
PDA

View Full Version : Response to Off Topic Forum Proposal



Don McRitchie
06-22-2007, 03:15 PM
As usual, there is no consensus on this issue, and with a 50/50 split in the poll, any decision one way or the other leaves a substantial unsatisfied constituency.

However, I think there is still the potential for a win/win scenario that has arisen out of Giskard’s suggestion in this thread. That is to make a private forum for which you must explicitly ask permission to join. This type of forum would be completely invisible to anyone that has not asked to join, so that anyone who doesn’t want exposure to conversations unrelated to Lansing, would never see it - even by accident.

I say that it is a potential win/win because it will only work if the conversations in the private forum truly remain private and civil so that rancour does not spill out into the main forums. I think that this is doable by implementing a rigid set of rules which is discussed below. However, I am enough of a realist to recognize that rules alone cannot guarantee that the potential negative side effects of an OT forum are kept isolated. Therefore, I propose a 1 month trial of a private off topic forum, after which the moderators will review its effectiveness, and if it is deemed to be problematic, it will be shut down permanently.

As I said above, I truly believe that there is the potential for a win/win scenario. Those that don’t like being distracted by anything unrelated to Lansing can have that desire met by not joining the OT forum. Those that do want to have a more collegial environment and have an open discussion with others, that are to some degree like minded, will have that opportunity.

To this end, I propose the following rules:


The only posts permitted on this board must be recreational in nature. No current events, politics, or religion.
Uncivil behaviour will not be tolerated in the OT board, for which the first example will result in an immediate temporary ban. Repetition will result in a permanent ban from the OT board and possibly the entire forum depending on the severity.
Uncivil behaviour in the main forums that is a spillover from conversations in the OT board will result in an immediate temporary ban and permanent loss of rights to post in the OT board. Repetition in the main boards will result in a permanent ban from the entire forum.
No trolling or spamming. Repeated postings with no substantial content or posting with intentions to incite will result in the loss of rights to post in the OT board.
This is not a forum in and of itself. It is meant to be an adjunct to the main Lansing boards. Memebers that post more frequently in the OT board than in the main forum will find their rights to participate there revoked.

edgewound
06-22-2007, 03:28 PM
That seems like a fair compromise.

Don....you are a patient man...and deserve respect for that.

Thank you for your efforts to be accommodating to those who have asked.

scott fitlin
06-22-2007, 03:36 PM
I HEAR THAT!

Rolf
06-22-2007, 03:43 PM
I agree to this

JBLRaiser
06-23-2007, 04:36 AM
Just kick the offender off, if uncivil:beamup:. The real world includes much more than recreational subjects.:smsex: If these are the ground rules, it is doomed from the start.:tribe: Either very limited posts:applaud: or OT(non recreational) subjects will come up regularly:banghead:. Besides, can't a heated discussion occur between Porsche and BMW owners:drive: or for that matter Altec and JBL?:argue: I understand Don's lack of enthusiasm for this type of forum at Lansing Heritage:flamer:, but since he has agreed to it, all subjects can work with rules of civility in place.:cheers: So please realize I respectfully disagree with these limitations. :)

4313B
06-23-2007, 05:50 AM
I understand Don's lack of enthusiasm for this type of forum at Lansing HeritageYou incorrectly assume too much and would do well to remove that statement from your post forthwith.

I guess the next order of business, instead of working on the Library, is to reduce the number of emoticons that can be used in a post.

So please realize I respectfully disagree with these limitations. :)Take it up in off-topic. The only people that care reside there.

4313B
06-23-2007, 05:59 AM
Giskard,

I am really surprised you even have time to think about this!I don't have time for it... nor much patience.

kingjames
06-23-2007, 06:06 AM
I too at first said this was doomed from the start with these limitations but I say we must start some where and we must compromise in the beginning as we earn the trust of the Administrator and Mod's then maybe subject's can be opened a little as we go on.

I am not prepared to rock the boat and will take anything as a start and the rest I think if it comes will have to be earned.

