A list of rules/suggestions for forum ettiquette

[Mark]

As prompted by a couple of users including all_star (and The Administrator who is overworked) I am creating a list of rules/suggested etiquette for users of the forum which I'll put up in a week or so. Something like:

* Be courteous to other forum members.

* Before creating a new topic thread, search to see if a similar topic already exists.

* Follow standard grammar and spelling rules.

* Try to post in the correct section.

* Stay on-topic.

* Avoid posting the same topic in different sections.

* Respond to topics started by others more often than starting your own.

* Don't resurrect a very old topic if nothing significant will be added.

* Be objective - think before you post.

* Make the title descriptive e.g. don't say "Looking for a..." or "Builders", say "reliable plasterer wanted" instead.

* Do not overuse capital letters in the subject or body of the message.

If the above are not followed then The Administrator may amend/move/remove the post, sometimes without warning.

What do you think? Is there anything else that frequently annoys you, as a forum user, that would benefit from being listed on here? Either post a message below or send me a PM.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Mark

All of them good guidelines - I have to say the one that bothers me more than any is:

Before creating a new topic thread, search to see if a similar topic already exists

Not the rule, just people not following it. I know it's human nature and I know it happens on every forum ever but still...

Can you have it as a sticky post at the top of each section?

[OutOfFocus]

Agree with Sean's points.

I think there is a slight tension between the following items.

* Before creating a new topic thread, search to see if a similar topic already exists.

.....

* Don't resurrect a very old topic if nothing significant will be added.

I would suggest putting these two points next to each other and saying

* Don't resurrect a very old topic if nothing significant will be added (but see previous guideline).

[jackangel]

Guidelines are a really good idea and those suggested seem sensible.

Search for similar topic ? what, and then not post? Topics may be similar but dealt with differently. Hopefully the forum will keep expanding and new users will probably want to discuss certain common themes; things that affect them. It is tedious to have old users say ?done that? (as if some sort of conclusion has been agreed by all). Surely a forum is a place for people to air their views (within etiquette bounds), including their feelings about real issues - even if those views may not be new to some of us (come on, what is new anyway?). Also applies to resurrecting very old topics.

Grammar and spelling ? OK . . . but with lots of flexibility.

As a newcomer to the forum, I appreciate that there will be opinions in threads here that I do not agree with or am not interested in spending too much time reading. But some of the things that irritate me are:

the cliquey moments when users who obviously know each other use the forum to slap each other on the back,

a prevailing blandness intruding into many threads that interrupts good debate/exchange of info/humour,

those users who post about almost everything, seemingly almost non-stop,

users who have nothing to say, but say it anyway, very regularly,

users who, by sheer persistence of postings, attempt to establish a ?presence? on the forum, and are dismissive of those posters with whom they do not agree.

It is difficult to see how these particular irritations may be formalised into preventative rules ? so perhaps we just have to put up with it.

[all_star]

Jackangel - sometimes the answer will be yes - do not post. Especially if you have a straight question that has already been answered (eg "does anyone know what is happening to the Walsh Glazing shop?").

Alternatively, if you search and a similar/same thread already exists, post there rather than starting a new topic on the same theme - so we don't end up with a fragmented discussion.

Searching for existing threads doesn't always mean really old threads - someone could have posted along the same lines in the last 24 hours say - the multiple new FHT threads are good examples of this.

[beatnic]

There's rules and there's guidelines... :-)

All good - I do agree that the searching before posting suggestion is problematic though.

If someone comes along and asks a question that's been answered before, does it really matter? Surely it's quicker to answer the question again and/or point to where the question has been most recently and "accurately" answered, rather than try to enforce a rule that plays against human nature.

[Fuschia]

jackangel Wrote:

>

> As a newcomer to the forum, I appreciate that

> there will be opinions in threads here that I do

> not agree with or am not interested in spending

> too much time reading. But some of the things

> that irritate me are:

> the cliquey moments when users who obviously know

> each other use the forum to slap each other on the

> back,

> a prevailing blandness intruding into many threads

> that interrupts good debate/exchange of

> info/humour,

> those users who post about almost everything,

> seemingly almost non-stop,

> users who have nothing to say, but say it anyway,

> very regularly,

> users who, by sheer persistence of postings,

> attempt to establish a ?presence? on the forum,

> and are dismissive of those posters with whom they

> do not agree.

>

> It is difficult to see how these particular

> irritations may be formalised into preventative

> rules ? so perhaps we just have to put up with it.

I agree with most of this, and have been put off posting really, as the tone of the forum is so smug and cliquey. Some people seem to have to chip in with off-topic one-liners on every thread, and it's very offputting.

[Keef]

I agree that it comes across as a bit cliquey. I may be one of the worst, I don't know, but just lately there have been things on here which haven't sat right with me. I also know a couple of old regulars that have said to me they can't be arsed with it anymore. We need to be friendly with people, and if they do repeat something, just give them a link to the previous thread, rather than talking like they're stupid for not knowing! Sorry if that sounds negative, but I felt I needed to say it.

[Huguenot]

Well, I think that if we followed some of JA's recommendations this forum would be the dullest place on earth ;-)

People shouldn't have to apologise for being human - having a sense of humour, having friendships, being flirty or boisterous. When people have posted for a while they also have history and a track record to which other users will refer.

I must say that this desire to control other people and destroy what makes them unique & interesting is all a bit unhealthy.

Whilst I agree to Keef's point in principle, the only newbies I've seen receiving a brusque reception have been those making downright offensive comments. We shouldn't confuse being welcoming with being tolerant of bigotry. I remember one twerp suggesting that I should be murdered for being liberal.

[Keef]

I know the one you're talking about, and after sticking up for him, he came back on and slagged every one off! There have been a couple of slightly unfriendly one though. I agree with what you're saying about keeping our own personalities!

[SeanMacGabhann]

I have to say, reading Keef's initial post on here I found myself nodding in agreement and feeling a little bit guilty (it's a default position mind you) but the more I thought about it (and then read Hugeounot's reply) the more I think well... there is a danger of being polite to the point where you think "why bother"?

I agree with the accusation that this forum can "appear" smug and cliquey - but even if it were true is that in and of itself a bad thing?

One couldn't accuse Living South, Capital FM or ITV of being smug or cliquey (well, maybe smug) but you could about Prospect, BBC6music or Film 4 - and with all due respect to the first 3 I know which I would rather "consume"

Cliquey means exclusive and surely that's the last thing this place is - there is a pretty wide range of opinion on here and I have seen many a "no, fair play, good point" post from some of the regulars when someone has posted a dissenting view

Also, for all it's insider innuendo I have lost count of the number of welcoming messages to anyone who posts on here from all quarters - and as soon as I met people on here I have found it even more friendly.

But the reason I come back (every 5 minutes) is not just because it's friendly, it's because it's interesting. People on here are, by turns, friendly, obtuse, argumentative, embarrassed, up-for-it, weary, erudite, dumb etc. And that's often me in the same sentence. But that surely is the essence of human beings and personality?

To be all-inclusive, with every paragraph caveated (not a word I'm sure) would lose every bit of personality on here. This is after all just one more outpost in the galaxy of websites - if you happen upon here and like it join in, the water is warm. If you don't like it well there is only a bazillion other places to go.

I have had some great conversations with people on here with which I disagree. Sometimes in the forum and sometimes in private messages. But that's how it should be. If it was just a noticeboard "Opening soon... jam jar emporium" would it be worth the effort?

[jackangel]

I accept what all_star and beatnik say - but have obviously not expressed myself well because I cannot understand Huguenot?s interpretation of what I wrote.

Keef, I thought you got it with your first comment and was hoping for others to give Fuschia some encouragement about the nature and future of the forum.

A couple of postings here really illustrate my point.

Can anybody else see what?s happening?

[Huguenot]

'See what's happening'?

Well I see a friendly open liberal forum where people can chat about anything they want, but a particular focus on ED related stuff.

Moderation is with a very light touch, we welcome people with a sense of humour and a warm hand of friendship. We meet at drinks sessions and extend the matey-ness onto the pages here, which could be interpreted as back-slapping, although close reading would recognise that we disagree with each other as often as we agree.

Some of the posters work at home or in small offices and so the forum is a contribution to their social lives, and as such they may post more frequently and with less gravitas than others. They do this because they're having a quiet moment and they know we love them!

We don't like too many rules because we're all adults, with the sense of responsibility and freedom that entails.

It's perfectly reasonable for newbies to find the whole thing a bit daunting, but I heartily recommend that people flick the 'easygoing' switch and just start posting. It's not that we tolerate our contributors, we celebrate them! ;-)

I do hope that you don't think I'm dismissing your point of view, I'm merely disagreeing. I hope this is a reflection of the good debate you requested :)

[Mark]

I do jackangel and it's not really something that can be controlled although one of the reasons I posted this thread was to gauge what others think so I really do appreciate your comments.

I've said this before somewhere but I really hate it when people say they don't post because they feel they'll get shot down by the the regulars or they feel like they'll be intruding into the forum 'in-crowd'. The regulars are friendly and the forum is for everyone, that's what I want to get across but every now and then I have to ask people who read/post on the forum what they think, especially new visitors and people who haven't posted before.

