Open Discussion Is Bluelight an OPEN DISCUSSION FORUM? What has the site turned into......

[tambourine-man]

Hi Tommyboy,

Thanks for posting and adding to the constructive feedback (as ever). I won't quote individual pieces of your post, but my reading is that you draw a link between the failure to implement smaller aspects of site business (sigs, search engine) and larger outcomes that are unspecified in your post. I would tend to accept that the individual points you cite are valid, but see a causal link slightly differently.

My opinion is that Bluelight's maintenance and development problems are essentially the same now as they were a couple of years ago: too many bureaucrats and too few technically-adept people in a senior role - either through inability or mistrust. This is the core of Bluelight's operational problem. I would agree with you that some people have been modded too quickly and that this has led to some patchy moderating. But this has always been the case, and it's always been the case that they would be informally schooled in their role. I don't have the level of visibility required to have an opinion on whether this is worse than it used to be, nor if your concern is justified.

However, I would go further and suggest that internal staff promotions have occurred too rapidly (due to high turnover) and without any consideration given to how the Admin roles need to be balanced amongst those with policy and communication skills and those with coding, site management and database management skills. The emphasis placed on the former has lead to an imbalance that leaves the site without the ongoing technical improvements (or just making a simple Google CSE, or custom vB tags work), but with an abundance of people fixated on board policy.

The issue over staff signatures is a good example of this. It's such a minor, minor, fringe issue that bizarrely escalated into a point of principle, largely dependent on the personalities of those involved. While there were reasons for implementing rules to avoid accusations of favouritism, their one-time inflexible application suggests that there is an absence of site directional and technical implementation work for senior staff to concentrate on. Besides, the fact that the board upgrade introduced a dotted line break automatically for signatures negated a lot of the discussion regarding the separation of content anyway. Left? Right? Which font size? I'll leave that debate for people who feel they have the time to invest in it.

The point I'm driving at is this... if what colour font somebody is using (or some other trivial matter) is dominating an Admin/Smod's time... then there really are problems in how roles are defined on the site, where Admins now appear to be glorified Smods who invest their time in the petty affairs of board minutia. It was never like that in the past. That's what Mods and Smods are for. :D Get people into Admin roles who can implement basic site management quickly and effectively.

Regarding the site direction... I think this is symptomatic of much of the 'old-guard' moving on/being less visible and the 'new guard' not being empowered/trusted/able to give direction.

IMO.

 

[felix]

The point I'm driving at is this... if what colour font somebody is using (or some other trivial matter) is dominating an Admin/Smod's time...

straw man.

pretty much the only people that policed the signature policy were alasdair and I, and trust me, we always had plenty of other things to do. I think Tommy's point is that nowadays nobody seems to give a fuck, which has led to anarchy.

it's like the Broken Windows Theory - once you let one seemingly trivial standard slip, other more important things soon fall by the wayside too.

Excellent post Tommy - I agree with all of it.

 

[tambourine-man]

straw man.

Maybe.

But I don't think I'm completely wide of the mark.

pretty much the only people that policed the signature policy were alasdair and I, and trust me, we always had plenty of other things to do. I think Tommy's point is that nowadays nobody seems to give a fuck, which has led to anarchy.

Slippery slope. Besides, I think people do give a fuck, but they give a fuck about things that are, in the end, inconsequential to the development of the site.

it's like the Broken Windows Theory - once you let one seemingly trivial standard slip, other more important things soon fall by the wayside too.

Excellent post Tommy - I agree with all of it.

Broken Window Theory???

LOL... really??? Don't give me that conservative hogwash? Haha! :D

Rudy Giulliani for Admin!

:D

 

[Tommyboy]

The issue over staff signatures is a good example of this. It's such a minor, minor, fringe issue that bizarrely escalated into a point of principle, largely dependent on the personalities of those involved. While there were reasons for implementing rules to avoid accusations of favouritism, their one-time inflexible application suggests that there is an absence of site directional and technical implementation work for senior staff to concentrate on. Besides, the fact that the board upgrade introduced a dotted line break automatically for signatures negated a lot of the discussion regarding the separation of content anyway. Left? Right? Which font size? I'll leave that debate for people who feel they have the time to invest in it.

