Pin Unpin Posts

[Mohammad]

Dear Mr Eric Shulman,

I see you have unpinned the posts others pinned!

While that is true to keep important thread pinned and NOT ordinary questions, but please let

people decide on this!

I am sorry to say that I am not happy you unpin some announcements like TiddlyTables which has got a lot of attention (more than 850 views).

Please let keep this forum as a flexible collaborative forum!

Thank you in advance

Mohammad

[Eric Shulman]

On Thursday, December 5, 2019 at 12:39:03 AM UTC-8, Mohammad wrote:

While that is true to keep important thread pinned and NOT ordinary questions, but please let

people decide on this!

Everyone likes to think that their posts are really important and not just "ordinary questions", and some people seem to pin their posts just to shine more attention on their favorite topics.  However, consider this: if a thread is of sufficient general interest to the wider group audience, it will get new posts on a frequent basis, which will automatically keep it near the top of the message list without any need for it to be pinned.

I have been an administrator of this group for nearly 15 years, and have used my judgement to keep the forum healthy without overly interfering with the activity that occurs naturally.  Pinning a thread used to be an admin-only ability that was used very rarely, and only for extremely important announcements.  Even then, with few exceptions the pins were removed after a short while (at most a week or two), so that the natural time-ordered sequence of posts would prevail.

-e

[Mohammad]

Thank you for explanation!

--Mohammad

[Mark S.]

You unpinned things? Eight hours ago 4 items were pinned. Now, 3 are. It seems you are swimming against the stream ;-)

I think we were better off when things couldn't be pinned by members. Now there seems to be a rush to pin things to the top. Pretty soon we'll have an entire page of pinned threads. The pinning doesn't fix the thing that is wrong with GG, i.e., how to find important topics.

In an ideal world, everyone could pin their own favorite thread, and it would be pinned ONLY in their own feed.

[David Gifford]

 Apart from his comment about a supposed ego war, I agree with Mark that the forum would be better off with no pinned items. IMHO, pinned items should only be important announcements by Jeremy Ruston about TiddlyWiki itself.

[Mark S.]

Re-edited my post. Noticing that another fault with GG is that it doesn't provide a strike-out option.

[PMario]

On Thursday, December 5, 2019 at 3:45:56 PM UTC+1, Mark S. wrote:

....

In an ideal world, everyone could pin their own favorite thread, and it would be pinned ONLY in their own feed.

That's what "stars" are for. You can star stuff per thread or per reply. I use this mechanism since my first post to this group.

On the left sidebar in the web-ui there is a "Starred" button, which only shows my starred threads.

The "Filter" dropdown provides a filter that let's me search "posts I started" and "posts I did reply to".

That's absolutely useful.

have fun!

mario

[Mark S.]

Wow. That is useful. How did I miss that? I think it's just that my expectations were so low ...

Maybe this should be pinned at the top ;-)

[Jeremy Ruston]

Just to add that Google Groups doesn't appear to support a separate permission setting for pinning; as far as I can tell from poking around in the admin settings, anyone with posting permission can pin posts.

Best wishes

Jeremy

--

Jeremy Ruston

jer...@jermolene.com

https://jermolene.com

On 5 Dec 2019, at 15:14, 'Mark S.' via TiddlyWiki <tiddl...@googlegroups.com> wrote:



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywiki+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/d1c416e1-03d2-498d-b502-786e5ac313fb%40googlegroups.com.

[Eric Shulman]

On Thursday, December 5, 2019 at 7:17:02 AM UTC-8, Jeremy Ruston wrote:

Just to add that Google Groups doesn't appear to support a separate permission setting for pinning; as far as I can tell from poking around in the admin settings, anyone with posting permission can pin posts.

It might be controlled as part of the "Permissions > Posting Permissions > Moderate metadata" setting.

-e

[Mark S.]

I see how we star replies. But where do we star a topic?

Thanks!

On Thursday, December 5, 2019 at 7:11:44 AM UTC-8, PMario wrote:

[Jeremy Ruston]

Hi Eric

It might be controlled as part of the "Permissions > Posting Permissions > Moderate metadata" setting.

