experiment: you folks write the sig line policy

[Visian]

Let's get back to the basics. It seemed to many of us that the sig line policy was a solution looking for a problem, and it found (created) one.

that depends on your long term vision for our web site, its relationship with the rest of our media, and the vibe you'd like the forum to have. one thing for sure, if all commercial links are disallowed, we will lose valuable contributors.

so the question becomes: how to best strike a balance?

If the problem is some fear that members with commercial interests might take advantage, then simply prohibit links to commercial sites. That, however, would eliminate many of the most useful posts we've seen.

Tempest in a teapot!

after extensive discussions with members who would be most affected by a "no commercial links" policy, who not-so-coincidentally are some of our best contributors, an acceptable compromise was reached.

unfortunately this was characterized uncharitably (polite word) by someone who did not understand the concept.

ian

 

[PAULBACH]

I like the links to commercial sites AND personal sites. Have learned a lot by following those links.

What ever the next policy is it should apply to all. Exceptions to the rule only lead to more folks pushing the envelope of what is acceptable.

 

[mrich12000]

what is the value of hundreds/thousands of links on our web site to a for-profit web site run by a member?

ian

Numbered questions make my head hurt.

Sig-lines are business cards.
They should not be billboards.
Billboards, as many a town has decided, are big ugly things that detract from the important and pretty stuff. That would be the posts in our forum.
In our case, a little tiny bit of info about someone or link to a place to learn more is GREAT. It helps provide some easy to access context. When they're long and redundant, when they're billboards, they impact the readability of the forum. As such, most every forum has restrictions on their length and content.

 

[oldhway]

In general I think they should adhere to the general rules of the forum ( specifically the open forums areas ) as many have already suggested too many rules and it comes a nightmare to enforce.

In response to number 8 specifically and speaking as a mod:

Unless there is a way for the forum software to examine all current sig lines and to cull all non-compliant sig lines for content i.e. political, offensive, derogatory, commercial links, pictures etc (depending on what the policy would state), which I seriously doubt, then there is the problem of the amount of time it would take for the mods to go thru every one, that I would imagine would require quite a large level of effort. If we say the new policy goes into effect at such and such a date, we would have to rely on the membership assuming the responsibly of ensuring compliance for each of their own sig lines and rather than the mods going thru each and every one, I would suggest that any non-compliant sig line be dealt with as they arise and again rely on the membership to send a message to the mod team should they see one in question. This would mean that it might take a while for all sig line to become compliant (since some members do not post often) and would ask for patience on the part of the membership. If you see one that is questionable, rather than make an issue of it or comment on it in a post in a thread or the boards in general (as has sometimes been done in the past) simply let the moderation team know and let them act on it.



RM

Jeff, an idea here. If the new sig line had a start date and all suscribed forum members were notified by email that as of X date, all sig lines would have to be renewed to comply to new policy, all old sig lines could be deleted at start date - 1 minute. That would have a couple of interesting results.

First and foremost, it might draw some folks back to renew their sig line who haven't been for awhile. While here, they might take a poke around and decide they missed the place.

Secondly, as a renew for everybody, no body is singled out or "punished" for non-compliance. It is simply a renew for everybody to accomodate a policy change. In reality, that is what it is.

Lastly, if the new policy is more universally accepted, it will be perceived as a step in the right direction for our forum.

I think that Lee is right in trying to get a true feel for the membership's desires here. While a consensus will be tough (I for one would love to list my stores website), a more accepted policy is certainly attainable.

 

[Bud]

If we say the new policy goes into effect at such and such a date, we would have to rely on the membership assuming the responsibly of ensuring compliance for each of their own sig lines and rather than the mods going thru each and every one, I would suggest that any non-compliant sig line be dealt with as they arise and again rely on the membership to send a message to the mod team should they see one in question. This would mean that it might take a while for all sig line to become compliant (since some members do not post often) and would ask for patience on the part of the membership. If you see one that is questionable, rather than make an issue of it or comment on it in a post in a thread or the boards in general (as has sometimes been done in the past) simply let the moderation team know and let them act on it.



RM

Didn't work the last time, why do you think it would work now?

As far as software fixes, the current policy:

Your sig line can contain a maximum of 3 lines, including line spaces, 150 characters and 2 hyperlinks. The text must use the forum’s default style text, no embellishment, formatting, photographs or other graphics. could be enforced by software on all current sig lines. If the sig line was not in compliance, your sig line gets deleted. Posts on all sub forums giving the effective date of the change and the explanation that if your sig line is gone, you need to re-enter it.