The thread about staff signatures was bumped after the upgrade, and IIRC, the same sig format as pre-upgrade was decided on, despite the subtle sigline present post-upgrade. I may not be remembering correctly though, but I think that's how it went.

The point I'm driving at is this... if what colour font somebody is using (or some other trivial matter) is dominating an Admin/Smod's time... then there really are problems in how roles are defined on the site, where Admins now appear to be glorified Smods who invest their time in the petty affairs of board minutia. It was never like that in the past. That's what Mods and Smods are for. :D Get people into Admin roles who can implement basic site management quickly and effectively.

But signatures are part of staff policy, so I don't see how the decision about it wouldn't be relevant to the role of admins or smods. Just because it is "petty" doesn't mean that it isn't an issue that should be handled by senior staff. What would you do if another mod told you to move your signature to the right? Now what would you do if an admin asked you?
Although I agree that signatures are somewhat of a petty issue, I think that at a time like this when the site seems to be vulnerable, it is something to consider while the site can benefit from some revamping.

Regarding the site direction... I think this is symptomatic of much of the 'old-guard' moving on/being less visible and the 'new guard' not being empowered/trusted/able to give direction.

I'm in the US, so I'm not all that familiar with the changing of the guard.
Seriously though, I'm not quite sure what you mean, but I would guess that it may mean that since I am no longer behind the scenes, it may seem to me that less is being done, when in reality things are being done, but I just don't see it now. I have considered this, and took it into account when making my previous post. I will say this though... It was not that long ago that the Support forum was frequented by most senior staff. I know that it now has two of the best mods around, but without senior staff frequently posting here, it has lost the communal aspect to it that was part of what had made it great.
It made people feel very welcome here when they had admins posting in their threads to help them out, and that is something that has inspired some people to become moderators. And I know for a fact that checking the support forum was something that had been listed in the role of the senior mod, and it is likely in the role of admin too.

 

[Tommyboy]

Any takers on a response? Like the good ol days when senior staff would frequent this forum? I don't think that my points are out of line, so a little response would be greatly appreciated.

I'm sorry to ask for so much from you all.

 

[muvolution]

I agree with almost everything you said, man.

What can I do? If I leave my position, the focus forums will be even worse off. I think we have very similar ideas about BL, but I'm sure you know how hard it is to institute them.

 

[effie]

Tommyboy, I agree with everything you said too.

BDD/OD has taken the biggest hit lately in my eyes but I don't frequent the other focus forums so I can't comment on those..

I too have been putting off commenting because I don't want to be seen to be undermining any of my fellow mods/smods who for the most part do a fantastic job, and our last recruitment round in BDD went swimmingly - I suspect partly because we had our smods and admin posting in the recruitment thread, making it clear that they were involved in BDD and that you'd be joining a well-supported team. I absolutely understand that smods need breaks sometimes like mods do and that at the moment the admin team are busy keeping the site running, but the overall situation at the moment is less than ideal - in BDD we really miss senior input/involvement and feeling like the senior staff are accessible to mods and BLers alike, and I am sure we are not the only ones.

If new mods are taken on and there is a lack of senior guidance, it can easily lead to them not entirely understanding the mod role and the way the forum is run - I must stress that I am not talking about anyone specific here, but for example when I was modded Cane (my admin) checked every single thread I closed in BDD and gave me feedback about how I was doing, and generally made sure the new mods were pointed in the right direction if they didn't get things quite right (which none of us do at first!) That has to come from senior staff really, or it creates a hierarchy where the older forum mods seem to be "above" newer mods, which shouldn't be the case at all. Obviously we can all give one another tips and advice, but overseeing and managing staff is a senior staff member role, and one of the most important ones IMO.

