Two tiered membership

[Willallison]

The extent to which the fools amongst us have ruined this wonderful site leads me to suggest that we (ok...Jeff! ) introduces a new form of membership.
What I propose is that when people join up initially they become an open member. They are restricted to reading posts in all the various forums, but can only post them in the open forum.
Once they have demonstrated that they are likely to be a sensible contibuter, they are upgraded to full membership - giving the right to post in all of the other forums as well.

[Robert Gainer]

This may not be the best answer but at this point I would like to see anything tried instead of what’s in place now.

[Jeff]

That is an interesting idea.

The obvious downside is that new members might get a very bad impression of the forum if their posts could only be posted in the free-for-all-zone, and the answers to those questions being uncategorized would create a less useful archive. But it would definitely be an immediate way to keep the main forums on-topic. I'm greatly saddened to have received several emails and PM's from valued forum members who have contributed a lot to the forums over the past years but who have left in recent weeks because of a few newer members.

Another thought I had was to use the forum software's built in reputation feature. I'll admit - I'm not a very good moderator in the sense that I always look at the good and ignore the bad, and I have trouble being a dictator and simply kicking a forum member out. With the software's built-in (but currently unused) reputation feature it could run as a democracy where everyone had the ability to either up-vote or down-vote a poster based on specific posts. If a member got 10 down-votes in a row they could be restricted until they redeemed themselves. (the system also assigns more weight to those who have a positive reputation and to longstanding forum members.) This could backfire and end up dividing the forum further, but at the same time it could be a way for the majority to quickly yet anonymously keep the forum clean, making restriction a quick and democratic process rather than my lone decision.

[Figgy]

The reputation feature sounds good, or maby poll us about troublesome members. I do like Willallisons idea. I'm sure you guys dont care what I think, being a Jr. member, but I was visiting this forum for a long time before I joined.

[Ari]

This is your web site Jeff. It's up to you.In fact I had quit from so many forums for various reasons. If you had like to, you can have a group of expert on various discipline in one panel board to answer question put up by readers. Sort of corporate company web site. That will keep in only the one that have questions and in need of an answer.It might drive out a lot of present members but the expert I believe will remain.

[Willallison]

Figgy - being a Jr member doesn't make your views any less valuable.

Jeff - good point about archived threads. Without wanting to add to your workload..... maybe members could nominate worthy threads to be moved into their appropriate division (once they're 'finished' of course)....
Then again, if your searching for info about a particular subject it would show up regardless of which part of the forum it was in...

[Wellydeckhand]

I think the forum member can be jelous of title member. Why not extend it to 1000 post before Senior member? We are quite comfy being the Jr member and third world member..............

[Figgy]

I think the forum should be regulated by the users, maby by adding more moderators, but some people tend to get drunk with power. How about one moderator per forum, limit the permissions, see how it works for awhile.

[RHough]

Originally Posted by Jeff

Another thought I had was to use the forum software's built in reputation feature. I'll admit - I'm not a very good moderator in the sense that I always look at the good and ignore the bad, and I have trouble being a dictator and simply kicking a forum member out. With the software's built-in (but currently unused) reputation feature it could run as a democracy where everyone had the ability to either up-vote or down-vote a poster based on specific posts. If a member got 10 down-votes in a row they could be restricted until they redeemed themselves. (the system also assigns more weight to those who have a positive reputation and to longstanding forum members.) This could backfire and end up dividing the forum further, but at the same time it could be a way for the majority to quickly yet anonymously keep the forum clean, making restriction a quick and democratic process rather than my lone decision.

When I've seen this feature used, it leads to gangs voting out people. It divides forums.

I think that most members here are adults. A simple statement from you requesting no personal attacks and off topic posts in the design forums should do the trick.

In my experience most posters that try to disrupt threads or forums are looking for a reaction. If they don't get a reaction, they either escalate until they do or they go away. IMO Ignoring the post is the best bet.

As moderator, don't try to please everyone, it can't be done. Its your forum, spell out the goals you have for the forum and let us know what you expect. If we cannot respect the request of our host, we should be put out with no questions asked.

As soon as you have a policy where members are judged worthy or not you start a war.

[Wellydeckhand]

I think RHough just hit the spot....... sound solid and workable to me...... hope this resolve fast, feel jumpy while reading post wonder what are best to be written for reply so it will fictionly face good reaction..... I do believe in polite and stick to fact things if i can, you can joke provided u really have an answer...........to the thread. One more suggestion...... people think when people over use smilely mean their not serious............ should we bane it?

[yipster]

keeping it on boat design i wondered if somehow its possible to get a better grip on all the good info under the search button
a quik search for something specific often results in too many threads
and many new posts are doubling that without adding anything new

[kach22i]

I'm not a big fan of CLIQUE GROUPs, unless I'm the leader of course.

Anything which smells of elitism or snobbery is a big turn off for most.

I warn against any such structure.

[Wellydeckhand]

Elite guy now aday buy 2nd boats.............. if not broker would file chp 11. Some design they put for govt. big buck viewing pleasure and our drooling session. However, I found people design boat n ship that is a reality and does the job and work ( mean float and stay float because of their outdated design ) not mean i dont like new design yes.............

Elite account for how many percent of the forum? Defind elite......... is it high born? I dont think highborn would knife pick anyone they dont know over internet.

Sorry just the way people consider previledge and mistaken it for elite.

[kach22i]

Maybe I can expand on my statements though links/articles.

What is a forum clique?
http://www.dnlodge.com/dnl-resource-...m-cliques.html

Everybody will have their own definition of a clique, but the general concept is an exclusive group of members in your forums who are slow to welcome new members.

http://www.theadminzone.com/forums/a...es-t350p1.html

Most online communities have members who make that messageboard their "home" on the net. And after a while certain members become friends with each other, while others form friendships with other members. And that is fine.

But do you have problems when some members see one group of friends as a clique?
Or do you even have groups who gang up and you end up with having to deal with 2 or more groups going at each other?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clique

A clique ('klik) is an informal and restricted social group formed by a number of people who share common interests - formal social groups are referred to as societies or organizations.

[yipster]

you make clique sound fair enouch
havent voted but i'm for polls