Thank you, that does look hopeful (see below for an illustration). It was set to “all members of group”, and I’ve now updated it to “Owners of the group, managers of the group”.

Best wishes

Jeremy

-e

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywiki+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/2b037e3f-86c6-43db-b36a-442c25b8513d%40googlegroups.com.

[TiddlyTweeter]

Ciao tutti

I'm not adverse to someone pinning an announcement for a few days. Like a plugin release. I thought Mohammad handled his pins fine.

It's the problem of it being overused just because you can pin, which would quickly prevent it being useful by overwhelm. 

There could be be case for a pinned thread on how to find older posts here, which is not that easy. I been working on one. 

But that could be looked at and an admin pin it if it proved useful.

Best

TT

[TonyM]

Bit of a storm in a tea cup

I had never pinned anything before. Found I could and assumed it was private. Two other pins occurred then I found out it was public and started a pin exit plan.

As far as I can see this has being the extent of pins in the last year or more so, with respect, I suggest education before restricting or dictating.

This is only my opinion but I have seen dozens of forums fail by the overzelouse slippery slope arguements that gradually disable features, create moderator roles where none were necessary, all due to perceived only possibilities.

As soon as you remove member responsibility you stop them taking responsibility.

By the way my two pins received substantial contributions as a result, to a community wide need.

Please solve problems by education first, not reducing things to an imaginary lowest common denominator.

Sincerly
Tony

[Jeremy Ruston]

A couple of thoughts:

* Pinning should never have been globally available. I appreciate the argument that no great harm was done, but it evidently created confusion as to who could see that a thread had been pinned

* We should agree on general rules for what threads might qualify for being pinned. To me, pinning would start with urgent announcements (e.g. if discovered a serious bug in a release and wanted to warn people to upgrade), important on-going informational threads like “Newbies start here”

* Generally I think it might be interesting to experiment with more use of pinned threads that are updated by an admin (e.g. we could have a thread “Announcements December 2019” that a volunteer like (say) Mohammad might undertake to update on a regular basis)

* As to plugin announcements, maybe the route to the widest audience is to put them on tiddlywiki.com. For a year now we’ve had the ability to do near instantaneous updates to tiddlywiki.com just by merging a pull request. It’s a shame we haven’t seen more use made of this; for the first time, tiddlywiki.com is editable by anyone who can create a PR

* We can appoint as more group managers if we need to

Best wishes

Jeremy

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywiki+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/c508d140-c1c8-4d3c-9e04-60f08190be15%40googlegroups.com.

[Mohammad]

Hi Tony!

 You are totally right! restricting people without explaining them and educating in advance never come to a better result!

 Also during the period members were allowed to pin, I noted few items wrongly pinned!

 These could be solved by ADMINS first by sending a short explanation through private posts, then unpin.

One question remains in my mind:

 In open source project while many people contribute, what rights they have?

 Nothing!!

 --Mohammad

[Ste Wilson]

The topic of pins seem to have pricked and needled some people, this is knit good, we must be able to stitch something together sew I'll stop as I've run out of puns. :)

[Mark S.]

The change to the documentation system itself was only documented with a single line. Or maybe not even that. I don't know what it means to work on the documentation branch. Do I make a branch below the documentation branch, or call my own branch by that name?

As far as I can tell, the tiddler,

Improving TiddlyWiki Documentation

was not updated to reflect the changes.

Thanks!

On Friday, December 6, 2019 at 2:16:47 AM UTC-8, Jeremy Ruston wrote:

A couple of thoughts:

* Pinning should never have been globally available. I appreciate the argument that no great harm was done, but it evidently created confusion as to who could see that a thread had been pinned

* We should agree on general rules for what threads might qualify for being pinned. To me, pinning would start with urgent announcements (e.g. if discovered a serious bug in a release and wanted to warn people to upgrade), important on-going informational threads like “Newbies start here”

* Generally I think it might be interesting to experiment with more use of pinned threads that are updated by an admin (e.g. we could have a thread “Announcements December 2019” that a volunteer like (say) Mohammad might undertake to update on a regular basis)

* As to plugin announcements, maybe the route to the widest audience is to put them on tiddlywiki.com. For a year now we’ve had the ability to do near instantaneous updates to tiddlywiki.com just by merging a pull request. It’s a shame we haven’t seen more use made of this; for the first time, tiddlywiki.com is editable by anyone who can create a PR

* We can appoint as more group managers if we need to

Best wishes

Jeremy

On 6 Dec 2019, at 09:45, TonyM <anthon...@gmail.com> wrote:

Bit of a storm in a tea cup

I had never pinned anything before. Found I could and assumed it was private. Two other pins occurred then I found out it was public and started a pin exit plan.

