Oh Man! Everything's Different!

[Lindon Tinuviel]

For anyone who may be confused by the new layout here, this is what's going on (as near as I can tell):


1. The Wiki/Rules Discussion Subforum has taken on a new role. The threads here will no longer be regular threads. They will be Wikis.

Yeah, yeah, yeah... I can hear it now: "MORE Wikis?!?!?"

Well, yes, but with a twist -- the Wikis here will not necessarily reflect the consensus view, but will be a collection of opinions. An overview of the entire discussion. More about this can be found here (http://foru.ms/t6369513-change-of-wiki-rules-discussion.html) and here (http://foru.ms/t6369532-arbor-i-have-no-idea-what-youre-trying-to-say.html).

Essentially, the Wiki will provide a summary of the discussion so that LeeD and company won't have to wade through 100+ pages of bickering, joking, and off-topic posts.

It will be the responsibility of participants in the discussion to update the summary as needed.


2. This Subforum has become decidedly bare. Never fear, though! The old threads have been archived in the new Sub-Subforum here (http://foru.ms/f398-archived-wiki-rules-discussion.html).

You can't post there any longer, but the discussions there can be summarized here in the new Wiki format. I think that Ravenscape has volunteered to port the archived discussions, so PM her (or anyone else on the Support Team, I guess) if theres a specific discussion that you'd like moved here.

It will be up to whoever is willing to do so to summarize the discussion for the wiki part of the thread.

3. The rollback feature has also evidently been removed. Staff can still do one, if it's needed.

3.5 The Wiki/Rules Discussion threads do not support polls, unfortunately.

4. The General Wiki Subform is now also read-only. I am unsure whether old Wiki discussions from there are allowed to be moved here.

5. The Announcements Subforum has been moved. You can find it here (http://foru.ms/f3).

Anyway, that's the way things stand for now, as far as I'm aware. By the time I hit Submit, things may have changed again. As always, feel free to edit any points I've missed or gotten wrong.

6. A discussion of the need for a new wiki primer to be pinned at the top of this forum begins here (http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=40418656&postcount=17).

Here is a how to wiki http://foru.ms/t6386778-wiki-how-to-wiki.html

7. Some members are expressing doubts regarding this process (starting at post #20). They aren't yet sure if they want to invest the extra effort needed to develop wikied summarizations of these discussions given that the board now seems less member-driven. Some excerpts:

Personally I have had enough and feel I have no responsibility to try to hold up my end of a one sided deal...
...the onus for ensuring good communication with those in power...has been put upon those of us who have the least information, the least insight as to what needs to be communicated or how to do it, the least usable meter for judging where the bulk of our efforts should go, the least sense of our new webmaster.
[1]These are still collaborative threads IMO, though we are collaborating to a different end. [2]I would like to see how a Wiki thread plays out in terms of communicating member concerns and thoughts to LeeD and his representatives before I dive in whole-hog.
[1]Meaning that the result is not binding and thus has much less value to the creators than they thought it had in the defunct wiki process. [2]Most members can’t do that as they don’t have access to the secret forums.
Non-staff members have no prospect of seeing how a wiki thread actually "plays out." We are no longer privy to staff discussions nor LeeD's communication with staff, so most of the steps are going to be invisible to us.
What I'm thinking is that there's no way I'm doing somebody else's homework.
Now he [LeeD] has created a lot of changes and is awol, missing in action...making people lose trust in him, thinking he does not really care what they feel or think.
The energy for this needs to be coming from somewhere other than those who have just been more or less disenfranchised.

[Letalis]

Very good summation. :)

[ravenscape]

Dude! I've been trying to get exactly this written up for the last 2 hours and keep getting pulled away.

Thank you SOOOOO much :hug: :hug:

[Glass*Soul]

Who will be responsible for updating the wiki as a discussion unfolds?

[ravenscape]

Who will be responsible for updating the wiki as a discussion unfolds?
Members will be responsible.

[Lindon Tinuviel]

Thanks for the encouragement, guys!

I wonder if we're going to have a problem with a lot of move requests, but nobody willing to do the summaries. It's easy to ask "Hey! I liked that thread, could you move it back?", but it's quite another thing to stride bravely into a 90-page free-for-all and write up a summary.

Saaayyyy... isn't a thread kind of like a record? And isn't there a new Record Team?

[ravenscape]

Maybe that will discourage a plethora of move requests hitting my inbox...hmm...

