Poll Open Disclosure Policy To Forum Members - Yes or No?

[anthony]

As members who have been upon this forum for some months would certainly know, I have an open disclosure policy surrounding actions I take upon this forum. Now this originally was not the case as I kept all forum admin matters quite private, nor did I explain myself to another if questioned about the matter, privately or publicly.

Members had voiced their opinions over the last couple of years bringing about why I was not accountable to explain my actions to all members as the members often become quite tight nit, friends, and what affects one often affects others. So I agreed with the majority and went to open disclosure, where I publicly outline events that occur with members in the chat general forum.

Now membership changes, people come and go, so I will put it back up for debate once again, where the majority decision will decide whether I stop open disclosure and all administrative matters will no longer be divulged to members publicly or privately.

Some believe public notification is responsible as people become good friends, some then think its not. The other side is some then think I may be hiding personal agenda's or the like, some don't care what I do with admin issues.

Either way, I respect the majority opinion of the forum, hence why here we are at a vote this time round, not just a thread. The majority decision will decide whether future policy is kept private or public. This poll will always be the deciding factor from here on out, so if the membership changes and wants open disclosure again, the poll would have to clearly outline this to one side or the other.

Measurement of Majority: Majority decision is a clear 10 vote swing one way or the other.

Once that vote is clear, if the vote becomes much closer at any time or has not yet met this minimum factor, the existing method stands. Example: if majority is "open disclosure" then "non-disclosure" will not occur until a minimum of a 20 point swing the other way has been met, being from +10 open disclosure to +10 non-disclosure.

 

[batgirl]

I think there should be open disclosure but that it should be discreet at the same time. I think there's probably some situations where revealing all the details of why a person is moderated or banned would be detrimental and would make matters worse. The privacy of members still needs to be respected in some situations.

 

[anthony]

Absolutely concur... a persons private affairs remain private unless they drag those affairs upon the forum.

 

[Lisa]

I vote yes but I think I agree with Evie's point of view.

It also reminds me of what not to do to see the rules in action. And it also reassures me when you explain specifically that you are not hard to please, as long as people obide by rules and this is provided by example by going public. I think reading that would make it easier for me should I ever do something wrong to simply face up to it... if that makes any sense? I agree it should be kept discreet and privacy should be respected, but it's good to see the matter of fact honest approach too. For me I think it makes it easier for people to see its simply about rules, and not 'picking on anyone'.

 

[anthony]

Absolutely Lisa....

 

[Deleted member 487]

Anthony, you're the boss here. I ain't paying you for this fine service you provide, nor is very many people that I know of. So if you say it's public, then it's public. If you say it's private, then it's private. Asking our opinion on this is akin to asking us if it offends us that you enjoy eating fried mutton steaks in the privacy of your home. We're guests, simple.

And for the record I think that Anthony's doing a damn good job here.

 

[anthony]

Thanks mate, much appreciated to have your feedback.

 

[Lisa]

Additional comment...

I just have something I'd like to add...I've thought about what I want as a member, but not about what the member being moderated may want. And so, the only thing I want to add is that I think there needs to be sensitivity towards this when it is done publicly, and maybe for each public post on this issue, there needs to be statement about what the person needs to do to get out of moderation if the decision is not permanent. And that individual cases do need to be considered on an individual basis as well.

For example, Bec's moderation issue wasn't posted publicly initially by you... I am assuming that was for a reason. Perhaps this should have been kept, and any members who had an issue around it PMd you privately? It's just that if something is going to be announced in public for people to comment on, then there is little point when only half the story can be posted. We could see Bec was moderated already and the full reasons for this were not open to the public, and I respected that. But a public discussion happened anyway which was pointless as nobody could understand the full reasons exactly. So I think that had no purpose really and just caused bad feeling, and perhaps in future if reasons are going to be kept private, there is no point in having a post open to discussion? That doesn't mean it shouldn't be posted as such... but maybe a locked thread for moderations that are not fully explained in public? It saves pointless discussions around it.

I also did feel that Bec's moderation post became quite personal towards her as a person, rather than simply stating what she had done wrong in her actions. I would rather, if matters are going to be brought into the public, it was kept to the point of what the member has done wrong in their actions, and how they have been instructed to rectify matters and redeem their priviladges.

I'm sorry to bring all that up again. But I figured it was relevant to this, and is just my personal opinion!

I do second Cactus Jack... ultimately its your forum. if people d on't like how its run, they can leave. However, it is nice that we are being considered in your decisions. I do think you're doing an amazing job... I have realised one thing recently. I wouldn't want to be owner of a forum... it seems to be such hard work, and it is impossible to please everyone! Someone will always have a problem with something here. Though I do like the idea of majority voting over particular issues. But the final decision is yours and I respect that also.

 

[hodge]

I agree with Evie and Lisa - discretion, but open disclosure for purposes of communicating reasons for forum rules, etc.

 

[ruddy]

I didn't vote. I think both answers could be correct. I guess that's a vote for discretion.

 

[anthony]

Lisa, I agree. Veiled dragged the bec issue onto the forum, and that was the only reason I answered the limited aspects I did, as comes back to Evies post here regarding privacy, hence why members do not have an idea about the full scope, nor will from myself. Again, I only answered what I did due to my acknowledgement to members for open disclosure barring privacy issues.

No moderation is permanent, all members who get moderated can undo their own damage and its not by apologising or the like, its simply undoing what they did wrong in the first place. Prove otherwise, prove you can follow rules and work within the community and not against it as a whole.

A member won't go into moderation challenging me, arguing with me or telling me their two cents.... it all slides off me and I don't mind good healthy debate. What I do mind though is when an individual takes upon themselves to create or do their own thing outside of the forum general rules. This is why I minimised rules back to a bare basics level, so there are common rules that apply to us all, and outside of those go hard as I acknowledge what PTSD is and what it entails.

Very rarely would I ever ban someone, again, as mentioned in the bec thread I was the least likely person to do such, instead it was another who wanted to ban a person. Spammers get banned immediately, no issue with that one. A person who argues with me doesn't get banned or moderated. A person who comes on the forum as a troll, in other words, they try and disrupt the forum entirely towards all members, they will be moderated.

Members will typically not ever require to be moderated unless they break some basic rules, such as:

• Posting here in anger constantly
• Posting here when drunk or drugged constantly
• Posting here where the posts are so hard to read they disrupt thread topics
• Fail to comply with the basic rules of grammar, spelling, linking, etc.
• Lie, cheat or be deceptive in nature to me or members surrounding issues (not trauma therapy obviously)

No member need be an A+ speller, as you can use tools such as Firefox with a dictionary that will help you, thus negate the issue for the most part. I compensate for that, I provide links to the tools to help members who struggle in those areas, I have lessened rules to a bare minimum so the community as a whole is more relaxed and easy.

So in essence, very rare for a member to be moderated or banned, unless that member wants to be an individual and not follow simple community rules.

 

[Claire]

I voted yes and totally agree with Evie and Lisa. I too found the whole Bec thread a bit strange. I think we need openess to help with trust but not when it gets into a debate when no-one knows the all facts. Certainly not when it gets personal because its a waste of everyone's time and energy. I've felt this when others previously were banned or moderated. Ultimately though, it is your forum.