Social Groups adjustment

[matthew]

With the demise of the part of the forums where politics and religion were allowed to be discussed, we are now following suit with the social groups.

This is not intended to be an attack or statement of agreement or disagreement with any of the positions or philosophies of these groups. This is merely a recognition that we have limited resources and need to make some adjustments, and since there are many other wonderful places on the internet for these sorts of discussions and social connectivity, we have made a decision to eliminate them here.

Hopefully this will not result in any hurt feelings, even if there is a little disappointment.

[LaRoza]

I think I found them all (list in other thread) but I was focusing on political and religious, but noticed a few that might be violators.

[bapoumba]

May I make a suggestion? If someone sees her/his social group gone and wishes it stays, they should start a thread in the Resolution Center and explain why after reading Matthew's post carefully.

[LaRoza]

May I make a suggestion? If someone sees her/his social group gone and wishes it stays, they should start a thread in the Resolution Center and explain why after reading Matthew's post carefully.

I don't think any of those that were deleted were in any gray area at all, so that shouldn't happen probably.

[Dr Small]

Gee thanks. I was in 40 social groups, now I am in 2!!
Just kidding :p

[LaRoza]

Gee thanks. I was in 40 social groups, now I am in 2!!
Just kidding :p

I can only think of one that you might have been in ;)

Oh, there were duplicate and spam social groups deleted as well.

[yabbadabbadont]

Along these lines, has anyone considered that it should now not be acceptable to have discussions about, or sub-forums for, any religious or political ideal based distributions. If you are going to do something, do it completely or not at all. Otherwise you risk being labeled as hypocrites. :D

[LaRoza]

Along these lines, has anyone considered that it should now not be acceptable to have discussions about, or sub-forums for, any religious or political ideal based distributions. If you are going to do something, do it completely or not at all.

If you are referring to http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=168 no.

Read the purpose of that forum ;)

Ubuntu is based off religious views. Humanist, yes, but religious just the same.

If the existance of such a distro and a support forum for it bothers you, I suggest you widen your horizons.



Otherwise you risk being labeled as hypocrites. :D
If you wish to insult, you could label us that, but being insulting is against the CoC.

[Dr Small]

If you wish to insult, you could label us that, but being insulting is against the CoC.

I think I am allowed to be insulted, just not insult.

[Linux&Gsus]

Well, I can kind of understand the reasons, assuming that there isn't something more going on behind the scenes. Although I'm not sure how much resources these groups really take up. It can't really be bandwidth since the people are here anyways. Does it need that much HDD space or processing power? And what about the other non-technical non Ubuntu related topics. They don't use up resources?
Well, I don't know enough about that stuff to draw any conclusions.

However, I must say it would have been nice to give some warning before deleting the groups. That would have allowed to e.g. secure a link or other kinds of stuff in there, or re-group in a different form and place to continue discussing on the topics of choice and of course directing the people to that place.

Well, too late for that now I guess.
Disappointed? Yes. Not because of deleting the groups but because of how it was done.
Maybe next time give a little warning ahead of time.

Cheers.

[fr.theo]

I agree with Linux&Gsus a little warning would have been a professional approach and a considerate one at that, but simply pulling them of the server draws to many conclusions in a person thoughts e.g discrimination, or dislike towards such people or groups.


give some warning and some time for all those requiring to change to alternate sites to do so and those of the groups to contact all those necessary.


kind regards

Fr. Theo.

[matthew]

I could have done a better job informing people ahead of time. That was my fault and was rather thoughtless. I didn't do it out of malice, I just wasn't thinking. I apologize for that.

[gusjones]

oops, my point already made (didn't read second page!).

[LaRoza]

Well, I can kind of understand the reasons, assuming that there isn't something more going on behind the scenes. Although I'm not sure how much resources these groups really take up. It can't really be bandwidth since the people are here anyways. Does it need that much HDD space or processing power? And what about the other non-technical non Ubuntu related topics. They don't use up resources?
Well, I don't know enough about that stuff to draw any conclusions.

It had purely to do with the rules. The social groups aren't that active at all. Since the FC meetings, this forum's forums were change to exclude certain topics, and it was brought to our attention that some social groups didn't follow those rules.



Maybe next time give a little warning ahead of time.


I don't think there will be a next time, but out of curiosity, what kind of warning would be good? We do occasionally delete social groups, and I would like to know what kind of notification is good. Normally, the groups I delete are duplicate groups and spam, so notification isn't really important, but occasionally, an active group may be removed (although, I can't forsee any future removals)

[kk0sse54]

I too understand the basis which this decision was drawn upon and I'm not going to contest the fact that these social groups technically did break the rules set after the removal of the OMGPP ,but in many cases they did nothing to harm anyone. The Barack Obama Supporters group hadn't been active in months and the newly formed Green Party wasn't harming anyone (although I was looking forward to some good conversations in there :)). The Christian group had a healthy conversation going on there and the Non-Religious group had a great conversation on how Atheists view other Religions. I supported the closure of the OMGPP since it was definitely beyond control but unlike the OMGPP the conversations in the various social groups weren't geared between people of two completely different opinions. There were no flame wars going on as essentially debates were confined to like minded people. For example the atheist conversation was between mostly religiously similar people who joined the non-religious group so it never erupted into one huge debate over whether god is real or not etc etc. That is not to say that weren't any improper postings in any of the effected groups but compared to the OMGPP that sort chaos was never present.

[LaRoza]

I supported the closure of the OMGPP since it was definitely beyond control but unlike the OMGPP the conversations in the various social groups weren't geared between people of two completely different opinions. There were no flame wars going on as essentially debates were confined to like minded people. For example the atheist conversation was between mostly religiously similar people who joined the non-religious group so it never erupted into one huge debate over whether god is real or not etc etc. That is not to say that weren't any improper postings in any of the effected groups but compared to the OMGPP that sort chaos was never present.

That is true. There were no problems with them at all (except for occasional spam, and one instance of an inappropriate post a long time ago)

It was noticed by someone and that person posted in the Resolution Centre asking about it. I thought he made a good point, but I told the other staff I really didn't have strong feelings on it either way but some others (one I know was a member of a religious type group) thought the social groups should follow the policy.

While going through, 17 pages of groups, I saw all sorts of things. I wonder why no one is mourning the loss of 4 of 5 Bangal groups :-)

[Linux&Gsus]

With the demise of the part of the forums where politics and religion were allowed to be discussed, we are now following suit with the social groups.

This is not intended to be an attack or statement of agreement or disagreement with any of the positions or philosophies of these groups. This is merely a recognition that we have limited resources and need to make some adjustments, and since there are many other wonderful places on the internet for these sorts of discussions and social connectivity, we have made a decision to eliminate them here.

Hopefully this will not result in any hurt feelings, even if there is a little disappointment.


It had purely to do with the rules. The social groups aren't that active at all. Since the FC meetings, this forum's forums were change to exclude certain topics, and it was brought to our attention that some social groups didn't follow those rules.

Not mean to complain or point fingers. But this is sort of what I meant by "behind the scenes". These 2 statements are not really going too well together.
If it's because of using up too much resources then it can't be because the social groups aren't that active. If it's because of the rules (although it could be argued about if the forum and the social groups are the same in that sense) then it can't have anything to do with the use of resources. If because of the rules and the resources then again why is that an issue if the groups are not that active?
If resource are a problem how can something like a tea & coffee discussion be accepted? How is that different in terms of resource usage than talking about politics. Both has nothing to do with Ubuntu or Linux in general.

I would say it's helpful to get the right reasons and then get the reasons right...



I don't think there will be a next time, but out of curiosity, what kind of warning would be good? We do occasionally delete social groups, and I would like to know what kind of notification is good. Normally, the groups I delete are duplicate groups and spam, so notification isn't really important, but occasionally, an active group may be removed (although, I can't forsee any future removals)

IMHO spam is a different thing. That is an annoyance all over the internet. I'm all for getting rid of spam.
Duplicates can accidentally happen. If not by accident than I almost would consider that spam as well.

In a (sub-)forum it's rather easy to get a notification out. A sticky on top and everyone knows. Unfortunately the social groups don't have that sort of functionality. So, a possibility is to write a message in every group a week in advance that it'll be deleted or notify the group starter and let him do the job to notify the group.
Problem is, deleting a sub-forum doesn't divide a group of people. They still can post in the other sub-forums and find each other. The group I started had more than 100 people, a religious focused group. The most frequent contributers where all confused that the group was gone. Some might not have noticed yet. But there is no way to re-group these people in another way. I'm not able to remember 100+ (nick-)names. Even if I would find a solution I would not be allowed to post that on the forum since it's about a group interested in a "banned" topic.



I could have done a better job informing people ahead of time. That was my fault and was rather thoughtless. I didn't do it out of malice, I just wasn't thinking. I apologize for that.
That's OK, bro. This is one reasons I love this forum. People apologize and not come across rude in a situation like this. As I have experienced on other forums...


oops, my point already made (didn't read second page!).
Is that a sign of age? Are you admitting getting old?? :lolflag:
Just kidding... ;)




That is true. There were no problems with them at all (except for occasional spam, and one instance of an inappropriate post a long time ago)

It was noticed by someone and that person posted in the Resolution Centre asking about it. I thought he made a good point, but I told the other staff I really didn't have strong feelings on it either way but some others (one I know was a member of a religious type group) thought the social groups should follow the policy.