Something I've been told is that users have to respect the fact that some people just want to post the odd comment and don't want to go into discussion, the classic was something like this:

poster1: old decking for firewood free to anyone who wants it

poster2: burning decking, great, there's too much of it around

poster1: if you haven't go something useful to say don't bother

poster2: Well, decking is a serious matter, but then so is smoke, London's a controlled fire area and burning wood inside that area...blah blah

poster1: Oh come on, get a life... If I had known you were bored today and putting this nonsense on the forum, I wouldn't have bothered.

poster2: My, there are some seriously angry people around... (The Admin steps in and privately tells poster2 to stop)

Do you see what I'm getting at? Poster1 just put something in the For Sale section and started getting grief which is out of order.

The Lounge was created to help this, a place for users to chat to each other about non-East Dulwich issues however elsewhere it's hard to 'split' a thread when it goes off topic. It's annoying that a decent thread gets Lounged because people start talking bollocks irrelevant chatter which isn't fair to the original poster and others who enjoy a decent discussion. Please note, this doesn't happen all the time, just sometimes and I want to know if this annoys the hundreds out there who don't post, at the moment I get the impression it doesn't. Anyway, we'll continue to monitor it and gauge people's reactions so if you're reading this please let us know your thoughts, we don't know what you think of it unless you tell us.

Thanks and thanks for using the forum.

Mark

ps Interesting fact: In May there was 32,176 visits to this site and 462,326 page views.

[Edited once]

[SeanMacGabhann]

I can't help but feel I might be one of the "users who post about almost everything, seemingly almost non-stop" referred to in Jackangel's post. Mea Culpa on that score but I do try to avoid being Poster2 in Mark's example above

From memory Jackangel I seem to remember giving you a big thumbs up after your first post - not that that means anything per se but surely it counts as giving encouragement to new posters?

But it is good to hear feedback as well so I'll ponder some more

[georgia]

I'm not sure why some people have been put off posting recently. Yes some people post a lot and some don't. I don't (mine are usually related to drink) but I still like to read what others have written. I hope some of the regulars haven't been put off by some of the comments here. But I also hope that everyone feels that they can comment freely when and if they want.

Hope I am making sense, it is Monday after all.

[all_star]

You are making sense Georgia, people have found the forum at different times, and the last thing those who have been here a whie longer than others should feel is guilty for being here. No-one should have to apologise for the fact that the forum has been running for a while, and in those weeks and months friendships have been made, topics have been discussed and rediscussed, and in-jokes or in-references have emerged.

Sorry newbies, but the same rules apply on the net as they do in real life - if a group of your friends are down the pub, and you arrive 3 hours after everyone else, you're no less welcome, but you'll just have to catch up on the missed banter and make sure the next 3 hours are just as interesting!

[jackangel]

So that's all right then.

[beatnic]

So much has been written on the subject of online communities.

I was lucky enough to briefly meet with Howard Rheingold when he came to talk to us at the BBC back in 2002.

Way back in 1993 he wrote the book "The Virtual Community" based on his experiences of The Well, a San Francisco Bay area based online community.

Reminded of it by this conversation, I've been looking back through it.

The following is from the introduction:

People in virtual communities use words on screens to exchange pleasantries and argue, engage in intellectual discourse, conduct commerce, exchange knowledge, share emotional support, make plans, brainstorm, gossip, feud, fall in love, find friends and lose them, play games, flirt, create a little high art and a lot if idle talk. People in virtual communities do just about everything people do in real life, but we leave our bodies behind. You can't kiss anybody and nobody can punch you in the nose, but a lot can happen within those boundaries. To the millions who have been drawn into it, the richness and vitality of computer-linked cultures is attractive, even addictive.

There is no such thing as a single, monolithic, online subculture; it's more like an ecosystem of subcultures, some frivolous, others serious. The cutting edge of scientific discourse is migrating to virtual communities, where you can read the electronic pre-preprinted reports of molecular biologists and cognitive scientists. At the same time, activists and educational reformers are using the same medium as a political tool. You can use virtual communities to find a date, sell a lawnmower, publish a novel, conduct a meeting.

Some people use virtual communities as a form of psychotherapy. Others, such as the most addicted players of Minitel in France or Multi-User Dungeons (MUDs) on the international networks, spend eighty hours a week or more pretending they are someone else, living a life that does not exist outside a computer. Because MUDs not only are susceptible to pathologically obsessive use by some people but also create a strain on computer and communication resources, MUDding has been banned at universities such as Amherst and on the entire continent of Australia.

Chapter 2, Daily Life in Cyberspace is well worth a read

[Keef]

All star, I like the way you put that there.

[all_star]

That was for everyone who started watching phoenix nights from season two ;-)

"It's a family fun day man, there's kiddies running around. They can't go jumping up and down on a love length."

[SeanMacGabhann]

Classic episode...