[Letalis]

Oh, and no more rollback feature.

[Lindon Tinuviel]

Hmmm... the General Wiki Subforum is also read-only. Guess I'll add that info to this thread.

Might not be a bad idea to put a note up in there so that people will know.

[Glass*Soul]

Members will be responsible.

Will you wiki that factoid in or shall I? :)

So, basically, we can come into the discussion and make a lengthy, nuanced defense of our position, but unless we can boil it down to a sound-bite for the wiki, LeeD and company are probably not going to read it.

[ravenscape]

Will you wiki that factoid in or shall I? :)

So, basically, we can come into the discussion and make a lengthy, nuanced defense of our position, but unless we can boil it down to a sound-bite for the wiki, LeeD and company are probably not going to read it.
You could put a link to the post with the lengthy nuanced defense.

The thing with these discussion threads is that there are often pages and pages of semi-on-topic back and forth between the nuggets. The article page is a place to steam it down to the nuggets. They can be large nuggets, I assume.

[Glass*Soul]

You could put a link to the post with the lengthy nuanced defense.

The thing with these discussion threads is that there are often pages and pages of semi-on-topic back and forth between the nuggets. The article page is a place to steam it down to the nuggets. They can be large nuggets, I assume.

I see. That makes sense.

[ravenscape]

I added that the participants will write the summary, and also that the Wiki threads won't support polls.

[Letalis]

I modified a portion of the Wiki to this:

3. The rollback feature has also evidently been removed. Staff can still do one, if it's needed.

[constance]

Will you wiki that factoid in or shall I? :)

So, basically, we can come into the discussion and make a lengthy, nuanced defense of our position, but unless we can boil it down to a sound-bite for the wiki, LeeD and company are probably not going to read it.
Sometimes us (& co.) will read the whole thing but sometimes we can't.

What an awesome awesome summary. :)

[arborvita]

Lindon Thanks for starting this!

[Evangelica]

A thread about summation and no link to what <edit> your talking about!!!!!!!!!



I want to know


ISNT IT A VIOLATION OF CONSTATIONAL RIGHTS TO NOT BE ABLE TO FACE YOUR ACCUSERS


YES, IM TALKING ABOUT THE MISSING REPORT THREADS


AS ONE OF THE VOICELESS PERSONSW WHO HAVE BEEN DENIED ROGHTS TO BE A MOD THEREBY LIMITING MY POSTING ABILITY TO WHO <edit> THEY WANT



I AM <edit>

[Glass*Soul]

Is anyone working on a little primer to pin to the top of the forum? A wiki takes a somewhat different skill set than posting in a normal thread.

[ravenscape]

Is anyone working on a little primer to pin to the top of the forum? A wiki takes a somewhat different skill set than posting in a normal thread.
I wish I had the skillset and time to work one up. Do you know if there is a Wiki primer in existance that would make a good starting place for a primer for this forum's style of wiki?

[Glass*Soul]

I wish I had the skillset and time to work one up. Do you know if there is a Wiki primer in existance that would make a good starting place for a primer for this forum's style of wiki?

This is a primer that tapero put together for the rules wikis: http://foru.ms/t5755591-how-to-wiki.html

[Evangelica]

The forums are and have been intolerable and intolorant of too many for too long. Personally I have had enough and feel I have no responsibility to try to hold up my end of a one sided deal made up on the sly to accomadate the christian minority of pharisees.

[Glass*Soul]

The forums are and have been intolerable and intolorant of too many for too long. Personally I have had enough and feel I have no responsibility to try to hold up my end of a one sided deal made up on the sly to accomadate the christian minority of pharisees.

(((Evangelica))) I've read several comments you've made over the last two days. I'm dismayed by some of the changes too and I'm prone to agree with you on this point (and others).

After 7-7-7 I felt quite invested in CF. I was willing to put in long hours working on the Core Rules Wiki and a primer/announcement on the new rules-making process, precisely because the process was membership driven. Suddenly those of us who were not on staff had roles in our fate beyond griping, pleading and (on the odd occasion) persuading those in power. The things we decided together were binding on all of us, and so, to my way of thinking, there was a distinct responsibility involved in being a member here.

Now we're back to an owner/staff driven board in which all decisions are made behind closed doors. The non-staff members are thrown back upon, not to put too fine a point on it, wheedling.

What's more, the onus for ensuring good communication with those in power (by means of the compiling and ordering of a brief synopsis of what may well have been a long, lively and alive discussion) has been put upon those of us who have the least information, the least insight as to what needs to be communicated or how to do it, the least usable meter for judging where the bulk of our efforts should go, the least sense of our new webmaster. We have the least of these things because the more generous portion has been removed from our grasps.

So, I see that a primer/announcement is needed for this new wikified forum, and I see that Captain Yesterday's topic has been brought forward but no one has done a synopsis of it yet. A few months ago I would have PM'ed Lisa and a couple of others and jumped in on these two tasks. Now I just ask myself, "Why?"

I ask myself, "Why?" because I am no longer in any position to ascertain the worth or weight of any effort I might make. One might argue that if a topic, such as CY's, is important to me I would willingly put the necessary time into it, but if that effort is fated to be futile, then more the fool I am for having done so. (Mind you, I do not judge an effort futile on the grounds of whether or not I have gotten my way. If, in the course of the discussion, I feel I have both listened and been listened to, that has been by no means a futile effort whatever the final outcome.)

Is it? Is any effort we put into this new wikified rules discussion forum fated to be futile? I don't know and I don't know how to find out. What little evidence I do have is not encouraging. I may be more encouraged later, but for now, I simply do not know.

(((more hugs)))

[ravenscape]

I understand your concerns, and I'd be lying if I said I didn't share many of them. My forecast is "mostly wait and see with late afternoon optimism".

One thing I probably should point out is that where I've said "members are responsible", staff are members, too. Although I would be a little hesitant to be the sole person working on a summary for a 900 post thread, it's at least as much because I wouldn't want to create the appearance of a staff member deciding what the main points of a Wiki were as it is because ... well ... who wants to summarize 900 posts?

These are still collaborative threads IMO, though we are collaborating to a different end. I would like to see how a Wiki thread plays out in terms of communicating member concerns and thoughts to LeeD and his representatives before I dive in whole-hog.

[Lindon Tinuviel]

What I'm thinking is that there's no way I'm doing somebody else's homework.

[Gardener101]

And what I am thinking is that:

Lee

1. Acted in haste. He should have waited, gathered more info, done this wiki-guideline thing/discussion first to have a better idea of what members want before he 'acted on them'.

2. Upset a lot of people by announcing drastic changes AFTER they had been made. Yes, he owns the site, but come on...it's not like he can afford to do without us, as no members = no site.

3. Could do serious damage to this website by getting a vote of no confidence from his staffers and members alike. He should remember that it is a two way thing, we give and he takes (yes...we give our money as donations/site supporters, mods give their time freely helping him organise and run his site...without mods he is up the creek without a paddle). WHAT IS HE CURRENTLY GIVING BACK?

Certainly not his time :sigh: If he was too busy in his personal life, he should have not pushed in all these changes so quickly. Now he has created a lot of changes and is awol, missing in action...making people lose trust in him, thinking he does not really care what they feel or think.

Basically, people feel he has not shown membership the respect they deserve.

That's what I am thinking :sorry:

[Amoranemix]

I wonder if we're going to have a problem with a lot of move requests, but nobody willing to do the summaries. It's easy to ask "Hey! I liked that thread, could you move it back?", but it's quite another thing to stride bravely into a 90-page free-for-all and write up a summary.I think the easiest way to proceed is not to bother reading the thread and just put your own opinion as a summary.

3. The rollback feature has also evidently been removed. Staff can still do one, if it's needed.Can staff also do rollbacks when it’s not needed ? I prefer that users can also roll back when it’s needed.

3.5 The Wiki/Rules Discussion threads do not support polls, unfortunately.I prefer that polls can be started in the Wiki/Rules discussion subforum. Why did LeeD remove that feature ?

4. The General Wiki Subform is now also read-only. I am unsure whether old Wiki discussions from there are allowed to be moved here.I prefer that members have write access as well.

Here is a how to wiki http://foru.ms/t6386778-wiki-how-to-wiki.htmlThe link doesn’t work.

The thing with these discussion threads is that there are often pages and pages of semi-on-topic back and forth between the nuggets. The article page is a place to steam it down to the nuggets. They can be large nuggets, I assume.In the old days we put the ‘consensus’ in the wiki, which was supposed to be the conclusion of the discussion, not a summary of it. Now the conclusion is made by LeeD.

ISNT IT A VIOLATION OF CONSTATIONAL RIGHTS TO NOT BE ABLE TO FACE YOUR ACCUSERSThat depends on the scope of the sanctions that can be imposed. I don’t think the USA constitution even mentions the internet.

