Following up from the Rules Survey the Forum Staff would now like to present some results from that survey, some thoughts from us on some of your feedback and also announce that the updated rules have been launched (see the Forum Rules here).
Firstly we would like to thank everyone who took time to complete the survey. We had nearly 600 responses in total so thank you one and all. Hopefully it wasn't too torturous!
Whilst we won't be providing a detailed breakdown of all the results what we can say is that of the twenty-four rules we asked you to rate as "Too Strict", "Just Right" or "Too Lenient" the results show that twenty-two of the rules scored 80% or higher for "Just Right" and eleven of them were 90% or higher (the two that were less than 80% were still scored by over 75% of responses as being "Just Right").
The Forum Staff therefore take this to show that a strong majority of members are happy with the rules proposed and therefore have decided to implement them immediately with only a few minor changes.
However, even with that in mind, we did feel that it was right to offer some comments in regards to some Rules as a few did attract slightly less, comparatively, support as being "Just Right" or attracted comments in general. Hopefully everyone will understand that with nearly 600 responses it isn't possible to provide individual responses to your comments but we will try and provide some general comments on those things that attracted a lot of attention.
We will respond section by section (if in doubt what Rules are within each section you can find the Forum Rules here).
Respectful
There were several comments regarding concerns from members feeling that sometimes the "atmosphere" of the Forum can be somewhat unwelcoming or that some conversations are not as friendly as we would like. It is an issue which the Forum Staff are aware of but equally it isn't one which can be easily solved without some sort of Stalinesque crackdown. But we would ask that all members think before posting about the tone they are using, how their message be received by the human who will read the post and whether perhaps there might be a better, gentler, way of phrasing their message. The internet and social media in general has become more toxic in recent years. We should all work to correct that but the Forum Staff are aware and will keep a close eye on this.
There was also some feedback around "respectful" perhaps being ambiguous. We did consider alternative phrasing but decided to stick with what we've got. But in general we take respectful to mean being polite and considering the feelings of others when posting.
Appropriate
Whilst a strong majority were happy with the rule around the discussion of moderation decisions we are aware that there was feedback from members around this rule and whether or not moderation decisions should be discussed in public or not. Whilst we appreciate that point of view and that it is a firmly held belief for some members we are not going to be changing our policy on this.
However for the avoidance of doubt we are always willing to discuss any concerns with a decision via either Conversation (private message) or by email ("Contact Us" button bottom of every page). The rule is not intended to prevent the discussion at all simply that we want it to take place off the public part of the Forum.
A few members also commented regarding feedback on deleted posts. For the avoidance of doubt whenever a post is deleted you should get an automated notification with a short reason for the deletion. Because of the volume of posts which are deleted it isn't practical for us to contact each member individual to let them know the detail of why a post was deleted (this is why we have the automated notification system, on a something is better than nothing principle).
However if you get a notification and you're still not sure on why a post was deleted or would like more information please feel free to contact us. We're always willing to have a look at individual cases and provide slightly more tailored feedback. But providing this in every case is simply not going to be practical.
A small number of members were concerned with regards to the republishing of deleted content rule that we were talking about republishing off the Forum. For the avoidance of doubt if we delete a post on the Forum and you then post it on your InstaTok or Facegram we're not going to be sending round the heavies to have it removed. We just mean on the Forum itself please don't repost a deleted post or other content
Relevant
There were some comments around the requirements for quoting text from articles and providing a comment to promote discussion as well as few around providing a short description of an image or video and how this was sometimes an onerous requirement. Whilst we can see the point of view we're not going to be changing the rules on this (and, again, the vast majority of responses suggested that these were "Just Right").
There are a few reasons for the rules as written at the moment. Firstly, it makes the Forum more accessible for those who have vision impairment. A description of a video or image immediately means that they're more involved in the discussion and aren't excluded. Having an extract from an article quoted means that users of screen reader software don't have to navigate to another website to know what is being referred to (and screen readers can be quite clunky on unfamiliar websites as the user may have to have have lots of links and irrelevant information read to them before they get to the article you actually want, links to things like PDFs may not even be screen reader compatible!). So firstly it's an aid to our members who have accessibility issues.
Secondly, many members access the Forum from work devices which often times have various websites blacklisted so cannot be accessed. This means that if there's a quote or description of an image or video then even if the website is blacklisted they have some idea what is being talked about.
Thirdly, links to articles stop working, images and videos get deleted (if you've linked the image). If someone comes back to a thread in a year or two and clicks a link there's a decent chance it may just not work anymore. This can make old threads harder to follow and understand the context of what was being discussed. However, if there's a quote, description or similar provided on the Forum then at least some of the context will have been preserved.
Hopefully for those that feel that the rules are "Too Strict" on this point whilst you may not be happy that we're not changing the rules you will at least have a better understanding of why we have the rules written the way we do on this point.
Finally there were some comments regarding off-topic posting and a feeling that sometimes we're too quick to act. We've taken the comments on board but feedback via this survey and elsewhere (Forum Meets/Meals are often a good place to provide us with feedback face to face!) is that we generally strike the right balance. A few people even think we're not strict enough on off-topic posting! As a general reminder there is no technical limitation on the number of threads that the Forum can support so if you do want to post something in response to someone but it's off-topic just start a new thread, you can even quote that member in your opening post when you start the new thread by hitting the "+Quote" button on the original post and then using the "Insert Quotes" button when creating the thread:
Legal
There were a handful of comments regarding which law we were referring to when asking for people's contribution to be consistent with relevant conditions, laws, regulations and byelaws. So for the avoidance of doubt broadly speaking it would be whichever law is relevant. For instance if someone posted: "The best way to avoid paying your fare on the Douro Valley near Porto is to make sure you hide in the toilets" would be a breach of this rule as that would not be consistent with the relevant law/conditions in Portugal. We're not endeavouring to enforce all laws for all countries but a bit of common sense would make it clear that advocating ways of evading fares is going to break this rule as fare evasion is typically either against the law or the conditions of travel that pertain basically anywhere
Accessible
There were a handful of comments that people should be taking personal responsibility for sufficient bandwidth for their needs and that the rule was therefore not necessary. However the vast majority of responses were supportive of this rule as is so we won't be changing it on this occasion. But we will keep the position under review. A few people commented about our requirements on using proper spelling, grammar and punctuation might be too onerous but equally we had a few people commenting that we should be even stricter than we already are on this subject so we think that whilst the Forum is definitely at the stricter end of social media sites the balance is probably broadly correct.
A few people also commented on jargon and it either being quite annoying to see it still creeping into the Forum undefined or vice versa to have been picked up for using what they felt was an obvious abbreviation or similar. This is something which has been a perennial issue but again considering the responses indicate most think the rule on this is "Just Right" we don't intend to change it at the moment.
Electrification
It was pleasing to see that 100% of responses were in favour of a crash rolling programme of electrification! The precise split was:
Conclusion
So that is the result of the survey and a few comments on a few issues that came out of it. We hope that the above all makes sense and again thank you to everyone who took time to complete it. We did also get some very nice comments from various people, thank you for that it is appreciated by ourselves when someone says something nice about us
It was also appreciated that no-one took the opportunity to anonymously abuse us either
We are slowly working on another major piece of work which would be the creation of a Frequently Asked Questions document. This would be intended to address a few things about moderation policies in more detail than we can manage in the rules, to help cover various "how to" type topics (such as using the quote function or similar) and other odds and ends. We're looking at jargon as part of that as well. This is a long running project so don't expect to see it in the near future but hopefully when it does arrive it will be helpful and may help address any outstanding concerns that members may have.
Thank you all once again,
The Forum Staff
Firstly we would like to thank everyone who took time to complete the survey. We had nearly 600 responses in total so thank you one and all. Hopefully it wasn't too torturous!
Whilst we won't be providing a detailed breakdown of all the results what we can say is that of the twenty-four rules we asked you to rate as "Too Strict", "Just Right" or "Too Lenient" the results show that twenty-two of the rules scored 80% or higher for "Just Right" and eleven of them were 90% or higher (the two that were less than 80% were still scored by over 75% of responses as being "Just Right").
The Forum Staff therefore take this to show that a strong majority of members are happy with the rules proposed and therefore have decided to implement them immediately with only a few minor changes.
However, even with that in mind, we did feel that it was right to offer some comments in regards to some Rules as a few did attract slightly less, comparatively, support as being "Just Right" or attracted comments in general. Hopefully everyone will understand that with nearly 600 responses it isn't possible to provide individual responses to your comments but we will try and provide some general comments on those things that attracted a lot of attention.
We will respond section by section (if in doubt what Rules are within each section you can find the Forum Rules here).
Respectful
There were several comments regarding concerns from members feeling that sometimes the "atmosphere" of the Forum can be somewhat unwelcoming or that some conversations are not as friendly as we would like. It is an issue which the Forum Staff are aware of but equally it isn't one which can be easily solved without some sort of Stalinesque crackdown. But we would ask that all members think before posting about the tone they are using, how their message be received by the human who will read the post and whether perhaps there might be a better, gentler, way of phrasing their message. The internet and social media in general has become more toxic in recent years. We should all work to correct that but the Forum Staff are aware and will keep a close eye on this.
There was also some feedback around "respectful" perhaps being ambiguous. We did consider alternative phrasing but decided to stick with what we've got. But in general we take respectful to mean being polite and considering the feelings of others when posting.
Appropriate
Whilst a strong majority were happy with the rule around the discussion of moderation decisions we are aware that there was feedback from members around this rule and whether or not moderation decisions should be discussed in public or not. Whilst we appreciate that point of view and that it is a firmly held belief for some members we are not going to be changing our policy on this.
However for the avoidance of doubt we are always willing to discuss any concerns with a decision via either Conversation (private message) or by email ("Contact Us" button bottom of every page). The rule is not intended to prevent the discussion at all simply that we want it to take place off the public part of the Forum.
A few members also commented regarding feedback on deleted posts. For the avoidance of doubt whenever a post is deleted you should get an automated notification with a short reason for the deletion. Because of the volume of posts which are deleted it isn't practical for us to contact each member individual to let them know the detail of why a post was deleted (this is why we have the automated notification system, on a something is better than nothing principle).
