CF Reforms Part 3 - on its way...

[Erwin]

Dear members

Just letting everyone know that CF Reforms Part 3 are on its way, and will lead to radical changes in forum rules, staff protocol and appeals procedure.

I am liaising with staff and certain members at this point.

Please be patient - I'm very busy at my "day job" so this will take a week or two. Or it might be quicker - who knows. :) God willing.

[CaDan]

New Rule 8

8. All site supporters get a pony.

[PaladinValer]

**Thinks Rule 8 should read: "CaDan for President in 2008"**

[CaDan]

New Rule 9

9. No day jobs for Erwin. Also, no sleep. Erwin shall be available at all times for coding, hearing appeals, back rubs, and housecleaning.

[Shannonkish]

10. All members must submit to random screenings conducted by staff to determine their age, sex, and religious affiliations are accurate. Staff shall choose which methods they use to screen each portion.

[bfly]

Dear members

Just letting everyone know that CF Reforms Part 3 are on its way, and will lead to radical changes in forum rules, staff protocol and appeals procedure.

I am liaising with staff and certain members at this point.

Please be patient - I'm very busy at my "day job" so this will take a week or two. Or it might be quicker - who knows. :) God willing.
God Bless you Erwin...........

[Buttermilk]

I am liaising with staff and certain members at this point.



One would hope that these "certain members" are from across the spectrum and that that the group contains liberals.

Can you confirm this?

[Shannonkish]

One would hope that these "certain members" are from across the spectrum and that that the group contains liberals.

Can you confirm this?

Does it really matter if they are liberals, conservatives, baptists or jehovah witness?

[Buttermilk]

Does it really matter if they are liberals, conservatives, baptists or jehovah witness?

Yes in my humble opinion it does - the site claims it's aim is "Uniting All Christians As One Body", and therefore all Christians views should be represented (obviously in practical terms Erwin can't quiz every member of this site, but he could select a representative from each group ( I am not going to go down the road of wheither or not this should be restricted to rule 6 Christians)).

[Shannonkish]

I am liaising with staff and certain members at this point.


I think Dr. Erwin's point was not that he is liaising with certain members about the reforms, but rather about something different. I could be wrong, though.

[pastel]

10. All members must submit to random screenings conducted by staff to determine their age, sex, and religious affiliations are accurate. Staff shall choose which methods they use to screen each portion.


It is far more important to uphold the rules of the site. That would be a sheer waste of time, anyway.

[CaDan]

It is far more important to uphold the rules of the site. That would be a sheer waste of time, anyway.

Especially new Rule 8!

[Shannonkish]

It is far more important to uphold the rules of the site. That would be a sheer waste of time, anyway.

If you notice... we were playing around... being sarcastic. :)

[PaladinValer]

I think one rule that would be a good one is that specific questions about certain churches or denominations are asked in that church's/denomination's forum and not anywhere else.

[CaDan]

I think one rule that would be a good one is that specific questions about certain churches or denominations are asked in that church's/denomination's forum and not anywhere else.

Are you trying to think of some way to clean up GT?

[Ann M]

Are you trying to think of some way to clean up GT?:doh:

http://bestsmileys.com/animals/8.gif

[PaladinValer]

How'd you guess?

And yes...I know...pigs might will evolve to have wings before that dream comes truth. But God willing, it may happen sooner :)

[Buttermilk]

:doh:

http://bestsmileys.com/animals/8.gif

RFLOL that smilie has so made my night :D

[ravenscape]

I think one rule that would be a good one is that specific questions about certain churches or denominations are asked in that church's/denomination's forum and not anywhere else.

Could we allow these questions in some part of the open forums, also? Except for [OPEN] thread titles, non-Christians can't pose questions in the denomination forums.

:doh:

http://bestsmileys.com/animals/8.gif

^_^ :clap: :bow:

[Rep Daddy]

It has been a year and a half since I applied for staff.

During that time the number of staff I think has dropped by 15 or 20 (maybe more), yet the number of forums and members have greatly increased. This means that staff are given much more to do that the time requested can reasonably accomplish.

This workload level does two things:

[1] it causes some staff to be way overworked resulting in burnout and sometimes impatience when situations call for some patience to resolve.