This is a primer that tapero put together for the rules wikis: http://foru.ms/t5755591-how-to-wiki.htmlThere is also a wiki on how to wiki : Wiki: Wiki's - Guidelines, Rules and Procedures (http://foru.ms/t5764794-wiki-wikis-guidelines-rules-and-procedures.html). The powers that be never thought it worth snapshotting.

Now we're back to an owner/staff driven board in which all decisions are made behind closed doors. The non-staff members are thrown back upon, not to put too fine a point on it, wheedling.In addition, all those who put many hours of work in creating the rules didn’t receive an ounce of recognition for wasting their time.

What's more, the onus for ensuring good communication with those in power (by means of the compiling and ordering of a brief synopsis of what may well have been a long, lively and alive discussion) has been put upon those of us who have the least information, the least insight as to what needs to be communicated or how to do it, the least usable meter for judging where the bulk of our efforts should go, the least sense of our new webmaster. We have the least of these things because the more generous portion has been removed from our grasps.That was also a problem under the more democratic regime. The appeals process was partly conducted behind closed, discussions were taking place where I couldn’t participate and there were also elusive and ambiguous Erwin mandates under which we had to operate initially. Matters haven’t improved since then though.

So, I see that a primer/announcement is needed for this new wikified forum, and I see that Captain Yesterday's topic has been brought forward but no one has done a synopsis of it yet. A few months ago I would have PM'ed Lisa and a couple of others and jumped in on these two tasks. Now I just ask myself, "Why?"I have asked that same question to myself and others when LeeD became owner. I have limited my contribution to the appeals wiki since then.

I understand your concerns, and I'd be lying if I said I didn't share many of them. My forecast is "mostly wait and see with late afternoon optimism".Waiting and seeing doesn’t get any work done, nor does it give the members a voice.

These are still collaborative threads IMO, though we are collaborating to a different end.[1] I would like to see how a Wiki thread plays out in terms of communicating member concerns and thoughts to LeeD and his representatives before I dive in whole-hog.[2] [1] Meaning that the result is not binding and thus has much less value to the creators than they thought it had in the defunct wiki process. [2] Most members can’t do that as they don’t have access to the secret forums.

3. Could do serious damage to this website by getting a vote of no confidence from his staffers and members alike. He should remember that it is a two way thing, we give and he takes (yes...we give our money as donations/site supporters, mods give their time freely helping him organise and run his site...without mods he is up the creek without a paddle). WHAT IS HE CURRENTLY GIVING BACK?From what I gather LeeD is indulging staff at the expense of members, so I doubt they will strike.

[Lindon Tinuviel]

From what I gather LeeD is indulging staff at the expense of members, so I doubt they will strike.

Agreed. Though Staff isn't the only group--nor even the most significant group--who can protest, defy, and boycott.

[Glass*Soul]

These are still collaborative threads IMO, though we are collaborating to a different end. I would like to see how a Wiki thread plays out in terms of communicating member concerns and thoughts to LeeD and his representatives before I dive in whole-hog.
Most members can’t do that as they don’t have access to the secret forums.

Thank you Amoranemix for pointing this out.

Ravenscape, et al: Non-staff members have no prospect of seeing how a wiki thread actually "plays out." We are no longer privy to staff discussions nor LeeD's communication with staff, so most of the steps are going to be invisible to us. We're now entirely in the dark as to the rules-making process, limited to seeing only the resulting directives, and no guarantee given at this point as to whether we will be given a firm yea or nay in regard to our suggestions/concerns, let alone valuable feedback as to our approach and process. You and other staff may see it "play out." We won't.

[ravenscape]

Actually, by "play out" I meant what any of us can see right here in the wiki forum. Members (including staff) discuss a problem, and a summary is developed. Then, who reads it? Who addresses it publicly? What happens to the input? Do any changes result?

These are all things that any of us can see. And IMO the nature of any public response/reconsideration/redirection is the most important part of the process to me. If there is no response, then this forum will quickly become an elephant's graveyard of split posts for the most part. If the response never involves reconsideration or change, then the forum probably faces a similar fate, just on a slower time frame.

[Glass*Soul]

Actually, by "play out" I meant what any of us can see right here in the wiki forum. Members (including staff) discuss a problem, and a summary is developed. Then, who reads it? Who addresses it publicly? What happens to the input? Do any changes result?

