I came back to this thread to see what was happening and remembered a phenomenon I have observed in large organizations. I'll try to describe it simply.

1. Misconduct occurs.

2. Rather than address the persons responsible for the misconduct, Management creates a Policy.

3. The persons at whom the Policy is directed do not realize that the Policy is directed at them, because they know they are special snowflakes and, after all, they are sincerely who they are (however annoying that may be).

4. Meanwhile, other persons who have conducted themselves properly find themselves caught up in accusations of violating the Policy, discover that their lives are harder, and that they are unable to do their jobs properly because of the Policy.

5. Ultimately, the Policy becomes a monster that punishes those who conduct themselves properly and materially harms the productivity of the organization, while those whose misconduct led to the Policy continue to behave badly, for they are special snowflakes whom no one has dared inform that, in fact, they are not special at all.

Here's my point: I will bet a dollar to a doughnut that an analysis of the problematic behavior which prompted Jeremy's initial post will reveal that fewer than a couple dozen of the half a million or so LQ members are responsible for 90% of it.

If that's the case, it is not a Policy that is needed. It is an intervention directed at the miscreants.

Never forget the 80-20 rule.

Just my two Christmas Eve cents while I wait for a chance to play Santa Claus which I probably will not get because she fell asleep on the couch next to the Christmas tree . . . .

5 members found this post helpful.

Very interesting, insightful observations frankbell.

Merry Christmas, and I hope you can accomplish the deed without waking the little one.

-RT

Thank you for your good wishes, but I must note that the youngest little one is 28 and lives in Cambodia.

The sleeper on the couch is the same age as I. We were together in college, then together again 40 years later. We met again via Facebook. She's the only good thing the Zuckerborg ever did for me and I am very glad she is back in my life.

Afterthought:

For many years, organizational dynamics was what I did; you cannot do management training without dealing with organizational dynamics, and I did management training for a long long time.

I learned that both persons and organizations will go to great lengths to avoid confrontation. Since I as a person will also go the great lengths to avoid confrontation, I understand that fully. But sometimes . . . .

Although I agree with the conclusion and want to emphasize that it comes naturally after applying some basic logic, what I miss in such final statements (which flourish especially at this time of the election season), is the *I* and the *we*. All I hear and read is “someone should”. On the previous page, it had been suggested to just ignore some types of misbehavior and not engage in unnecessary disputes. *I* am often unsure as to who should take the responsibility to rectify a situation, to intervene against “miscreants” and so forth. As I tried to suggest further up in the thread, I consider most of the LQ community capable to take action, as is the case for most of our societies, anyway.

So, if it is not a Policy that is needed, how about some Empowerment. Encouragement, too. And do not take the “team spirit” as granted all the time. Maybe show it more often, just dumbly, in words.

I've been monitoring them fairly closely; as a percentage of new content posted to LQ they are small.

I can only speak for the time period since we developed http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...#faq_lqwelcome based on feedback, but it *is* a rule and contains very clear language that not adhering to it will result in your posting privileges being revoked (which is something we take very seriously). We monitor the usage of the canned response closely and repeat offenders have had their posting privileges revoked on both a temporary and permanent bases depending on the specific situation.

All of that is currently codified and in place. That you don't use it is a separate issue. But to clarify, the second example is what we expect at LQ. We work very hard to be a friendly place. I understand that certain repetitive posts can lead to burnout, so I suggest you skip those and answer questions you feel have been asked in a way that allows you to answer them. That allows other members to respond while keeping LQ a welcoming place. As Linux gains popularity among a less technical crowd, we're going to get more and more new members that are new to fora and the netiquette that comes along with participating in a community. The response from us should be friendly and welcoming education, not driving them away.

In that case both responses together would be acceptable in my opinion. It's not RTFI, it's setting an expectation for behavior if you want to receive help and be a part of the LQ community. If there's a disconnect I am happy to work out when and how the canned response should be used and hone/improve the process. I'm also happy to alter the wording if specific suggestions are made.

--jeremy

To be clear, I encourage all LQ members to use the canned response and report the thread in situations where they think it's appropriate. We are a community and we can only make positive changes as a whole. Making sure members feel empowered and encouraged is an area I think we can improve on and something I'll put some thought into. Thank you for the feedback.

--jeremy

What, exactly, is the ratio that is posting in General too much? And over what time period? Does this apply to new members only or all members? What if the posts of are of a very high quality and the member just isn't very technical in nature? Automating something like this (especially considering how rare it is) just really isn't in the spirit of LQ.

--jeremy

I hadn't noticed general becoming hostile and I chalked all the political stuff to election season. I don't think a moratorium on general is a great idea perhaps one on politics would be appropriate.

Thinking about this a little further, does it make sense to have a small group of volunteers who patrol threads from new members and perform the answer+ canned response+ report action on a regular basis? All members would still be welcome to perform these actions, but having a defined group would ensure it happens regularly and would allow other members to know the threads will be addressed so they can focus their effort elsewhere. Having a dedicated group would also allow us to receive more feedback on the process so it can be improved. Thoughts on this?

--jeremy

1 members found this post helpful.

I work at a Civil Service job, in an organization with hundreds of workers that I deal with daily, and I can attest to the fact this is indeed part of the problem. I often find myself guilty of frequent misunderstandings, whether it be the words that someone uses, or even their tone (n verbal communication). Non-native English speakers perhaps don't understand how their mannerisms may be taken offensively, and the converse is true as well, where a native speaker may use words that the other is not too familiar with and therefore takes offense. It doesn't help that much communication is done over the telephone, where we can not see each other.

And policies here go exactly as frankbell has described, and does little to help the problem.

This is magnified, IMHO, in such a setting as LQ where we lack any form of verbal or face to face contact. Words on the screen are easily misconstrued, and things get out of hand.

I really think that unfortunately, jeremy, there is no easy way to deal with this. Besides repeat offenders of (unnecessary) caps, you have no way of knowing the true intent. There are unfortunately a few senior members I can think of offhand that do use excessive, unnecessary caps, even as their first response to a person's query and come off as unfriendly.

As far as the moratorium, a moratorium on any type of posting in a specific forum is a short term solution at best. Especially as the ill behavior occurs in all fora. Perhaps instead of a moratorium have a zero tolerance policy on community image damaging activities.

I'd suggest: add, Quoting from mid-#50 (&54), like that to the RULES:

[an explicit] >#55 "zero tolerance policy on community image damaging activities."


Like:
A couple VALUED teachers misfocus on yelling at a couple of misbehaving kids.
Someone cites District_Policy: NO!: aides/.../principal handle unruly students.
Valued teachers refocus on imparting their unique expertise. All is fine again.

My reasoning [#8 here]: ...aka: "Power of Positive[/Negative] Thinking" philosophy
Problem: [thinking about] 'bad'ness. Solution: think something ELSE, like olderZRT!
Problem: gawking at accident. Solution: don't look there! Attn to the road forward.

-Respectfully submitted, intending to be supportive of this wonderful site, and the great expertise that is generously contributed here.

Someone who actively volunteers for a job that the “ordinary” members of LQ are also entitled to, guarantees consistency and dedication to do the work regularly and reliably. As this is however a rather boring task, add another responsibility to increase the interest. WAIT!!: I still do not know what the “canned responses” are, especially when they reappear as simply “THE” canned response. But I sure understand the above proposition anyway.

That is what I mean. Adding a ch?an{1,2}[ae]l and modus for feedback on these newbie posts, maybe in a way which allows a simplified analysis and subsequent adaptations, adds value to the new function.

I am not sure, but it could “make sense” and looks like a good idea.., from where I stand. Wait for the potential volunteers' opinions.

Your "defined group" corresponds to what I have called "newbie moderators". I would tentatively be prepared to do a bit of that. After all, it wouldn't need any special powers, only some way of being alerted to relevant posts.

But I have noticed that this thread is skittering between two very different problems which we should not confuse. One is political and religious ill-feeling in the general forum. The other is inappropriate posts by newbies who don't understand what kind of help is available here and what is not. These posts occur entirely in the technical fora, so shutting down the general forum wouldn't affect them. It would simply penalise people who aren't technical experts but like to do a bit of social networking here

2 members found this post helpful.

Good morning, all.

I come back to this thread to say something positive, for a change, and am not disappointed ... erm...

Dito. I am, though, unable to evaluate my capacities to do the job “right”. We will talk a lot and should have a way to organize the interaction amongst all kinds of “moderators”, ... mentors, tutors, whatever.

Yes. Jeremy put both aspects into his initial post, but we manage quite well the distinction. This even proves the point. We are able to cope with the problem.

Absolutely makes sense.