Don said this will be a one month trial and at the end the power's to be will decide on it's fate. I say this is our chance to prove that we can be adults in any situation. remember, respect is the key!:)

Mod's please move this post to off topic if that's where it should be as I wanted to reply to the thread here and not confuse people over there with this reply without a statement before it.

Robh3606
06-23-2007, 07:28 AM
Let see there are 2500+ members, only 44 voted and when the poll was stopped it was 21 for and 23 against. So based on the number of people who voted at all I think it's safe to say that interest is not widespread across the overall membership. Even then Don set out for a reasonable compromise that would avoid the friction caused in the last forum. Now some of you are complaining about the compromises and Topics??? Can't you just be happy with what he was gracious enough to provide??? He didn't have to do this.

Rob:)

Audiobeer
06-23-2007, 08:03 AM
It's not goint to happen. When you have Diarreah you gotta go.... :applaud:

Mr. Widget
06-23-2007, 10:10 AM
It's not goint to happen. When you have Diarreah you gotta go.... :applaud::applaud: :rotfl: :applaud:


Widget

Titanium Dome
06-23-2007, 07:30 PM
Thanks, Don. As soon as I get accepted, I'll have a friendly message for you there.

kingjames
06-24-2007, 09:49 AM
Let see there are 2500+ members, only 44 voted and when the poll was stopped it was 21 for and 23 against. So based on the number of people who voted at all I think it's safe to say that interest is not widespread across the overall membership. Even then Don set out for a reasonable compromise that would avoid the friction caused in the last forum. Now some of you are complaining about the compromises and Topics??? Can't you just be happy with what he was gracious enough to provide??? He didn't have to do this.

Rob:)

Not accurate numbers since only less than 10% read the poll.A suggestion or a concern should not be considered as a complaint.

kingjames
06-24-2007, 09:57 AM
It's not goint to happen. When you have Diarreah you gotta go.... :applaud:

This is pretty funny, I just forgot to laugh.:applaud:

kingjames
06-24-2007, 09:59 AM
:applaud: :rotfl: :applaud:


Widget

Even Mr. Widget thought this was funny.:applaud:

Robh3606
06-24-2007, 10:41 AM
Not accurate numbers since only less than 10% read the poll

Ok lets assume you are correct. Say 200 read the poll. Only 44 of those bothered to vote. That would be less than 25% of the ones that did read it and more than half of them voted No. That said no matter how you want to slice this there was in no way shape or form a large number of members that wanted to do this again based on the numbers from the poll. What will really tell the story is how many join it and are active participants.

Rob:)

kingjames
06-24-2007, 10:47 AM
Ok lets assume you are correct. Say 200 read the poll. Only 44 of those bothered to vote. That would be less than 25% of the ones that did read it and more than half of them voted No. That said no matter how you want to slice this there was in no way shape or form a large number of members that wanted to do this again based on the numbers from the poll. What will really tell the story is how many join it and are active participants.

Rob:)

I agree and I hope the views now in the non audio discussion forum going on now is a better representation of the count. Only time will tell.:)
http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/archive/index.php/t-17223.html?s=0e7198cbe63f259f2b06733ddc29821f
www.audioheritage.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2020-40
14108
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:B62SY3ZB6DEWE5V3O4J5KXE3KSEX4YI3
<urn:uuid:0746e529-b0ba-4b0b-949f-e35286bd2605>
2020-09-19T03:49:34Z
198.80.11.57
application/xhtml+xml
sha1:UU7X74TIH6SA2KLLP5ZD34WTFP2OCHML
<urn:uuid:a49c5b12-ae6c-4a2d-a869-7ac0f0df2fc7>
http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/archive/index.php/t-17223.html?s=0e7198cbe63f259f2b06733ddc29821f
response
<urn:uuid:8ae0bc36-124d-4900-bf42-07beb482333d>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2020-40
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for September 2020
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-150.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.17 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/