New forum poll. To change or not to change. Please vote.

[KillerMuffin]

Apparently there were those who weren't happy with my wording and they're right.

So here's a simple poll since I don't think anyone else will do it.

 

[Croctden]

Here's my question

what happens when people break the rules (not necessarily on purpose), especially if the thread started out as legit?

 

[MathGirl]

Re: Here's my question

Originally posted by Croctden what happens when people break the rules

Dear Croc,
This place has always been characterized by sort of a well meaning anarchy. I think that's one of its attractions.
MG
Ps. Good poll, Muffie. NOBODY could possibly be confused about this one.

 

[openthighs_sarah]

Actually I'm still confused about one thing.

People seem to be complaining more about the possible introduction of a moderator than any reorganization of the forum. Are the two necessarily linked? I don't understand how all of that works (subforums, moderators, etc.), and maybe it's clear to everyone else. If they are linked, that's okay -- but if not, maybe there are really more options.

On second thought, forget I said that. This poll is fine.

 

[Guest]

Brevity - the soul of wit

This place has always been characterized by sort of a well meaning anarchy. I think that's one of its attractions.

MG: very well and concisely put. Thanks, Perd

 

[snooper]

People seem to be complaining more about the possible introduction of a moderator than any reorganization of the forum. Are the two necessarily linked? I don't understand how all of that works (subforums, moderators, etc.), and maybe it's clear to everyone else. If they are linked, that's okay -- but if not, maybe there are really more options.

No, I won't forget it. I think that if there is a hierachy of fora then a moderator is essential to chuck threads into the appropriate sub-forum if they are posted in the wrong one.
The thing that worries me is what will happen if a serious thread suddenly gets invaded by comments about 'obsession with steak sauce' comments in the middle of a serious discussion on readers' voting habits? If it gets thrown into the fun, then the serious debate is lost. If it doesn't then we have the current position.

On reflection there is another thing that I wonder about. I occasionally come across a thread marked "Moved" but it never tells me whither it has gone.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

I didn't vote for either option because I don't know what the "subforums idea" is. If it means the Author's Hangout is a place for serious on writing discussion and we're going to have a subforum for threads of a more trivial nature, I could agree. If it means bringing the Story Feedback, Story Discussion Circle, Editor's Forum, and/or Story Ideas into the Author's Hangout, I couldn't be more against it.

If we're going to restructure things, we better do it right and think of the implications. Right now, what we have in the Hangout is a state of well meaning anarchy, like MG said. And we have other that would like that serious threads wouldn't get lost in all the friendly chaos.

Is it just me thinking that this has little to do with the Hangout and that the real restructuring should happen in the other forums? Because, let's face it, there isn't a place in any other forum where I can legitimately have serious discussion about writing without it being specifically related to a given story. I should be able to do it here, but the odds of it getting side tracked are great enough to make you twinge.

I think the Author's Hangout should remain exactly as is, unmoderated, with serious threads for those who want to start them and goofy threads for those who want them, a friendly chaotic place, but only if other changes are made on the rest of the board. Only if we're given a place to have serious discussion as well, without the risk of having the issues drowned by well meaning anarchists.

My ideal model would be:
- Author's Hangout, unmoderated, exactly like it is today.
- Story Feedback, with Story Discussion Circle as a subforum
- On Writing, or whatever you want to call it, for serious discussions, with Editors' Forum and Story Ideas as subforums.

 

[English Lady]

Lauren.Hynde oh now that does make sense....i like your idea... very much so

 

[Guest]

I second

or third (after the dear English Lady) Lauren's idea. Good and thorough thinking.

Thanks, Perdita

 

[SexyChele]

I haven't been around in here in quite some time. Real life can be a major bitch sometimes.

KM, I have to say "thank you" for at least bringing this idea up to the people who post here on a regular basis. I know the arguments that have been made on other forums that this isn't a democracy, that we really have no "rights" as to how the boards are run, that we are only guests, etc. I truly appreciate the fact that you are willing to take this public and get some honest feedback before making any changes.

I started staying away from here because more and more fluff was appearing, and even serious discussion threads were being highjacked. Normally, I simply bypass this stuff, but it's difficult when a serious question is asked and then 4 pages of fluff follows.

It seems that what I'm seeing here at Lit is the idea of a sub-forum for all the forums at Lit, and I wonder why that needs to be. This idea was broached in the SRP a number of months ago when a proliferation of off topic threads were started. People said "no thank you" and took pains to self-correct. The handling of the Playground and the BDSM thingie were, in my opinion, handled badly and have left a sour taste in many people's mouths. I guess I just don't understand the reasoning behind having a "serious" forum and then a sub "chat" forum to go with it. Especially since the sub-forums really do not change anything. Look at the Personals or even the BDSM forums. There are still threads that pop up that are "fluff". However, now, instead of ignoring them, some one reports them to the moderator and they are moved. More work on everyone's part.

I would prefer to keep things as is, but if I am out voted, I'll go along with what is decided. I'm just impressed that opinions are being sought and discussed. As far as moderation goes, I don't have a problem with that. For the most part, I've not seen a heavy-handed style of moderation here at Lit, and I doubt that is likely to change soon. I think people perhaps dislike the word? Not certain. But I think Laurel chooses people who know their stuff and are fair, and I simply don't have an issue with that. I think I have more issues with the idea of creating a sub-forum for every single "real" forum here. (That's the trend that appears to be happening, anyway.)

 

[Chicklet]

<chicklet clutches her chest, makes pained expressions, and falls to the floor...>

 

[Chicklet]

ps

i'm almost sorry i brought the whole subject up in the bdsm free for all in the first place...this is one major headache. why can't laurel be the kind of person who just DOES without asking first? =)

 

[Svenskaflicka]

I voted for keeping things the way they are, but I think Lauren makes a good point about having a special forum for general writing issues only, with a few subforums.

Oh, and Lauren - Harry Potter version 2...
*desperately looking for words to express my feelings*

 

[Guest]

pat ourselves on the back, or wherever

I really think all is going well. Chicklet proposed an idea people became excited about, KM helped sort things out w/a first poll. People kept talking (very friendly like). Some feathers were ruffled but not plucked, no hard damage I think. Now we're all still talking. Just like RL.

Perhaps it only seems jerky or bent because it's online and we can't see each others lovely faces or hear the basically soothing tones in our voices; and must keep scrolling and checking in more than one would do in a one-on-one meeting.

Seems to me we're headed for another poll via Lauren's good thinking. Let's keep talking, or not. I'm fine as long as there is constant communication.

If I haven't made it clear I'm taking back my "nothing changes' vote and going w/LH's proposal.

Perdita - to all

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Oh, and Lauren - Harry Potter version 2...
*desperately looking for words to express my feelings*

I think the organizational model I posted gives everyone what they want: The Author's Hangout remains as it is on one hand, and on the other there's a garantee that if you want to have a serious discussion about writing, you can still do it without the risk of being hijacked. There would be no need to assign a moderator to the Hangout, because if people want to post serious threads here, they still can. The subforums I suggested are only for a more efficient organization, not a requirement for this to work...

 

[English Lady]

Yes i voted for the sub forum split thing but now i think about it i like Lauren's suggestion much more,it seems like the best solution all round!

 

[Quasimodem]

My vote on separating Author’s Hangout into some variety of Multiple Forums is [ NO ]




I think it would be more useful if posters could always tell the intent of the person who started the Thread Question. In this endeavour, Header Types would probably be as useful as separating into separate forums.

For example: [*S*] at the beginning of a serious question would alert posters that the one who started the thread was seriously looking for thoughtful answers.

i.e.

[*S*] Any Lady fancy it? was posted by PAUL C . He asked a straightforward, serious question, got one response [to date] and thanked the person for their assistance. He also indicated that he was taking their further discussion - technical, most likely - to PM.

[*P*] A Senseless Game For Fun . . . was posted by Chicklet . By the very title, and instruction, this was doubtlessly a post for fun. And it is!

[ ] pony training stories . . . is a post from A Cracker Slut posing a question about how to handle a particular fetish story. Perhaps he should have posed it in Story Ideas, or even tried to research the fetish on the General Board. Many here were unaware of this particular fetish, and found the rise of our risibilities irresistible. Still, A Cracker Slut was also in the .. er .. thick of the humourous comments, so I do not see how ACS was, or could claim to have the thread hijacked when ACS was one of the hijackers.

[*P*] Hail the Pantload . . . as introduced by dr_mabeuse may have been a serious inquiry into the slang of men’s packages, but I doubt it. I have quoted it here with a ‘Playful’ TAB, but if he really did intend to evoke a serious inquiry, he should have picked a less .. er .. Inflammatory Title.

[*S*] Reads, Feedback, and Votes ... AGAIN . . . was posted by snooper , questioning - once again - the value of exactly what he listed in the title. I answered, someone countered (Chicklet , I believe) with an alternate point of view, and I defended my original statement. True, my posts were facetious in tone, but not in content. I gathered up-to-date figures, did the math, and presented my evidence. The problem seems to be that I am often at my most serious, when joking. This was an example.

