Tracy, thank you for opening this discussion. :eusa_clap:eusa_clap:eusa_clap:eusa_clap:eusa_clap
Again, I apologize for not being on the conference call last week as I would have gladly spoken about it there.
I agree with what has been stated that the OT forum is not necessary to the survival of NCWWer. However, I think that it adds a unique quality to the site and encourages camaraderie between members. I'd like to share how it added to the site for me personally.
When I first came over from woodnet, I thought this was the coolest thing since sliced bread. A regionally based group of woodworkers who didn't just talk about woodworking from behind a computer screen, they actually met up at the annual picnic, shop crawls, lunch bunches, etc. At that point, I knew that I at least had woodworking in common with everyone here, but I'm sure that like most of you, I sought out to find those that I may share other interests with, or looked for folks that I felt like I was on the same page with, etc. The OT forum was a great place for fostering those types of interactions. For example, about two years ago, I posted something about a huge swell that was coming in from a storm off the coast. Mike (Shamrock) replied to it and a month or two later, we were out surfing together. Since then, I think I've met up with him two more times for a surf session and we were even trying to meet up a few months ago when a swell came through, him from Charlotte, me from Raleigh. That may have never been possible if I hadn't posted that on the OT forum.
I could list examples all day, but I think you all get the point. :gar-La; Just know that there are many examples like that. Not all of them are as specific as finding another hobby that you share with another member, but through the random interaction in the OT forum, I was more able to find members that I was "on the same page" with. And in my opinion, since it has been closed, there has been something missing from the site. It "feels" much more cut and dry now, not as personable and friendly.
So here we are, with the OT forum closed. From what I understand, the original intention was to review and "revamp" the moderation policies. I'm ALL FOR THAT. :thumbs_up:thumbs_up If it makes the lives of the moderators easier, that sounds good to me. As far as the policy itself goes, I would recommend a "3 strikes and your out" policy, but the problem with that is the difference in severity of a "strike." For example, in the "hot tub" thread that was posted last winter, I seriously doubt that anyone who replied to it meant it as an attack or to be offensive. However, it was not appropriate content for this site and it was deleted.
I would consider a "strike" to be:
- a personal attack on another member (or anyone for that matter)
- a post that shows favoritism for or against a political party/religion/(any of the "red flag" topics)
- a post that includes the intentional use of profanity. (not a typo)
Three strikes and you're banned from the site.
Feel free to use what I've written, add to, edit, etc.
Since I was not on the conference call, I will share with you now that I did not understand why the OT forum was closed in the first place. Of course, we are where we are so it needs to be taken into consideration. I have two questions:
1. Are the moderation policies still going to be edited?
2. If so, is it better to just leave the OT forum closed while those changes take place, or do we open it first, then post the moderation policies?
In my opinion, at this point, either of those options would work. Just because moderation changes are taking place, they can be implemented once they are complete.
Sorry for the long winded response. I've had lots of thoughts on this topic. Generally, I read all of the moderator threads to keep up with what's going on, but I never post in them. I only posted this because Tracy asked. :rotflm: Lastly, I'd like to thank all of you for everything that you do for the site. You all truly make this place one of a kind and I'm really excited about where we're going. :notworthy::notworthy::notworthy: