Time for M4C Mission Statement Update??

[Chameleox]

You have a Staff manual?
C4

Sure they do; its under the sofa's short leg.


One way to enforce the rule is the LF.net route. Send all new members a welcome email with very specific instructions regarding where a first post should be. Along with the "first post rule", the email can contain the mission statement, ground rules, a how-to on the SEARCH function, links to the stickies, and an explanation as to why the stickies are stickies. Bury the first post thing near the end, so someone would have to read the rest of the info before finding out about where to post first.

That way, when a poster shows up with 1 post under "why Bushmaster got a .mil contract" you know he or she didn't read the email too closely (what else did they miss?), and the members have a chance to redirect them in more ways than one. Posters who do follow directions took the time to read the mission statements, etc. prior to getting to the posting rules.

As if the mods needed justification for banning someone, if anyone puts up a stink about not knowing the rules or what the site is for, well, they got an email- everyone did. The rules and mission statement wasn't in the sticky section, which might be overlooked.


I wondered if a post count rule for starting threads would work, but that would keep a lot of newer members from being able to ask questions that haven't already been answered.

just a thought, or two.

[DragonDoc]

No one reads the tacked threads on the forum.


C4

I wouldn't say no one. I have read some more than once.

[C4IGrant]

I wouldn't say no one. I have read some more than once.

Ya I know lot's of folks read them.

The trolls/village idiots never due though.


C4

[HeavyDuty]

I don’t know how modifiable (?) the different fields and screens are but I think it would be very handy for the Mods to have a "Warnings: " counter field under the "Posts: " counter field. The Mods would have access to and control the "Warnings: " counter field. They could raise the "Warnings: " count when an infraction occurs. When that person's "Warnings: " counter reaches 3(?), they can get put on JSantoro's "Tree of Woe" or suffer some other consequence. This way a person’s warnings stay with him, no matter where they venture on the Forum, plus it would serve as an indicator of his history.

I don't know the exact version of vB that's being run here or what hacks and modules have been installed, but vB supports a very sophisticated infraction system that allows for warnings, infractions and even auto-banning when a certain level of infraction points have been assigned. You won't see any of this unless you're an admin or a mod, so I would assume there's something in place already.

You can be sure a mod can call up info on any user at any time and see how naughty they've been over time.

Oh, and for what it's worth - I strongly support a rewriting/expansion/clarification of the Mission Statement.

[rjacobs]

that would keep a lot of newer members from being able to ask questions that haven't already been answered.

Almost impossible.

I dont think I have read a thread in the past few months that wasnt already somewhere else with a quick search. Hell most of the new garbage threads I have seen I could actually remember that there was already a thread exactly like it without even searching.

I still like the way some forums I am on do it. When you go to start a new thread, it auto pops up a few threads that have similar titles. I think this was brought up in Rob's thread(similar to this one) in another section.

[SWATcop556]

I don't know the exact version of vB that's being run here or what hacks and modules have been installed, but vB supports a very sophisticated infraction system that allows for warnings, infractions and even auto-banning when a certain level of infraction points have been assigned. You won't see any of this unless you're an admin or a mod, so I would assume there's something in place already.

You can be sure a mod can call up info on any user at any time and see how naughty they've been over time.

Oh, and for what it's worth - I strongly support a rewriting/expansion/clarification of the Mission Statement.

We have an infraction system that we use almost daily, unfortunately. It does work with problem children and sends them on temporary or sometimes permenant vacations.

[SteyrAUG]

Honestly when I first wandered into this forum I thought it was just another gun forum and began posting "as usual."

I read the CoC and the MS and honestly didn't see anything that even suggested there was something wrong with what I was doing. And a few people, without explanation dog piled me. And I couldn't figure out what their problem was until somebody explained that they didn't want this forum to become "Arfcom GD."

I was somewhat able to grasp that notion without completely understanding it, because nothing defined exactly what was encouraged and what was discouraged. After some involvement I caught on that the purpose seems to have a better signal to noise ratio with respect to the information provided.

And I honestly don't think the current or the proposed mission statement do anything to solve that problem because they are a blanket statement without examples or definitions.

The most useful thing is "recognized authority" and the noted experts on this forum. I know when asking a question that if that person gives an answer and six other members give a different answer, then six people are giving bad information.

I think that is a lot more helpful than people who are at this point "bothered by anyone who doesn't know this stuff already" and are now dismissive and want people who don't know punished for their ignorance.

Another thing that might help is a FAQ created by the recognized experts. That way when somebody asks something that others feel everyone should know by now, they can simply be directed to the FAQ. It worked pretty well on arfcom until they got so big that it couldn't be contained.

And more importantly, if you just drive all the "unwashed" out nobody benefits, you continue to see them as idiots and they see you as ****ing know it all's who think they are perfect. If you simply correct them then they now have correct information and they can become the kind of member you desire.

[JSantoro]

Lately, the Forum has been getting a lot of “jaga” (just as good as…) threads and posts, gun reviews from someone shooting 400 rounds through a gun, repetitive topics and questions (some just minutes apart), arguments, attitudes, little respect to SME's and Moderators, etc. Questions concerning everything from Barska scopes to Accu-Wedges to how “we’re all jerks for pushing top-tier weapons”.

Bear also in mind that we're still in the midst of an annual post-Christmas influx of folks that just got new computers or guns or both. Steel your mind for the post-SHOT surge; things will get worse before they get better.

The chaff is constantly getting separated from the wheat. It's a cyclical thing, sorta like how one ends up swatting more mosquitoes in the summer than in the winter.

[Jay Cunningham]

Honestly when I first wandered into this forum I thought it was just another gun forum and began posting "as usual."

I read the CoC and the MS and honestly didn't see anything that even suggested there was something wrong with what I was doing. And a few people, without explanation dog piled me. And I couldn't figure out what their problem was until somebody explained that they didn't want this forum to become "Arfcom GD."

I was somewhat able to grasp that notion without completely understanding it, because nothing defined exactly what was encouraged and what was discouraged. After some involvement I caught on that the purpose seems to have a better signal to noise ratio with respect to the information provided.

And I honestly don't think the current or the proposed mission statement do anything to solve that problem because they are a blanket statement without examples or definitions.

The most useful thing is "recognized authority" and the noted experts on this forum. I know when asking a question that if that person gives an answer and six other members give a different answer, then six people are giving bad information.

I think that is a lot more helpful than people who are at this point "bothered by anyone who doesn't know this stuff already" and are now dismissive and want people who don't know punished for their ignorance.

Another thing that might help is a FAQ created by the recognized experts. That way when somebody asks something that others feel everyone should know by now, they can simply be directed to the FAQ. It worked pretty well on arfcom until they got so big that it couldn't be contained.

And more importantly, if you just drive all the "unwashed" out nobody benefits, you continue to see them as idiots and they see you as ****ing know it all's who think they are perfect. If you simply correct them then they now have correct information and they can become the kind of member you desire.

Agree with the above in bold.