Questions:

Who owns the new site?

Who manages the admin and moderation volunteers?

What kind of volunteer time commitment is required to operate such a site?

Excellent question. Not yet discussed or decided.

Preferably, me.

Kidding.

The proper route would be to form some sort of legal entity to run wondercafe.ca or a new site, among a core of WC users. Personally, I think one trusted member could take on the ownership of the site, and pay the hosting fees, while others contributed to that member. Just to keep it simple.

Ideally, to me, the UCCan renews wondercafe.ca (it's due to expire April 19, 2014) and points it where we ask, or transfers it to us. Domain registration costs are about $15/year, if I recall. I'm with the same registrar as the UCCan - DomainsAtCost.ca

Or, we just get a new domain.

And I'm still desperate to save the post history. Wondermails and account email addresses don't need to be migrated. Account names should be fine - all that stuff is already public.

There is going to have to be a core of users in the form of a council or similar. Jae can finally have his visible clique, or even ask or run to be part of it (if elected). There is no real way around this. People will disagree with decisions by this core group, and some dispute resolution system will have to be implemented. There are boilerplate agreements out there so we wouldn't have to re-invent the wheel, but tweak one to our satisfaction.

Moderation can basically be done by those with admin or moderator access while they're browsing.

Admin work behind the scenes is heaviest before launch, then it's pretty heavy as people ask for changes, then it should settle down to updates only, but only if unmanaged. If a managed site hosted by the forum software people, that's taken care of. I know Pinga prefers this model, but I don't mind performing software updates - they aren't that hard. A stock forum site with a custom template only is not difficult to update. For example, while there is a Drupal 6 to 7 update, once you've customized the site too much, it won't work, and you'll break it by trying. I suggest we don't customize beyond the template, so upgrades are relatively painless.

If we can do this over time, I can probably do much of the admin work, or not, if people don't trust the atheist. I guess it would then be Pinga or someone else. It's no snow off my igloo.

Thank you, Chansen, for this information.  It helps to understand moving forward.  :)

To chansen's excellent response, I'll add that rather than a council, we may want to look at running on a corporate model with a board. We could even have online voting for registered members to vote for a slate (Actually, in the by-laws we may want to specify that members must have been registered for a year or more or have made a financial contribution at some specified level in order to vote. This helps prevent ballot stuffing attacks by groups trying to get control, which could well happen if, say, the evangelicals decide they don't like how it is being run.).

This adds a layer of accountability that we may need if we start doing partnerships with churches or other organizations. The board would also be responsible for dealing with marketing, finance, and legal issues, leaving the admins and mods to focus on keeping the site running smoothly (though I would assume that the senior admin would have a seat on the board as Technical Director or some such title). I know it adds a layer of administrative complexity but it also ensures that the new forum has some kind of legal status and some by-laws to deal with problems.

The issue that may come up with the domain name wondercafe.ca is if the UCCan has "Wondercafe" registered as a trademark or has other IP registrations around it. That might mean that beyond getting the domain (or having them point it to our site), there may need to be licensing agreements in place. An incorporated forum with a board (per above) would then be able to sign those agreements or take ownership of the IP if the church wanted to be rid of it for some reason.

Mendalla

For me, the big challenge is that we lose the ability to  appeal to an independent person (Admin) who then reviews the items. .

One of the challenges of being elevated to moderator is that people will see moderators different. It shifts relationships and posting.  People have the potential to be attacked, and they are volunteering.

I'm curious who would be interested in being a moderator and who on being an admin?

Most large boards that I'm on use mods as the first line of defense and enforcement of the rules. Appeals are then made to either a council of all the mods, so that the mods collectively could vote to overrule an individual mod's call, or to the admins (depending on the board's structure). This frees admins up to deal more with the technical nuts and bolts rather than getting swamped dealing with spam reports, rules infractions, etc.

The problem with not having a two tier mod-admin structure is that the admins then become the mods with no real higher level of appeal (unless there's a board/council as chansen and I have been discussing) and the risk that technical work (like updates) will get lost in shuffle of dealing with spammers and trolls.

Mendalla

Don't kid yourself. Lots of people would want mod.

Yeah, 95% of mod/admin stuff is dealing with spam and troll accounts. Stephen will be defintely be back, and we'd have to decide how to deal with that level of idiocy, preferably ahead of time so we have a united front.

I think the admins should have no more say on content than the mods, but be the techies. A technical ability should not give you any more say over the content. Though, because they are going to deal with the spammers and trolls, they should have the same say as the mods, in my estimation.

Mendella, Chansen: Absolutely agee and pesume thee will be Admins (techs), Moderators.

Chasen, it isn't always those that want to be moderatos who should be.

I am curious of who wants to be, that was an appeal to the general population of wondercafe to see who wanted to do the role and may not have stated it yet.

Modeators/Admins need to work closely together,in part because as you said, trolls will become obvious.

Oh, 100% agree. And when people get rejected, it will feel very personal.

I doubt enough people would elect me to be a mod. I'm not even sure many here would want me in any sort of admin position.

Ya think? ;)

I forget the details, but at RPG.net, I believe that if they need to replace/add a mod, the admins and other mods decide on a user(s) they think would be appropriate and issue an invitation rather than going through an application process. That way, no one outside the "Backstage" area knows who was/wasn't under consideration, reducing hard feelings. If the invitee accepts, then they issue an announcement and raise their privilege level.

On the other, much smaller even than WC, board I'm on, I think they only have two, the admin (who is the owner) and a backup admin/moderator. It's privately run with a fairly small audience, though, so can get away with it.

Mendalla

Good point about invitations, Mendalla. Remember, though, that this method is more secretive and gets people thinking conspiracy.

A lot of forums are for people who all agree on a topic and like to talk about it. WC ain't like that. You've got Christians of all stripes, plus smatterings of other religions and godless heathens. Not enough bible thumpers running the show? Bible thumpers will assume the mods are out to get them. And maybe they are.

The place has to be run loose, and for the most part, it is. I hope threads will be locked or closed instead of deleted going forward, but otherwise, I'm mostly fine with how it is.

I can't decide if I like the idea of being independent, or being a legit 'congregation', better. I'd like it to have some oversight, but few hard and fast rules and not too much red tape.

Has anyone ever used 'gofundme' or similar sites? There's a thread on 'politics' I posted- started because of a woman who wrote a story about being poor in America, which was on Huffington Post, then raised lots of money for herself to write a book. And another woman, is helping her spread the story- Tina- who has her own story and campaign to help her to further her studies. Tina signed up on WC and said hello on that thread. Maybe she'd have pointers if we were to go independent on raising funds to make it a really good site, like this one- or maybe there's something UCCan would find helpful?

I think we would need to vote on the mod before we got close to launching a new site. Some mods style could be to lax, maybe, others too power-tripping. We'd probably need two.

Direct election of mods is an interesting idea but also a potential minefield. It does not eliminate the risks you cite (laxitude and power-tripping). Also increases, to my mind, potential factionalization as people line up behind specific mods and also the incentive for mods to play favorites in hopes of re-election. I'd rather have a board elected as a slate (similar to how churches and many corporate boards do it) and then have the board choose/approve mods. That makes the mods responsible to the board, who can then deal with issues of power-tripping and favoritism. IOW, mods are staff as are admins.

Mendalla

True. It's all a little complicated for me, though. Never been a mod. Wouldn't want to be, because I imagine there are tough calls to make, but you don't want to stifle conversation either. Part of the beauty of this site is that everyone has a voice and there's lots of leeway.

What really matters more than who you choose as mods is setting out clear, well-defined rules for them to enforce. Then it is easy to spot when they under or over enforce.

So, you don't just say "No personal attacks". You say "No personal attacks" and then in clear, concise language, define what is covered under the rule. The rules should be written out and available both as page on the site and in a stickyed thread (thread that always stays at the top of a forum) in at least one of the forums on the site (usually the one reserved for discussing board issues). They should be passed by the Board (meaning that the forum is obligated to abide by them) and user registration should specify that by clicking the button to submit their registration users agree to abide by them and by the decisions of the admins, mods, and board.

.

You also want to have an appeals process for those times when a case isn't clear-cut or someone has a grievance with a mod or admin.

Mendalla

 I agree. The place has to be run loose. However at the same time we need safeguards against trolls and others who prefer to shut down online communities by causing various kinds of problems for them. 

The idea is to create a community where people want to come to and participated in. Trolls do not want to participate in communities they want to destroy communities and destroy the possibility of people forming relationships. Whatever controls are set up  will be tested severely, Just as a  two-year-old is constantly testing its boundaries.

 Any Controls or rules that are set up to inhibit trolls, must not themselves become A problem in time. For example Sylviac, StephenBooth, and others would flag hundreds of messages to overwhelm the moderator and test him. 

I am suggesting two controls.  A section where offensive or trollish post can be placed and frozen, This would allow that that would want to to debate the approbiateness of these post being flagged, as oppose to leaving the decision and responsibility soely with the individual admins.

We  need to have some sort of rule that allows them to delete members who are apparently just trolls. Stephen Booth is a good example. There is no point in wasting a lot of time determining which one of his posts break  the rules when it is clear that he's exists just to disrupt community.

 On the other hand there will be people who post offensive messages but who desire to be part of the community. You can tell that by there sherry and their topics that they raise. Howevr rules will fail to distinguish between the two types, and judgement is needed.

 one of the reasons boards are successful is because the admin are not  too involved in disscussions .  If we are to include active members as admin, than  that presents a set of challenges to those who become administrators. Most of all it can  lessen their ability to enjoy or use the board.

 It becomes problematic for someone who bars or sanctions member as admin, and then go online as arranger remember to have a heated discussion with that same person. 

But I do not know what the solution to this is.  I only stayed this based on my own experience of being an administrator or sysop of my BBS which had over 1600 members and was very popular. I stayed over all conversations and controversies and focused on just administration. I have seen this happen elsewhere as well and I have seen when people who are Ministry eight get involved as users as well it does make it a less enjoyable place for that person and it becomes a job.

One of the option is too have a regular memebr like Red BAron, who uses the site, but has minimal particp[ation inn the heated topics (as oppose to games, or support disscussions)  be the face of the admin.

Regarding the question of traffic and getting new blood.

 One if the board is well run and and people continue to enjoy it as a community, then the community can put its head together and either fund raise for advertising, or come up with ways creating free advertising that drives traffic to WonderCafe.   Howevr this comes after establishing the board.

The reason we have not had alot of new traffic is because we haven't really advertised or promoted  wonderCafe since it was launched. We did have the don't worry there is a God campaign, but that was geared in response to campaign by one group of people. 

I think that was a good campaign. In that it was geared to attracting a certain group of people.I can imagine similar campaigns geared towards attracting other population groups where we will get A response. That is with a paid or not paid advertising campaign devised by the members.

Alex

I'm not sure you have a true  way of telling how many people are new or old traffic on the WC.  As an example I've recently posted 2 topics on R and F. I seldom get many responses from our active members.... but the lurkers....who are they...?.. they are reading altho' not responding.

( I check   discussion   up top of the screen  by  my profile page to see the number of responses ).

E.G. On one new  topic from last week  I have 9 responses and 313 lurkers , on another new topic I have 21 reponses and 292 lurkers. These lurkers may be those we are familiar with or they may be strangers who have never participated. Have you checked out the members list at the left of the board? Its interesting.

Stardust, 

You have to remember that if you have 9 responses and 313 views, there is no way of knowing how many individuals have looked at your thread. The 9 actual posters on the thread may be returning to it over and over. 

If I am really interested in a thread, I will open it again every time there is a new post. And maybe even more often if I want to go back to an earlier point. 

paradox3

That's true re the perceived  lurkers on a given thread. Still it shows some interest in it. Also the person who has started the topic is going in to reply to whoever is posting. Not withstanding there still may be somebody lurking. It could be a new person who is browsing prior to making the leap to participate via posting. Once in a blue moon we get a new person (or new as  perceived)  posting a big  daring OP. Sometimes its designed to put us on the strait and narrow......:)

In fact, on two other boards that I am on, the admins and mods are fairly active members of the boards (esp. the mods who were chosen for that very reason). I agree that it can reduce one's enjoyment, but I would hardly argue that the admins being uninvolved automatically makes for a successful board. It is more a matter of how they are involved and how careful they are in separating the admin role from the poster role.

Mendalla

Lurkers are extremely important. First, they may indeed join and become active members, so you do not want to shut them out from reading. Second, even if they never post or create an account, they expand the reach and readership of the forum and indicate that somebody is interested, just like page views are good for blogs.

I forget the rule of thumb for the ratio, but most forums have more lurkers than active members. If they want to join, great. If they don't, great. It's good just to have them around.

Bingo. Admins can be active members. Besides, the best admins are hardly noticeable as admins and don't go messing with posts that at least a minority would find acceptable, beyond perhaps "adjusting" choice words and trying to steer conversation.

Flame wars that are out of control get locked. Over-the-top threats get deleted, but we almost never get those. I can remember two in the last four years.

Spam accounts and trolls get booted immediately, but other than the above, there isn't much a good forum moderator or admin does to impact discussions.

