Night Ops

I see that in the Experiences section and the Bad Ideas section one needs only to register in order to view them. What I am thinking of is a section where the administrators/moderators must use their own discretion to approve members before they are able to access it.

What are your thoughts?
Good idea? Bad idea?

Or maybe it already exists...

Doesn't sound like a bad idea (no pun intended), I'll chat to Secant about it.

fx1k wrote:Or maybe it already exists...

If it does I think somebody would've said something by now.

Yes, this has come up in the past. The prevailing opinion at that point was that it's a good idea, but the point of this web site is to share information, not hide it.

I agree, secant, but i think this new section would be for those of us who are trusted and are more interested in a very personal and helpful community full of people who actually post

Quite frankly, there are a lot of lurkers who don't do much... As i talked to Fx1k, he stated that this would only have the people who contribute and want to contribute and share, and others would be motivated to post and be active if they knew they could be part of an exclusive community...

I think it's a fine idea, and would generate the ideal environment for us night oppers and not just for those people who use the information posted here for reasons that are unethical and immoral. It would be the perfect forum for those of us truly interested in this "sport/hobby/activity" where we wouldnt have to worry about those people, and could actually interact with the people that care about night opping.

Just my opinion. I'm all for it, if, of course, the admins agree.

OK, you have a good point about a "special area" being motivation for users to get more involved with NONET. How would we decide who to allow access though? Subjective criteria (e.g. mod/admin recommendation) are bad, since they can be abused, and because they require constant effort that the staff might not be able to commit to in the long term. But, objective criteria (e.g. post count) is just as bad, since a user can spam enough short posts to reach the threshold. It's a tough dilemma, but I'm open to ideas. What do you think?

Secant wrote:OK, you have a good point about a "special area" being motivation for users to get more involved with NONET. How would we decide who to allow access though? Subjective criteria (e.g. mod/admin recommendation) are bad, since they can be abused, and because they require constant effort that the staff might not be able to commit to in the long term. But, objective criteria (e.g. post count) is just as bad, since a user can spam enough short posts to reach the threshold. It's a tough dilemma, but I'm open to ideas. What do you think?

It is difficult to avoid a subjective selection and pick members who can be trusted at the same time... Maybe a larger body of members than just the staff could vote on approving members? The body would start with the staff then expand I guess?

Perhaps instead of recommendations there could be an application system to bring members into the spotlight? (The only time on NONET where being in a spotlight would be considered a good thing.)

Anyway, I think some objective standards are needed. It wouldn't be a good idea to let somebody with only 15 posts to be allowed access. Little information can be derived about the person from just those 15 posts. There needs to be a minimum. After they reach the minimum is when they can apply and their posts can be reviewed. It's quality over quantity, but there needs to be quantity to ensure a certain quality.

Just a couple ideas.

Secant wrote:OK, you have a good point about a "special area" being motivation for users to get more involved with NONET. How would we decide who to allow access though? Subjective criteria (e.g. mod/admin recommendation) are bad, since they can be abused, and because they require constant effort that the staff might not be able to commit to in the long term. But, objective criteria (e.g. post count) is just as bad, since a user can spam enough short posts to reach the threshold. It's a tough dilemma, but I'm open to ideas. What do you think?

I have seen other forums where in order to enter "Limited Access Sections" you had to have posted a certain number of posts, been a member for a certain length of time, and verified you legitimacy in some way.
As far as verifying your legitimacy goes, completing an Op and providing proof on the dares forum might suffice.

I rather like the idea of having an application. Such a system would make the vetting process simpler since staff wouldn't have to constantly watch for members to promote. A good balance might be to set certain objective criteria, then allow users to apply for membership after meeting those criteria.

I'm warming to this idea; it's definitely worth a try. I'm going to be making some big changes to NONET soon, and it's fair to say that a trial of this system will be among them. If anyone has anything else to add about the limited access area, please post about it here.

If this idea goes ahead how many of us would be active participants? I've seen a similar LA section on another Ninjitsu site (which disintegrated) and it was nothing more than a scorched ghost town, if you know what I mean.

Xanatos wrote:If this idea goes ahead how many of us would be active participants? I've seen a similar LA section on another Ninjitsu site (which disintegrated) and it was nothing more than a scorched ghost town, if you know what I mean.

Yeah, I know what you mean. Hopefully the idea of it being exclusive would play a role in amping up the amount of participation on the forum by the lurking members.

There are tons of people with zero posts.

fx1k wrote:There are tons of people with zero posts.

This is why I think that we should have criteria that includes having posted a certain number of posts.

Keep in mind that when this gets deployed, the rules won't be immutable. I'll try to pick some reasonable ones, then we can adjust as necessary.

Secant wrote:Keep in mind that when this gets deployed, the rules won't be immutable. I'll try to pick some reasonable ones, then we can adjust as necessary.

I like these words. :mrgreen: