Empowering members: proposal for a community-run forum

[Cedric]

I know this idea might be a bit out there, but I find it really interesting and I'd love to hear what others think.

Typically, we want our forums to be more than just a place to post and chat - we want a community with a friendly atmosphere where people can socialize and share information and resources.

Normally, forums have administrators and moderators. Administrators make the rules and have ultimate power, while moderators enforce them. This is something we expect on any forum we visit, as it creates a clear hierarchy.

But is this really the only way to run a community? Shouldn't a true community be run not just for its members, but by its members as well? Instead of members simply accepting whatever the administration decides for them (and leaving if they don't like it), what if we let members actively contribute their ideas and suggestions?

We could create a group of active and dedicated members who have been on the forum for a certain amount of time and made a certain number of posts (or other qualifications). These members could serve as a forum council and put forth ideas and suggestions (like a Congress proposes bills) which would be implemented (or not) based on a majority vote. These ideas would then be passed on to the administration for final approval. If the administrators do not approve, it would go back to the council and require a higher vote threshold, such as 2/3 or 3/4.

As for voting on the ideas, it could be limited to just the council members or open to any member who meets certain restrictions.

Of course, there are some decisions that should be left solely to the administration, but they should be relatively few and far between.

What are your thoughts on this idea?

 

[Arantor]

I had a really good debate recently on this very subject on 'community driven community' as a concept. Unfortunately I can't remember where it was because it went into quite a lot of the relevant detail on this subject. But I can probably sum up the relevant points and pivot them slightly for this specific situation as it wasn't quite this angle.

First problem: the forum consumes resources; it exists on a server with an internet connection. Someone has to be legally responsible for these things and for paying for the hosting (or, the server + datacentre, or whatever). While I have seen it done to make a legal entity out of the community for the oversight and management, the fact it is a legal entity can become problematic. Consider the situation if the decision is made that all members of the 'management' or 'oversight community' or 'council' are to be made legal members of that legal entity, as directors or other legally responsible parties. This has material consideration for people outside in the real world.

But putting that aside, the problem of having a council at all tends to engender the same things as you see in established other communities where a group is notionally elected to oversee a thing.

You get people voted in based on perceived likeability rather than competence; you also get cliques voting for their one buddy. It's also absolutely not unheard of for such councils to start changing the rules once established to either/simultaneously protect their own position and/or loosen the restrictions to let their friends in. We see this kind of cronyism in politics all the time, just there it has lobbying included for bonus points.

Last and possibly most relevantly in my mind: creating a community founded on democratic principles risks producing democratic fatigue. If everything is put to a vote, everything takes time, and you create a situation where the least worst option that everyone can agree on is what wins, rather than picking a path and going with it. Additionally, too many votes can quite easily produce the 'I can't be bothered' effect that we also see in voting.


I think... for the right community, this model *absolutely* can work. But I think most communities are not the right community type and most function based on the moods and the choices made by the leadership that people arrive at and stay at because they align with it.

 

[ten thousand]

I've always thought this was an awesome idea in theory but I'm skeptical it would be beneficial in practice. I think you can put your members into two broad buckets: people who care enough to contribute to the well-being of the community and people who don't. The second group includes everyone from lurkers who never post, people who come for a single specific purpose and then don't contribute beyond that, or people who enjoy occasionally posting but don't have the time to contribute regularly.

For the first group you should probably just find a way to make them staff and skip the member-with-stafflike-responsibilities stage. If they're people who care about the community and want to help it succeed, they should be granted whatever power you can to help facilitate that.

 

[Reverie]

I've always liked the idea of a forum council, but truly that's what my goal was for "elite" groups! I think a forum should be kind of led by the members! I remember back in the day there was an Invisionfree forum or Zetaboards forum and everyone was either staff/admin. It was really just people messing with each other though and randomly banning and unbanning.... but the concept is super interesting lol.

I think a community that can naturally fall into this pattern would be amazing!

 

[André]

I know this idea might be a bit out there, but I find it really interesting and I'd love to hear what others think.

Typically, we want our forums to be more than just a place to post and chat - we want a community with a friendly atmosphere where people can socialize and share information and resources.

Normally, forums have administrators and moderators. Administrators make the rules and have ultimate power, while moderators enforce them. This is something we expect on any forum we visit, as it creates a clear hierarchy.

But is this really the only way to run a community? Shouldn't a true community be run not just for its members, but by its members as well? Instead of members simply accepting whatever the administration decides for them (and leaving if they don't like it), what if we let members actively contribute their ideas and suggestions?

We could create a group of active and dedicated members who have been on the forum for a certain amount of time and made a certain number of posts (or other qualifications). These members could serve as a forum council and put forth ideas and suggestions (like a Congress proposes bills) which would be implemented (or not) based on a majority vote. These ideas would then be passed on to the administration for final approval. If the administrators do not approve, it would go back to the council and require a higher vote threshold, such as 2/3 or 3/4.

As for voting on the ideas, it could be limited to just the council members or open to any member who meets certain restrictions.

Of course, there are some decisions that should be left solely to the administration, but they should be relatively few and far between.

What are your thoughts on this idea?

Hey i dunno if you had an opportunity to explore, may i recommend checking through the nzfsf Governmental Category if or whenever you've the time to.

