Save the Babies

[Rollifahrer]

Let me start by acknowledging I don't know crap about running forums (the MOA is the only one I use), and I appreciate all the work that goes into keeping any volunteer organization running. As far as the MOA Forum in concerned, I doubt I could do a better job, but I still have a concern to express.

There is something about BMW motorcycles that attracts certain people, and I think there is something about owning, riding and maintaining BMW's that changes people. It is those indefinable latent qualities that makes interacting with BMW owners/riders so totally facinating most of the time and occasionally quite frustrating. I may be in the minority, but I truly enjoy reading MOA members' input and opinions on controversial topics, including those the guidelines prohibit. And I like to occasionally jump in with my 2 cents. I would like to see something like DGT again, but with one major change.

The practice of closing or sending entire threads to the doghouse due to inappropriate individual posts probably has good reasons behind it, but it seems like throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. Would it not be more fair to boot individual posts that are outside the bounds of civil discourse and respectful disagreement, than an entire otherwise interesting, thought-provoking thread? Is it not decorum and appropriate interaction the guidelines are set up to preserve? If members are able to discuss "controversial topics" in a civilized manner, then must the guidelines be so restrictive in that particular forum?

The MOA is what it is for better or for worse, and I certainly won't judge the entire club based on how the forums have been managed recently, but I would hope a solution can be found that preserves MOA values AND permits members to discuss more diverse and important topics.

I say: Let's try again, only this time drain the dirty water when needed, but save the babies.

[osbornk]

There you go. You're making sense. I think it would be appropriate if it was handled that way. I frequently go to a blog and when someone has an inappropriate post, the content is deleted and it simply says "comment deleted by moderator". Everything else is left alone.

[Belquar]

It is like someone wrote a script for the resurrection of DGT.

If you read the Politics thread in the clubhouse you may see that it is being worked on.

I agree though. I rarely throw out all my apples when a few spoil.

[rocketman]

One reason that entire threads are moved to the doghouse is when the trend of the thread is such that it is leading to ever more inappropriate posts. If you look around you'll see that often individual posts are modified rather than entire threads. It is the general practice of the mods to first request the poster modify their post before the mods jump in. It was unfortunate that the tone of many threads in DGT lead to the actions they did, it is hoped that next attempt will not have that problem by being set up with a different approach and direction.

RM

[Rollifahrer]

Been on vacation. I missed the flurry of posts relating to closing DGT, but the free exchange of ideas among well educated, financially stable if not successful, dues paying MOA members is a beautiful thing. If bad posts are "contributed" by non-member lurkers, why not create a truly member-only envlave within the larger forum where topics are less restricted but breeches in civility including profanity are more severly punished?

One of the most enjoyable aspects of surfing the MOA Forums was, after hitting the tech forums for practical info, I liked to see who was debating what in DGT. I accept the fact it's not coming back, but I hope something similar can be devised.

I respect the need for rules and for mods to enforce them. My position is that the rules can evolve to meet the needs and interests of MOA members. Once again, I don't know anything about actaully running a forum, but I appreciate the efforts of those who do.

[BradfordBenn]

If you want to know more about the guidelines that the moderation team follows, it can be found here http://www.bmwmoa.org/forum/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_postingguidelines The big one being that we don't edit posts, we will ask for the original poster to make and edit, then the post will be deleted.

As Rocketman, pointed out if the overall timbre of the thread is devolving quickly than the moderators will close or dog house a thread. However before we close a thread we always try to steer it back on topic. Closing a thread is not something we do lightly.

[BubbaZanetti]

If you want to know more about the guidelines that the moderation team follows, it can be found here http://www.bmwmoa.org/forum/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_postingguidelines The big one being that we don't edit posts, we will ask for the original poster to make and edit, then the post will be deleted.

As Rocketman, pointed out if the overall timbre of the thread is devolving quickly than the moderators will close or dog house a thread. However before we close a thread we always try to steer it back on topic. Closing a thread is not something we do lightly.

Well said brad. I too like to try and get a thread "back on track" before doing anything else.

On the other hand, a thread who's initial intent is to troll or otherwise violates posting guidelines generaly gets sent to the doghouse as soon as a moderator gets a chance.

[Rollifahrer]

If you want to know more about the guidelines that the moderation team follows, it can be found here http://www.bmwmoa.org/forum/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_postingguidelines The big one being that we don't edit posts, we will ask for the original poster to make and edit, then the post will be deleted.

As Rocketman, pointed out if the overall timbre of the thread is devolving quickly than the moderators will close or dog house a thread. However before we close a thread we always try to steer it back on topic. Closing a thread is not something we do lightly.


Thanks for pointing me to the guidelines. I cruised through them once a when I first joined, but didn't see any reason I might violate any of them. This time I payed more attention to the process mods use to intervene, and came away with the impression there is even more to running a forum than I thought. I'm glad there are volunteers willing to do it.

BUT, I can't come off the idea that there can't be a place within the MOA Forum that does not forbid discussing politics. Yes, there are lots of places on the internet to do that, but no way of knowing the background and character or anything else about the people posting there. Not that politics should dominate the MOA Forum, nor that we are immune to raving jerks sabotaging (sp?) civil discussion, but when I see a BMW rider in public, or read an MOA member post, I assume several things: they have the good sense to use protective gear, are more or less law abiding (occasional romps into triple digets notwithstanding), are well educated and/or successfully earning a living and contributing to society, come from diverse backgrounds and hold strong believes but are open to other ideas...in general people whose views I can respect and would invite into my home, offer a coffee or beer and cover a range of topics with and learn something from the points where we disagree. There may be forums out there where one can discern who is posting, but in my limited experience with forums, I haven't found one.

I don't have any problem with the moderators doing the job they volunteered to do. I have a problem with an organization that feels it needs to take such measures to protect members from eachother or to maintain a particular image. It's not a huge problem for me; just big enough to motivate me to express my concerns. It's not that I have any particular position or agenda or platform to promote; it's more that I think it's healthy and enjoyable to observe other people who know more about things than I do debate them.

The metaphor of campfire is a clever way to describe an "off-topic" forum, and taking measures to prevent or pre-empt conduct that ruins real campfire experiences, ie one or two parties dominating the group with "hot button" topics, is a good idea, except that it ignores the power of the click. At a real campfire you can't choose the topics nor click on a person you don't like and make them shut up or go away. Think cable TV, think dish TV, think Google...each of us has the power to not recieve unwanted contect by not clicking on it. We can also click out if it's not what we expected. It is in this context I wonder whether the guidelines need to prohibit specific topics, especially if a sub-forum is set up that clearly informs users the topic may be controversial and debate heated. Does this mean a free for all of inappropriate language and personal attacks? No! I say off with the heads of those who cannot manage tough topics with a civil tongue (keyboard).

Will not having such a forum have a significant negative impact on the MOA? I doubt it. But I think members who are so inclined should have a place to discuss beliefs and to probe and challenge eachother. The traditional use of forums and the art of oration is not so much about winning arguments; it's about exchanging ideas and edifying observers. I happen to think debate among BMW riders is more informative and more valid than that of other parties who haunt the internet, and I hope the MOA can schedule a tune up of the Forum in the near future. What is the recommended service interval for volunteer based organizations to run diagnostics and tweak policy? If the answer is: At BoD meetings, is it too late to get this topic on the agenda for the upcoming meeting? If there is another mechanism, what is and how does it work?

If I'm FoS on this, I'll go away, but I sense I'm not the only one who thinks one forum with unrestricted topics can work and benefrit members. Hope they speak up.

[Bob1100RTC]

What exactly is trolling? To me it's floating in a boat with my line out.

[Rollifahrer]

What exactly is trolling? To me it's floating in a boat with my line out.

The guys who live on the internet make up new words, and steal old ones, faster than we can learn them. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[rocketman]

What exactly is trolling? To me it's floating in a boat with my line out.

from the forum guidelines which you should read, if you haven't already....

---------------
3 Trolling. Trolling is intentionally baiting members by posting inflammatory subject matter, then arguing just for "fun." Moderators will use their judgment and if they observe trolling will handle it with warnings, suspensions, etc as laid out in the "Concerns and Complaints" section.

---------------

as you can see its basically the same thing as when you go fishing, just trying for a different kind of "fish"

pretty self-explanatory....and not well recieved, a good way of getting threads killed off quickly and sent to the doghouse.

RM