However if you get a notification and you're still not sure on why a post was deleted or would like more information please feel free to contact us. We're always willing to have a look at individual cases and provide slightly more tailored feedback. But providing this in every case is simply not going to be practical.
A small number of members were concerned with regards to the republishing of deleted content rule that we were talking about republishing off the Forum. For the avoidance of doubt if we delete a post on the Forum and you then post it on your InstaTok or Facegram we're not going to be sending round the heavies to have it removed. We just mean on the Forum itself please don't repost a deleted post or other content
Relevant
There were some comments around the requirements for quoting text from articles and providing a comment to promote discussion as well as few around providing a short description of an image or video and how this was sometimes an onerous requirement. Whilst we can see the point of view we're not going to be changing the rules on this (and, again, the vast majority of responses suggested that these were "Just Right").
There are a few reasons for the rules as written at the moment. Firstly, it makes the Forum more accessible for those who have vision impairment. A description of a video or image immediately means that they're more involved in the discussion and aren't excluded. Having an extract from an article quoted means that users of screen reader software don't have to navigate to another website to know what is being referred to (and screen readers can be quite clunky on unfamiliar websites as the user may have to have have lots of links and irrelevant information read to them before they get to the article you actually want, links to things like PDFs may not even be screen reader compatible!). So firstly it's an aid to our members who have accessibility issues.
Secondly, many members access the Forum from work devices which often times have various websites blacklisted so cannot be accessed. This means that if there's a quote or description of an image or video then even if the website is blacklisted they have some idea what is being talked about.
Thirdly, links to articles stop working, images and videos get deleted (if you've linked the image). If someone comes back to a thread in a year or two and clicks a link there's a decent chance it may just not work anymore. This can make old threads harder to follow and understand the context of what was being discussed. However, if there's a quote, description or similar provided on the Forum then at least some of the context will have been preserved.
Hopefully for those that feel that the rules are "Too Strict" on this point whilst you may not be happy that we're not changing the rules you will at least have a better understanding of why we have the rules written the way we do on this point.
Finally there were some comments regarding off-topic posting and a feeling that sometimes we're too quick to act. We've taken the comments on board but feedback via this survey and elsewhere (Forum Meets/Meals are often a good place to provide us with feedback face to face!) is that we generally strike the right balance. A few people even think we're not strict enough on off-topic posting! As a general reminder there is no technical limitation on the number of threads that the Forum can support so if you do want to post something in response to someone but it's off-topic just start a new thread, you can even quote that member in your opening post when you start the new thread by hitting the "+Quote" button on the original post and then using the "Insert Quotes" button when creating the thread:
Legal
There were a handful of comments regarding which law we were referring to when asking for people's contribution to be consistent with relevant conditions, laws, regulations and byelaws. So for the avoidance of doubt broadly speaking it would be whichever law is relevant. For instance if someone posted: "The best way to avoid paying your fare on the Douro Valley near Porto is to make sure you hide in the toilets" would be a breach of this rule as that would not be consistent with the relevant law/conditions in Portugal. We're not endeavouring to enforce all laws for all countries but a bit of common sense would make it clear that advocating ways of evading fares is going to break this rule as fare evasion is typically either against the law or the conditions of travel that pertain basically anywhere
Accessible
There were a handful of comments that people should be taking personal responsibility for sufficient bandwidth for their needs and that the rule was therefore not necessary. However the vast majority of responses were supportive of this rule as is so we won't be changing it on this occasion. But we will keep the position under review. A few people commented about our requirements on using proper spelling, grammar and punctuation might be too onerous but equally we had a few people commenting that we should be even stricter than we already are on this subject so we think that whilst the Forum is definitely at the stricter end of social media sites the balance is probably broadly correct.
A few people also commented on jargon and it either being quite annoying to see it still creeping into the Forum undefined or vice versa to have been picked up for using what they felt was an obvious abbreviation or similar. This is something which has been a perennial issue but again considering the responses indicate most think the rule on this is "Just Right" we don't intend to change it at the moment.
Electrification
It was pleasing to see that 100% of responses were in favour of a crash rolling programme of electrification! The precise split was:
- Yes - 41%
- Why are you even asking this the answer is obviously yes - 41%
- There is only one choice, it is yes - 14%
- Also yes - 4%
Conclusion
So that is the result of the survey and a few comments on a few issues that came out of it. We hope that the above all makes sense and again thank you to everyone who took time to complete it. We did also get some very nice comments from various people, thank you for that it is appreciated by ourselves when someone says something nice about us
We are slowly working on another major piece of work which would be the creation of a Frequently Asked Questions document. This would be intended to address a few things about moderation policies in more detail than we can manage in the rules, to help cover various "how to" type topics (such as using the quote function or similar) and other odds and ends. We're looking at jargon as part of that as well. This is a long running project so don't expect to see it in the near future but hopefully when it does arrive it will be helpful and may help address any outstanding concerns that members may have.
Thank you all once again,
The Forum Staff