It is the same with policy decisions - we are making an effort with a fairly new staff to define each forum's role and to make some pretty major decisions about how the forums are run and we could do with some assistance. We're also currently revamping the BDD threads of note/directory, and debating various other policies, and again in the past it was great to have seniors (inc admins) to help us. In order to be able to really help, they need to be familiar with the forums - which would have the added benefit of making them more accessible to BLers and mods alike.

Overall obviously with so many senior staff leaving of late and the removal of Cane and dokomo, the current seniors are hugely over-stretched and I very much appreciate that, but how are we going to fix it so that seniors can get involved with the day-to-day running of the (HR) forums and be more accessible to us all again, and how are we going to build up morale and senior input/accessibility in the more HR orientated forums such as BDD and OD? I honestly am not trying to undermine anything or suggest that current senior staff don't care about HR - I know they all do and they all have a huge amount of work to do, but I think the HR forums have suffered the most lately and that is because a lot of the seniors who knew them best are no longer staff members.

I would like to stress to any BLers reading this that you can still come to BDD and OD and all the other HR forums and get good HR advice, please do not be deterred - this is a discussion on the direction BL is moving in and recent changes to the senior staffing and it is taking place so we can ensure that we give you the best service we possibly can

 

[Captain.Heroin]

I'll just interject that I agree with what Tommyboy said.

 

[tambourine-man]

Tommy,

Sorry for the delayed response. Dragging oneself out of a vat of mulled wine is not the easiest feat to achieve.

But signatures are part of staff policy, so I don't see how the decision about it wouldn't be relevant to the role of admins or smods. Just because it is "petty" doesn't mean that it isn't an issue that should be handled by senior staff.

I understand your point, agree with it somewhat, and I'm beginning to think that staff sigs are perhaps not the best example I could have cited in support of my point. I think I was hoping to tie my Grand Theory of Everything Bluelight™ into the points in your earlier post. A mistake on my part.

However, if you want answers as to why a litany of technical issues haven't been resolved on the site (which constituted part of your original post), then I would suggest that it is for the reasons I've offered - premature and inappropriate promotions leading to poor skill mix; along with a lack of trust over who is permitted to carry out the essential maintenance functions. That's not a bash against those currently in post (should you be reading), this issue has always been the case to varying degrees, but it appears to have become much more acute.

I'm in the US, so I'm not all that familiar with the changing of the guard.
Seriously though, I'm not quite sure what you mean...

What I'm saying is that when you have a high staff turnover, organisational memory becomes disjointed. Given that direction is best found with the benefit of some hindsight, a high staff turnover will affect how direction-setting happens. The norms and established routines of 'how things are done around here' become diluted and weakened. That can lead to opportunities for new and improved practice or - not too dissimilar to the points you raised earlier - can lead to weakened or inconsistent performance.

I will say this though... It was not that long ago that the Support forum was frequented by most senior staff. I know that it now has two of the best mods around, but without senior staff frequently posting here, it has lost the communal aspect to it that was part of what had made it great.

It made people feel very welcome here when they had admins posting in their threads to help them out, and that is something that has inspired some people to become moderators. And I know for a fact that checking the support forum was something that had been listed in the role of the senior mod, and it is likely in the role of admin too.

You're making me blush.

Regarding Smod/Admin participation in the Support Forum... my understanding is that Smods were always encouraged to take part in the Support Forum discussions, rather than required. Or, at least, it always used to be that way. Whether that has drifted/morphed into a more formalised requirement, I couldn't tell you. It wasn't specifically listed in the last Smod application thread, though. Personally, I've always felt that if a current staff member takes the time to regularly and voluntarily post in this forum, it's indicative of them having a broader interest in the site and a willingness to share their experience. IMO, that's a good predictor of someone who will function effectively in a senior role.

Besides, I would much rather have a low number of solid and quality staff posters who post in Support because they're motivated to do so, rather than a group of begrudging staff posters who post in Support because they're required to. Again, this goes back to skill mix. Not all Smods will feel that they have the background or interest to post effectively in Support. I'm fine with that, as long as that skill mix is balanced.

 

[Mugz]

I agree with pretty much everything that effie said.

I also think that in some particular forums there are mods that shouldn't be mods because as well as the whole forum being almost split into two opposing sides and schools of thought on how bl should be run, there are some mods that are splitting individual forums into two sides aswell, probably without even realising it though.

BL is an OPEN DISCUSSION FORUM though IMO except for when the mods/smods decide to censor posts that don't need censoring, this happens more than often when someone is "promoted" to smod status and they feel they have to assert their authority somehow to make themselves seem like they are doing "their job"

I preferred the place back in the old days, even 1 year ago, even 6 months ago to be honest, 6 months ago it was great.

 

[Tommyboy]

Thank you for replying, tambourine-man. My idea was for a possible diversion of staff focus into the areas that require more assistance at this time, some of which have been brought up in this thread. Basically, have more help in the HR forums.

To be honest, I did not become more involved in other areas of the site (outside of OD, BDD, DC, and NASADD) until I became a smod. It can be pretty annoying when you are asked to overlook forums that you don't have any interest, but then again, it can work it the opposite fashion. I ended up enjoying certain forums that I would not have necessarily viewed voluntarily, but due to whatever reasons, they had fallen under my umbrella as a smod.

EADD was a prime example of this for me. It certainly was difficult to keep up in there due to different dialect, especially when most everybody in that forum is from Europe, and therefore use more regional slang than one would in the forums commonly viewed by everybody. It was an interesting experience, and I am now confident that if I ever visit the UK, I would have no problem using the regional drug terms (allowing me to find out if the gear is bash, or proper pre-drought gear, how the beetle runs, and if it will take the rattle away).

I also had the opposite experience in which I was overlooking a forum that I did not enjoy overlooking, so I do understand the frustration for those that don't want to have anything to do with these struggling forums, yet are assigned to them still.

My point is, by encouraging more staff to become more involved in these forums, some may end up really enjoying it (win, win), and others will end up not liking it, but since they are only encouraged to frequent these forums, they don't have to (neutral, since it would be in the same position as before).

So let's say that all staff is now encouraged to frequent the HR forums that need additional help at a given time, and 20% end up enjoying it and continue to view these forums. That is at least more help than it was getting before. Also, it doesn't take the most educated of mods to have a positive impact in those forums. It can be quite obvious if a post is against the rules, or straight up harmful advice, and by simply reporting these posts, (as all members are encouraged to do as well) it can go a long way in improving these forums that are the core of HR, and the basis for why this site exists. Things have seemed to get a little better in these forums since my original post, and this isn't to question the hard work of regular mods.

Without getting into detail in public about it, I will just say that viewing the Support forum was on the list of things for all senior staff to do. This may have changed in the month or so since I have stepped down, but you have to admit that over 2 weeks without a response to my main post in here from any senior staff (aside from muvolution, who agreed with my post) is unacceptable.

The only way to rebuild, is for people to see helpful posts made by staff members at every level. Part of the reason that I had applied to be a mod is because I had seen helpful posts by people like Captain.Heroin (mod at that time), 6/7 (smod at that time) and phrozen (admin at that time). Those are just a few that I am mentioning, but my point is that since I saw great posts by staff at every level, it made me more comfortable with applying to become a mod (I originally applied for Other Drugs) since it meant I would be working with great mods, and working under senior staff that I was familiar with, and who posted frequently in those forums, making their influence even greater.

Thank you to anybody that took the time to respond.

 

[Tronica]

This has been an interesting thread for me as I, too, am coming up to my 10 year anniversary with Bluelight and that tends to make one reflective on what has changed.

I do think that Bluelight has a place in harm reduction, but to say that the future is publishing its own research (aside from Tronicas private work) and being accredited with such work is almost laughable at this time. If anything, this site has taken a step backwards since TLB made this thread. I don't agree with those saying that Bluelights harm reduction mission has failed due to the amount of noticeable deaths on here, but I do think that the site needs to re-evaluate it's approach to HR, and get some more attention in the areas that need it.