Once again, I don't care what is, or is not, in a sig line, nor how long, boring or commercial they are. This isn't like a billboard in a national park. My "view" of the forum isn't ruined by sig lines.

Consistency of application is my concern.

 

[grafikfeat]

Consistency of application is my concern.

Bingo!

Grandfathering in this case is silly. One getting here before another doesn't make one any less a member.

Allow me to repeat myself: "It's a sig, not a blog".
Wanna go beyond a sig? Add it to your already empty profile.

 

[rocketman]

Didn't work the last time, why do you think it would work now?

As far as software fixes, the current policy:

Your sig line can contain a maximum of 3 lines, including line spaces, 150 characters and 2 hyperlinks. The text must use the forum’s default style text, no embellishment, formatting, photographs or other graphics. could be enforced by software on all current sig lines. If the sig line was not in compliance, your sig line gets deleted. Posts on all sub forums giving the effective date of the change and the explanation that if your sig line is gone, you need to re-enter it.

Once again, I don't care what is, or is not, in a sig line, nor how long, boring or commercial they are. This isn't like a billboard in a national park. My "view" of the forum isn't ruined by sig lines.

Consistency of application is my concern.

The consistency issue is exactly what I was trying to address, yes there were some that did not update theirs but overall I think the membership did in fact comply. And yes it (the software) can filter for some of the things you listed, but not for content as I pointed out. Hopefully the idea of it being open to discussion will work toward even better compliance and help alleviate the issue of those in disagreement nay-saying it and not abiding because they had no say? That is why I suggested allow for time for this to happen but admit I like the idea as suggested by oldhway of starting completely fresh even better. Folks could make a copy of their old ones, then modify it to fit the new guide lines. I think that's probably the only way to handle it to avoid the delay factor, unless someone can come up with a better idea.

If we want to more toward a more open forum then I see no way for it to happen without having to rely on the ability of the membership to take a more active role in self-moderation, the two seem pretty much tied together. And then perhaps the moderators can in fact be moderators and not the PC police that some have implied in the past, it’s a win-win situation if you ask me.

And yes, I admit that overall I think the membership is very much capable of it, we just need to work on how this can best be accomplished, if I didn't believe that I wouldn't bother being a moderator, I have faith in and respect for, my fellow members, call me naive but that’s just the way I am.

RM

 

[Bud]

The consistency issue is exactly what I was trying to address, yes there were some that did not update theirs but overall I think the membership did in fact comply. And yes it (the software) can filter for some of the things you listed, but not for content as I pointed out. Hopefully the idea of it being open to discussion will work toward even better compliance and help alleviate the issue of those in disagreement nay-saying it and not abiding because they had no say? That is why I suggested allow for time for this to happen but admit I like the idea as suggested by oldhway of starting completely fresh even better. Folks could make a copy of their old ones, then modify it to fit the new guide lines. I think that's probably the only way to handle it to avoid the delay factor, unless someone can come up with a better idea.

If we want to more toward a more open forum then I see no way for it to happen without having to rely on the ability of the membership to take a more active role in self-moderation, the two seem pretty much tied together. And then perhaps the moderators can in fact be moderators and not the PC police that some have implied in the past, itÔÇÖs a win-win situation if you ask me.

And yes, I admit that overall I think the membership is very much capable of it, we just need to work on how this can best be accomplished, if I didn't believe that I wouldn't bother being a moderator, I have faith in and respect for, my fellow members, call me naive but thatÔÇÖs just the way I am.

RM

I agree completely on the content issue.

Formatting can be software corrected.

I call you crazy (another name for dedicated) for being willing to serve. Thanks.

 

[mika]

There have been a number good proposals and explanations that explain their purpose and intent.

I agree the ability of the forum to continue to move forward a greater sense is dependant on the ability of the members to self moderate in the greater sense.

The purpose of this thread is to write a policy to define and deal with the outliers, not define the 80% of the membership that does comply.

For me this begs the question is there the will required to enforce the policy and deal with the fall out?

The volume responses and views to this thread suggests to me the general membership does not care to any great extent one way or the other any more.

 

[knary]

<marquee><blink>BUY NOW! SAVE ON PINSTRIPES, FINAL DRIVES, AND BMW ACCESSORIES HERE AT SLOW SAL'S BMW BIKE EMPORIUM!!!!</blink> : clap 3</marquee>

Just because we haven't seen the problem here doesn't mean that it won't happen and some basic rules shouldn't be in place. Not every community has seen X crime, but they reasonably have laws on the books outlawing that behavior.

