FWIW, I'll add a vote for experimenting with a password-protected workshop forum.

I don't agree with Roger that there's no good reason not to have a password. The two extra steps required for visiting Deep Drills keeps me from stopping in there on Sphere visits far more often than not. But if I were more motivated, that wouldn't be the case.

Enough strong poets/critters have suggested a password would motivate them to participate more in workshops that it seems worth a try.

There are perfectly good and easy ways to exclude search engines without excluding human beings, or requiring passwords.

I put this up over a day ago, and we've had about thirty posts since then, and nobody has indicated they've actually had a problem. A number of people have heard about a problem (apparently in another country, and the dog is dead), but nobody could actually identify one. The one specific - about Rattle - turned out to be wrong. But any number of people think we should password-protect the already-protected Boards because...well...just because.

What will this actually accomplish that we don't have already? What problems will it create? Will it discourage new or existing members by adding another level of bureaucracy? I think we have to have a better reason for doing this than, "Why not - some of the other members are making noises about it, and I guess they know what they're doing" - which is mostly what I'm getting now.

In other words (just noticed Bill's post above) - what Bill said.

I personally would be sorry to see everything become password-protected. I have visited Drills and Amusements much less often since that came into effect, and I enjoyed it greatly before.

I may not be entitled to say much, since I never post poems and seldom write critiques. But I miss the more general discussions we used to have, that could draw input on politics from 3 continents. And yes, I believe Facebook, Twitter, and other less desirable phenomena killed all that.

I imagine it need not require an additional password, as with Deep Drills. It could be visible to any member who was logged in. I belong to another workshop (children's poets) which is invisible to the general public and which allows me to stay permanently logged in, so whenever I go to it I am able to view it and participate without any further ado.

Good Heavens, Gail! You mean there are phenomena even less desirable than Facebook and Twitter?

And as one of the Krakens living in the "wondrous grot and secret cell" of D & A, I have to say that the password-protection isn't a problem for me. I typed it in once at the beginning, and now I see the two protected forums whenever I log in without having to do anything.

Roger,

I also belong to another poetry forum that does exactly the same some parts of the site. It also uses the vBulletin software that we use here. Once you're logged in, you can see the hidden parts, and since you need to log in to use the site, it's absolutely painless: no additional levels of bureaucracy or extra typing needed.

-Matt

I guess anyone who leaves the site leaves as a result of making a decision to leave. Unless they're banned that is. The interesting question surely, and one that presumably that's this thread is here to debate, is why people make the decision to leave?

Shaun, you're a moderator here. What I'd be interested to know is why, if Holly's behaviour was so remiss, was no action was taken by the moderators (I'm assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that none was). Isn't it the moderators role to enforce the rules/guidelines? It can't really be the job of the members to publicly confront and accuse one another, can it?

Might it not have been better if a moderator had taken Holly aside, so to speak, in private, by means of a PM, and raised this issue with him and told him needed to up his game? My belief is that such a course of action would have been far more likely to have resulted in a change of behaviour, and in Holly still being here posting poems.

Personally I think that relying on members to take it upon themselves to police the site by publicly confronting/accusing other members about rule infringements is a potentially divisive policy and one that is likely to promote ill will. It would seem to make so much more sense for these things to be handled by moderators.

Wouldn't it be better if people who have a grievance complained to a mod and left the mods to handle it? This last is a genuine question, not a rhetorical one. Perhaps there's a good reason why things are as they are.


All the best,

- Matt

Yes, you're assuming incorrectly.

Does Holly publish his poetry under another name? If so, I would like to know what that name is. He might have been a terrible contributor as far as give-and-take goes, but he's a fine poet.

Best,

Ed