As for the “obsession with steak sauce” snooper mentions, I will have to cry, “Mea culpa!” It was just that, after going twice, through the same inexorably pointless discussion, another poster invoked the wrath of Harry Potter - written in short form as ‘HP’ - and I could not resist responding about that poster’s “obsession with steak sauce.”

I apologise .

Aside from the Serious - Playful dichotomy, we are doing other imaginative things in Author’s Hangout, which might get lost were it to be subdivided.


[*C*] Snippettesville - 600 word stories . . . a thread introduced by wildsweetone , based on a location introduction written by Aex De Kok , was intended to be a lengthening collection of Flash Stories based in and around the already developed town. Using the same location, without impacting upon each other’s stories. To date, that thread has remained inviolate.


[*CD*] 600 word stories . . . also posted by wildsweetone , this is the discussion area for the Snippettesville thread. To date, it seems to have only been utilized by already-authors to comment on each other’s additions to the series. I feel certain, however, that the feedback of any reader, even if not contributing, would be welcome. And, of course, with all feedback, writers must be prepared for the negative as well as the positive comments.

[*CPD*] Just curious . . . was originally posted by Thesandman , where they are slowly compiling the requirements for a multi-author story. I am not exactly certain if that was Thesandman’s original intention, but between the changes in theme, jokes, character, jokes, and background chatter, a fair number seem poised to opt in and begin a Spontaneous(?) Summer Chain Story.

[*V-1*] Poll: New forum poll. To change or not to change . was posted by KillerMuffin. This is, naturally, this thread. It would be - one hopes - a serious thread. Although we call it a Poll, I have used V for VOTE to distinguish from P for PLAY, but that is not the critical point. I inserted the digit ONE to indicate one votes, and posts their considered opinion once, as opposed to the “Vote early, and often!” style that seems to prevail.


In this instance, I have used this KEY:

[*S*] to indicate Seriously Intended Question

[*P*] to indicate Playfully Intended Question

[ ] to indicate No Specific Intention, also the default, if the poster forgets to include a Key.

[*C*] to indicate Composition.

[*CD*] to indicate Composition Discussion.

[*CPD*] to indicate Composition Planning Discussion.

[*V-1*] to indicate a Vote (At Most, 1 Post per Voter).


The KEY, whatever its final version, would be kept in the Sticky for easy access. As new occasions for a different variation of thread arises, a new Key may be adopted and added.



If a TAB system were applied, I believe that the threads marked Serious would either be answered quickly and sink, or develope into thoughtful, meaningful, intensely-felt, opinionated, bickering debate that’s slipping into a brangle, which as many people love as devoutly as an equal number deplore.

Alternately, those marked Playful, or Frivolous, would either get few responses, and rapidly sink, or evolve into a silly, sappy, quirky, risque, double and multiple entendre-ridden, embarrassingly childish, mock-battle of the wits, slithering on the edge of the abyss into the witless babble, that an equally large group finds invigorating as does the group who sees it all as hopelessly deplorable.

That’s the trouble with the masses. They are so heterogeneous.

Rather than chopping up Author’s Hangout, I propose we label the threads, and try to restrain ourselves from poaching on the wrong category. With a little restraint, we can leave the problem to natural selection.

 

[English Lady]

that sounds like a whole load of hard work to achieve the same serious/fun split everyone is saying no to.


also *S* to me indicates *Smile* so i would see *S* and automatically think it means silly...funny...humerous not serious.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

As for the “obsession with steak sauce” snooper mentions, I will have to cry, “Mea culpa!” It was just that, after going twice, through the same inexorably pointless discussion, another poster invoked the wrath of Harry Potter - written in short form as ‘HP’ - and I could not resist responding about that poster’s “obsession with steak sauce.”

Ahaaaaa... that went by completely unnoticed by me. "Oooops!"

 

[Chicklet]

Sorting out threads

Okay here's what my problem with the author's hangout is:

I don't have a problem with different types of threads. I have problems with different types of posts. For instance the "Chain Story" thread started by Svenskaflicka was important to me - I wanted to read what was being said in it. But it turned into pure chat between two or three people, posts i was interested in (the on-topic ones) only popping in about once every page in about four pages. It hurt my head to find them, so I gave up on the thread.

That's my problem. Threads that are hijacked by chatters and lose track of the main point.

I love everyone, I love the chat, but it's frustrating not to be able to find the point of a thread that I want to read about.

-Chicklet

 

[Guest]

Re: Sorting out threads

I have problems with different types of posts... it turned into pure chat between two or three people... I love everyone, I love the chat, but it's frustrating not to be able to find the point of a thread that I want to read about.

