Keeping UMSF at an 'impressively high level', Please take a moment to read Options

[djellison]

I, my ever-helpful co-admins, and several members have all noticed that UMSF has begun to get a little bit 'noisy' recently. Its #1 quality is often cited as being the signal-to-noise ratio, and in the last few months, this has suffered to a certain extent. This post is an attempt to explain how and why I think it's happened, and the rules that we are now putting in place and some action that we are taking/will take to attempt to return UMSF to the prior level of discourse.

UMSF started life, as some of you will know, as a much smaller, MER-specific forum, and over time grew to include Cassini, and then essentially everything it covers today. Relaunching as UMSF just over 12 months ago saw the beginning of a more popular forum, and as more people have begun posting, the quality of discussion has, to an extent, suffered. For more than a year, I've been expecting it - it's part of a forum's growth pattern and is often the point at which a forum is made or broken. UMSF has always done well by having an informal, silent but understood agreement between its members which up until the 500-or-so membership level worked beautifully, but as more people have joined, has broken down considerably. As a result these rules are now going to have to be formalised and enforced - forcefully and rapidly. Some of them may alienate some members, some may be seen as an attempt to 'censor' or 'silence' certain trains of thought and, to be brutally honest, in some cases that is not altogether untrue. UMSF exists for the discussion of UMSF...that's the reality of it. If you want to talk about something else, go elsewhere.

1. Acceptable Subject Matter
- 1.1 The clue is in the name of the forum. If what you are posting is not related either to Unmanned Spaceflight, or a directly related matter, it may be deleted without notice.
- 1.2 Politics - the discussion of policy is acceptable, the distribution of money within agencies is a valid and reasonable subject - however this is different to political debate. Discussion of politicians, political parties, various topics of the moment (Iraq, Terrorism) are all very much off topic and posts that include them will be removed.
- 1.3 Astrobiology - Discussion relating to biological instrumentation past or proposed is acceptable. i.e. Viking instrumentation yes - Martian Meteorites - no. This may meet objection, but again - there are other places for this sort of discussion, take it there.
- 1.4 Manned Spaceflight - changes will soon be made to the Manned Spaceflight forum - bottom line, it's fundamentally off topic to this forum, and in combination with 1.2 it is one of the primary sources of arguments and 'ranting'. Most people agree that Shuttle/ISS is a monetary hog - we do NOT need to see it mentioned every other post. This forum does not exist as a platform to be anti-manned spaceflight (despite the title) - do not use it as one.
- 1.5 Conspiracy theories and pseudo-science are totally unacceptable.
- 1.6 Other guidelines may be added as and when they become necessary.

2. Acceptable Behaviour
- 2.1 Every post must remain respectful of the opinion of others, even if contrary to your own.
- 2.2 Posts should make a contribution. Think - does what I am about to post add anything to the discussion. If the answer is no - should you really be posting it?
- 2.3 Before asking a question or starting a thread for which there might be something similar already in existence, have a brief look for a similar thread, or use the forum search tool to search for it first.
- 2.4 Don't rant. If you have a point to make...make it and move on. Do not litter your every post making the same point again and again. If you want somewhere to vent - get yourself a blog. (P.S., this place is a forum or discussion group - NOT a blog...sorry, just a personal rant there, I wont mention it again...see )
- 2.5 Arguments. If an argument between two people begins, take it to email or private message - we don't want to see your fights in the forum.

3. Posting etiquette
- 3.1 Formatting - do not use excessive formatting. It looks messy and childish. Use it only when it is necessary to make your message clear (such as my MRO MOI time line thread).
- 3.2 Images - do not post an image 'in line' (i.e. one that will load when someone views that thread) if it is more than 100kb. This is to maintain the sanity of those who still use slower connections.
- 3.3 Attached images - do not attach an image to a thread that is freely viewable on a server elsewhere - simply link to it.
- 3.4 Scientific papers are always a useful and valuable resource, but many forum members are not fortunate enough to have subscription access to the various bodies that manage them. If you post a link to a paper which will require a log in, say so in the post (i.e. http://dngsdgsadgdsg/asdgdsa.pdf (requires login) ) - to save people without access finding out the hard way. Only post links to papers directly relevant to a discussion and that fit the rules of section 1
- 3.5 Quoting. If you're replying to a post - you don't need to quote it in full, or indeed at all if it's the first reply to that post. It simply litters threads and makes them harder to scroll through. Also, avoid quoting images, it causes the same problem.

That's all for now - but they will evolve and change with time as the need arises - they are a sensible start however. These rules wont be exercised retroactively - what has been posted is done. These rules apply from now and will be enforced without warning.

I've had a struggle with my own conscience about this entire issue - how to address the problem without seeming to be a censor or overly draconian. But at the end of the day, to maintain the high quality this place enjoys, rules are now clearly required. If you object to them, if you find them contrary to your own standards, then perhaps UMSF is not the place for you and you should consider joining other discussion forums instead.

A few members (two) will be getting temporary suspensions with a request to either post within these new guidelines, or leave. A further two have or are about to have a repeated request to change their posting behaviour or, again, leave (they may or may not elect to respond to this thread, but they can't magically remove the damage that they have done over the past few months). This course of action will be deployed more rapidly in the future to maintain standards.

No one here could question my admiration of MER PI Steve Squyres, and last April he was kind enough to send me a brief note about UMSF which made me very very proud of what the place had become - "Both the discourse and the image work are at an impressively high level," he said.

We all need to think a little before pressing 'post new topic' or 'post reply' to make sure that Steve's kind words remain true and UMSF maintains its healthy reputation, high quality of content, and good-natured debate and discussion.

I hope none of this upsets the long-standing, well-respected members of UMSF, the people who are the foundation upon which the reputation and content of this place stand. I often find myself in awe of some people's contributions, and it is because of the content which so often amazes me that I must take this action to keep its home a happy one.

In closing, I wish to thank my co-admins, whose input into making this change in policy has been so valuable, for their ever-helpful opinions and support - Guys, I couldnt do it without you. They are the 'directors' of this place, and I am forever grateful for their help and advice. However, we need people at a step below that - moderators - to help deploy these new rules. If you are a member of more than 6 months, with several hundred posts to your name and might be able to take on the task of looking after a little bit of UMSF, let me know. It's a thankless job, but you get two perks - access to the Administrators forum (the 'board room' for the directors), and if you would like one, an @unmannedspaceflight.com email address.

This has been a big long post, and well done for getting to the end of it - and I hope that it will begin a refocus of UMSF to give it the big long future it deserves.

Doug

[djellison]

a default MT or Wordpress template signals a lack of care or attention on the part of the blog's owner, leading readers to think they can get away with something.

We're about a nanometer from a default invision board skin here - but I think it has the right sort of tone

Moderation is not easy - you try to draw lines, but it's not a black and white situation - it may seem arbitrary to some, but here, at least, it works in the long term. Set the tone and the guidelines firmly, at all times, and it can work. BAUT manages to tread a very interesting line between what UMSF is like, and the Mars Rover Blog. I've spent 10 years in and around forums, and you can tell the troublemakers a long long way off usually. It's not especially pleasant watching a ticking time-bomb posting on a board, when you know you'll be hitting the ban button before too long, there's an inevitability about it, especially when they try to argue with the moderation team - that's always a terminal sign.

It's a fascinating ecosystem all of its own.

[Stu]

I sometimes think it's a bit like a school... you've got the really cool kids who are the centre of attention and always sit on the best bench in the yard or best chairs in the 6th form wing, sharing in-jokes; the cool-ish kids who hang around the really cool kids, chipping in now and again when they feel confident enough to; the not-cool-but-interested kids who watch from a distance, happy just to be involved and witnesses to the cool stuff; the not-cool-and-resentful kids who lurk in a corner of the playground glaring at everyone else, hating them for being so popular but too timid to do anything disruptive; the annoying clown kids who run in and out of the other groups generally being pains in the **** but sure in their own minds they are hilarious, and the wrecking kids, who share no real interests with any of the others and just come into the yard or the 6th form wing now and again to try and cause trouble, just for the sake of it, then strut away laughing...

(raises a single eyebrow) Fascinating....

[ustrax]

Stu...I don't feel like I fit in any of your groups...should I ask for being transferred?...

