User Guidelines doc?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Dec 09, 2003 11:27 am

> someone started a new thread, entitled "Let's flame Xperson" and
> *that's* the thread that was locked.

Nope. That thread may have been locked, but the one that we're talking
about was the original discussion (about Center Camp, I think, later
renamed to something about PJ and his cows).

I'm in agreement that flame threads are in poor taste, but I'm reluctant to
say that I think flamey stuff should be deleted. I agree with trey's ranger
analogy in that an authoritarian approach is not necessarily productive.

precipitate · Post by **precipitate** » Tue Dec 09, 2003 11:36 am

Fuck. So, can we, like, make this forum not public? I'm not sure
anonymous users should be able to post here anyway (though in
Bugs they should, in case it's a login problem).

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Tue Dec 09, 2003 11:39 am

yeah what's up with the guest opinion? does that count or not?

Ivy · Post by **Ivy** » Tue Dec 09, 2003 11:43 am

A community as a whole might agree that a thread titled and solely devoted to flaming someone is okay.

However, that's a community that I would choose not to be a part of.

I still think Spanky did the right thing, if not the right way. If he had gone through the right channels (if they had been there to go through), I'd venture to guess it would have nipped a lot of other problems in the bud before they got out of hand.

the cow sniffing (or whatever) thread may be locked now, but it wasn't the first one to go. That thread, IMO, should not have been locked. There was some good debate in there.

precipitate · Post by **precipitate** » Tue Dec 09, 2003 11:47 am

> the cow sniffing (or whatever) thread may be locked now, but it wasn't
> the first one to go.

Really? It's the only one I was aware of. If that's true, I'm fairly disturbed.
Not that I believe that kind of admin behavior will continue now that
there's dialogue going on with the user community, but still. I'm
disturbed.

Ivy · Post by **Ivy** » Tue Dec 09, 2003 12:04 pm

With all the name changed and deleted posts, I don't know which is which.

I know this: there were two threads.

The first one, I don't recall the name, had a debate about center camp. Tawnee Lynne and I got into an arguement. i don't believe either one of us flamed the other. However, other people got involved in the debate and some namecalling began which escaleted to flaming.

Starboy (I think) started another thread (including a poll, I believe) called something to the effect of "WHat's your reason for flaming TL?" I'm pretty sure this is the thread linked to in one of Trey's earlier posts in this topic.

I'm am 98.3 % sure they both ended up locked and one got deleted (I'm inanely assuming it's not the one trey linked to...duh). However, I am still not entirely clear which one ended up being which.

precipitate · Post by **precipitate** » Tue Dec 09, 2003 12:08 pm

You're right. I got confused by all the name changing and post deleting.

Nevermind.

technopatra · Post by **technopatra** » Tue Dec 09, 2003 4:34 pm

hmm.. ok now I'm confused-

The Spanky-pulled thread that I went crying to him about had nothing to do with the cafe. It did have some really nasty Tawny-bashing, and some nasty replies to Tawny-bashing.

This was, as far as I know, the only thread that was pulled by an admin.

We had a couple of other threads that were accidentally auto-pruned because we missed turning off the auto-prune function when they were set- so if no one responded in something like 7 or 14 days, they disappeared.

The difference between that the pulled thread and most of WSPR's nasty threads is that the eplayans rallied and turned his around - they for the most part, became useful, even enjoyable conversations.

The difference in our response is due to that, and to the reaction from the community of Spanky pulling the first one, which was mixed at best. This was due to the fact (that someone else pointed out) that there was no policy to point to so it was perceived as reactionary. Which I guess it was.

Someone questioned, earlier in this thread (sorry I can't see who, oh does it bug me that in the preview window you can only see the messages that are on the same page as you, grrr), whether we should've gotten involved at all. Well that's a good question.

How long do we let the bashing go before it demands admin attention? That one had almost a full page of just mean trash, with no end, imo, in sight. WSPR's threads didn't get 2 posts before he got called out, and it took few posts after that for the thread to drift somewhere better. Even after that, I got a number of PMs and emails asking me to kill his account, because just seeing the topic title made them feed bad and they didn't want to be here anymore.

What do you guys think? If our judgement is being questioned when we act on our own, and our judgement is being questioned when we act on user requests, what undebatable metric can we use to decide when to get involved?

