Getting more members here...what you can do.

[USCitizen]

I just felt an Argh! coming on.
I feel much better now.
Aye!

[Chloe]

I came here after getting stalked out of another community. The owner of that community didn't have the, uh, guts to actually run the place so he stocked the place with mind-numbing drones spouting the ideological rhetoric and sought out a moderator from a different community to come help him clean all the conservatives out of "his" place.

So I definitely appreciate the tone of this community and your openness about attracting others to it. I've invited several from that former community but the ones worth anything checked you guys out some time ago and some of them have stayed... although they might get a bit more present now that I'm not there to help them in the old place.

I like the decency, though there are exceptions from time to time. I like the general adults arguing (though there are also exceptions to that). I really like someone disagreeing with me, but THEN having the (yes, I'll say it) 'nads to tell me WHY they disagree (though there are exceptions). I even appreciate Chloe taking the time to explain a policy to me that I'd transgressed early in my return. I don't find that much of any of that in most communities.

You're welcome and thanks for the kind words my dear.

[Chloe]

Yeah, ok..............so if your site is so great and you like it this way why do you have thread specifically devoted to figuring out how to attract new members?

No offense but this thread was started by the owner some 9 years back when the site was still in its infancy...we were asking then as SEO was not prevalent nor was the use of message boards and VBulletin did not have the market dominance it now does. You see maybe a third of the overall responses (due to deletions) to this thread and for whatever reason it is still bumped from time to time and has not been archived. It is probably due to the fact it is stuck and needs to be lowered down the ranks so it can float to the archives. But we do continue to welcome feedback and are open to ideas and suggestions of course whether through here or PM.

It looks to me like you don't have a problem getting new members. You have a problem getting new members to continue to participate because as I said, this place is utterly boring and too regimented.

We do have some restrictions on new members...well, quite a few tbh. I am toying with the idea of making new members introduce themselves and that is the first and only thing they can do but new posts need to be approved, new members need to be approved, they can't PM for some time, nor can they get up to other stuff that involves SPAM / re - registrations and all sorts.

[michael h]

I notice that you have 2361 members but only 259 active members. You know why? It's because this place is exceedingly BORING! Do away with all the unnecessary threads and create a single place where people can actually converse. And get rid of all the moderators. This place is overrun with moderators.

I've posted on a "busier" site and found I enjoy this site more. I don't mistake quantity / busy ... for quality / content. The mods are a "tool" that maintain quality ... over emotion and they are also some of our very best contributors. These mods offer a range of the political spectrum on personal politics. Sometimes a site is just a matter of comfort, post on more then one at a time to maintain a sense of busy ... just try and find quality that goes with it.

[Chloe]

lol we sometimes get called "tools" for other reasons, too. But again thanks for the kind words. One thing i will say to users : we do and have had larger and lesser fluctuations of size on the site. Sometimes we get more members, sometimes less. Now and then we need to turn the site off for a couple hours and it can lead to some people taking some time off. We also have a lot of parts of the site that not everyone sees and some functions that are not available to all members. We often do, and have had some changing and evolving rules from time to time, too.

Everything you see, is not everything that goes on necessarily and it can take a lot of work, to run the site.

[John Drake]

One thing I've seen done on other sites is to have whole sections that specifically call themselves "Liberal friendly", "Conservative Friendly" and "Free For All". They pretty much function in a self-explanatory fashion and at least SEEM to be mostly self-policed. Unfortunately, that seems to be done at the cost of having more Forums, which is one thing that makes this place better.

What you might try is some way of marking the thread, so that one would know one was entering conservative, liberal or undesignated territory, and thus what things to say and expect.

[Lutherf]

One thing I've seen done on other sites is to have whole sections that specifically call themselves "Liberal friendly", "Conservative Friendly" and "Free For All". They pretty much function in a self-explanatory fashion and at least SEEM to be mostly self-policed. Unfortunately, that seems to be done at the cost of having more Forums, which is one thing that makes this place better.

What you might try is some way of marking the thread, so that one would know one was entering conservative, liberal or undesignated territory, and thus what things to say and expect.

In the past we had private forums for that purpose but they generally fell into disuse. It seems that, generally speaking, people prefer to discuss, harass, kibitz, flame, rant, etc. I wholly suspect that if we had an open section that was designated either left or right friendly it would be a matter of milliseconds before one group imposed on the others territory and, frankly, I have no desire to moderate that kind of crap. Now, if you want to give the private forum thing another go we can do that for Platinum and Diamond members.

