Let's say you have somebody reasonably new to TOTJO, who has reservations when it comes to certain parts in the doctrine. That person cannot choose the Jedi path "without reservation", can she? She might not be comfortable "professing her allegiance to the Force" and may not be willing to do her "utmost to uphold the Jedi teachings" as they are presented and defined in the doctrine. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can tell the least of you actually have absolutely no reservations when it comes to that doctrine, whether that was so from the start or you changed and grew as a person during your time here. You no longer think about it, but a newcomer has to. They are told that the oath has "a sacred and legal character" and that to fulfill it is a "serious obligation".

As you see, this hypothetical person is as much a Jedi as any veteran Jedi Master here and has the potential to contribute to the growth and development of the entire community. What she says may be perfectly benign even in the most controversial of topics. Her contributions to the Jediism subforum may be invaluable to both you and the novices as they follow what you write. The amount by which that person has doubt about the doctrine is in no way higher than the amount by which you do yourself. Yet, because of the description of the oath and its wording, this person would either have to stay out of the discussion as her rank grants it not, despite being as worthy as those who have the opportunity, or to lie to the community about the way she feels about the doctrine, just so she can expose what she really thinks once she has access to the subforum.

Change #2, about guests standing the test before their contributions become unsupervised is fairly reasonable, given the mere nature of the internet, but our hypothetical guest Jedi stands the test and still must either choose to be less than perfectly honest with her fellow Jedi or accept that there are large active subsets of the forum that she will be able to read but not to add anything to.

If this scenario is undesirable, a few ways of resolving it are an option:
- To change the text and description of the oath to something that will make it a mere formality with no meaning outside of the checklist of requirements, or
- to add a second "trusted" flag to the account that will allow the hypothetical person to participate without taking the oath, or
- to dedicate a subforum to sensitive matters while leaving General Discussion and Jediism accessible for participation, or
- to add a boolean "sensitive" property to the topics class, either chosen by OP or later on switched by a moderator, to make it either unaccessible to guests or to display a reminder to behave and a warning of heated content, or
- make subforums participation in which is impossible to the user also invisible to her, or
- encourage guests to message higher ranking members with comments on a threads or on comments within the threads, free to quote at the recipient's discretion, or
- [the list goes on]

Now, these are only a few suggestions none of which I request or ask to consider. What I do ask to consider however is the hypothetical scenario in the beginning of my post. I understand that forum management and balance maintenance is not an easy task and having little to no experience in this field myself I am in no position to offer recommendations. Something tells me that as it is now things are less than ideal, and that is all I wish to express leaving the final judgement to those ultimately in charge.

Last edit: 19 Oct 2014 19:00 by Gisteron.
The following user(s) said Thank You: steamboat28, Trisskar, elizabeth, Edan, SeventhSL, Revan Falton, Puerh

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
19 Oct 2014 19:16 #165042 by user15542
Replied by user15542 on topic Forum Access Changes
The positioning of the Simple Oath is already in discussion.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
19 Oct 2014 19:22 #165044 by Akkarin
Replied by Akkarin on topic Forum Access Changes

tzb wrote: The positioning of the Simple Oath is already in discussion.


Lol I was going to say something on the lines of "There have been murmurs of changes to the Oath", because it is generally better not to mention something until we are sure that something is a definite.

Yes people have mentioned the moving of the Simple Oath, and it is something that is being considered in Council. Your concerns are valid Gisteron.

"If a tree falls in the woods and no one's around to hear it except for one man, but the tree falls on that man and kills him, does the man dying make a sound?" - Jon Lajoie

Apprentice: Desolous , Xaii
Master: Br. John
The following user(s) said Thank You: Gisteron

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
19 Oct 2014 19:35 #165047 by Revan Falton
Replied by Revan Falton on topic Forum Access Changes

Gisteron wrote: Consider the simple oath and imagine the following scenario:

Let's say you have somebody reasonably new to TOTJO, who has reservations when it comes to certain parts in the doctrine. That person cannot choose the Jedi path "without reservation", can she? She might not be comfortable "professing her allegiance to the Force" and may not be willing to do her "utmost to uphold the Jedi teachings" as they are presented and defined in the doctrine. Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I can tell the least of you actually have absolutely no reservations when it comes to that doctrine, whether that was so from the start or you changed and grew as a person during your time here. You no longer think about it, but a newcomer has to. They are told that the oath has "a sacred and legal character" and that to fulfill it is a "serious obligation".