I don't mean to sound defensive - but what I'm hearing is a call for an alternative to subjective judgements about what's too evil to keep on the boards. The problem I'm having, is that eveil _is_ subjective. If we tackle defining what is evil, beyond the start that Trey gave us, in the rules they will never get finished.

When it comes down to it, we just have to make some basic rules, then we'll make our best calls and deal with the heat.

I don't want to kill this conversation - please continue, it may yield some better ideas. But for the immediate present, what we need is hard suggestions for Trey's draft so I can officialize it this week.

precipitate · Post by **precipitate** » Tue Dec 09, 2003 5:17 pm

> hmm.. ok now I'm confused-

No, you're not. I was. It's as you said.

> what undebatable metric can we use to decide when to get involved?

There isn't one. You're probably going to have to take criticism no matter
what you do. That's OK. As long as your decisions are explained, and
defensible, it'll all be fine.

I think trey's guidelines are fine (I did get to see them before they were
posted here, and gave my feedback then; it was largely cosmetic). I still
think that a user FAQ would be useful and deserves to be a separate
document.

technopatra · Post by **technopatra** » Tue Dec 09, 2003 5:32 pm

precipitate wrote:I still think that a user FAQ would be useful and deserves to be a separate document.

Absolutely. It's coming right behind this.

III · Post by **III** » Tue Dec 09, 2003 6:12 pm

i'm willing to disagree on the tawnee-lynne thread, because i can see it going both ways. i also think that the thread itself was in response to ugliness elsewhere, which might have been managed better earlier.

it's part of why the guidelines are loosly defined, and exlicitely allowed to change over time - it'll be a matter of trial and error to get to something good.

Kinetic II · Post by **Kinetic II** » Tue Dec 09, 2003 11:35 pm

technopatra wrote:What do you guys think? If our judgement is being questioned when we act on our own, and our judgement is being questioned when we act on user requests, what undebatable metric can we use to decide when to get involved?

Would somebody please answer this CRITICAL question?

Ivy · Post by **Ivy** » Wed Dec 10, 2003 7:58 am

Would somebody please answer this CRITICAL question?

Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and answer it yourself?

I for one, agree that there is no "undebatable" standard. Someone, somewhere is always gonna disagree. that's life. But if you have something, some sort of "rules" (shudder, for lack of a better word) to fall back on, that should establish the admin posisition and be suffiecently explanatory for any actions taken.
What the rules are is a different question. You could basically list anything and act on on it as long as you established it to begin with. I'd like to imagine that this being a community and all, it would work somewhat (on a very basic loose analogy) like the law being checked by the courts--rules are defind in user guidlines, user breaks rules, admins act. Either the community agress with this action, or, if they feel that for some reason there is a special circumstance or that perhaps it's time for a guidleines to be revised or looked at again, they could bring it up and work on it. I don't see it as being a set in stone, forever and ever kind of thing, always the same in every case.

But basically, what it comes down to, is that as long as the users agree to the guidelines when they participate here, then the actions of the admins reflected in those guidelines would not be debateable.

III · Post by **III** » Wed Dec 10, 2003 8:52 am

> it would work somewhat (on a very basic loose analogy) like the law being checked by the courts

which is exactly what i'm trying to do with the case studies thread.

i see it being very much like the legal system in the u.s. is set up. anyone who's ever read the laws realizes that there is a lot of slop room in them (especially the ones written and passed by voters, rather than legislators). the courts then take those laws, and try to apply them in a way that is consistant with the moires of current society. not everyone likes things turn out, but they wouldn't anyways.

Zane5100 · Post by **Zane5100** » Wed Dec 10, 2003 11:52 am

Ah,... I just slipped into a very cynical frame of mind.

The admin(s) can stomp on anyone they wish whenever they want to and they don't have to clear it with or justify it to the "community."

Maybe a few lightning bolts from the blue will get some attention.

http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic. ... 2011#32011

The biggest danger to a community is the community.

Tiara · Post by **Tiara** » Wed Dec 17, 2003 10:06 am

To bring things back to the general/theoretical level. . .

