Why NOT to make DIR forum opt-in?

[fweber]

With the above suggestions in mind, I would like to suggest that " This forum is for a free exchange of ideas concerning the DIR philosophy" be dropped from the forum header. Or, in some way modified, to more accurately describe the desired intent, of not quesitoning the wisdom or applicability of some of the DIR tenets.

 

[Dan Gibson]

How about leaving the forum the same but if you are a clown, you get posted on a list as such at the top of the forum. Public humiliation is a great tool

Gotcha. No disagreement. Still pondering details.

Meanwhile, all y'all recognize that any structural change, even with a more rigorous moderation level that may piss all y'all off here and there, is still going to be occasionally problematic.

Its going to take everyone working together to change direction over time.

 

[DIR-Atlanta]

It will need some enforcement ... as in, if you opt in and start posting answers you KNOW will antagonize the DIR proponents, you will be forcibly opted out and not allowed back into the forum.

That seems a little heavy-handed to me. I agree that obvious continual trolling needs to be dealt with in some way, but I would not want to do that at the expense of legitimate discussions of "what is DIR and why".

People who are new to DIR ask these types of questions all the time, and I think we are just going to have to tolerate a certain amount of that kind of traffic, if we want them to embrace the DIR philosophy. The constant "gang tackling" by the non-DIR crowd is not helping things , but I don't think a "shoot first" policy of moderating discussion is the solution to that problem. DIR has enough of an image problem as it is, we're not going to help ourselves by alienating newcomers.

some people come here to entertain themselves at the expense of the DIR community for one simple reason ... because they can.

Let's just be careful that we don't burn the village to save it.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

That seems a little heavy-handed to me. I agree that obvious continual trolling needs to be dealt with in some way, but I would not want to do that at the expense of legitimate discussions of "what is DIR and why".

People who are new to DIR ask these types of questions all the time, and I think we are just going to have to tolerate a certain amount of that kind of traffic, if we want them to embrace the DIR philosophy. The constant "gang tackling" by the non-DIR crowd is not helping things , but I don't think a "shoot first" policy of moderating discussion is the solution to that problem. DIR has enough of an image problem as it is, we're not going to help ourselves by alienating newcomers.

Let's just be careful that we don't burn the village to save it.

I think it's easy enough to distinguish legitimate questions from trolls.

This isn't the place to come complaining about how poorly some "DIR" guy treated you.
This isn't the place to complain that DIR implies that everyone else is DIW.
This isn't the place to argue that obviously non-DIR solutions "should" be considered DIR, or that DIR is being "elitist" by not condoning them.

Those are not questions ... and to my concern, not legimitate topics for this forum ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[John_B]

People who are new to DIR ask these types of questions all the time, and I think we are just going to have to tolerate a certain amount of that kind of traffic, if we want them to embrace the DIR philosophy.

Clearly there is a line that's being crossed.

Its one thing to post something like, "Why the long hose and bungeed backup?"

Its another to follow up that post with something like, "Because I've been diving solo for years with just a single second stage on a 26" hose using my Atom with the wireless transmitter and no manual SPG and it hasn't ever killed me so that shows that all you fundaholic acolytes obviously aren't capable of thinking for yourselves."

:w-t-f:

John

 

[lamont]

It will need some enforcement ... as in, if you opt in and start posting answers you KNOW will antagonize the DIR proponents, you will be forcibly opted out and not allowed back into the forum.

Otherwise, you'll accomplish nothing ... some people come here to entertain themselves at the expense of the DIR community for one simple reason ... because they can.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

yeah, but they won't so easily have the "oops, wrong forum" excuse after they start lobbing handgrenades...

if they've opted-in to the DIR forum, they better be keeping in mind that they might be in that forum when they make posts...

 

[lamont]

Gotcha. No disagreement. Still pondering details.

Meanwhile, all y'all recognize that any structural change, even with a more rigorous moderation level that may piss all y'all off here and there, is still going to be occasionally problematic.

Its going to take everyone working together to change direction over time.

I'd really like to try no change to moderation, but just make it opt-in to begin with.

There's no need to twiddle with a bunch of variables all at once.

 

[PfcAJ]

Personally, I think we need an opt-in forum for for those of us who have been diving DIR/have training (I also feel that the DIR opt in section would require some sort of formal DIR training) and another one (not opt in) to answer general questions about the philosphy.

Of course, a well written sticky is needed for the non-opt in forum. I wouldn't have learned about GUE/DIR if it wasn't for forums like this, and it would be a shame to close that door to so many people. The non-opt in forum would need to be well moderated in order to prevent flame wars, however.

Apologies if this has been suggested previously, for I failed to read all 86 posts.

Best,
AJ

 

[lamont]

Personally, I think we need an opt-in forum for for those of us who have been diving DIR/have training (I also feel that the DIR opt in section would require some sort of formal DIR training) and another one (not opt in) to answer general questions about the philosphy.

I just sent this off to Doc Intrepid in response to a suggestion about a DIR forum with heavy moderation and DIR-curious forum that was opt-in but publically readable less mdoerated:

=================================================


Since we're talking DIR, I'll give you a little DIR analysis...

I think you may be overthinking the problem and coming up with solutions to problems that may not exist.

We clearly have a problem with people coming into the DIR forum and lobbing the usual bombs: "...a couple guys at the dive site dove long hoses and were *******s, DIR Sucks...", "the DIR name, blah, blah, blah...", etc.

Its not clear to me that there's a problem between GUE DIR and non-GUE DIR. That seems to be invented mostly by Thal, ArcticDiver, fweber and others who are non-DIR. Yes, JeffG is a stroke and is going to hell, but being trained by AG is only the tip of the iceberg... =)

Its also not clear to me that DIR-curious divers wouldn't find the DIR forum. There may be a problem with divers asking honest questions (e.g. the current CCR question) which are unknowingly lighting handgrenades. But generally that kind of thing is going to be okay if the pot stirrers aren't around. The problem with the DIR-curious is created because that you're assuming nazi-moderation of the DIR forum will be required. I'm not sure that nazi-moderation is really solving a problem that won't be largely solved by making the forum opt-in and opting-out some of the really obvious pot-stirrers.

So, I would just make the forum opt-in. Then see what level of moderation is required, and watch for the effect it has on the DIR-curious. If I'm wrong and nazi-moderation and DIR-curious forums do need to be created, it should become obvious and then that can be dealt with after those problems are clearly determined to exist. Otherwise you're solving hypothetical problems before "diving it" to see if the problems really crop up or not.

That is my $0.02

 

[JeffG]

Yes, JeffG is a stroke and is going to hell, but being trained by AG is only the tip of the iceberg... =)

I don't like DIR. They are meanies.