These are all things that any of us can see. And IMO the nature of any public response/reconsideration/redirection is the most important part of the process to me. If there is no response, then this forum will quickly become an elephant's graveyard of split posts for the most part. If the response never involves reconsideration or change, then the forum probably faces a similar fate, just on a slower time frame.

Yes. If we begin to see that our concerns are being acknowledged publically by those in a position to address them, that will be a very good thing. Particularly if we begin getting the sort of responses that begin, "This is what I hear you saying..." and then an opportunity is given to correct or reinforce what has been heard.

But we don't know yet. Plus we just spent the last weekend watching our access to the various processes on this board being systematically closed to us. It's no wonder we have doubts. No wonder we're lackadaisical.

The energy for this needs to be coming from somewhere other than those who have just been more or less disenfranchised.

Meh. I've just spent an hour summarizing this last page under point #7. (I know. I'm slow) If any of of the participants feel I've picked a poor quote to represent the gist of their post, please go in and change it. Also please feel free to alter my introductory remarks if you can say it better. Or delete it in protest. ^_^

[Evangelica]

Moriah is posting again? I just got reps, how cool.

[Glass*Soul]

I've debated all afternoon as to whether to do this. :?

I want to post a link to a post in another wiki/rules thread that I think speaks directly to our apparent reluctance to compile our discussions.

http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=40586875&postcount=129

However, if you have desires to influence the board and have a say in how it's run, then I guess you are just in the wrong place.

So, I think I'm done discussing the rules for the time being. I plan on spending the bulk of my time at foru.ms in Theology. I'm grateful that I can do that and I thank Erwin for having made that possible in the end.

[Amoranemix]

I understand your concerns, and I'd be lying if I said I didn't share many of them. My forecast is "mostly wait and see with late afternoon optimism".It seems that for most people optimism equated dreaming and pessimism equated realism.

Non-staff members have no prospect of seeing how a wiki thread actually "plays out." We are no longer privy to staff discussions nor LeeD's communication with staff, so most of the steps are going to be invisible to us.We don't even know what those steps are.

Actually, by "play out" I meant what any of us can see right here in the wiki forum. Members (including staff) discuss a problem, and a summary is developed. Then, who reads it? Who addresses it publicly? What happens to the input? Do any changes result?
These are all things that any of us can see [1]. And IMO the nature of any public response/reconsideration/redirection is the most important part of the process to me [2]. If there is no response, then this forum will quickly become an elephant's graveyard of split posts for the most part. If the response never involves reconsideration or change, then the forum probably faces a similar fate, just on a slower time frame.[1] No, they are not. To half of those questions ordinary members do not have answers. Who reads the summary ? I don't know. Who addresses it publicly ? That I can see indeed. Who addresses it privately ? I don 't know. What happens to the input ? Either it gets into the wiki or it doesn't, so I can see that. Do any changes result ? I don't know.
[2] To you perhaps, but not to the ordinary members. Every link in the chain from member opinion to applied policy is essential. One missing link and their is no chain. It is common for people who have more rights than others and do not risk losing them them to find those rights unimportant. Says the guy who has arms and legs to the guy who has legs, but no arms : 'To me the most important extremities are the legs as they allow you to move around.' I'm sure the guy without arms will find that consoling. Those who have something value it the least as they don't know what they are missing and of course there is also pretence.

I propose the following modifications to the wiki :

Replace
3. The rollback feature has also evidently been removed. Staff can still do one, if it's needed.
by
3. The rollback feature has been disabled for ordinary members. Only staff can do rollbacks.

Shift numbering of points (to remove the number 3,5).

Replace
4. The General Wiki Subform is now also read-only. I am unsure whether old Wiki discussions from there are allowed to be moved here.
by
5. The General Wiki subforum has been concealed from ordinary members.

Replace
Here is a how to wikihttp://christianforums.com/t6386778-wiki-how-to-wiki.html
by
You can find how to use this forum at christianforums.com/t6388279-how-to-use-wiki-for-discuss-rules.html

Remove bracketed numbering from
[1]These are still collaborative threads IMO, though we are collaborating to a different end. [2]I would like to see how a Wiki thread plays out in terms of communicating member concerns and thoughts to LeeD and his representatives before I dive in whole-hog.

Remove bracketed numbering and second sentence from
[1]Meaning that the result is not binding and thus has much less value to the creators than they thought it had in the defunct wiki process. [2]Most members can’t do that as they don’t have access to the secret forums.