Any rules will bother some. Some want very strict rules. The current rules are, IMHO, slightly too strict. But I also believe that most would agree that it is desirable to have simple not-too-confining rules for the signatures. IF some rules are ok, which ones?

Limit the number of lines - how many?
No images
No giant blinking text
No sales pitches
No politics

I say sales pitches because "commercial use" is a bit too broad, IMHO. Consider that a *discrete* link in a sig to a business might qualify as commercial use. If Bob Henig posted here I would hope he would be allowed to have in his sig...
Bob's BMW

And if that isn't allowed, why are the links to my site where I show my glorious paintings that, if available, are for sale allowed?

Further, while the idea of "you can just turn it off" is nice, isn't fair to the 99% of users that are being considerate of others.

The sig line rules exist because we recognize that signatures are different from posts. A user should feel that they're allowed to say what matters to them within the rules without unduly impacted other people's experience. It's a little like you should listen to your music but please don't install giant subwoofers and rattle my windows.

Thinking out loud.

p.s. We could specifically track every link but the return on the investment makes it, IMHO, a silly choice.

p.p.s. My single pet peeve after years of forum and mailing list use are the folks that think I should scroll past 20 lines listing every bike they've every owned as though commas were never invented.

 

[rocketman]

There have been a number good proposals and explanations that explain their purpose and intent.

I agree the ability of the forum to continue to move forward a greater sense is dependant on the ability of the members to self moderate in the greater sense.

The purpose of this thread is to write a policy to define and deal with the outliers, not define the 80% of the membership that does comply.

For me this begs the question is there the will required to enforce the policy and deal with the fall out?

The volume responses and views to this thread suggests to me the general membership does not care to any great extent one way or the other any more.

that may well depend on how the change is implemented more than on what is implemented.

perhaps that should be made item 10 in the list for discussion,

10a: allow a time frame for compliance and with the help from the members to point out non-compliant one, (assuming this would be as a simple note to the mods) or
10b: every one start from fresh ( with a given time frame to copy out their old sig line )


again I just don't see how the mod team could filter thru every sig line and while the software might be able to filter for certain words as it does now, to filter for every political wordage, commentary, improper link etc, is simply beyond the means of anything less than a rather sophisticated program, this would be entirely different than the current mode that allows for filtering of certain content upon initial sig line creation. That little yellow birdie persona above would most likely be qualified to inform us as to what the forum software is capable of.

RM

 

[mika]

Scott are their fields that could be added to the profile section? Would they accomodate the the 'creativity' that people keep talking about.

Implementation of any policy should be with notice and effective on some significant date such as new years.

I hav eno problem going back to where this all began. No advertising, no external links. 3 lines, x characters.

Enforcement will take time. Part of the idea of members being self moderating would have us turning in offensive sig lines.

 

[knary]

Scott are their fields that could be added to the profile section? Would they accomodate the the 'creativity' that people keep talking about.

Implementation of any policy should be with notice and effective on some significant date such as new years.

I hav eno problem going back to where this all began. No advertising, no external links. 3 lines, x characters.

Enforcement will take time. Part of the idea of members being self moderating would have us turning in offensive sig lines.

The profile section can be expanded a good bit though I haven't looked much into it. It sounds like what you want is a way for a user to put in a bio, etc.

 

[mika]

I want people to have a place to put all the junk that does not have to do with the conversation on the forum other than the sig line.

If they want links let them put them there. Want to list every bike you have owned or ridden since you first soloed on a motorcycle - put it in the profile. I probably won't expand mine but if people feel a need for all of this the profile seems the place it should go.

Pass the mustard and UP THE REVOLUTION came out of the discussion, given take on the forum. I don't know where it falls in the rules. What I want in a rule is something that results in a clean and simple forum to read.

 

[grafikfeat]

I want people to have a place to put all the junk that does not have to do with the conversation on the forum other than the sig line.

That says it right there.
A one line sig... And your own piece of cyber real estate to post all your personal tripe.


Sample Sig:
Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah,Blah! Wanna know more? Visit my Profile!

 

[sheridesabeemer]

I want people to have a place to put all the junk that does not have to do with the conversation on the forum other than the sig line.

I like to call that my blog.

 

[Visian]

I like to call that my blog.

unfortunately, some people call their sig line their blog

 

[rocketman]

I like to call that my blah.

Fix'd





RM

 

[grafikfeat]

unfortunately, some people call their sig line their blog

Unfortunately some people complain the movie theater is too dark as well.
It can't be everything to everybody...

In other words... "Tell Your Problems to Jesus."

 

[Visian]

In other words... "Tell Your Problems to Jesus."

i like:

talk to the hand....