[franticfranny]

I have not done much posting here of late and one of the reasons is the manner in which some members are treated relative to others. I do recognize the difference between insulting a group instead of a direct minor insult to a member. What I don't see is that the minor insult directly to an individual is nearly as bad as insulting a specific group of members. That would be liberals insulting a general group of conservatives or vice verse. I think there needs to be some kind of recognition that a general group insult is as wrong as the minor direct insult to an individual.

I have referred probably 12 or 15 of my friends to USPO, and all but 2 or 3 have even bothered to register because they observed exactly what I described and chose to take their business elsewhere. This kind of what to me is preferential treatment is one of the things keeping people with much to say, from both sides of the aisles, away.

[USCitizen]

I have not done much posting here of late and one of the reasons is the manner in which some members are treated relative to others. I do recognize the difference between insulting a group instead of a direct minor insult to a member. What I don't see is that the minor insult directly to an individual is nearly as bad as insulting a specific group of members. That would be liberals insulting a general group of conservatives or vice verse. I think there needs to be some kind of recognition that a general group insult is as wrong as the minor direct insult to an individual.

I have referred probably 12 or 15 of my friends to USPO, and all but 2 or 3 have even bothered to register because they observed exactly what I described and chose to take their business elsewhere. This kind of what to me is preferential treatment is one of the things keeping people with much to say, from both sides of the aisles, away.

This is probably one of the toughest forums to be active on because everyone calls each other out to back up what they post.

[Chloe]

I have not done much posting here of late and one of the reasons is the manner in which some members are treated relative to others.

And yet with such little done in the way of posting, you spend so much time and find it within you to do so much nannying of everybody else and their posts. Perhaps you would better serves in focusing on your role in posting here, rather than worrying about everyone else?

I do recognize the difference between insulting a group instead of a direct minor insult to a member.

Excellent. Maybe you can even recognize that we have no interest here in restricting restricting speech aimed at any group or party or nation or set of ideologies / religions etc. We just frown on allowing our own members to be abused, so we tend to get in on that and put a stop to it. Follow?

What I don't see is that the minor insult directly to an individual is nearly as bad as insulting a specific group of members. That would be liberals insulting a general group of conservatives or vice verse. I think there needs to be some kind of recognition that a general group insult is as wrong as the minor direct insult to an individual.

It may be wrong but it is not against the rules and in all honesty, never will be. We only defend other members from insults, not massive great big groups and entities that are open for criticism. We hope to allow for the most open and honest dialogue here, and that can never happen if people can't even criticize say another political party, or country, or insult the military, or their state, or whatever. You may not see it as being as bad bad, but little niggling insults against one another still effect the other poster, and we just don't tolerate it but the notion we would stop posters from entirely insulting or criticizing whole entities is never going to fly. Ever. There is zero chance of this ever being the policy of this forum. When there's no chance i'll be sure to let you know, and this is one of them.

I have referred probably 12 or 15 of my friends to USPO, and all but 2 or 3 have even bothered to register because they observed exactly what I described and chose to take their business elsewhere. This kind of what to me is preferential treatment is one of the things keeping people with much to say, from both sides of the aisles, away.

Well, if they ant a nannied "uber controlled" more regulated site, they are of course free to try elsewhere. We can't really sacrifice our principles for the sake of your 12 to 15 friends, this isn't the USSR and this is not a North Korean forum, people are free to speak their mind. Heck, we even allow niggling little things here and there between posters to go unchecked from time to time for the sake of the discussion flowing, and even staff such as myself, Pete and Mrs. M have been known to lose it with posters in political exchanges. It happens. We clean up our own and everybody else's messes at the same time, and tbh the last thing we want is even more of a hands on approach.

If anything we would perhaps hope to see the site become a little less rule cumbersome in years to come.

[Jefe]

This place is circling the drain. Membership is the lowest I've ever seen it. I can log in after being away for 8 hours, and only a dozen threads have seen any activity. That's pathetic. Things have gotten so bad here that for the first time since joining in 2004, I went and joined another politics forum, Debate Politics - there, people are posting every minute, or a couple times per minute. The quality of the debate there may not be the best, but at least there are discussions happening. People aren't affraid to post something for fear of getting an infraction.

Forget getting more members, here are some ideas on how to retain the scant few members you have left:

- Make sure the mod staff fully understand the forum rules, so that they don't issue infractions incorrectly.

