Community improvements? Membership? A discussion

[Gust0o]

I was opening this as a "debate", as I've become conscious - as I'm sure others have - of increasing tensions on the forum.

These tensions, as have arisen, have been very reminiscent of problems on our fellow forums - and something we had hoped to avoid with HC, which has normally embodied a spirit of friendship and openness.

This spirit has been relatively easy to maintain, thanks to the smaller user-base of HC - behaviour has been that much easier to normalise - aided by a trend towards age and experience on the behalf of our more regular posters.

However, we have seen strong recent growth, which has changed the demographic somewhat for the younger and inexperienced - and, whilst this is the long-term lifeblood of the hobby and fancy, it has caused some concerns amongst members.

With that in mind, I was hoping to start the debate as to whether there was anything we might do to moderate those concerns - to ensure the user-base of HC is manageable, within the current community constraints; and that it retains the spirit which has made it the home of choice to so many, especially within the UK fancy.

I had wondered if we might be able to offer more screening of the registration process; or perhaps an invite system, where older users would be able to invite newer ones - but with the proviso that their accounts are linked, and the inviting user would be responsible for the behaviour of the invitee (buddy system)?

For my part, I've not been terribly thrilled with the nature of some of the situations we've been witness to - and would very much like to see us have an open debate as to how we might tackle some of these issues, and ensure HC is there for more to enjoy in the future.

[Mollz Mum]

Hi Gusto

I totally agree with all that you have said - the forum has had a very uneasy and uncomfortable atmosphere of late and I for one am viewing it less and less, which is such a shame.

I think that the invitation and buddy system would be a great way to go, but I guess any changes like this are not for us to decide - the forum is owned by Snuggleham and such major changes would be up to her.

We all love the forum and support it fully. I would hope that she will sypathise with concerns expressed by the members.

Well done for voicing our concerns and making such a brave move. I know these thoughts have been on a lot of our minds lately, but it can't have been easy to have bitten the bullet and posted this suggestion.

I think an honest and sensible debate about is a great idea.

[internet_nobody]

As I have said to Gus over PM, even in the short time i've been here i've noticed things change...As a moderator on "the other" forum, i've tried to explain to some people the frustrations in trying to make a forum attractive to everyone, and the difficulty in keeping members once you start to deal with the young and inexperienced (in many situations read "people who will do what they want to do regardless of any advice offered and generally really annoy your established members") Gus mentioned, it would be a shame if HC lost members too because of this. I think the only way to do it is over-moderating/censorship, which distrupts the community feel in another way

[Gust0o]

Well done for voicing our concerns and making such a brave move. I know these thoughts have been on a lot of our minds lately, but it can't have been easy to have bitten the bullet and posted this suggestion.

Why, thank you - I'm very much of the opinion that concerns shouldn't be hidden, but should be voiced and explored, which is what I'm hoping we'll have chance to do here.

I would dearly like input from Snuggleham - not only is she the owner of the site, but she posted a very thought-provoking comment in Hamster Chat recently, regarding her experiences on similar forums. The question being, if we were edging towards the same situation, with the power in her hands what would she do?

Or does she even need to do anything? Are we being over-sensitive? I'm hoping we'll be able to explore that, as well.

This isn't a criticism - it's an acknowledgement; a discussion; and it's intended to improve HC, which I would feel Snuggleham would appreciate.

For my part, I recognise that new users are an absolute requirement - they're needed to maintain the forum, in the long-term. The challenge for me is to how to introduce new people, without exposing current users to undue stress - we'd like to retain our experienced base.

But this isn't simply new users - it's behavioural standards; it's merely that we've noticed the issue more in connection with certain new users.

In analogy, if this were a business we'd consider job design - to ensure we recruited people whose behaviours and values closely matched that of the organisation, to ensure we could smoothly absorb those staff; as a community, can we do likewise? Can we ensure "job-design" through screening, as a suggestion; or can we normalise behaviour through other means, and ensure the users we have are aware of requirements of HC (psychological contract, users charter, etc)?

These are all suggestions, which might have some valid application to HC - I'm just happy we're talking

[Matty Day]

Id have concerns about a buddy system for a variety of reasons

The main reason as it could be open to abuse and create one set of rules for some and one for others as the invitee could potentially censor the inviter as they’d threaten to break the rules if they didn’t get there way creating a more draconian forum blaming the innocent for the actions of others

Further more this could create a form of elitism as it would prevent new blood so to speak from joining as they don’t know a forum member. Lessening the amount of potential new members to those who are linked to the uk hamster showing and breeding circle. And what about overseas members from the us and the rest of the world? This create a two tier system. Depending on were ever they live and also a vicious circle as many find out about shows through the forum

However a better idea would be to simplify the forum rules and put them into a basic code like for the ten commandments.

And how a bout a tougher rule enforcement like a three strikes and out system?