While going through, 17 pages of groups, I saw all sorts of things. I wonder why no one is mourning the loss of 4 of 5 Bangal groups :-)

Fact is, besides other things, politics and religion are a part of our lives. People usually don't divide their lives into fully closed boxes. With your family you talk about your work, at work you talk about your kids, with both you talk about politics, your colleges ask you if you are happy with your car, sometimes with your friends you share business details you shouldn't (no, I know you don't do that ;) ), etc.
It's no difference here. As far as I can see it, the social groups were the perfect place to upload some political and/or religious views and as LaRoza said no one got out of control. Besides that one time, which I remember what it was. But that's dealt with, end story.

So, for me personally to be able to do those sort of things in the social groups made UbuntuForums even more attractive to me. Not that it's not anymore. Just saying that people are relating with each other on a social area as well as in technical areas (main purpose of this forum).
I'm active in another forum where most people know each other personally. It's a German speaking forum, so the area of influence is far smaller than this one here. The reason they meat each other in the real life is because we talk about pretty much everything online. And every once in a while they chat around a BBQ as well. I say they because I'm not in Germany right now...
After all it's not my decisions, of course. But I think it's a win in every way for the online community to be able to talk about everything. Specially since there were no problems in the social groups. Every can stay in there group an no one has to read about something they don't want to. As long as there is no hi-jacking of groups, as it happens in forum threads, no one will be harmed in any way.

Just my 0.02$

[LaRoza]

Not mean to complain or point fingers. But this is sort of what I meant by "behind the scenes". These 2 statements are not really going too well together.
If it's because of using up too much resources then it can't be because the social groups aren't that active. If it's because of the rules (although it could be argued about if the forum and the social groups are the same in that sense) then it can't have anything to do with the use of resources. If because of the rules and the resources then again why is that an issue if the groups are not that active?
If resource are a problem how can something like a tea & coffee discussion be accepted? How is that different in terms of resource usage than talking about politics. Both has nothing to do with Ubuntu or Linux in general.


The whole statement:


With the demise of the part of the forums where politics and religion were allowed to be discussed, we are now following suit with the social groups.

This is not intended to be an attack or statement of agreement or disagreement with any of the positions or philosophies of these groups. This is merely a recognition that we have limited resources and need to make some adjustments, and since there are many other wonderful places on the internet for these sorts of discussions and social connectivity, we have made a decision to eliminate them here.

"Resources" means more than server resources. It can mean people too ;) I think I was the first one to really look at every single social group one after the other. I never looked at groups that I wasn't a member before hand. They were not actively moderated.



I would say it's helpful to get the right reasons and then get the reasons right...

Simple. The forum rules changed and politics and religion were removed from the forum. Makes sense to remove it from the entire forum.



The group I started had more than 100 people, a religious focused group. The most frequent contributers where all confused that the group was gone. Some might not have noticed yet. But there is no way to re-group these people in another way. I'm not able to remember 100+ (nick-)names. Even if I would find a solution I would not be allowed to post that on the forum since it's about a group interested in a "banned" topic.

Most of the groups had no activity or few members. Posting in a group is possible, and I considered it, but I'd have to join the group to post in it. Considering the list of groups that would be a pain (and deleting a group isn't that easy either).



Fact is, besides other things, politics and religion are a part of our lives. People usually don't divide their lives into fully closed boxes. As far as I can see it, the social groups were the perfect place to upload some political and/or religious views and as LaRoza said no one got out of control. Besides that one time, which I remember what it was. But that's dealt with, end story.

Yes, this forum is not for the entire life ;) Just the technical and other light hearted aspects.

The perfect place for uploading political or religious views is not this forum anymore. Due to a change in the rules, this is how it is.

[Lostincyberspace]

The whole statement:


"Resources" means more than server resources. It can mean people too ;) I think I was the first one to really look at every single social group one after the other. I never looked at groups that I wasn't a member before hand. They were not actively moderated.


They weren't all to noticeable, I didn't even know we had "groups" besides the "LoCO's."

So I am not missing them. But I do agree notice should go out first not after.

[LaRoza]

They weren't all to noticeable, I didn't even know we had "groups" besides the "LoCO's."

So I am not missing them. But I do agree notice should go out first not after.

Go to "Quick Links", and you'll see the social groups. They were originally not going to be used I think. They are not used much.

Notice did, here.