As far as I can see this has being the extent of pins in the last year or more so, with respect, I suggest education before restricting or dictating.

This is only my opinion but I have seen dozens of forums fail by the overzelouse slippery slope arguements that gradually disable features, create moderator roles where none were necessary, all due to perceived only possibilities.

As soon as you remove member responsibility you stop them taking responsibility.

By the way my two pins received substantial contributions as a result, to a community wide need.

Please solve problems by education first, not reducing things to an imaginary lowest common denominator.

Sincerly
Tony

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddl...@googlegroups.com.

[Mark S.]

You're keeping us on puns and noodles. Glad you took a stab at it.

[Jeremy Ruston]

Hi Mark

On 6 Dec 2019, at 14:48, 'Mark S.' via TiddlyWiki <tiddl...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

The change to the documentation system itself was only documented with a single line. Or maybe not even that. I don't know what it means to work on the documentation branch. Do I make a branch below the documentation branch, or call my own branch by that name?

As far as I can tell, the tiddler, 

Improving TiddlyWiki Documentation

was not updated to reflect the changes.

Thanks!

That tiddler was indeed updated back in January when we introduced the change. From the perspective of the person making the PR the only thing that changed was that the PRs should now target the “tiddlywiki-com” branch (hence the docs update). All the good changes are in the background: now when I merge a PR it automatically triggers a rebuild of tiddlywiki.com whereas in the past I needed to run the update from my computer, and it took a considerable time.

Best wishes

Jeremy.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywiki+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/52466f0d-3ff4-4b17-b0c6-c9975d5d3d1c%40googlegroups.com.

[TiddlyTweeter]

In other words you will get the "snip" (anagram)

TT

[Mark S.]

Ok, that's the single line, which is put at the top instead of into the step-by-step directions:

If you already know GitHub, note that documentation updates must be directed to the tiddlywiki-com branch

I don't know what it means by "directed to the tiddlywiki-com branch."

Does that mean my branch is a sub-branch of the tiddlywiki-com branch? Or do I call my branch tiddlywiki-com ?

For most of us, Github is not really very friendly. It often gives messages that are confusing and counter-intuitive. We need all the help we can get.

Thanks!

Hi Mark

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/52466f0d-3ff4-4b17-b0c6-c9975d5d3d1c%40googlegroups.com.

[Jeremy Ruston]

Hi Mark

On 6 Dec 2019, at 15:14, 'Mark S.' via TiddlyWiki <tiddl...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Ok, that's the single line, which is put at the top instead of into the step-by-step directions:

If you already know GitHub, note that documentation updates must be directed to the tiddlywiki-com branch

I don't know what it means by "directed to the tiddlywiki-com branch."

That paragraph is intended for people who know GitHub, hence the introduction. For people following the instructions in this tiddler everything is taken care of automatically.

Does that mean my branch is a sub-branch of the tiddlywiki-com branch? Or do I call my branch tiddlywiki-com ?

You’d clone the repo (which gives you all the branches in the repo), and then add a new branch that was based on the tiddlywiki-com branch. You shouldn’t call the branch tiddlywiki-com, either use a short descriptive name, or use a numbering system.

For most of us, Github is not really very friendly. It often gives messages that are confusing and counter-intuitive. We need all the help we can get.

That’s why those instructions exist for making changes through the GitHub web interface. The idea is that users following the instructions don’t need to understand anything about branches etc.

Best wishes

Jeremy.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywiki+...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/d1d7ff9c-ff8c-4a02-a23c-32f9b8f78e1c%40googlegroups.com.

[Mark S.]

There's a pinned item that has had no activity for 3 days.

Like Eric pointed out, there really is no need for pinning items of general interest. They will rise to the top as interest is generated.

