Should we re-organize the BAUT forum?

[cran]

Originally Posted by ToSeek

There has been some discussion of and support for modifying the organization of this forum (see thread here for details). I'd like to get some feedback from members before proceeding down this road, so please respond to the attached poll and feel free to add your comments below. If most members think there should be changes, there will be future polls to see what changes there should be.

Note that it's very easy to move boards and fora around (I've looked at the relevant control panel), so don't worry about that part of it.

Noted ...

The BAUT community is large and diverse -
the views and opinions throughout reflect this ...

but I believe that the (re)organisation of the forum really
is an issue for the administrators and moderators -
and what works best for you/them - especially those on
"clean-up detail" ...

members (new or otherwise) will generally find their way -
if any get lost, they'll ask ... or they'll be told ...

so, if it works better to leave it all as is - do that, and life will go on ..

if it works better to consolidate or re-order bits and pieces
so that science and non-science areas are more clearly defined -
do that, and life will go on ...

will either choice please everyone - hell no! we're human!
so what?

ps - that said, I think the Fazor section really should be moved up the list - it's just too popular!

[Buttercup]

Current stats:

No way! 1/ 2.70%
I'd rather you didn't. 11/ 29.73%
It's no big deal either way. 12/ 32.43%
It's probably worth doing. 11/ 29.73%
Yes, please! 2/ 5.41%
Voters: 37. You have already voted on this poll

I voted "It's probably worth doing." Unfortunately I don't have actual suggestions. It's not a major criticism either. When I first joined, BAUT struck me as a bit more complicated than it needed to be; somewhat confusing & cluttered. It's certainly workable in its current form, but I think a bit of reordering wouldn't hurt. My 2 cents' worth.....

[ToSeek]

It's symmetrical again: 2-11-13-11-2. I wonder if some people are voting just to make it that way.

[hhEb09'1]

Originally Posted by ToSeek

It's symmetrical again: 2-11-13-11-2. I wonder if some people are voting just to make it that way.

Even weirder is the "want change" group is equal to the "want same" is equal to the "don't care" group.

Of course, another way of looking at it is, 33.3% favor the change.

[Arneb]

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

Of course, another way of looking at it is, 33.3% favor the change.

And that number, after all, is what counts when you want to have a motion passed, isn't i?

[Moose]

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

Of course, another way of looking at it is, 33.3% favor the change.

(Yet) another way of looking at it is (as of this morning) 89% aren't especially exercised about the issue.

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by Gillianren

Before we do it, shouldn't we have a reason?

Certainly - and we do, several, in fact, as presented many times in the other thread, and even my post which you referenced.

Why do you keep ignoring the reasons?

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by Moose

(Yet) another way of looking at it is (as of this morning) 89% aren't especially exercised about the issue.

At 2-13-16-11-3, yet another way of looking at it is: A whopping 50% more people are choosing Yes, Please! than are choosing No Way!, while just 18% more people would rather it not be done than those who believe it should probably be done.

Yet another way: Out of 45 responses to date, a third of the folks are ok with things either way. A third would rather it not happen. A third would rather it did.

Enough responses are in to demonstrate that the responses are very typical of proposed good improvements in any organization.

Poll responses for bad proposals are heavily lopsided to the negative.

When discussing proposed changes for the better, Management is always faced with naysayers, the "if it ain't broke..." and other crowds who cling to the status quo, feaful of change, regardless of the benefits of improvement. These people magnify negatives while ignoring the benefits, amazingly, even when they're the recipients. For them, it's not about right and wrong, but about holding on to what is familiar.

Fear of change and wanting to hold on to what's comfortable/familiar is not sufficient justification to avoid making improvements. Good management considers valid reasons against proposed changes, but chucks the "if it ain't brokes" out the window, where they belong.

Look, people, this has gotten ridiculously silly. Most of you have totally lost all perspective with respect to what was being proposed:

- A few changes that would have taken the admins ten to twenty minutes to implement

- Most people might have noticed something was different about the board, but about half wouldn't have been able to put their finger on it - the changes are THAT SMALL.

Polls are great to ensure you, as the admin, are not pulling an "oops" and for tweaking the final product before it's implemented. They are NOT suited for making a decision whether or not to improve the board. That decision is yours, not mine, and not theirs. You either know, or you don't know. It's a command decision. Either make it, or close the thread and we'll muddle along with a board that says "I'm disorganized and unkempt" every time it's opened. Personally, I prefer a neater living room, but if you want to defer that decision to the masses, and the masses prefer it messy, if they're comfortable portraying that image to the rest of the world, so be it.

- Mugs

[Ara Pacis]

So, do we consider the non-commitals to be abstentions, which count as a no, or do we exclude them from the quorum?

[BigDon]

Wow, I just re-symetrified the poll again!

[Ara Pacis]

Originally Posted by BigDon

Wow, I just re-symetrified the poll again!

Again? You mean you got to vote twice?

[Moose]

Vote early, vote often.

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by Ara Pacis

So, do we consider the non-commitals to be abstentions, which count as a no...

In which universe? I merely ask because in this universe, such an act would be a violent abborhation against proper statistical analysis.

...or do we exclude them from the quorum?

That, too, violates statistics.

Ara, you failed to mention the proper approach, Option 3: Keep them, as they're valid input.

ToSeek's choice of questions is very precise, as it clearly covers both ends and fully fleshes out the entire middle range. Attempts to corral some of the results to one side, or dismiss them altogether, are disingenuous, and reflect poorly upon the integrity of those who resort to this sort of subterfuge.

[Ara Pacis]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

In which universe? I merely ask because in this universe, such an act would be a violent abborhation against proper statistical analysis.



That, too, violates statistics.

Ara, you failed to mention the proper approach, Option 3: Keep them, as they're valid input.

ToSeek's choice of questions is very precise, as it clearly covers both ends and fully fleshes out the entire middle range. Attempts to corral some of the results to one side, or dismiss them altogether, are disingenuous, and reflect poorly upon the integrity of those who resort to this sort of subterfuge.

The universe of politics. It is, after all, a vote, even if it's just advisory. Precision is all well and good in gauging opinion, but in the end there are only two possibilities, the layout changes or it doesn't, and people will have to decide whether they are for or agin it. In some rule systems abstentions are considered nay votes.

[tdvance]

the real question is, what's a quorem? if it is even 1%, we'll never have it

[Swift]

Originally Posted by BigDon

Wow, I just re-symetrified the poll again!

All hail the bell shaped curve!

[ABR.]

Originally Posted by Swift

All hail the bell shaped curve!

Jumpin' Jack Flash!
It's a Gauss, Gauss, Gauss!

[ToSeek]

Originally Posted by tdvance

the real question is, what's a quorum?

Antoniseb and me.

[Moose]

You know, next time we do a poll, we should try and make it look like a perfect Snoopy.

[hhEb09'1]

How about making it look like Copernicus?

[TheHalcyonYear]

Gee I don't know, seems pretty for mods to blow-off posters now.

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by Ara Pacis

In some rule systems abstentions are considered nay votes.

In those rule systems, nay votes do not count against (i.e. -1) a measure up for a vote. Rather, they merely do not count for the measure.

[Ara Pacis]

Originally Posted by mugaliens

In those rule systems, nay votes do not count against (i.e. -1) a measure up for a vote. Rather, they merely do not count for the measure.

I don't follow. Can you translate that into Robert's Rules of Order?

[mahesh]

oops...asymmetrified! at 3-14-..

I can't for the life of me see what's wrong with the BAUT board, the way it is constituted. Any active, keen BAUTzen would easily navigate the board. The 'newbies'...may not be so conversant with it, but that comes with time and activity on the board. I joined another astronomy board about the same time as I did here. My preference for BAUT and time constraints have led me to be, not particularly familiar, with the way the other forum works. For me. Inconvenient. For me. Because I do not visit it so often. It's not specially clear how it operates. For me, only me. Because of my infrequency. I can't and don't expect the owners of that site to start changing it. For me. Because it is inconvenient for me, the way it is set up.

[Arneb]

Originally Posted by ToSeek

Antoniseb and me.

Oh? Have the founders completely bowed out?

[Ara Pacis]

Originally Posted by mahesh

I can't for the life of me see what's wrong with the BAUT board, the way it is constituted. Any active, keen BAUTzen would easily navigate the board. The 'newbies'...may not be so conversant with it, but that comes with time and activity on the board.

Maybe we should cease registering new members. Good idea, maybe you should start a new topic about that. :-)

[ToSeek]

Originally Posted by Arneb

Oh? Have the founders completely bowed out?

I started a behind-the-scenes discussion for admins only. So far, only antoniseb has responded. So I'm assuming for now that we have the full confidence of the founders.

[tommac]

yes

[davidlpf]

Originally Posted by ToSeek

I started a behind-the-scenes discussion for admins only. So far, only antoniseb has responded. So I'm assuming for now that we have the full confidence of the founders.

If they are the founders does that make you Vorta and the other mods Jem'hadar.

[Tobin Dax]

Originally Posted by davidlpf

If they are the founders does that make you Vorta and the other mods Jem'hadar.

Maybe our favorite Vulcan board member has been a founder infiltrator all along.