I recently rather quickly  scanned over   a forum where I'm seeing a lot of ads almost  everytime I click a new topic. I wonder if anyone knows   (Pinga,Mendalla, Chansen......? ) whether these are ads that are sponsored  meaning  they  pay for the forum,  or is it spam? I clicked FAQ  but I don't see any info. re finances. I have no ambition to join   and ask ??'s.

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/

At the top of the every page? Google Ads.

There are also ad-ons to insert ads in-between some posts (not on that forum), which I find rather obtrusive.

Top of page and side of page, not so much.

Still, I don't think we generate enough traffic for ads to make a significant dent in even the least expensive hosting options.

Yep, sounds like Google ads. RPG.net uses Google ads and they are very good now. Even though it is an international site, I often get Canadian or even local advertising when I'm on.They are also eyeballing either your cookies or Google search history. When I was planning my last trip, rpg.net was actually tossing me Google ads relevant to the trip. A bit spooky (and makes it tempting to do more of my surfing in Private Mode) but at the same time, at least it is relevant ads rather than the borderline spam I get on some sites.

Mendalla

What are the topic  or ionterests of the other boards that you are active on. I belong to an aquarium hobbyiest board and for that it is an unimportant consideration. HOwver on a WC type community  to avoid the preception that admin is banning a troll for reasons other than trolling. Not becaseu of the the troll, but the limitations it places on the parrticipation of others, many of which will misunderstand that the admin positions with that of the boards.  Becasue others may refrain from challenging the positions of the admin when she or he is acting as a member.

While I agree it is possible for an admin to be actively involved in opininated debate, it does prevent challenges as you also point out.  I am just saying that it is a consideration, and to limit some of our most opinionated and interewsting memebrs by making them admin (in the sense that  is not a good idea to do for the community.

  (but only if it is possible to be avoided.  after all it is less likely that an independant board will be able to recruit someone who is not already an active membr)

One is the kind of highly specialized board that your aquarium board would fit in. The owner is also the admin and is also the most frequent poster (he hit 4000 posts the other day).

The other is rpg.net. which is nominally about pen-and-paper roleplaying games but is one of the oldest and largest boards out there and has forums for just about everything, including a catch-all for anything that doesn't fit anywhere else. And the size and diversity of personalities and interests tend to make thinks pretty fractious at times, which has resulted in fairly stringent rules and tight moderation (e.g. some of chansen's posts would likely have earned him warnings or suspensions for group attacks). I think at least one of the admins is pretty much fulltime and also writes regular blogs and even books about the subject.

Mendalla

Thx Chansen and Mendalla for the info. about the ads.

One of the things to consider is, Will there be individual Mods/Admin for each forum, or will there be one overseeing all forums?

A board I am on for an online game has someone for each forum to help reduce the work load making it easier to administer and moderate.  They are usually left free to moderate their assigned forums however, there is one person they are able to go to when they are not sure about a post or it's content and wish to have another persons insight to if it should be dealt with or left as is. Now, this does not mean they are unable to be effective in making a decision, it simply means they are open to seeing things from all perspectives and making an unbiased decision regarding that post, or thread.

That was one of the positions I held there. I am the person that they came to when they wanted to make sure they were making the right decision regarding something and not making a choice based on their own personal feelings on something.  I always try to see things from both perspectives because at times there are things someone personally has an issue with and yet the poster was within the right to share their personal views and thoughts even though others did not like them.  It is very important to maintain that balance.

I am happy to assist in that capacity on a new site if people are chosen via a voting system of some sort. I have the time to do it since I am usually at my pc most of the day. I may not post a lot, however I am always reading. I want this to succeed and if I am able to help make that happen from my volunteering time then I am more than happy to step in whatever way I can be helpful.

(>-.-)> *Peace* ~ Beyond ~ *Peace* <(-.-<)

Steven A. Breeze

To be fair, I think a lot of posts against me would have warranted similar responses. Plus, I do not go after someone without explaining my justification. Don't make me out to be someone who wontonly attacks people.

We have had a history of weak and cowardly moderation here, where some posts that are flagged are simply deleted. Long and sometimes well-argued posts that had one bad word get nuked because the admin didn't know what else to do. As a result of this history, I have contempt for the admins here, and I think I have good reason for that. You point out that warnings and other tools are at an admin's disposal. Erasing the work of someone else, when the 99% of the words are acceptable, is just weak.

I wasn't. I was making rpg.net out to be too heavily modded for the kind of contentious issues we sometimes tackle here (religion is almost verboten there now) .

This is why I would like to see a "Charter" that binds both mods and posters to a well defined set of rules rather than relying on rather arbitrary interpretations of guidelines.

Mendalla