But definitely, when no one has responded to a thread after 3 days, it should be unpinned.

Pinning means taking up real estate and significance from new posts, in particular posts from users looking for help. Maybe pinning an announcement of a significant new tool for a couple days makes sense. But after that, it will become "self-pinning" if it is as useful as its posters believe.

I kind of think the "two day rule" is reasonable. Thoughts?

[TonyM]

Mark,

As I have said previously "guidelines not rules". 2-3 days may be reasonable but I think the fund raiser post deserves longer. The "Exception [tests] the rule". Perhaps it would be easier to try [a guideline] and limit pins to a maximum of 5 or less, that is manage the real estate you talk about, not set another arbitrary limit the time.

I think "computer people" (myself included) sometime think a little too "black and white" because we are used to asking computers to do things for us. Vibrant communities however benefit more from open, generous and collaborative use of social skills we have evolved as a species.

This maps to a real world concern of mine where government and lawmakers have "mandatory" sentences. Removing discretion from Judges and Jurys means a lack of justice because they can no longer respond the the facts of a case. In fact its shown they are more likely to rule "not guilty" if they feel the punishment is unfair.

I do feel a little shy voicing this because I know people can have "strong ideas", all I ask is we follow our nose and let the community evolve rather than "behaviour" being written into stone (rules). I believe strongly that this openness and flexibility is why so many people with innovative thinking are here.

Regards

Tony 

[Mark S.]

Wasn't referring to the fund raiser.

[TonyM]

Mark,

You may have not being intending to refer to the fundraiser thread but you said

But definitely, when no one has responded to a thread after 3 days, it should be unpinned.

Then you asked for comments. 

This is the problem with deciding on rules, if taken as black and white they have negative consequences and suppress flexibility.

Just my view

Tony

[Mark S.]

I don't know what you're seeing, but the fundraiser item has had responses in the last 24 hours.

We have rules because rules are the fairest way to decide things. Without rules all you have is politics.

[Eric Shulman]

On Monday, December 9, 2019 at 9:59:19 AM UTC-8, Mark S. wrote:

There's a pinned item that has had no activity for 3 days.

Like Eric pointed out, there really is no need for pinning items of general interest. They will rise to the top as interest is generated.

But definitely, when no one has responded to a thread after 3 days, it should be unpinned.

I have just unpinned the two remaining "user pinned" threads.  If you want to re-pin those threads... just ask (and provide the reason!).  Otherwise, just let the posting activity determine their placement in the list of topics

I have left the "...be generous" thread pinned until the end of the year, as previously requested by Tony.

-e

[TonyM]

Mark,

you say

We have rules because rules are the fairest way to decide things. Without rules all you have is politics.

 

I think that is not only over simplified but cynical, actually there is a lot of cynicism driving change here not evidence.

Who makes the rules and are they fair?, rules are Not always the fairest way to decide things, humans should decide not pre-coded rules. This is not a democracy.

There are socially mediated rules and there is the the black letter law, I understand it is harder for people to understand how humans already have sophisticated social systems, which can be used to self moderate online systems, but most people only understand hard rules and enforcers. Just like political dictatorial systems deny our humanity, and restrict creativity. 

I do not want to say "I told you so" but I will later if this belief in moderation continues to expand.

I spent a number of years building a network upto 45,000 people with only guidelines not moderation, then decisions were made by someone who did not understand the network and it began to erode.

I feel it is my duty to speak out on this, but it is uncomfortable, because the next phase could be deletion of my words.

I am not making comment on Eric's genuine management of pinning.

Sincerely

Tony

[Jeremy Ruston]

Hi Tony

If you’re saying that you believe that we don’t need moderators for this group, then I respectfully disagree. Firstly, the use of moderation in online communities is universal, and secondly we’ve always had moderators.

I don’t think you’re saying that moderators shouldn’t work through an agreed, transparent framework of decision making, but really that’s all that is being suggested. The alternative is that the moderators work on their gut feel, which will inevitably lead to disagreements.

Best wishes

Jeremy.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywiki+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/6617b6ac-6b5b-40af-b891-24cd0781d785%40googlegroups.com.

[TiddlyTweeter]

Ciao Jeremy & TonyM

TBH I think there is a confounding factor in that GG may be a bit of a blunt instrument.

The taggery issue is a case example. In one way it is good to allow anyone to add any tag (even for personal later access reasons) they want. 

BUT that would be unworkable IF moderators can't control the default tag set presented to the user on post creation.

Right now it is messy, see: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!tags/tiddlywiki. And that may because GG can't handle that distinction.

I am very much in favour of moderation. But as a late resort. Moderation is very time consuming to do well. I know it is not always easy. It is a burden.

Where I agree with TonyM is on the implicit issue of "self-policing". I think this group is pretty good at that.  But I disagree with TonyM's fundamentalism on the issue, as if it will work out itself. It won't. It needs some direction.

The issue now, as I see it, is whether GG mechanism can support a mid-point. Where, for instance, on taggery, there would be "official" tags but users could add others at will (that don't go official). My start thought was, and question is, that GG is perhaps incapable of that balancing?

Best wishes

TT

On Tuesday, 10 December 2019 09:41:11 UTC+1, Jeremy Ruston wrote:

Hi Tony

If you’re saying that you believe that we don’t need moderators for this group, then I respectfully disagree. Firstly, the use of moderation in online communities is universal, and secondly we’ve always had moderators.

I don’t think you’re saying that moderators shouldn’t work through an agreed, transparent framework of decision making, but really that’s all that is being suggested. The alternative is that the moderators work on their gut feel, which will inevitably lead to disagreements.

Best wishes

Jeremy.

On 10 Dec 2019, at 03:28, TonyM <anthon...@gmail.com> wrote:

Mark,

you say

We have rules because rules are the fairest way to decide things. Without rules all you have is politics.

 

I think that is not only over simplified but cynical, actually there is a lot of cynicism driving change here not evidence.

Who makes the rules and are they fair?, rules are Not always the fairest way to decide things, humans should decide not pre-coded rules. This is not a democracy.

There are socially mediated rules and there is the the black letter law, I understand it is harder for people to understand how humans already have sophisticated social systems, which can be used to self moderate online systems, but most people only understand hard rules and enforcers. Just like political dictatorial systems deny our humanity, and restrict creativity. 

I do not want to say "I told you so" but I will later if this belief in moderation continues to expand.

I spent a number of years building a network upto 45,000 people with only guidelines not moderation, then decisions were made by someone who did not understand the network and it began to erode.

I feel it is my duty to speak out on this, but it is uncomfortable, because the next phase could be deletion of my words.

I am not making comment on Eric's genuine management of pinning.

Sincerely

Tony

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddl...@googlegroups.com.

[TonyM]

Jeremy,

If you’re saying that you believe that we don’t need moderators for this group, then I respectfully disagree. Firstly, the use of moderation in online communities is universal, and secondly we’ve always had moderators.

I am not saying this, perhaps moderators are necessary, I am saying to avoid active moderation unless there is a real need. Sure spammers and trolls should be locked out.

I have being involved in online communities with little or no moderators, because the membership as a whole moderate themselves. In many respects this already occurs in the TiddlyWiki groups. We regular posters also promote a healthy collaborative environment without applying moderation.

 

I don’t think you’re saying that moderators shouldn’t work through an agreed, transparent framework of decision making, but really that’s all that is being suggested. The alternative is that the moderators work on their gut feel, which will inevitably lead to disagreements.

I am keen on a "transparent framework of decision making" but I am not at all keen on reducing functionality to the general membership and thus demanding more effort from moderators on the basis of "perceived" concerns. An agreed, transparent framework of decision should be based on evidence not opinion (including my own).

 

You invited us to comment on this and I know my suggestion may seem non-intuitive and contradictory to many groups, but I is based on my experience. People now migrate to largely unmoderated forums and social media because of the limitations the old fashioned forums and strict moderation. A google search can find dozens of, all but abandoned, forums all over the internet. Look at the TiddlyWiki Discord as an example for a lightly moderated forum.

If I were employed by tiddlywiki community some may consider questioning the status quo as a CLM (Career Limiting move) but I naturally only put a strong and novel argument, if I have substantial experience to support my assertions, as I do on this occasion.

