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.

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*

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...

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?

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.

The positioning of the Simple Oath is already in discussion.

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.

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.

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 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.

An example is the "No Offense" thread. Yesterday, I could post in t. Today, I cant, even though my post was responded to.

Freedom to post and discuss topics is not restricted anymore than it was before the change. Everybody is free to post in the new discussion forum all they want. Recent hot topics can (and may) be easily moved over to the new forum by a moderator for our active guests to resume discussion.

Keep in mind, there are other forums that are not even seen unless one reaches the rank of apprentice, knight, and councilor. None of these have hindered the activity and general freedoms of users. They are for organization and moderation and they do an impeccable job at just that.

If you feel this is personal, it is not. If you insist on seeing this as personal, the chances are, it may not be because of our decision more than it is one's own issues already held for one reason or another not associated with TOTJO specifically.

Adjustments can (and may) be made over time to refine this decision and maximize its flexibility. Until then, please feel free to create topics in the new forum (which will be renamed to something more suitable).

*bolded is edited clarification

While I understand why this is being done, and I am very much a part of the group that is frustrated by the regular occurrences of people turning up for reasons other than sincere participation, I have to wonder if this is the way to handle it.

If people cannot discuss things in a manner which is appropriate and adheres to common courtesy and our rules, we should not tolerate them for nearly as long as we do.

There are already members only areas. Why do we just not highlight which those are more clearly and encourage people who do not wish to interact with guests to post in there.

I can be pretty quick on the trigger when people are being deliberately disruptive or upsetting other members, but I don't know that insulating our members further from others has the intended outcome long term. Bubble wrapped Jedi?

not to mention the fact that some of our long standing guests are very active participants. I think it would be a shame to lose their voices in our general discussions.

I've changed my mind about posting (sorry Elizabeth)

I've changed my mind again... I am going to say what I think...

Freedom to post and discuss topics is not restricted anymore than it was before the change.

This not true... by restricting guests on posting you (not you personally), by the nature of that change, have restricted some freedoms to post. If we can all post in the guest forum it seems pointless to restrict them from the rest of the forum... we may as well just post everything there which surely defeats the point. And guests are now unable to respond to threads in which they have already participated.

I don't like that we are cutting out the opportunity for guests to discuss things that we are discussing..... just because someone joins and are not a member does not mean they should feel that they have to join in order to participate.

We shouldn't be pushed into changes we are not all happy with just because of a few heated discussions... changes which I believe should have been communicated to us before they were made.

I am not taking this personally because it doesn't affect me personally..

This discussion isn't over, we (the Knights) are talking, but we are holding off on doing anything at the minute until some minor points are ironed out. Voicing your concerns is good feedback, something will be settled very soon, but some of these criticisms are already on the verge of being addressed, we just want to get to a good conclusion before making a load of changes we might then take back because we've changed our minds in the end lol.

Regardless of what we decide as it stands now this is not what the final decision will be, we just don't want to do anything until the on-going conversation reaches some kind of conclusion.

For those that remember this is like the IP changes a while ago, people offer suggestions and they are taken into consideration it's just that we wait until we're sure before we actually go about acting on the feedback.

This important statement bears repeating:

"Freedom to post and discuss topics is not restricted anymore than it was before the change. Everybody is free to post in the new discussion forum all they want. Recent hot topics can (and may) be easily moved over to the new forum by a moderator for our active guests to resume discussion." Proteus

Restricted is not the same as changing some posts to a different location. The language used, for example 'restrictive' or 'cutting guests from posting' is unnecessarily emotive when we might just as easily say 'protective' or 'enhancing'.

"If we can all post in the guest forum it seems pointless to restrict them from the rest of the forum... we may as well just post everything there which surely defeats the point." Edan

Exactly, if we agree that the point is to protect and enhance, and not censor or restrict. The freedom of Members is not in any way restricted.

Alan wrote: Restricted is not the same as changing some posts to a different location. The language used, for example 'restrictive' or 'cutting guests from posting' is unnecessarily emotive when we might just as easily say 'protective' or 'enhancing'.

But I didn't mean protective or enhancing...

The freedom of Members is not in any way restricted.

There are a great many discussions in the forums that guests will not be able to comment in... we may be able to post new topics in the guest forum, but they will not be able to post in existing ones.

I agree with Edan and however we dress it up we are cutting guests of from posting in some threads.

elizabeth wrote: I agree with Edan and however we dress it up we are cutting guests of from posting in some threads.

Yes we are. But what Alan is referring to in terms of "protecting" is the fact that recent events have made multiple members feel uncomfortable in posting their thoughts at all. So which ever way you dress it up, before now we were "cutting" members from posting in some threads...