LPSG Members: become part of the solution.

[Rob_E]

You think this place has problems? Please post your suggested solutions here. If you've posted elsewhere, please copy and paste here. I will update this post with a summary after we've built up a little steam.

Please list as specifically as possible the changes that you would like to see made, and for extra credit, the effect that you think your changes will have.

This is a brainstorming exercise, so please don't knock other's ideas here or be afraid to post something a little out there.

I truly look forward to your input.

Thanks,

Rob

-------------------- 08-02-07 ---------------------------

These are the ideas that I have seen so far, please post more!

Remove/Warn/Ban members who do not contribute positively to the site.

Moderator moratorium on non-essential (legal/underage) duties.

Public list of the banned and the reason that they have been banned.

Make public the moderator votes on bans.

Give members influence in the ban process.

Maximum term for moderators.

Better age verification.

Gallery access changes.

Advertising viewable by non-paid members.

Photo verification.

PM storage increased.

Addition of an "I object" button to posts - self moderation.

Improved search engine.

Delete non-active members.

Remove ability to right-click and save photos.

Kick lurkers from the chatroom.

Mandatory to fill out profile fields.

Suspended/Banned vs. Banned.

Grievance/Amnesty procedure for the banned.

Rotating mods.

Limit new members by time or number of posts, etc.

Make best threads sticky.

Punishment for members that post off-topic.

Limit number of new threads for members.

Refine the TOS and publicize which section was violated for a ban.

Improve thread rating system.

Established members choose when new members can participate.

Create an un-moderated forum.

Moderate x number of new members first posts.

More developed member profile page.

More structured banning process.

Probation period for new mods.

Demotion of mods who don't participate in the forum.

Ability to delete your account.

Allowing people to declare whether they want their banned reason made public.

Ban those caught using stolen photos.

Prevent members dragging a grievance from thread to thread.

Ban members for trolling gallery comments.

Delete comments from own gallery.

Merge similar threads more often.

Add a forum for showing off new gallery additions, appreciate threads, rate me. etc.

More defined warning system.

Anonymous moderator accounts.

Ban members who post fake or photoshopped photos.

More temporary bans, fewer permanent bans.

A grievance system for members to complain about mods.

Suspended vs. temporary ban vs. permanent ban.

Paid membership including more influence on the site.

A moderated wiki for topics that have been thoroughly covered.

Creating articles from collections of posts and threads.

Newspaper verified photos.

Use a computer generated code for photo verification.

Take action to eliminate cliques.

-------------------- 08-02-07 ---------------------------

 

[Hotrocker]

Good idea. I'll start to think of some things...

 

[Big Dreamer]

Take a harder line against individuals who constantly derail threads to the point where any flow of ideas becomes impossible. I'm not referring to the occasional off-topic aside, but to individuals who do nothing but post completely off topic, baiting material, presumably for the purpose of spoiling the enjoyment and interaction for others. I know that we have an Ignore feature, but why not promote good behaviour as policy instead of just asking people to close their eyes constantly? We all occasionally toss asides in, but better judgement is needed when those posting to the original theme of the thread are getting pissed off, and post their frustration in the thread repeatedly.

For those of us who care little about the gallery portion of the site, but value the conversational aspect highly, this is a big one. Lately there have been threads specifically about site improvement suggestions, banning procedures, as well as interesting non-site related topics that melt into oblivion once the usual suspects show up.

I know that enforcing something like this would be completely subjective, but so are most decisions the moderators make that aren't age or multiple account related.

 

[arliss]

thanks for including the members in your quest to make things run smoother

 

[dong20]

OK, off the top of my head in no particular order; some of these will no doubt overlap and contradict. I reserve the right to add more.:smile:

• A 1-3 Month moratorium on non-essential (legal/underage) duties - This will allow the board to establish a self levelling tolerance, or not. The only way to find out is to try.
• A formalised, public ban/ban notification procedure - Banned ID's or members with ban warnings are indicated either in a sin bin type forum and a simple cause is given under their IS - Member>Banned - Trolling/multiple accounts etc A workaround for underage bans if felt absolutely necessary. No more information than that need be provided.
• Moderator votes on bans could be published? It would aid transparency. Addresses the key issues raised recently.
• Ban nominations by a required number of Gold members. I know, open to abuse.
• Moderators to be elected by (Gold) members from a shortlist from you or vice versa? Self nomination possible, as now. Just an idea.
• A maximum duty cycle for moderators (I think this is already in effect). Perhaps 6 months, renewable. Moderator tenure can risky, moderator experience valuable. Tricky.
• Some form of age verification, the honour system is too open to abuse. Obvious benefits.
• No gallery access/upload for non paying members. At all. If the gallery is to be paid for that's fine but then non paying members who don't use it should not be made to feel second class because their contribution is 'merely' verbal (well, OK - written). That has wrankled! Pictures are not the sole raison d'etre for LPSG.
• A process whereby members, (probably paying members) may seek the removal of or request an explanation from moderators whose activity considered by a group (12 say) to be partial, spiteful and/or vindictive. Again, open to abuse but...
• Free members could have banner ads on pages to help subsidise, gold members not? It works sometimes, used to apply here also why did it change?