My interpretation of what I've read in several forums is that consensus is favoring a "rules" document as well as a statement of community guidelines and principles. The former would attempt to describe the things that are specifically not ok, and the penalties for engaging in those things. The latter would be more proactive, giving advice on the nature of the community and how to interact, netiquette tips, a reminder to look for answers on the general site before asking questions, etc.

Is that generally in line with what you all are thinking?

I think that the guidelines/principles document should also address the various top level folders, and the types of queries and discussions each is designed to host, with a notation that anything else can go to General Discussion.

I also think it might prevent problems down the road if one or both of those documents discusses the issue of commerce. As the event gets closer, I'm sure we'll see more commercial type spam from people selling things of real or imagined use to the Burn community. It was an issue on the old board, and I'm sure it will be an issue again. One potential solution would be to confine such posts to the I Need/I Have section.

Chai Guy · Post by **Chai Guy** » Wed Dec 17, 2003 1:42 pm

I also think it might prevent problems down the road if one or both of those documents discusses the issue of commerce.

I agree that some sort of consesus should be held here. Is providing a link to a product vendor considered spam or commerce? It would be nice to know what the community felt was appropriate and then have that posted somewhere so people knew where we stand and could act accordingly.

precipitate · Post by **precipitate** » Wed Dec 17, 2003 2:00 pm

> Is providing a link to a product vendor considered spam or commerce?

Or neither. Someone asks about showering on the playa, I post a link to
the propane shower I adore. Is that spam? No. Is it commerce? No.

Is it spam if I start a showering thread in Tips & Tricks and recommend
the same shower? I don't think so.

While it's probably obvious, making a distinction between mentioning a
product you've used or heard about and commercial promotions is useful.

I do think that having a single place where people hocking their wares can
go is good. Some people sell EL wire cheap, some people are making
things that might be useful as personal fundraisers, and the LLC has
never said you can't do that off-playa. Giving it a forum nips a lot of
problems in the bud.

Chai Guy · Post by **Chai Guy** » Wed Dec 17, 2003 3:19 pm

Right, I wasn't trying to imply that it was and either-or situation.

Some people have come on in the past trying to sell things like Art Cars, or cars that could be made into art cars. I've seen some people get flamed and others seem to be ignored or embraced. I just like giving people the rules up front, instead of trashing them for violating some invisible policy.

technopatra · Post by **technopatra** » Fri Dec 19, 2003 2:39 am

Tiara wrote:To bring things back to the general/theoretical level. . .

My interpretation of what I've read in several forums is that consensus is favoring a "rules" document as well as a statement of community guidelines and principles. The former would attempt to describe the things that are specifically not ok, and the penalties for engaging in those things. The latter would be more proactive, giving advice on the nature of the community and how to interact, netiquette tips, a reminder to look for answers on the general site before asking questions, etc.

Is that generally in line with what you all are thinking?

Yes. We are working on 3 docs: Rules (explains what is acceptable/unacceptable, penalties, and help protocol/contact info), Guidelines (as you described), and FAQ (Netiquette 101 for newbies)

Tiara wrote: I think that the guidelines/principles document should also address the various top level folders, and the types of queries and discussions each is designed to host, with a notation that anything else can go to General Discussion.

That's a really good idea.

Tiara wrote: I also think it might prevent problems down the road if one or both of those documents discusses the issue of commerce. As the event gets closer, I'm sure we'll see more commercial type spam from people selling things of real or imagined use to the Burn community. It was an issue on the old board, and I'm sure it will be an issue again. One potential solution would be to confine such posts to the I Need/I Have section.

Another really good suggestion.

SYK- I'm making this entire folder required reading for the folks helping out in the writing of these docs.

technopatra · Post by **technopatra** » Fri Dec 19, 2003 2:42 am

Chai Guy wrote:Right, I wasn't trying to imply that it was and either-or situation.

Some people have come on in the past trying to sell things like Art Cars, or cars that could be made into art cars. I've seen some people get flamed and others seem to be ignored or embraced. I just like giving people the rules up front, instead of trashing them for violating some invisible policy.

Can I get a witness? I think we also need to address how folks respond to infractions in etiquette/rules. I'd like to reform vigilantism as a cultural norm - it'll be so much more effective for folks to have rules/guidlines to cut'n'paste or point to instead.

