LiveWire Peer Support NetworkPrintable Version of Topic "ALRIGHT i will make a constructive topic"
- LiveWire Teen Forums & College Forums (http://www.golivewire.com) |
|
-- Posted by iconoclast at 10:22 am on Dec. 14, 2008 alright some people want me to be nice again so ill give this a shot as long as im not ignored 1. we need to seriously overhaul the ehelp system -the suicide guideline needs to go, i've never had anyone demonstrate that this needs to actually be there other than assorted fear mongering -standards for support leaders need to be much higher -standards for what CAN go in ehelp need to be much higher, because letting anything and everything into ehelp discourages people who need serious help from seeking support -there needs to be, again, a feature to move less serious queries to teen dating and relationships, friends and family, etc, including guests 2. we need to start encouraging older members to stay and come back -the moderation of this site needs to quit taking stuff like harassment so seriously, as long as it isnt blatant constant cruel personal attacks for weeks on end, kind of how it was a few years ago. a few door bitch types (i stole this from tim) keep the noobs at bay -We need to allow encouraging harm in non-support forums -theres gotta be other ways but i cant think of any right now IT WOULDNT BE PERFECT but itd be cool 3. also the oversight board needs to be overhauled, its mostly clueless noobs on it, bump the number to 8 with 5-6 votes needed, make it necessary to be in LMOY to get on the oversight board, discard or up the penalties requirement because most older members have at least some 4. there need to be better ways to relay suggestions to david, IMO he should focus more on getting this back to support and server stuff should be secondary because the support is totally fucked 5. SOMEONE else's idea, we have a designated forum zone thing with 'teen, support, and tech', while dissolving the college forums into a few sub forums under 'support' 6. being able to communicate better in the MER's. PLEASE. the MER system fucking sucks 7. being banned needs to be a more serious thing, it should take a LOT to get banned, a lot more than now, and you shouldnt be allowed back for awhile
-- Posted by acausedelle at 10:26 am on Dec. 14, 2008
1. I agree with you completely.
-- Posted by blufindr at 10:27 am on Dec. 14, 2008 I agree, very very much. I agree even more with the splitting of the DTRM. Firstly into the "I don't know where to put this" side, then into the funny random stuff, then into the 4chanisms.
-- Posted by Niick at 10:27 am on Dec. 14, 2008 I agree with the standards of what can go in, to some degree. I believe the eHelp should have a minimum limit, for example, its hard to take an 'emergancy' seriously when it's one sentence. Not much to go on...
-- Posted by marshmellowman at 10:28 am on Dec. 14, 2008 I don't really see how we can judge the importance of someone else's situation. It may not be serious or urgent to us, but it can be a whole different story to the OP.
-- Posted by iconoclast at 10:28 am on Dec. 14, 2008 ALSO, posting in the BS forum shouldnt get you any points but you should be able to post pretty much anything
-- Posted by iconoclast at 10:29 am on Dec. 14, 2008 Quote: from marshmellowman at 1:28 pm on Dec. 14, 2008 yeah but see the majority of those are people with 1 day active and no posts who just dont know how to use the forums properly AND we have to make some sacrifices to keep ehelp being about support, im sorry its just the truth but we can minimize that sacrifice by being able to MOVE the ones that dont belong there instead of deleting them
-- Posted by Cheeserock at 10:32 am on Dec. 14, 2008
Hmmm... I agree with the eHelp things. Some SLs are unsupportive. It is sad when old members leave, but we can't really stop them can we?
-- Posted by iconoclast at 10:33 am on Dec. 14, 2008 Quote: from CheeseRock at 1:32 pm on Dec. 14, 2008 i know im just saying we can split the non support and support forums up which might help stem the spam from flowing into tdei and shit we can discourage old people from leaving by not making this site old-member unfriendly as much
-- Posted by Praise the Lard at 10:14 pm on Dec. 14, 2008 I think there needs to be a second administrator. David should just do tech crap, because he really just ignores actual suggestions for the forums. For example, we still have a Science and Business forum, instead of a two separate forums. I completely agree with a fyad style no-points spam forum.
-- Posted by 80Kidz at 11:02 pm on Dec. 14, 2008 Quote: from Praise the Lard at 10:14 pm on Dec. 14, 2008
there was a second admin named reid, but when he left, lw had just one lung to breath with.