I feel I can add something here. Coming in as Director of Research, I've only just begun my role - there's a lot of the list of things to do and I plan to attack many of them in 2012. However, we are all volunteers and most of us have full-time commitments to other pursuits, me included, so progress is not as fast as it could be if Bluelight was it!

For the immediate future, I don't see my goal as getting Bluelight into a position to "publish its own research". Rather, we want to continue to develop Bluelight as a partner with research organisations (as per Inflexxion). We already have a model of how this can be done but we hope to expand that - all going well, you will see the results of the ideas we have over the next 12 months. Bluelight as an organisation has a lot to offer researchers who are interested in drug use issues and who need to recruit people who use drugs into their studies. My goal is to help create a better interface between BL and research organisations. First item on the list was to get a strong mod team in DS (just appointed 3 new moderators!), then second item is to design and implement a research portal, so the process for researchers and for us is streamlined.

I re-read TLB's State of BL thread and I agree with it all and believe we are still on track with it. I know I only understand my small part of the site (I'm not active on the focus forums, which appears to be where the concerns are?). Tommyboy, is it possible in one sentence to describe the problem as you see it? My reading of your posts is that you want more senior staff involvement / engagement in the everyday harm reduction capacities of the site, but I'm not sure I've summarised you correctly?

I do think we need to have some patience though. I trust that the issues raised here and in TLB's thread are getting addressed but that sometimes, tasks on a voluntary website like this unfortunately take much longer than they otherwise would if we were employed here and had money and time to throw about.

Just my 2c but I hope it's useful, and thanks for the thoughtful thread on Bluelight's direction. It's an important conversation to have.

 

[Tommyboy]

I re-read TLB's State of BL thread and I agree with it all and believe we are still on track with it. I know I only understand my small part of the site (I'm not active on the focus forums, which appears to be where the concerns are?). Tommyboy, is it possible in one sentence to describe the problem as you see it? My reading of your posts is that you want more senior staff involvement / engagement in the everyday harm reduction capacities of the site, but I'm not sure I've summarised you correctly?

Thanks for the response. I hope that you realize that I was complimenting you in my post.

Yes, you understood the concerns I brought up in my post correctly. To expand on the bold just a bit, I think that those things (strengthening the core HR forums) would help the research goals go a long way. What I mean is, more organizations would agree to partner up with BL if they viewed this site at its best. Right now, it seems there is still some rebuilding to do in order to strengthen the core of the site, which is why I questioned the focus on research. It would be like someone trying to get a date while wearing sweatpants and before they have shower/shaved. They would have a better chance of getting the date if they wait until they are cleaned up nice and dressed up.

I agree with the ideas in the State of BL, but they don''t hold as much value if the core of the site isn't as strong/stable as it should be. Increasing focus on marketing and research is only good if there is a strong backing behind it.

 

[Tronica]

Thanks Tommyboy. I see your point that Bluelight needs to be attractive if we want to successfully market ourselves to researchers. But it turns out that the reverse is also true: if Bluelight wants to continue operating (ie. paying the bills), one way it can pay those bills is to provide a service to academic institutions, one that some of them may be inclined to donate towards. So, unless we have another model of paying the bills, serving the research community is a way we can keep the site running, hence why we need to channel some of our efforts towards this aim (as well as towards the core business of harm reduction information and community).

My view is that Bluelight's continued success relies on both strengthening core harm reduction capacities AND increasing our capacity to provide a service to researchers that leads to donations that cover our running costs. Both need to be happening at the same time. I see progress in both areas but I also lament that things can't happen more quickly, but realise that as a non-profit voluntary organisation, we have to accept that these processes take time because they rely on the good will of a large number of people.

*patience* (starts humming guns n roses)

 

[Cane2theLeft]

Speaking of paying the bills, how's the donation portal coming?