[ngunn]

It's a fascinating ecosystem all of its own.

That's an interesting way to think about it. One could maybe try to identify oneself with a particular niche. Let's see . . what type of organism do I feel like here? A coarse-feeding fish perhaps?

[dvandorn]

Fascinating concept, the broken window theory, and one that fits very nicely into what I've always called the "Will to be stupid" theory.

People in general (with the exceptions that prove the rule, of course) tend to do what they feel they can get away with... and driving that function is what I call the will to be stupid. It's the powerful desire to act on impulses that you can easily determine to be negative, disruptive or just plain not in anyone's best interests. The disruptive/self-indulgent/just-plain-stupid act almost always brings with it some very transient gratification, but is characterized by immediate remorse and realization that, even if you can get away with it, it's still a wrong (or at least completely non-useful) thing to do.

However, even when you realize you did something stupid, the immediate response when challenged on the action is usually either "You'd have done it, too" or "Everyone was doing it." It's the anonymity of the mob that drives the self-justification; after all, most people would never do, as individuals, what mobs are known to do.

So yes, policing is always necessary. The great pitfall in the policing function is when a megalomaniac gets into a position of power over the policing function, and attempts to limit all discourse to that which supoprts his/her own opinions. That becomes an oppressive environment which may maintain order, but at the expense of the free flow of ideas.

I do feel that Doug has come across the primary means of avoiding that pitfall, though -- appointing a team of moderators that can self-check itself against any one person imposing such an oppressive limit on discourse. And Doug has selected as his mods people who weren't necessarily desirous of being the "board cops," but instead those people he thought would be good at it. That's important, since megalomania is one of the more powerful motivators for seeking authority over others. (In other words, you don't want the police to be composed entirely of people who *want* to do the job, because the desire to impose your will onto others is precisely the trait that ought to disqualify you from achieving such power.)

It's good to remember, though, that the will to be stupid is omnipresent, and just because you wear a badge (or have "Moderator" pinned next to your name) doesn't mean you're immune. I'm pleased to say that, for the most part, the mods here have done a good job of avoiding mob-think amongst themselves and allowing discordant opinions (when presented respectfully, and when in keeping with the mutually-agreed subject matter limitations of the forum) to be expressed.

-the other Doug

[RoverDriver]

This discussion is pretty fascinating to me. Just as you guys are curious about the day to day operations on the rovers, I'm curious about what's behind the UMSF pages I see every day. From the hard/soft-ware down to the "mod"-ware. I'm all ears (hint hint hint).

Paolo

[mhoward]

I sometimes think it's a bit like a school...

No offense, Stu, but your description of the 'ecosystem' here makes me feel somewhat ill. I wouldn't like to participate in such a system.

See? The mods don't agree.

[centsworth_II]

No offense, Stu, but your description of the 'ecosystem' here makes me feel somewhat ill.

The ecosystem he describes exists in every human group and organization.
At least at UMSF is it's the science nerds that are the "cool kids"!

[mhoward]

The ecosystem he describes exists in every human group and organization.

Perhaps, but in my opinion such categories are hats that people temporarily wear - not castes that they should be assigned to.

[ElkGroveDan]

I'm curious about what's behind the UMSF pages I see every day.

If we took you into the backroom Paolo we'd have to use this on you:

[centsworth_II]

...in my opinion such categories are hats that people temporarily wear - not castes that they should be assigned to.

True. Someone can be "cool" in one group and a "hanger on" in another. Most people are members of many different groups and play a different role in each. USSF is just one of those groups.

Or do you think a person should be able to easily change "hats" within one group.... not an easy thing to do.

[mhoward]

I think my only important point was that mods don't always agree on everything. Now I think I'd better drop the topic, before I tick off the mods.

[djellison]

This discussion is pretty fascinating to me. Just as you guys are curious about the day to day operations on the rovers, I'm curious about what's behind the UMSF pages I see every day.

You show me yours, I'll show you mine In March

[RoverDriver]

You show me yours, I'll show you mine In March

I would love to see you giving a presentation regarding the history of UMSF, behind the scenes stories. Is that a promise?

Paolo

[djellison]

Yup