-- Posted by Catacomb at 6:31 am on Dec. 15, 2008
1. i agree
-- Posted by Aria of Silence at 10:34 am on Dec. 15, 2008 You have a lot of really good ideas, some better than other. Definitely about getting the support back up to par, I hardly notice the server updates. You can't do much with the MER's except for to whip up the mod's abilities. The banned thing is getting ridiculous, it just seems to be a way to get annoying people off of the mod's back. Also, I agree with Catacomb on the LMY restriction thing... congrats on being supportive, its nice to see again
-- Posted by iconoclast at 11:39 am on Dec. 15, 2008 Well I mean if you could have a dialogue in the MER's so that they don't just get closed again and again by some fuckwad with a pithy response, that'd be cool. Also if you're 100 or more days active the number of misconduct reports you could send in could be increased to 10 or something. catacomb i was talking about people who are ACTUALLY a serious problem on this website, not just trolls and whatnot, we shouldn't just let them back in seven days i guess we could have the oversight board be either guru or LMOY to account for alts with a lot of points, OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT
-- Posted by audrey820 at 11:51 am on Dec. 15, 2008 1) Ok, I agree with some of this. I think that we should allow suicide ehelps, but topics should not be allowed on the regular forums. Members can be jerks, to put it bluntly. And only allowing support leaders to respond will make sure members don't upset someone in a fragile state. I can see the harm in allowing them around the regular forums, unfortunately. We're pretty strict with support leaders. The applications are good, it's the member not having the same quality of replies in ehelp as they did on their application. Which is frustrating. However, we do want to try to work with members and see if we can keep them on as support leaders rather than just demoting them right away. I'm torn about moving ehelps. I can definitely see why it would help, ehelp gets crowded with less serious members and that takes attention away from the more serious requests. But the members submitted an ehelp to get that quality advice which is offered by support leaders. So I would support moving them IF we could find a way to get support leaders to pay more attention to the serious forum. Then the requests could be moved there without having the member lose anything. 2) I would love to have more older members stay. But I'm not sure how much of their leaving is due to LW and how much is just due to the fact that they're older. I would not oppose a divide. I think spam is important and helps members bond and have a good time. Which encourages them to stick around longer. But I don't like that topics with depth get ignored in favor of topics which are just, "50 pOiNtS tO tHe 75Th PoStEr!!1" Having the actual deep thought posts get attention would be great. We do take encouraging harm more lightly outside of the support forums. And I really wouldn't mind not moderating it in DTRM. But I think it's best moderated in every other forum to be safe. 3) The OB is kind of a joke. I can think of only one time when it was actually justified in suspending a moderator(bballash). However, I would love to have the OB be a volunteer position. Members can sign up if they want to do it. Then have it last a month rather than a week. And at the end of the month, feedback is anonymously sent from them to each moderator to help them improve. Or whichever moderators they feel needs feedback. I think that system would make the OB have a better purpose here rather than just sitting there, poking through mod stuff for fun. :/ 4) I would love to see a feedback system similar to the bug report thing. Then each suggestion can be voted on by members and David can review the suggestions and either delete them with some justification. Or implement them. 5) I see why you want this but I have to disagree. Some support topics only get responses because of their location on the forums. Being near the "fun" forums draws attention to them so members are encouraged to look and hopefully reply. So I don't really want to see those forums hidden at all. 6) I agree with MERs. I really hate that some mods use the automatic closings for them. If members take the time to submit a MER, we should take the time to properly review it and respond to what the member has said. I wish David would eliminate the auto closing, other than the troll/PBM one which we can use for AC. 7) DON'T EVEN GET ME STARTED HERE. I don't like how easily we ban and I oppose most bans unless they're really solid. I would like to be tougher about pardoning members, but I'm hesitant to be when it seems as though bans come to easily. Sometimes because mods assume stuff about members rather than giving another chance for the member to change. But yeah, you have support there. :) I might add to this later. I didn't comment on the harassment thing. I will later though. Hope this feedback helps though.
-- Posted by iconoclast at 3:07 pm on Dec. 15, 2008 just so you know i appreciate all the replies here, im not posting much because of finals so ill get back to this eventually
-- Posted by Catacomb at 5:22 am on Dec. 16, 2008 Quote: from prisoner of hss at 6:39 am on Dec. 16, 2008 we should have warn, suspend and ban. suspend being a concept similar to close account and ban being your harsher suggestions for what should merit a ban
i still think the standards are superficial and arbitrary when attributed to rank and status. the only way i see that working is if you had an arbitrary selection of LMOYs nominating/voting for OB members every month or whatever im just saying it should be a human decision in the end
-- Posted by Bud2400 at 5:39 am on Dec. 16, 2008 Quote: from prisoner of hss at 10:22 am on Dec. 14, 2008
I partially agree with this. I don't think allowing this sort of thing in the regular support forums is necessarily a good idea, but it may be appropriate in the eHelp or serious forum. It might not be a totally bad idea to have each support leader or moderator who replies to such topics to be obligated to post some kind of advice about getting in contact with a suicide hotline or something along with whatever they have to say, so as to decrease the worry over liability issues.