Any way I have put my case, perhaps sufficiently outside the box that it is not understood. But as long as we maintain the current forum culture we should be fine. 

 Regards

Tony

[Jeremy Ruston]

Hi Tony

I am not saying this, perhaps moderators are necessary, I am saying to avoid active moderation unless there is a real need. Sure spammers and trolls should be locked out.

Are you saying that this community practices active moderation without a real need? Or that you’re afraid it’s going to start doing so?

I have being involved in online communities with little or no moderators, because the membership as a whole moderate themselves. In many respects this already occurs in the TiddlyWiki groups. We regular posters also promote a healthy collaborative environment without applying moderation.

OK

I am keen on a "transparent framework of decision making" but I am not at all keen on reducing functionality to the general membership

It’s important that the community is welcoming to new users. I’ve said a few times that having open moderation provides a poor experience for new/rare users of the forum. Plus we don’t definitively know which features are controlled by the moderation permission setting, so we don’t even know what powers we’re handing out.

and thus demanding more effort from moderators on the basis of "perceived" concerns. An agreed, transparent framework of decision should be based on evidence not opinion (including my own).

What are the perceived concerns that you’re thinking of? What kind of evidence do you mean?

You invited us to comment on this and I know my suggestion may seem non-intuitive and contradictory to many groups, but I is based on my experience.

I think I understand your suggestion, and I hope I’ve explained clearly why I’m not in favour of opening up moderation again.

People now migrate to largely unmoderated forums and social media because of the limitations the old fashioned forums and strict moderation.

Can you point to some “largely unmoderated forums” as examples?

I don’t understand the second point. Social media is highly regulated.

A google search can find dozens of, all but abandoned, forums all over the internet.

How does this observation fit into your argument?

Look at the TiddlyWiki Discord as an example for a lightly moderated forum.

It has moderators! And they are active.

If I were employed by tiddlywiki community some may consider questioning the status quo as a CLM (Career Limiting move) but I naturally only put a strong and novel argument, if I have substantial experience to support my assertions, as I do on this occasion.

The trouble is that you haven’t addressed the points I’ve made in response.

Any way I have put my case, perhaps sufficiently outside the box that it is not understood. But as long as we maintain the current forum culture we should be fine. 

OK! What do you see as the threats to our current forum culture?

Best wishes

Jeremy

 Regards

Tony

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to tiddlywiki+...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/tiddlywiki/cdd76311-0450-425f-bffa-31eaf1a638a1%40googlegroups.com.

[TonyM]

Jeremy,

Sorry I have not had time to respond comprehensively to these serious questions. I apologize for the length of the response but I am trying to be concise, and address a less well known approach.

First, Jeremy thanks for remaining open and prepared to discuss a difference of opinion.

Perhaps first I can illustrate three philosophical approaches to community moderation. 

1. The First and most common is locking down most possible features and asking administrators to implement exceptions eg; Only administrators can Pin they must be asked
• A Subversion of this is where administrators do things without explanation and are not seen to be accountable or working in the forums interest. I had an experience of this where the owner of a non-political Facebook group threatened to lock me out because what I said "tested" his own political world view (although indirectly). I would thus have no right of reply (I was sent a lot of private support), the community was in his image, not the members.
2. The second is totally laissez faire, with all features exposed and no guidance or moderators who can reverse less appropriate use, eg; total hands off
3. The Third lays between 2 and 1 maximising the features available to all users, but administrators gently suggesting the best practice in public comments for all to see, asking the user to alter their behaviour, and only when necessary actually intervening on a per-post or user level. eg tell people when they should use pins, unpin if misused but only with a reply or post as guidance. For example I did not know that pins were public (earlier), had I known I would have immediately changed my practices.

The third approach can reduce the admin required while maximising the features to the community. It has the effect of building a culture, and all members start to work together to encourage this culture, not just the admins, thus democratising and distributing the curation. Occasionally debates will occur about a particular feature but this is better that having a limited group of admins or no curation at all.

The Third approach is an evolutionary one, and should be as permissive as possible, and avoid "knee Jerk reactions".

How is option three different to current methods? - The community would have more features available to self organise and the use of these features will develop within the community. More features will help address many of the limitations the community currently experiences.

  

Are you saying that this community practices active moderation without a real need? Or that you’re afraid it’s going to start doing so?

Yes, I am both afraid it’s going to start doing so, and now features that could help, are already switched off.

 

It’s important that the community is welcoming to new users. I’ve said a few times that having open moderation provides a poor experience for new/rare users of the forum. Plus we don’t definitively know which features are controlled by the moderation permission setting, so we don’t even know what powers we’re handing out.

A Good forum culture with active users, we have many, I am one will curate and support new/rare users of the forum even better than now. I am not talking so open we loose control.

 

and thus demanding more effort from moderators on the basis of "perceived" concerns. An agreed, transparent framework of decision should be based on evidence not opinion (including my own).

What are the perceived concerns that you’re thinking of? What kind of evidence do you mean?

I think one example is the recent pinning issue. Apart from my own pins, which could be argued were valid, as far as I can see only two other pins occurred and yet the response was is to stop pinning. I and other users changed out behaviour as soon as we had more information, administrators could still unpin? and it was no longer a problem but locking it out occured right away. We did not give this a feature to become part of the culture. The evidence I speak of is the experience and what happens in the forum, for example there was evidence that informing users of the limitations of pinning was working. 

 

You invited us to comment on this and I know my suggestion may seem non-intuitive and contradictory to many groups, but I is based on my experience.

I think I understand your suggestion, and I hope I’ve explained clearly why I’m not in favour of opening up moderation again.

Perhaps you can now see in my words the cost of this approach comes at a feature and cultural cost. However I am not asking to open moderation up, I am asking to open features and allow self and community with moderation only intervening if something becomes unmanageable (after the community has an opportunity to manage it, and asks for such help.

 

People now migrate to largely unmoderated forums and social media because of the limitations the old fashioned forums and strict moderation.

Can you point to some “largely unmoderated forums” as examples?

My own experience was a 45,000 member yammer network. Even the tiddlywiki Discord forums are more like this, free to create or do many things but expect guidance from participants.

 

I don’t understand the second point. Social media is highly regulated.

A google search can find dozens of, all but abandoned, forums all over the internet.

How does this observation fit into your argument?

If you look at a lot of the PHP forums that have being around for decades they had lock down features, and funneled moderation through a small number of people. Many have died "on the vine", participants are low, there is little culture and no innovation in using the forum. GG is somewhat different but it illustrates how strict moderation, or limited features is counter to the interests of the forums. 

 

Look at the TiddlyWiki Discord as an example for a lightly moderated forum.

It has moderators! And they are active.

But as far as I can see not much, and plenty of opportunities and features remain available but inactive. 

If I were employed by tiddlywiki community some may consider questioning the status quo as a CLM (Career Limiting move) but I naturally only put a strong and novel argument, if I have substantial experience to support my assertions, as I do on this occasion.

The trouble is that you haven’t addressed the points I’ve made in response.

With respect I think I did, and hopefully have now. I believe the whole "eco system" of a community forum is the answer, so perhaps I did not spell out, what I hoped was readable "between the lines".

 

Any way I have put my case, perhaps sufficiently outside the box that it is not understood. But as long as we maintain the current forum culture we should be fine. 

OK! What do you see as the threats to our current forum culture?

I think these are reflected in my above responses. 

In closing

I know the approach I propose is perhaps unfamiliar to most, I believe it has a strong basis and need only be tested to validate (Assuming no knee jerk reactions). 

Why do I think this approach is not widely adopted? (yet), because few online communities know how to co-opt the very human understanding of how we behave in an open society. Rather many resemble either anarchies or dictatorships. 

People are very good at learning, supporting and guiding each other and bad players are very small in number, and few interested in our forum. However faced with an anarchy or dictatorship we tend to see the behaviour you may expect in such circumstances.

Another problem is "the technology wagging the cultural tail". When people have a moderation or feature lockdown option in a forum, they have a tendency to use it without testing assumptions and the culture. They treat the settings as obvious but do not take full account of the intangibles (understandable if still a big issue).

I can lead by example, and would appreciate participating more. Knowing very well there is information unavailable to me, because I have not being an administrator yet.

Regards

Tony