As you see, this hypothetical person is as much a Jedi as any veteran Jedi Master here and has the potential to contribute to the growth and development of the entire community. What she says may be perfectly benign even in the most controversial of topics. Her contributions to the Jediism subforum may be invaluable to both you and the novices as they follow what you write. The amount by which that person has doubt about the doctrine is in no way higher than the amount by which you do yourself. Yet, because of the description of the oath and its wording, this person would either have to stay out of the discussion as her rank grants it not, despite being as worthy as those who have the opportunity, or to lie to the community about the way she feels about the doctrine, just so she can expose what she really thinks once she has access to the subforum.

Change #2, about guests standing the test before their contributions become unsupervised is fairly reasonable, given the mere nature of the internet, but our hypothetical guest Jedi stands the test and still must either choose to be less than perfectly honest with her fellow Jedi or accept that there are large active subsets of the forum that she will be able to read but not to add anything to.

If this scenario is undesirable, a few ways of resolving it are an option:
- To change the text and description of the oath to something that will make it a mere formality with no meaning outside of the checklist of requirements, or
- to add a second "trusted" flag to the account that will allow the hypothetical person to participate without taking the oath, or
- to dedicate a subforum to sensitive matters while leaving General Discussion and Jediism accessible for participation, or
- to add a boolean "sensitive" property to the topics class, either chosen by OP or later on switched by a moderator, to make it either unaccessible to guests or to display a reminder to behave and a warning of heated content, or
- make subforums participation in which is impossible to the user also invisible to her, or
- encourage guests to message higher ranking members with comments on a threads or on comments within the threads, free to quote at the recipient's discretion, or
- [the list goes on]

Now, these are only a few suggestions none of which I request or ask to consider. What I do ask to consider however is the hypothetical scenario in the beginning of my post. I understand that forum management and balance maintenance is not an easy task and having little to no experience in this field myself I am in no position to offer recommendations. Something tells me that as it is now things are less than ideal, and that is all I wish to express leaving the final judgement to those ultimately in charge.


I can see your point, though me personally, I never made an account until I was sure I knew enough of the views, structure, teachings etc to determine if I wanted to become part of the organization. I even read a lot of the teaching material in the IP BEFORE creating an account here, to get a better understand of the views etc held here. Now granted, this is what I personally did, I know of some people who created an account, and THEN researched the doctrine etc before doing the Oath. My point being is, I do not see how the ability to post or not post could hinder a person from committing to it, when the most important part of the belief system is accessible to everyone, even people without accounts here.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
19 Oct 2014 20:13 - 19 Oct 2014 20:27 #165051 by elizabeth
Replied by elizabeth on topic Forum Access Changes
I don't agree with cutting guests of from posting. While I think keeping a closer eye on topics and stepping in sooner would help stop some of what's been happening, it's not just guests that have caused problems. They may begin with an attitude but members here have joined in. We are all guilty of causing unrest lately, me included.
It's ironic that Totjo is known as an open community and we are creating a us and them attitude.
I'm sorry and I understand where this decision has come from but I think it is maybe too much. More control over posts is in my opinion a better way.

Plus I learn from guests just as much as I learn from members here

I never loose.


TM Karn
Last edit: 19 Oct 2014 20:27 by elizabeth. Reason: Forgot something
The following user(s) said Thank You: Jestor, Edan, SeventhSL

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
19 Oct 2014 20:13 #165052 by Khaos
Replied by Khaos on topic Forum Access Changes

I can see your point, though me personally, I never made an account until I was sure I knew enough of the views, structure, teachings etc to determine if I wanted to become part of the organization. I even read a lot of the teaching material in the IP BEFORE creating an account here, to get a better understand of the views etc held here. Now granted, this is what I personally did, I know of some people who created an account, and THEN researched the doctrine etc before doing the Oath. My point being is, I do not see how the ability to post or not post could hinder a person from committing to it, when the most important part of the belief system is accessible to everyone, even people without accounts here.


I am not a Jedi. Hence I do not seek to take the oath, or become a member, though I have been a regular poster for some time now.

However, due to my guest status, and I imagine my personality, my access is now restricted.

Hugs and Kisses.
~Khaos~

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.