OK, that's mostly housekeeping stuff, the rebuilding of some singed bridges may be a little harder, but surely not impossible.This exercise is a step toward that. Thanks for providing a means of upward communication, it is appreciated. :smile:

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Good suggestions, dong. And no surprise there.
I have a few thoughts.

• A formalised, public ban/ban notification procedure - Banned ID's or members with ban warnings are indicated either in a sin bin type forum and a simple cause is given under their IS - Member>Banned - Trolling/multiple accounts etc A workaround for underage bans if felt absolutely necessary. No more information than that need be provided.

I'm not sure I see why ban warnings should be indicated, but still ...

• Moderator votes on bans could be published? It would aid transparency. Addresses the key issues raised recently.

By name, or merely numbers for and against? I think this might be going a bit far, in either case.

• No gallery access/upload for non paying members. At all. If the gallery is to be paid for that's fine but then non paying members who don't use it should not be made to feel second class because their contribution is 'merely' verbal (well, OK - written). That has wrankled! Pictures are not the sole raison d'etre for LPSG.

Two ways (at least) of looking at this. Do you mean they wouldn't even see the thumbnails? Because the thumbnails might be incentive to become a Gold Member, and doing away with that might damage the financial interest of the owner. (This is, at the end of the day, a business.)

• A process whereby members (probably paying members) may seek the removal of or request an explanation from moderators whose activity considered by a group (12 say) to be partial, spiteful and/or vindictive. Again, open to abuse but...

Interesting, but very open to abuse, as you say. Worth looking at.

 

[B_Think_Kink]

Instead of only allowing paid members into the gallery (seeing as that is how it attracts people to want to pay into the site.) Have one or two mods set aside for verification of photos, card next person/penis/cooch, with name hand written with LPSG.org on it as well, give those members access to thumbnail pictures, and paying members access to full views as per norm. Thus weeding out the ones who are here to just oogle gallery, and not do anything but whine in threads.

 

[dong20]

Good suggestions, dong. And no surprise there.
I have a few thoughts.

I'm not sure I see why ban warnings should be indicated, but still ...

It may provide an opportunity for the member (or pals) to have a rethink. It's a throwaway.

• Moderator votes on bans could be published? It would aid transparency. Addresses the key issues raised recently.

By name, or merely numbers for and against? I think this might be going a bit far, in either case.

Yes, sorry for and against. It's late:smile:

• No gallery access/upload for non paying members. At all. If the gallery is to be paid for that's fine but then non paying members who don't use it should not be made to feel second class because their contribution is 'merely' verbal (well, OK - written). That has wrankled! Pictures are not the sole raison d'etre for LPSG.

Two ways (at least) of looking at this. Do you mean they wouldn't even see the thumbnails? Because the thumbnails might be incentive to become a Gold Member, and doing away with that might damage the financial interest of the owner. (This is, at the end of the day, a business.)

Thumbnails may work. X (1-3?) days free/restricted access on sign up - Pay therafter, may be better.

• A process whereby members (probably paying members) may seek the removal of or request an explanation from moderators whose activity considered by a group (12 say) to be partial, spiteful and/or vindictive. Again, open to abuse but...

Interesting, but very open to abuse, as you say. Worth looking at.

It's a bit jury-ish I know, but the issuse of moderator impartiality has arisen more than once. The banning of BD being only the most recent example.

As I say, they fell out of my head. I'm sure I can come up with some more coherent, considered ideas. After a nights sleep!!

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

As I say, they fell out of my head. I'm sure I can come up with some more coherent, considered ideas. After a nights sleep!!

Oh heck, man ... we won't see many posts with as many good suggestions.

 

[dong20]

Oh heck, man ... we won't see many posts with as many good suggestions.

I'd like to add, selfishly:

Can we have a bit more PM storage? Even us freeloaders...certainly as Gold Members.:tongue:

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

I'd like to add, selfishly:

Can we have a bit more PM storage? Even us freeloaders...certainly as Gold Members.:tongue:

Now you're talkin'.
I've cleaned out my bins four or five times ... and it hurts.

 

[Not_Punny]

Great thread! I'm just a newbie, but I do have one suggestion: "thread posting privilege suspension."

How this might work is as follows:

In every thread post, there could be a little "I object!" button that a viewer could click on if they find that particular post offensive or off topic. If enough people click on this button, then that particular poster is "blocked" from posting any further posts in that particular thread.

And to prevent the button from being spammed, require that each person pressing the "I object!" button enter their username and password, and click on a choose-one option as to WHY they objected (eg: off topic, offensive language, improper debate tactics, etc. etc.)

When enough people have objected (ten? twenty? thirty?) then the person with the objectional posting is blocked from posting again in that thread, but will have access to anonymous poll results as to what was objectional about their posting.

 

[dong20]

Now you're talkin'.
I've cleaned out my bins four or five times ... and it hurts.

Oh, and a better search engine. The ability to search posts by member and date range would be useful.

OK, enough already, I sound so greedy.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Great thread! I'm just a newbie, but I do have one suggestion: "thread posting privilege suspension."

Interesting, hotmilf.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

Oh, and a better search engine. The ability to search posts by member and date range would be useful.

OK, enough already, I sound so greedy.

Good, but even without those functions, the search engine itself doesn't seem very satisfactory.
Needs more oomph, for sure.

 

[Rikter8]

1. Delete all members non-active for 60-90 days.

2. Remove access to photos and thumbnails to non-premium members.

3. Clear and evident spammers should be deleted (or banned).

4. Remove the ability to right click and save photos.

5. Lurkers in the chatroom that don't post or input text to be bounced after 20 minutes of inactivity.

6. Make it Mandatory that users fill out a profile upon joining this site.
If no profile is filled out, Display IP address instead.
(Forces accountability for their actions on here)

I'll think of more when im in my hotel room
C

 

[kalipygian]

The workaround for stating the reason for banning in the case of underage members could be simply stating that they had 'falsified date of birth' in their registration. Or just 'falsification of registration information'. ( I have no idea how moderators can be certain, in many cases, of a person's age)

I have not seen a persuasive argument presented that there is need for secrecy in any other catagory of banning.

Posts and threads , barring something heinous or illegal, should not be deleted.

If a truth and reconciliation commission is appointed to repair the damage, I nominate the universally respected and very capeable Kotchanski.

Thanks.:biggrin1:

Edit. As a gesture of optimism, and putting my money where my mouth is, I have just put through a payment for a year.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

1. Delete all members non-active for 60-90 days.Why, Rikter?
2. Remove access to photos and thumbnails to non-premium members.
Well, my thought above was that the thumbnails may entice non-premium members to upgrade. Would it really? Don't know.
3. Clear and evident spammers should be deleted (or banned).
4. Remove the ability to right click and save photos.
Why? Maybe having that ability reduces the demands on the database, since people don't have to keep coming back to view their favorites.
5. Lurkers in the chatroom that don't post or input text to be bounced after 20 minutes of inactivity.
Why? So that one can tell more easily at a glance who's effectively there? I suppose ...
6. Make it Mandatory that users fill out a profile upon joining this site.
If no profile is filled out, Display IP address instead.
(Forces accountability for their actions on here)
Isn't the IP address known? (And aren't IP addresses less significant these days, anyway?)

 

[dong20]

1. Delete all members non-active for 60-90 days.

A reminder/inactivity warning email could be sent say 14 days prior?

2. Remove access to photos and thumbnails to non-premium members.

3. Clear and evident spammers should be deleted (or banned).

4. Remove the ability to right click and save photos.

5. Lurkers in the chatroom that don't post or input text to be bounced after 20 minutes of inactivity.

I don't use chat but sound like a good idea.


6. Make it Mandatory that users fill out a profile upon joining this site.
If no profile is filled out, Display IP address instead.
(Forces accountability for their actions on here)

I suspect you may run into privacy concerns there. Do you mean the IP address it was posted from, or the current one. It could be a privacy issue again, especially if the IP is static.

If you make the profile mandatory, won't people lie? As some do now, I suppose.

I'll think of more when im in my hotel room
C

I'll try to dream some up...

 

[rawbone8]

Create two levels of curtailment of access/posting for offenders.

Suspended for first time, second time etc. offenders. Limited to one week at a time.

Banned for the irredeemable outcasts, but use it extremely sparingly.

Allow for a grievance procedure, for exceptional advocation.

Explain bannings in a coherent, open way with the banned, and publish a short reason probably with a reference to the TOS, so that long time members won't be as upset by the loss of friends. Fairness should apparent. No need to do this with the suspension.

Give the mods direction on a more hands-off sensitivity to intervention, except for under age members.

Tolerate differences of opinion and communication style. Curmudgeons, flamers, argumentative SOBs, and snarky humour should be allowed in appropriate threads. Mere disruption, heated criticism and pissing in someone's cornflakes should not be bannable offences in Etcetera, for example. Or create a new category to move a thread to and call it Gloves Off or The Bear Pit and then let it fly. Overt racism, homophobic hatred and issuing physical threats or illegality may be still set up as limits that construe terms for banning. Refinements can be discussed for protection of the site owner's interests.


Change the mods and co-admins regularly.