First of all Chicklet: You are always right!!!

But for me your 'problem' is what I like about the AH. I love the chatter (obviously). If I really want to read the non-chatter I don't mind scrolling, and jeezus I'm an old lady.

Perdita

p.s. You are always right!!!

 

[KillerMuffin]

My ideal model would be:
- Author's Hangout, unmoderated, exactly like it is today.
- Story Feedback, with Story Discussion Circle as a subforum
- On Writing, or whatever you want to call it, for serious discussions, with Editors' Forum and Story Ideas as subforums.

I must say I'm iffy on just sticking Story Ideas in there because the regulars there would take it just as kindly as you all are taking the idea of partitioning off the Hangout. The SDC and Editor's forum doesn't carry enough traffic, so moving them isn't a problem. You really shouldn't arbitrarily move a group of people without letting them have a say.

So, we ask them. They--predictably--say no. There's no point in changing anything. The front page is still chock full of writing forums.

It's also fine and well to put me in as moderator at the Story Feedback forum, but it doesn't need a moderator either. I also don't particularly think that the regulars there would want one to just show up if they had their druthers.

So, we ask them. They--predictably--say no. There's no point in changing anything. The front page is still chock full of writing forums.

In the middle of all this, you're creating another Author's Hangout where it would end up being the Author's Hangout Mirror or I would have to actually moderate invasively, that is, move chit-chat out of there. And for what purpose? To move two low-traffic forums off the front page?

I vote no to Lauren's solution. It's not a solution at all, it's just a re-arrangement of the status quo or a slap in the face to the people who frequent two forums but aren't involved in this decision.

 

[jfinn]

Re: Sorting out threads

That's my problem. Threads that are hijacked by chatters and lose track of the main point.

I love everyone, I love the chat, but it's frustrating not to be able to find the point of a thread that I want to read about.

-Chicklet

I absolutely agree. Any thread is fine by me. If it's something I'm not interested in I'll skip it, if not then I'll respond. This goes for the silly as well as the serious.

It's incredibly frustrating to see something that looks like it might be interesting only to go in and find that five posts down the thread has been hijacked and what was once a subject that interested me is now just a chat thread between two or three net friends. At that point, I figure I may as well use my back button because whatever I wanted to contribute is going to be lost anyway.

I know the other argument is that the person who started a thread needs to be, to some degree, responsible for keeping it on track. That's great in theory, but once the thread is hijacked, it's incredibly difficult to get it back on topic. Even when the poster does make the effort, they're ignored, or teased for being such a stick in the mud. That's not only rude, it sends a message to that person that their opinions and questions aren't important.

That's bad enough when it happens to someone who's been around for a while, but imagine how a newbie feels when their first tentative testing of the forum is shot down or plain old ignored? No wonder there's very little new blood on this forum.

I doubt I'm alone in these feelings. Just look at all the people in the last couple of weeks who have said they've basically stopped coming in here because they don't feel welcome anymore. I'll bet there are plenty more that just disappeared for good. What's even worse, most of them are people in the past who had really constructive things to say that are wonderful for the newbie and the experienced writer alike.

Last week another forum I belong to started a discussion about the use of personal traits in your characters. The writer who started it mentioned it was a thread on another forum, but that it had gotten just "too precious" to be considered seriously. Guess what forum he was talking about folks?

Frankly I'm sick of this topic. We keep going over it and over it and nothing ever changes. Now we're talking about splitting the forum, but really what difference will that make to those who insist on taking over every thread and making it about themselves?

Thanks KM for trying to make a difference, but I have a feeling it's a lost cause.

Jayne

 

[Svenskaflicka]

I'm very sorry to hear that, Chicklet. I was quite serious about the Chain Story, too, but I think og was the only one who completed his part. I haven't heard from BlackSnake in along time, and he's in charge of chapter 2.

Now that you've explained this, I understand better what you mean with chattering getting in the way of serious attempts.

Perhaps we should have 2 threads for each new thread? One for the serious things, and one for discussions? Like in Awards & Contests, where we have a separate thread for discussing the contest, so that the score sheet thread won't be clogged up.

 

[KillerMuffin]

Perhaps the best solution is to turn the SDC itself into the writing forum. Nothing is created and a slow-moving forum that has no inherent chit-chat and is also--by user agreement--already heavily moderated, is just expanded from narrow discussion to larger, writing discussion. Relax the rules a little to allow people to speak about anything writing or authorial related.

I would be able to split a hijacked thread into two parts, the discussion and the chatter, so if a thread gets too far off-track, I could step in and put it on track.

I could petition Laurel to change the name of the SDC to something more relevant.