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Sun Dec 21, 2003 9:02 am

User guidelines -- one screenful, or less. I would edit what III posted down to two sentences.

Chai Guy · Post by **Chai Guy** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 10:04 am

Will the user guidelines doc include anything about sock puppets?

Verboten? Frowned Upon? Ok if used sparingly or with disclaimers? Just curious.

Also, I'm not sure if this is the place for this, but I just want to go on record as saying that I think pulling user accounts and posts may contribute to people acting in a manner that reflects their ability to "hit and run". It also makes reading and using the board much more difficult when a portion of the posts (or the words contained within) are now missing.

Just my thoughts.

III · Post by **III** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 12:10 pm

>Will the user guidelines doc include anything about sock puppets?

nope.

but if it did, how would you define "sock puppet"?

(i'll second the notion that admin actions on user requests seem to validate that hit and run behavior, though)

Chai Guy · Post by **Chai Guy** » Tue Dec 23, 2003 12:44 pm

sock puppet säk 'p&-p&t (noun)

A separate login account created by a user for the purposes of, but not limited to; lending credence to one's own posts through corroboration or other tactics, acting as a cheerleader or nemesis for the primary user, lashing out at other users (with out fear of being identified), being a voice for your second, third and fourth personalities, etc.

III · Post by **III** » Tue Dec 30, 2003 9:28 pm

i would like to offer my appolgies to the community (sort of).

in an effort to get *something* going, i wrote up the above guidelines, and submitted them to the etf list, in the hope that they would provide an appropriate starting point.

it does indeed seem to have spurred a responnse, though it bears little resemblance to anything that has been discussed here. the end product being proposed at this point hasd intentionally excluded community input, including what i've presented above.

i apologize for presenting the appearance that feedback might mean something.

i trust, however, that the results will nevertheless be exemplary.

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Thu Jan 01, 2004 6:54 pm

I anticipated that "ePlaya Feedback" might include feedback from the eplaya community on such things, and others, but... whatever.

III · Post by **III** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 1:15 am

me too. (and, i expect, did the people who set up the feedback section).

but you know that commitees within the llc are veritable hydras of control and responsibility, and the people who do the work aren't always the people who get to decide how it actually gets done.

Chai Guy · Post by **Chai Guy** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 1:17 pm

but you know that commitees within the llc are veritable hydras of control and responsibility, and the people who do the work aren't always the people who get to decide how it actually gets done.

"A committee is a cul-de-sac down which ideas are lured and then quietly strangled."
Sir Barnett Cocks (ca. 1907)

"A committee is a group of people who individually can do nothing but together can decide that nothing can be done."
Fred Allen

"A committee takes hours to put into minutes what can be done in seconds."
Judy Castrina

"If you want to kill any idea in the world, get a committee working on it."
Charles F. Kettering

"To get something done a committee should consist of no more than three people, two of whom are absent."
Robert Copeland

technopatra · Post by **technopatra** » Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:17 pm

III wrote:i would like to offer my appolgies to the community (sort of).

in an effort to get *something* going, i wrote up the above guidelines, and submitted them to the etf list, in the hope that they would provide an appropriate starting point.

it does indeed seem to have spurred a responnse, though it bears little resemblance to anything that has been discussed here. the end product being proposed at this point hasd intentionally excluded community input, including what i've presented above.

i apologize for presenting the appearance that feedback might mean something..

Totally untrue, and I'm unclear as to how you came to this conclusion. Community feedback is not being ignored, nor were your efforts. I haven't heard a peep put of you on the ETF list addressing these concerns at all.

Ron Meiners, who is my most committed and most experienced community management resource, offered up a set of guidelines and rules, based on some of his previous work, for discussion. Discussion has ensued.

That discussion neither supercedes, nor precludes, what is being discussed here.

While it's true that we will have to run the final docs by someone higher in the LLC than myself, plus some lawyers, no one is twisting our arms or forcing policy down our throats.

I need this area to be, if not a positive, then at least non-dismissive discussion area. That means that I consider everything you say. That also means that you all DO NOT waste our time with musings about the evil influence of the LLC.

Seriously, if you need to vent like this, and won't talk to me directly, then do it in General Discussion.

User Guidelines doc?

let's clarify

Re: let's clarify