[2] it results in many reports getting burried and not receiving attention (actually or from the viewpoint of the member). This causes a member who only has reported a few posts to think mods ignore reports.

I know that it takes time to recruit, train an manage staff. So flooding CF with new unqualified or untrained staff is not the solution.

For CF to meet it's goals it is imperative to expand the staff, but only as rapidly as can be done and still get qualified and committed volunteers.

So I recommend:




[1] A review to identify forums that have few participants yet generate many reports proportionatlely. For these forums have two Admins review the situation to see:[a] if the mods assigned are doing well or if reassignments are needed;


[b] if there are problem posters there that need to be given 3, 6 or 12 month FSBs.



[2] Rethink the whole sock puppet account rule to:[a] penalize more severely members using multiple accounts to disrupt CF;


[b] reduced the max allowed number of socks to no more than three with none used to disrupt. E-ban additional socks as discovered;

[c] require staff to register their sock accounts in a reference thread open to staff and disallow a staff member from debate posts in a forum they moderate (either using their main or sock account).



[3] Stop adding new forums and features (ex WIKI) until there is sufficient staff to support them without reducing staffing levels in other forums.

[4] Do not add features such as Public Appeals before the process and protocol has been established more and members and staff know what the rules are. Public Appeals, for example, could have been opened as a beta test program, where a few appeals were selected to test the idea followed by a review and revision before launching the full feature. Allow these beta testers the option to reappeal if the protocol in the final version changes in a way effecting the outcome of their beta test appeal.

Ideas launched prematurely cause frustration and tension between staff who have incomplete protocol and members who conclude staff are making up protocol to disadvantage them.

drstevej

[nyj]

[1] A review to identify forums that have few participants yet generate many reports proportionatlely. For these forums have two Admins review the situation to see:[a] if the mods assigned are doing well or if reassignments are needed;


[b] if there are problem posters there that need to be given 3, 6 or 12 month FSBs.


To point 1: I think we should routinely review fora to see if they are being used for the reasons they were implemented. If they are not, or they are not active enough to warrant support, I say they be removed, or merged with more active fora. It may certainly be that certain staff need to be reassigned, but the problem is ... we're all volunteer. What happens when no one wants to touch a particular forum? You can reassign moderators out of a forum, but you can't assign moderators into a forum against their wishes.

As to FSBs. I would suggest that they initially be for no longer than 1 month. If after one month, the posters behavior has not changed, then stricter measures can be taken.


[2] Rethink the whole sock puppet account rule to:[a] penalize more severely members using multiple accounts to disrupt CF;


[b] reduced the max allowed number of socks to no more than three with none used to disrupt. E-ban additional socks as discovered;

[c] require staff to register their sock accounts in a reference thread open to staff and disallow a staff member from debate posts in a forum they moderate (either using their main or sock account).


I say eliminate sock puppet accounts altogether.


[3] Stop adding new forums and features (ex WIKI) until there is sufficient staff to support them without reducing staffing levels in other forums.


I concur.

[4] Do not add features such as Public Appeals before the process and protocol has been established more and members and staff know what the rules are.

I concur.

[Rep Daddy]

As to FSBs. I would suggest that they initially be for no longer than 1 month. If after one month, the posters behavior has not changed, then stricter measures can be taken.

A hearty "." to that! :thumbsup:


I say eliminate sock puppet accounts altogether.

Fine by me to.

[suzybeezy]

It has been a year and a half since I applied for staff.

During that time the number of staff I think has dropped by 15 or 20 (maybe more), yet the number of forums and members have greatly increased. This means that staff are given much more to do that the time requested can reasonably accomplish.

This workload level does two things:

[1] it causes some staff to be way overworked resulting in burnout and sometimes impatience when situations call for some patience to resolve.

[2] it results in many reports getting burried and not receiving attention (actually or from the viewpoint of the member). This causes a member who only has reported a few posts to think mods ignore reports.

I know that it takes time to recruit, train an manage staff. So flooding CF with new unqualified or untrained staff is not the solution.

For CF to meet it's goals it is imperative to expand the staff, but only as rapidly as can be done and still get qualified and committed volunteers.

So I recommend:





[1] A review to identify forums that have few participants yet generate many reports proportionatlely. For these forums have two Admins review the situation to see:[a] if the mods assigned are doing well or if reassignments are needed;


[b] if there are problem posters there that need to be given 3, 6 or 12 month FSBs.




[2] Rethink the whole sock puppet account rule to:[a] penalize more severely members using multiple accounts to disrupt CF;


[b] reduced the max allowed number of socks to no more than three with none used to disrupt. E-ban additional socks as discovered;

[c] require staff to register their sock accounts in a reference thread open to staff and disallow a staff member from debate posts in a forum they moderate (either using their main or sock account).




[3] Stop adding new forums and features (ex WIKI) until there is sufficient staff to support them without reducing staffing levels in other forums.

[4] Do not add features such as Public Appeals before the process and protocol has been established more and members and staff know what the rules are. Public Appeals, for example, could have been opened as a beta test program, where a few appeals were selected to test the idea followed by a review and revision before launching the full feature. Allow these beta testers the option to reappeal if the protocol in the final version changes in a way effecting the outcome of their beta test appeal.

Ideas launched prematurely cause frustration and tension between staff who have incomplete protocol and members who conclude staff are making up protocol to disadvantage them.

drstevej

You have some really great ideas drstevej!

[Rep Daddy]

You have some really great ideas drstevej!

thanks suzy and thanks for serving on staff.

drstevej

[Ann M]

In regards to sock puppets and IP addresses, I hope any changes will take into account the fact that more than 1 person in a family might be a member. I believe there may be as many as 5 or 6 members who've joined up from my computer, but that includes myself & partner, my daughter, some neices and friends. I don't won't to find that someof these accounts disappear because they all originate from the same place.

[Swart]

It has been a year and a half since I applied for staff.

During that time the number of staff I think has dropped by 15 or 20 (maybe more), yet the number of forums and members have greatly increased. This means that staff are given much more to do that the time requested can reasonably accomplish.

This workload level does two things:

[1] it causes some staff to be way overworked resulting in burnout and sometimes impatience when situations call for some patience to resolve.

[2] it results in many reports getting burried and not receiving attention (actually or from the viewpoint of the member). This causes a member who only has reported a few posts to think mods ignore reports.

I know that it takes time to recruit, train an manage staff. So flooding CF with new unqualified or untrained staff is not the solution.

For CF to meet it's goals it is imperative to expand the staff, but only as rapidly as can be done and still get qualified and committed volunteers.

So I recommend:




[1] A review to identify forums that have few participants yet generate many reports proportionatlely. For these forums have two Admins review the situation to see:[a] if the mods assigned are doing well or if reassignments are needed;


[b] if there are problem posters there that need to be given 3, 6 or 12 month FSBs.



[2] Rethink the whole sock puppet account rule to:[a] penalize more severely members using multiple accounts to disrupt CF;


[b] reduced the max allowed number of socks to no more than three with none used to disrupt. E-ban additional socks as discovered;

[c] require staff to register their sock accounts in a reference thread open to staff and disallow a staff member from debate posts in a forum they moderate (either using their main or sock account).



[3] Stop adding new forums and features (ex WIKI) until there is sufficient staff to support them without reducing staffing levels in other forums.

[4] Do not add features such as Public Appeals before the process and protocol has been established more and members and staff know what the rules are. Public Appeals, for example, could have been opened as a beta test program, where a few appeals were selected to test the idea followed by a review and revision before launching the full feature. Allow these beta testers the option to reappeal if the protocol in the final version changes in a way effecting the outcome of their beta test appeal.

Ideas launched prematurely cause frustration and tension between staff who have incomplete protocol and members who conclude staff are making up protocol to disadvantage them.

drstevej

Sounds like good advice!

I can see the point in SP accounts. If a member wants to ignore a moderator, they can't. However, they can ignore their SP account.

Unfortunately, it seems that not all staff are reasonable when posting in debate forums.

I also have a problem with reporting the post from a staff members SP account, and then seeing that post self edited by the SP account.

[Erwin]

It's time for Stage 3 to occur... closing this thread for a new one...

[Erwin]

Close.