Proposal Per Don's Suggestions

[hjames]

Again, I reiterate my position on this, Heather, IF you dont want to be part of that section, you dont have to be, BUT, let the folks that do, have their place to be.

Scott, I've got no quarrel with a chatroom, OT section , private room bullpen, whatever you call it. Sounds like a fun place - I may join if that wouldn't dampen the enthusiasm of it.

I never asked for the OT area to go away, but I agree with the feeling that arguments in OT could and did spill over into the main threads. Once the old OT area was shut down I was all for just moving on and not whining about it ad naseum. I didn't want it gone, but once it was gone I didn't want to see every other thread on site turn into a lamentation of it.

But I have a strong feeling that some folks don't get around enough - and live way too much in web forums ... ITS SUMMERTIME PEOPLE - GO OFFLINE FOR A BIT!

My post below was just talking about software and the functional aspects - I really didn't aim to get into the right or wrong of it.

[scott fitlin]

OK, point made. And you and everyone else would be most welcome to partake.

Yes, there were spill overs from OT into the main forum, and that was a problem, but, people express a desire to once again have a section like that. I want to give to them, but, this time, there will be rules, and they will have to be followed.

Spill over from this section into the main forum would most likely have to result in loss of OT priveledges.

OTOH, we are adults, and should be treated as such. I say we give it a shot, before we pre-judge it.

[jim campbell]

well there you are.......i know i said id shut up but allow me to chime in one more time on this ..............scotty has graciously volunteered to oversee this undertaking and to my knowledge has shown the temprament and restraint necessary.............

[mech986]

Hi Scotty,

Thanks for all your thoughtful posts and your volunteering to potentially moderate any OT section that may get created again. I've had a lot of experience moderating and observing moderation at few other large forums. I've a couple of suggestions:

I do like the ideas of invitation or qualification only as I believe in the "Don's house" model. This is a Lansing Heritage site and its primary goal is the discussion and dissemination of Lansing related topics and information. As a forum, Don/administration/moderators then can add access to topics or discussions they deem appropriate. The idea of letting only certain appropriate (by way of previous or known behavior, or sticking with the rules) members into private areas is a good one. Common sense at your own home limits guests access to certain areas of your home or your personal life/ideas/thoughts till you feel they can have it, if ever.

I'd still recommend avoiding the topics of politics and religion. There are lots of folks here and many from other countries. Individual, ethnic, and nationalistic issues on politics and religion can get going and go way out of hand by people simply posting their views and getting into huge "discussions/arguements" over them, let alone trying to convince others. There are LOTS of other forums/outlets specifically for that type of discourse and I would submit that LH, even in an OT section, should steer clear of that. It is just a lot easier to deal with if those topics remain off-limits - I don't consider that censorship but rather part of the groundrules. Many other prior audio forums get degenerated into "==ssing matches" between members and its becomes another mess that reflects poorly on the forum/site and all the other people there. rec.alt.audio comes to mind here.

Also, regarding "the local bar" concept - I think that's great for discussion and general BS'ing among members. What I would say though is that regarding any "adult" or really off-color posts/photos/discussion topics, that should be, if considered, in its own separate subforum and again by invitation or qualification only. Think of the adult section as "the back room or back alley" where there may be stuff you wouldn't want your spouse or kids to access. Splitting the known "adult" topics/photos/etc. from the OT section keeps it a bit tidier and cleaner organizationally and members in OT don't have to have that in their section. Those interested and have access to "adult" can then go there if they want to.

Lastly, and this is really important. Everyone who is a member should realize they are entitled to NONE of this. The only thing we're really entitled to is the opportunity to is register, log in, and view the main forums and the PUBLIC areas of LH. That's what this site is about IMHO, and that should remain. Any other areas created for PRIVATE use are truly at the discretion of the admins. I truly believe people earn the right to more privelages and rights by their actions and behavior and not just because they are here. I think admin can select appropriate members and maybe in turn that forum's members can invite or recommend others as needed. And if you abuse your membership or invitation, you can be denied access (or thrown out in stronger language) of that specfic section or forum as mentioned above.

If you go by the subscriber model as some forums have, then you can place certain benefits or forum access within that model. Note though that inherent in the subscriber model should be "the right to refuse service to anyone at anytime" if stuff gets out of hand. Just because you paid for it doesn't mean you can abuse it.

My 077 worth and I'll raise you a small butt cheek (pun intended , no I won't use the moon smilie ). Just trying to keep on Lansing topic.

Regards,

Bart

[duaneage]

OT ended up being a bad place to give and receive bad vibes. The site is better without it.

My .02

[kingjames]

OT ended up being a bad place to give and receive bad vibes. The site is better without it.

My .02

I think this was because there were no rules.

[hjames]

Site rules - posted in 2005 - before the recent troubles

http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/s...ead.php?t=2696

Revised 2 minutes later ..
here is the first post in that thread - from June 2004 ...

http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/s...19&postcount=1

No flames meant or implied no sarcasm either.
I'm just stating that rules have been here all along

[edgewound]

Site rules - posted in 2005 - before the recent troubles

http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/s...ead.php?t=2696

Revised 2 minutes later ..
here is the first post in that thread - from June 2004 ...

http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/s...19&postcount=1

No flames meant or implied no sarcasm either.
I'm just stating that rules have been here all along

That's a good post, Heather.

I'm all for an OT section as long as people abide by the rules.

We see daily that rules are worthless if they aren't read, understood, respected, nor enforced. If people could understand that, there would be no need to moderate.

Sort of like the laws of the US. We keep getting more new laws on the books that we already have, and it doesn't seem to matter.

My hats off to you Scotty for willing to take this on.

[scott fitlin]

Thank you to everyone for input.

I do want to state upfront, that when I say 'adult' I mean it as in normal adult conversation, and a bit headier than what goes in the regular forum, BUT NOT all the way hardcore or anything like that. More like your local pub, NOT a swingers club. LOL.

I do agree that the old OT section had problems, however, was it the OT section that actually caused the problems, or some that were using the section? IF this new ( if it gets created ) OT section is properly run, there shouldnt be any problems. And, as I said, and Rob backed me on, the rules get enforced, so you would have a predetermined limit for screw ups, and once you burn that, YOUR OUT OF THE OT!

I recognize that people want and need to talk to each other on a social level, as well as all the tech stuff, and audio gear. Even with me, it just isnt always about audio, JBL or whatever. Hey, theres other stuff going on in life, ya know. Like Edgewound getting married and seeing pics of his new family, THATS life, and it isnt audio, but it is LIFE! And sometimes, yeah, we want to be a bit locker room too! I was in Manhattan this afternoon, wow, sun is shining, people everywhere, I bought some stuff, music for the weekend, new I Tech amp, some cologne, and shirts. Its about everything. And, yep, I was watching pretty ladies walking down the streets!

I havent been posting in a while, and once I started, I forgot how much I do enjoy being here, but, IMO, its a bit dry without an OT type section!

Lastly, yes, Im willing to put the effort into moderating it, and thats it for now!

[MJ Bing]

This forum was created to discuss JBL
and JBL related subjects.
Not to bitch and moan about religion or politics
or anything other than JBL.
Should you feel the need to bitch and moan, I
suggest you take it OUTSIDE. It's right up your alley.

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/outside/bbs.html

Michael

[JBLRaiser]

only a few were grossly offensive in their remarks. Those few would be culled from the rest and a civil discourse would result. I vote for freedom of speech the old fashion way, with civility. Be nice if you disagree.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Sorry but dont see the need.

For all the sited reasons like meeting other members that will happen if its meant to happen via mutal interest and a pm or project ..whatever ad then its about sharing experiences and information.

There appears of be a valiant presence of moderation in this instance yet previously by their own admission there is/was "a lack of inclination or desire" to keep up on the forums that actually matter. Like keeping a thead on topic for example and checking totally incorrect information.

The other point is I am sure your loved ones are more important than reading postings of someones point of view who you don't know or have ever meet..and in some cases would not want to meet.

What's the point? It often ends in messy disagreements and banning.

I other words, get a life

[Titanium Dome]

The old off topic forum served a number of useful and graceful purposes. It wasn't all bad; in fact, it was mostly good.

It gave Don a place to post some of his interesting photographic essays, which I truly enjoyed. It was a main platform for our brother northwood to post some truly amazing pictures, including one of the best photos I've ever seen. Sadly, now it is lost to me. It offered me and others the chance to create small threads of beauty and interest and entertainment through words and pictures.

Yes there were a few photos that for cultural or political reasons, a few members raised concerns over. IMO these were gross over-reactions and demonstrated an inclination that runs through American culture that isn't so pleasant: quick judgment and cultural intolerance. Now that's a topic for off topic, eh?

In addition, OT would be an appropriate venue for edgewound's and magnet3's happy news. It would be the right place for Scott and me to rev up a discussion on bumper cars, hot dogs, and summer nights. It would be a good place for Heather to show the backyard in bloom, or Jim to tell about his grandkids, or Ian about his last (or next) trip to the States, or folks to talk about their dogs, cats, fish, cars, etc.

This was at least 50% or more of the old OT in terms of content, though not necessarily in terms of post. The conflict centered around a very limited set of topics which generated petty, vindictive, defensive, and mean-spirited streams of posts that really ramped up the post count in those threads.

I looked at northwood's photo essays countless times, but didn't add a post every time I looked. Yet, some inane topic like Anna ..... (I can't even write it) death seemed to attract posts like flies to a spoiling carcass on a Tennessee road in summer. I probably visited that putrid thing four times, posted a few, then abandoned it and wouldn't care if it were closed and removed.

But I dislike the "baby with the bath water" approach that shovels that thread, Don's photos, northwood's work, the anti-Bush stuff, etc., etc. all into to one trash bag and sets it by the curb.

That, my friends, is overreaction, and it strips the site of perspective and depth.

Why do we need perspective and depth, when all we should be talking bout is Lansing Heritage and nothing more?

Well, first because we already tacitly acknowledge that we need it by hosting several non-Lansing forums. Sure, we dress it up by calling them Lansing-related or forum issues, but that really is just a way to dress up the fact that they're off the main topic yet we still REALLY want to talk about them.

Second, we are all humans with depth and perspective in our personalities. The notion that we can parcel ourselves out and seek out different sites for each element of our personalities is a neat logical trick, but in practice not so neat to execute. It has the emotional and psychological effect of stripping us into discrete pieces which we try to address in the different venues where we present one-dimensinal, cardboard images of ourselves.

Here's my Lansing face. Here's my picture taking face. Here's my music face. Here's my woodworking face. Here's my movies face. Etc.

We have the ability to make the site a representation of the reality of Jim Lansing's legacy. It was brilliant, visionary, complicated, conflicted at times, filled with family and hopes and dreams, technical, musical, cinematic, rough, troubled, and real. In other words, it had depth and perspective.

If the main problem is moderation or the workload, then someone needs to address the simple solution that's been floated here often: more moderators. It seems as though there's a resistance to a simple solution.

Scott can't/shouldn't shoulder this alone. It's unreasonable. If others have their hands full managing their current duties, then find additional help. But let's not have the impression that moderators belong to a finite group, that there's no possible way to increase the numbers, or that it's a special club that no one else gets to join serve as excuses for inaction on this.

I won't single anyone out in public, but I think a number of us could identify one or two or three members whom we believe could add to those ranks.

So, my vote is "yes."

[Robh3606]

If the main problem is moderation or the workload, then someone needs to address the simple solution that's been floated here often.: more moderators. It seems as though there's a resistance to a simple solution.

I see it as more of a self Moderation and peer Moderation issue. We can add 10 more mods but we are all doing this part time. I am not saying that adding a couple to help Scott is a bad idea. It's more an issue on the overall code of conduct of the members and how high that mark is set. I would simply love it if I never had to intercede into another thread as a Moderator. I know that is unrealistic but I think if we all try to keep the bar high it would make the overall experience here much more enjoyable.

Rob

[Ducatista47]

For me,the attraction of an off topic section was the sharing of mutual interests with people I respect. It is implied that if one respects someone, one will treat them with respect. Was that the case?

Not consistently, and I believe the moderation needed, even though voluntary, is better used elsewhere here. If I want to share something with a member, I will PM him (or her).

I think we are nice people here, but the misunderstanding this format leads to is frequent and frequently a disaster.

Clark in Peoria