- Stop trying to put "conservative", "moderate", or "liberal" moderators in place to somehow "politically balance" the mod staff. Instead, look for staff members who are fair, level-headed, and most importantly, have the ability to put aside their own political opinions when acting as a moderator. This is a matter of honesty and integrity.

- Give members the common courtesy of a PM when you delete their thread, so that they know why it was deleted. Better yet, don't delete the thread - just close it, and give an explanation as to why it was closed. Deletion should only be for spammers. (BTW, you may have just lost another long time member because of this, great job, guys)

[MeadHallPirate]

This is probably one of the toughest forums to be active on because everyone calls each other out to back up what they post.

ahoy USCitizen,

i only spent some time, briefly, on another forum a few months back....but i think yer correct, matey.

because USPO be a smaller forum, i think each poster has a greater familiarity with one another. folks be more aware 'o each swabby's postin' history - and to a degree, bits 'o thar personal history.

since everyone be a known quantity, the give and take, at least to me, covers a broader territory than it might on another forum.

a well respected poster (from an earlier era) noted to me that the biggest change be the texture 'o the debate. the debate seems to follow, at times, a "this kind of thinking is bad, thats why imma right" cadence, which be kind 'o peculiar.

*ponders and chews on a piece of mornin' hardtack*

- MeadHallPirate

[MeadHallPirate]

- Stop trying to put "conservative", "moderate", or "liberal" moderators in place to somehow "politically balance" the mod staff. Instead, look for staff members who are fair, level-headed, and most importantly, have the ability to put aside their own political opinions when acting as a moderator. This is a matter of honesty and integrity.

ahoy Jefe,

thats a good point, matey, somethin' i'd been thinkin' of lately.

imma more guilty than anyone fer requestin' left leanin' moderators to be put on the bridge. i'd moaned and griped that thar was no liberal equivalent 'o Travler (Admiral 'o USPO) who described himself as the "Ultimate Bush Fan". only lately have i realized that political dogma probably doesn't matter as much as who the officers be.

i think Sluggo would be a terrific mod, i think Soot would be an interestin' mod (to me, Soot be a like a throwback, in terms 'o his postin' quality, hearkenin' back to vintage 2005 USPO)...i think Ericams be fair minded...Eorhichenberger, whose name i cannot type proper, would make a good officer.

'tis an interestin' thing, Jefe. i'd name some folks who lean left who'd make good mods (in me own opinion) but fer some reason, left leanin' mods are kinds scarce, or fer some reason never quite acclimate to the bridge when they ascend to it.

i do think 'tis a good idear to have a mix 'o ideologies on the bridge, though. i mean, if all the moderators think the UAW is some kinda den fer communists and agitators, then thar goin' to have a certain mindset when they moderate a thread that circles 'round labor issues. likewise, if all the moderators equate abortion with murder, then they will have a certain mindset, predetermined, when they moderate threads on that volatile topic. its not so much a willful skewin' 'o how they'd apply forum rules, but more 'o an inevitable byproduct 'o groupthink.

*puts on his hat and prepares to lift anchor fer work*

everyone at Fox probably sincerely believe what they believe. i don't think they're terrible folks that work thar...they probably love thar familys, enjoy a good summer barbeque, cheer when Americans triumph at the olympics and would be fun to share a beer with. many Fox analysts be erudite and learned, too....thar's nothin' inherently evil or insidious 'bout FoxNews. the thing is, they all be cut from the same cloth...

...and thats why the entire network and all thar analysts were completely errant in thar analysis and evaluation 'o the facts before'm leadin' up to the 2012 race. thar very partisanship sorta affects thar cognitive processes.

thats the issue that i see on the bridge, really.

aye.

- MeadHallPirate

PS - also Jefe, i don't really see USPO as goin' down the drain, not precisely. i just see one kind 'o opinion as becomin' more dominant - and as the entire board sorta shifts to the right, USPO functions less well. 'tis not like Redstate or the Democratic Underground, whar like minded folks spur one another on.

USPO be a debate site. it takes two sides to form a debate.

aye?

[Good1]

I have referred probably 12 or 15 of my friends to USPO, and all but 2 or 3 have even bothered to register because they observed exactly what I described and chose to take their business elsewhere. This kind of what to me is preferential treatment is one of the things keeping people with much to say, from both sides of the aisles, away.

Well, if they ant a nannied "uber controlled" more regulated site, they are of course free to try elsewhere. We can't really sacrifice our principles for the sake of your 12 to 15 friends, this isn't the USSR and this is not a North Korean forum, people are free to speak their mind. Heck, we even allow niggling little things here and there between posters to go unchecked from time to time for the sake of the discussion flowing, and even staff such as myself, Pete and Mrs. M have been known to lose it with posters in political exchanges. It happens. We clean up our own and everybody else's messes at the same time, and tbh the last thing we want is even more of a hands on approach.

That community of which I spoke in August is one Franny and her friends might be looking for: Uber-controlled by just two or three people who absolutely harass any conservative who posts but allow the liberals to "get away with" just about anything. I disagree with you, Franny: The moderation of this community is vastly superior to many of the others I've joined. Heck, I was a member of the community owned by a particularly well known Conservative lady and one of the rules was we were not allowed to disagree with her on ANYTHING. IF she said she was god, we just had to let it go at that. I asked one of the moderators why we could not disagree, and they showed me the door.

Thank you, but I'll take the moderation here quite happily.

[Jefe]

ahoy Jefe,

thats a good point, matey, somethin' i'd been thinkin' of lately.

imma more guilty than anyone fer requestin' left leanin' moderators to be put on the bridge. i'd moaned and griped that thar was no liberal equivalent 'o Travler (Admiral 'o USPO) who described himself as the "Ultimate Bush Fan". only lately have i realized that political dogma probably doesn't matter as much as who the officers be.

i think Sluggo would be a terrific mod, i think Soot would be an interestin' mod (to me, Soot be a like a throwback, in terms 'o his postin' quality, hearkenin' back to vintage 2005 USPO)...i think Ericams be fair minded...Eorhichenberger, whose name i cannot type proper, would make a good officer.

'tis an interestin' thing, Jefe. i'd name some folks who lean left who'd make good mods (in me own opinion) but fer some reason, left leanin' mods are kinds scarce, or fer some reason never quite acclimate to the bridge when they ascend to it.

i do think 'tis a good idear to have a mix 'o ideologies on the bridge, though. i mean, if all the moderators think the UAW is some kinda den fer communists and agitators, then thar goin' to have a certain mindset when they moderate a thread that circles 'round labor issues. likewise, if all the moderators equate abortion with murder, then they will have a certain mindset, predetermined, when they moderate threads on that volatile topic. its not so much a willful skewin' 'o how they'd apply forum rules, but more 'o an inevitable byproduct 'o groupthink.

*puts on his hat and prepares to lift anchor fer work*

everyone at Fox probably sincerely believe what they believe. i don't think they're terrible folks that work thar...they probably love thar familys, enjoy a good summer barbeque, cheer when Americans triumph at the olympics and would be fun to share a beer with. many Fox analysts be erudite and learned, too....thar's nothin' inherently evil or insidious 'bout FoxNews. the thing is, they all be cut from the same cloth...

...and thats why the entire network and all thar analysts were completely errant in thar analysis and evaluation 'o the facts before'm leadin' up to the 2012 race. thar very partisanship sorta affects thar cognitive processes.

thats the issue that i see on the bridge, really.

aye.

- MeadHallPirate

Sure, I think it's important to have a mix of ideologies on the mod team. However, that's not the only important thing, or the most important thing. To me, the most important characteristic of a potential moderator should be that poster's integrity, not whether they're con, lib, or moderate. You could have a whole team of moderators who leaned in one direction when in discussion, but had the ability to take off their "poster" hat, put on their "moderator" hat, and moderate from no political position whatsoever. The true test is, say, a liberal moderator who is able to issue infractions against liberal posters when they've broken the forum rules, for example.

No one said being a moderator is easy. It's like being a cop - sometimes you have to give out tickets for laws you may not agree with. You don't write the laws, you just enforce them, equally upon everyone. No one gets special treatment, and no one gets singled out, harassed, profiled, etc. If someone has a problem with the ticket you've given them, they can go complain to the Sergeant. Police aren't allowed to have a political opinion when they're on duty.

PS - also Jefe, i don't really see USPO as goin' down the drain, not precisely. i just see one kind 'o opinion as becomin' more dominant - and as the entire board sorta shifts to the right, USPO functions less well. 'tis not like Redstate or the Democratic Underground, whar like minded folks spur one another on.

USPO be a debate site. it takes two sides to form a debate.

aye?

It's not just that one kind of opinion is becoming more dominant, it's that there are far fewer opinions in general. Site participation is way down. Where did everyone go? Why did they leave? It's not a general disinterest in political discussion, because I see other forums flourishing, at least in terms of participation.