I'm not too clear on the standards for support leaders right now, but I do agree that we need to keep the standards rather high. Not everybody who wants to be a support leader should be a support leader. That isn't how it's supposed to work. Only one moderator is required to approve of support leader applications, correct? Perhaps it'd be a better idea to have something like three or five mods approve of a support leader application, where the majority say wins. This could prevent bias, oversight on an individual moderator's part, and ensure more reliably that the qualities that we're looking for are there in the application.
This I very much agree with. When I was a support leader, part of what turned me off from the eHelp was the bullshit in there was typical of what you'd find in any other forum. The guidelines of what deserves to be in there need to be clear and presented to the individual posting an eHelp prior to their getting in and writing something up.
That would be nice, but I'd imagine it'd be a nightmare to convert eHelp posts to regular forum posts. Especially if the eHelp poster was a guest and not a member.
Agreed. Though if a member keeps making rude comments towards or about another member, even if every so often and not constantly, I still think that's harrassment to some extent. I think that harrassment should also apply to posters / trolls who always follow certain members around and reply to their topics, even if on topic, in a rather rude manner, usually in a dishonest and malicious way, always trying to debunk everything they (even when they obviously can't and resort to strawmen, red herrings, and the like). I'm referring specifically to the whole Obvious Child and Yankeefan case here.
This I agree very much with. Or at the very least, allow passive encouragements of harm (like if you believe this, you should be shot) in non-support forums.
I don't agree. There's already a humor forum, even if most people don't use it and the shit that goes in there is usually not funny. Leave DTRM the way it is and let modding (in regards to encouragement of harm, harrassment, what is "spam," etc.) be more lenient.
I have an idea that can work with #3. Read below.
I agree very much about the ineffectiveness of the oversight board. And to be honest, I've been thinking of ways to make it better but mostly have kept them to myself. Personally, I think it'd be a great idea if we could just get rid of the whole random selection thing and only one week long period on the OB. A week isn't enough to really see moderator abuse. I think it'd be great if a group of 5 members (who have at least 365 days active, Yore status) could be somehow elected onto the oversight board for a longer period of time (say, four months). And with this, OB'ers would have access to moderator notes, the moderator discussion forum (but can't post in it), and just about anything the moderators do. Through this, they would oversee the mods in the interests of the members of Livewire. If they have a malicious agenda, they could always be overruled by David, of course. To vote them in, I'm not sure what the requirements ought to be, but I was thinking you'd need the voters to also be at least on Yore status as well, and perhaps a minimum number of points (like 5000, or about 365 days active, 1100 posts, and 1000 votes - something the most inactive, but somewhat knowledgeable of Livewire, Yories would have) and having passed the basic membership checklist (it would motivate those resisting to finish it to get it done). You can't have people making multiple accounts to vote somebody into the position. Moreover, how the voting should work shouldn't be a simple "one vote for the person you want the most" type of thing. This wouldn't be appropriate when choosing multiple people. I think if done, we should do the voting in a way like what I've seen in Germany (and I know some other places do this, even in the US on smaller scales like at PTA meetings). Say you get something like 15 voting points and you can allot your points all to one individual you really want or to multiple individuals you like over the others. You can also prioritize your points, like give 10 to one individual you really like and 5 to another you like quite a bit but not as much. Or perhaps give 3 to five individuals you'd like to see on there. I think if this site ever wished to move more towards "community moderation," this type of thing would be key. The other kinks, like what happens if an OB'er wants to leave their post and whatnot, could be worked out. This would also simultaneously help compel people to stick with this site longer for the prospect of having a hand in its governance could a good incentive. Better than anything else I could think of. If successful, this could possibly be expanded to other things with how this site is governed. Like instead of just simple blatant moderator abuse, they could be given the power to demote a moderator out of general disapproval for how they moderate, out of inactivity, or by request (in case David was absent again, like what happened some months ago). Of course, such demotions would require near unanimous support among the OB'ers (4 / 5 voting yes - leaving one out to safeguard against conflicts of interests an individual OB'er might have by perhaps being friends with the moderator in question or whatever). And of course, always allowing David the final say. It is his site, after all.
Perhaps. What David does to the server is pretty useful - don't take it for granted. Livewire could be a whole lot shittier if it was super slow and always going down. I think part of its success is its reliability. I think the site governs itself pretty well without David and things work out sufficiently enough. But I do think the whole OB board idea in #3 I have could make things run even more smoothly in his absence as far as moderator transparency, moderator abuse, etc. goes. It really is the ultimate compromise for the whole moderator privacy issue and members being able to vote other members in with David appointing moderators.
Hmm, I'm not so sure. Ever wonder why the car forum and video game forum in the tech zone is so much slower compared to the rest of the site? I think a lot of people don't realize they exist and are stuck only in the teen zone. These zones isn't a feature common to most other sites out there. Splitting regular teen forums and support forums into two zones could wind up having one be ignored far more if it is not the default zone. Personally, I never liked the idea of the zones all that much for this very reason. If I had my way, it would all be condensed into one giant zone with tons of different forums, but others may not like that idea so much.
I always thought only one mod being able to close an MER was rather silly. It ought to be more, like three. In order to discourage spamming the MER, I think the points to submit an MER ought to be upped from 1 to 50 and that one member can only have one open MER submitted at one single time. Dialogue between the member who submitted the MER and moderators ought to be more open, too, I think.
Agreed. Allowing people to come back is stupid. I can understand coming back in 6 months, but in a week? Sometimes I think it'd be a good idea to revoke all points from a member who's committed something serious enough to warrant a sort of "suspension," and if they go into the negative points, they can't post (but can send messages) until they are out of the negative. Through this, they'd have to rely on days active to get them out, and you could give somebody something like -70 points if you wanted them in there a week. And also to prevent people from transferring points to these guys, you could refuse the transfer of points to all warned members. Perhaps this way if a member's warning expires but they're still in the negative, a member could transfer points to them if they really wished. Sort of like a parole thing, haha. This could also prevent older members, and members nearing Yore status, from getting out of hand if we implement my suggestion in #3. There would actually be another, and perhaps more effective to some, incentive to behave.
-- Posted by iconoclast at 2:05 pm on Dec. 16, 2008
I dont like the idea of forcing every support leader to manually write it in but it could pop up at the top of the message or something. I mean even though I don't believe in the liability too much, it's not a good thing to have people post this stuff in casual forums where people will inevitably tell them mean things and possibly cause them to commit suicide, so maybe those topics could be moved to the serious forum or ehelp or something.
That's a good idea, that; or, look for a much higher amount of replies, which could get tedious.
Yeah, I'd imagine it's POSSIBLE but it would be hard. Still would help vastly, because like you said, I was turned off from ehelp for the same reason. I mean technically I suppose you could expand that definition to a lot of milder stuff, but the things that should be a major concern should be grievous offenses, all I'm sayin'.
Well IMO maybe the Humor forum should be trashed because it doesn't serve much use at all other than the occasional major 'jokes' thread, but I didn't necessarily mean joke threads only, I just mean it would seem more sensible to divide DTRM into one forum for complete and utter junk like 4chan threads and the other half for random thoughts and jokes. I mean it would make things more interesting, give the new members a place to post, but not piss all the older members off so much. I actually think this would be a good idea, and in this case maybe the powers could be expanded because they'd have more oversight (no pun intended). I mean seriously, awhile ago insertnamehere abused his powers pretty badly, the OB suspended him and david threatened to demote him if he continued, he did, and NOTHING happened. But if we had a more active oversight board, that probably wouldn't have happened.
Meh, maybe. Do you think there should be any criteria for voting though? Cause the majority of members are new and probably aren't interested in this.
For this I'd say have a higher number of OB members has five really isn't enough, but maybe. As long as it wasn't abused it could work out, but then again some of these problems could be solved by a 'lead moderator' who would be in charge of a lot of these things and actually would be active in the site's community. IMO this site's surfing hasn't changed much since 2005-2006. I'd expect server upgrades to matter a lot for people on dial up or terrible connections but for the majority it does not seem like this would be the case. I think the site governs itself pretty well without David and things work out sufficiently enough. But I do think the whole OB board idea in #3 I have could make things run even more smoothly in his absence as far as moderator transparency, moderator abuse, etc. goes. It really is the ultimate compromise for the whole moderator privacy issue and members being able to vote other members in with David appointing moderators. Meh, I don't know. We already have a lot of traffic in the teen forums because they appeal to people a lot, but I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to there being at least a LITTLE more separation 'cause it'd slow the flow of spam into more serious forums. It would seem to me that the tech forums are low in traffic because not many people come here for tech support, but a lot of people come here for support, to whine, and to rant etc. As for the MER's, 50 would be a little extreme, unless it stayed open for days and was more like a communication line (like you said) than a simple misconduct reward. If the situation is resolved you should get the points back, though.
I don't know, that sounds too complex, but I do like the idea of suspensions and ____ month bannings. They have that on other sites and would give a lot more flexibility. It would also give the opportunity to use more colors, not that that matters  There'd have to be a separate way for dealing with reformed trolls though, so I guess that could be worked out. Anyway, thanks for posting, this topic isn't getting nearly as much attention as I would like though.....
|
I don't really see how we can judge the importance of someone else's situation. It may not be serious or urgent to us, but it can be a whole different story to the OP.