And how about a form of democracy so members vote on the rules? Instead of the form of enlightened absolutism we have now as the rules are more likely to work if member have a say in there creation

However I realise These are my ideas to improve hc I understand the have practicality issues so might not be possible. And might be undesirable for some for some

[nooboo]

to some extent you have to take the bad with the good...

are you actually saying you would want to screen out those with difficulties and so stop them from the opportunity to learn simply to make life easier for others?

if the screening process is too difficult people wont bother, i hate to pick on people but carrington i asked to join here, she very nearly didnt bother due to the wait for the code business....so we put off experienced well balanced people already!as said by limiting to those who are asked we loose a lot of potential members, people find these forums and wander onto them post a few messages, hey its how i started off in the hamster world, with a few mistakes true, but i have lived learnt, and had excellent guidance from those the forums and then showing put me in regular contact with.



there will always be conflicts, even with something like hamster care, we are all individuals with different views on things, and yes some people express themselves in a less' accepted' form than others, but how can they learn without this? how can ideas be put forward? some on here like using water bowls for hamsters, personally i feel they are dangerous, but i wouldnt say to someone who uses them they are dangerous and they are harming their animal, as i would think that i they had had issues they wouldnt have kept using them, so though i woulrdnt want to use them...i wonder if i am more harsh on them than i should be.

any one can say things in a way which upsets people (that last bit may have already upset someone, in which case i am really sorry) no one usually means to, but when people feel strongly strong emotions come out.

it would also mean the forum would be against those with disabilities, more mental ones but just as valid. someone very close to me has aspergers, and so can come across badly on things, i would hate to think due to this you would deny him the right to post here?

[Bunsey]

i started out on a hamster forum, too. It was an American one, so i actually learned a lot by just reading posts that were made to kids using pine shavings, the wrong wheels and CT cages. Everything i knew about hamsters before i came to the club was learnt from that forum. I went on there as a naive new owner with her "chinese" hamsters on lemon scented sawdust! If i'd have been stopped from going on there, i'd still be that person.

[workmad3]

All of these ideas sound nice, but there is (I think) one key issue here... this is an internet forum. It is designed to be easy to post on, easy to join and other things for ease. If you start imposing or creating complicated rules about how people can join you will either have:

• The rules being ignored because they are too difficult. There could also be the occasional crackdown which would have members complaining about them periodically and abandoning the forum[/*:m:1cq2hkq4]
• A lack of new blood as the rules are too prohibitive to allow new members to join[/*:m:1cq2hkq4]

As for a 'democratic' rules selection, that would be VERY open to abuse due to the internet being based around virtual identities rather than physical identities. It would be very easy to sign up with several accounts here (or dozens, if I felt like it ) each using a different email address (very easy to do, even with multiple different domains so they don't look like they are all from the same person) and then use extra votes through multiple accounts to get particular rules passed by a 'democracy'.

To put it bluntly, just about every forum on the internet is either on the brink of falling into an elitist community that hazes outsiders and makes them unwelcome, or is already there. If you are already in the group, you will think the atmosphere is great. If you are an outsider, you will think either (if a) that there is a certain unfriendliness/distance because you are new (which is true... this is just basic human behaviour. If you don't know someone, you won't talk to them as much until you do) or they will be quite nastily hazed until they go away or are accepted in the case of the second. Staying on the brink of elitist communities is a very difficult thing to do, and all the forums I've ever seen manage it are 'ruled' by a fairly relaxed set of rules imposed by a form of enlightened despotism and were also lucky enough to have gotten a main group of members that were friendly and welcoming. A couple of bad people getting into the main group of posters will ruin it, and rules that are too strict will drive away people that feel put-upon just because they want to chat with their friends on a forum and can't because their post contained the word 'assessment' which has a swear word in it.

The idea of psychological profiles of members is again an idea that wouldn't work in an online environment. Most people that have spent time online will have taken several 'psychological profiles' and will be able to play them so well that they could come out as either a saint or a serial killer depending on what they felt like being that day. It is another case of virtual identities as well, in that if someone doesn't get accepted because of it with one login, they just create another and answer things differently. This is the internet, most people don't feel that the quizzes etc. on here are something to be taken seriously and therefore have no qualms about lying or exaggerating things on them to get their own way.

Edit:
I feel I should also point out that with things like psychological profiles, you will tend to scare away honest members as well. They will see the information you are asking, or the length of the form and decide it's not worth it. That would mean that the people you would then attract would mainly be less attractive people who have joined up to scam the form and then have a bit of fun posting stupid comments and threads.


Oh, and a three-strikes and out system is fairly well workable from my experience The only problem is getting rid of people after 3 strikes. The main forum I frequent is filled with computer programmers, and run by a really good web programmer who has managed to outfox pretty much every spam bot out there and keeps on top of it... when he tried to ban a problem member it took a VERY long time and eventually ended up with a cease-fire where the member agreed to tone down posts and only post as a guest, and stop defacing threads and posts... and that was with an argument over the size of an avatar

[Mollz Mum]

Originally Posted by nooboo

are you actually saying you would want to screen out those with difficulties and so stop them from the opportunity to learn simply to make life easier for others?

I don't think that's what's being said at all. It's fine if they do actually want to learn and do actually listen to and accept the advice that is being given.

The problem of late is that there have been some very aggressive posts that have got out of hand.

I personnally joined the forum as a complete novice, hoping to talk to like minded people and be able to ask the more experienced owners and breeders for advice. But when these more experienced people are constantly contradicted, then they will end up leaving and then all we will have on are the younger, more inexperienced members who very often give out incorrect and ill judged advice - which in my mind is extremely dangerous.

We all know and accept that forums need new members to "stay alive" and keep going and I believe that we are very good at welcoming them all with open arms and doing our best to make them part of the forum, but this also has to be balanced against how destructive some of these new members are being to the good nature of the forum. I think that what we need is an agreed "acceptable behaviour" policy, that every member has to sign up to. And if they break the rules, then their membership is cancelled. I like the idea of 3 strikes and you're out - it would certainly have solved quite a few of the problems recently!

[Bunsey]

i think there could be a danger of people becoming affraid to voice their opinions if they think other people won't agree and then that defeats the hole purpose of the forum