What you'll find there relates to the OP.

You still have full Super Addy over @nzfsf

*note: the nzfsf site also seems less laggy too.

(*will keep it as a storage/test forum for a few months coz there is decent content buried under all the more recent garbage.)

I had a really good debate recently on this very subject on 'community driven community' as a concept. Unfortunately I can't remember where it was because it went into quite a lot of the relevant detail on this subject. But I can probably sum up the relevant points and pivot them slightly for this specific situation as it wasn't quite this angle.

First problem: the forum consumes resources; it exists on a server with an internet connection. Someone has to be legally responsible for these things and for paying for the hosting (or, the server + datacentre, or whatever). While I have seen it done to make a legal entity out of the community for the oversight and management, the fact it is a legal entity can become problematic. Consider the situation if the decision is made that all members of the 'management' or 'oversight community' or 'council' are to be made legal members of that legal entity, as directors or other legally responsible parties. This has material consideration for people outside in the real world.

But putting that aside, the problem of having a council at all tends to engender the same things as you see in established other communities where a group is notionally elected to oversee a thing.

You get people voted in based on perceived likeability rather than competence; you also get cliques voting for their one buddy. It's also absolutely not unheard of for such councils to start changing the rules once established to either/simultaneously protect their own position and/or loosen the restrictions to let their friends in. We see this kind of cronyism in politics all the time, just there it has lobbying included for bonus points.

Last and possibly most relevantly in my mind: creating a community founded on democratic principles risks producing democratic fatigue. If everything is put to a vote, everything takes time, and you create a situation where the least worst option that everyone can agree on is what wins, rather than picking a path and going with it. Additionally, too many votes can quite easily produce the 'I can't be bothered' effect that we also see in voting.


I think... for the right community, this model *absolutely* can work. But I think most communities are not the right community type and most function based on the moods and the choices made by the leadership that people arrive at and stay at because they align with it.

Very astute.

What is a 'forum'?

Where did this concept begin?
•
•
•
Rome? Sort of.
•
•
•
Ancient Greek City States?

Seems likely the case—though quite different to the Roman variant.


Αγορά - Marketplace

Our solution was figured out long ago too,...

...the requisite technological capabilities didn't exist til recent decades.

i don't want to reveal everything just yet, however i know exactly what we must do to address the very apparent limitations regarding social aspects entirely.

It definitely will be challenging and to ever accomplish this will depend on community effort.

And yet there's also the fundamental framework which must be created to enable harmonious social functionality.

By fundamental framework, i mean the technical stuff that's far beyond my experiential capabilities thus far.

In simple & general terms, the current board design is basically a mini-digital version of the corporate enslavement system.

The top down chain of command structure enabling efficacious functionality via hierarchical layers of control.

This simply does not allow Community functionality—even though it is made to appear otherwise.

You mentioned 'legal entities'.

Therefore you must possess some degree of awareness for this critical subject, yes?

I've always thought this was an awesome idea in theory but I'm skeptical it would be beneficial in practice. I think you can put your members into two broad buckets: people who care enough to contribute to the well-being of the community and people who don't. The second group includes everyone from lurkers who never post, people who come for a single specific purpose and then don't contribute beyond that, or people who enjoy occasionally posting but don't have the time to contribute regularly.

For the first group you should probably just find a way to make them staff and skip the member-with-stafflike-responsibilities stage. If they're people who care about the community and want to help it succeed, they should be granted whatever power you can to help facilitate that.

What if we can find a means to enable individuals to voluntarily become invested in community?

Generally people only contribute to that which they've personal investiture.

An example of what i mean by this—i can prove in theory and 🙂 ongoing practice.

*[i must first be granted express permission by the currently unaware subject to reveal any further details publicly.]

 

[Arantor]

What is a 'forum'?

Where did this concept begin?

The forum format as we would recognise it today originated in the 1970s in BBS culture. The key is that they're decentralised units run by individuals or groups of individuals.

i don't want to reveal everything just yet, however i know exactly what we must do to address the very apparent limitations regarding social aspects entirely.

You have my interest.

And yet there's also the fundamental framework which must be created to enable harmonious social functionality.

By fundamental framework, i mean the technical stuff that's far beyond my experiential capabilities thus far.

Still listening.

In simple & general terms, the current board design is basically a mini-digital version of the corporate enslavement system.

The top down chain of command structure enabling efficacious functionality via hierarchical layers of control.

This simply does not allow Community functionality—even though it is made to appear otherwise.

Ahahahahahhahaahahahahahah, and there it is.

You mentioned 'legal entities'.

Therefore you must possess some degree of awareness for this critical subject, yes?

Yes, yes I have some knowledge of this, and here's where I think I need to get off this particular train ride, but before I do, allow me to explain.

A community space is nothing to do with the corporate enslavement system. I genuinely find it hilarious that you think it is. This space, for example, with the way Cedric runs it, is no replication of the corporate enslavement system.

Instead it is a space he has created, to foster certain kinds of discussions. It is his space because he's *paying for it to exist*. He's paying companies for usage of their physical resources (the server), he's paid a company for the use of their tools (the forum software). And because he lives in a country, he is personally subject to the laws of that country. By extension this site is subject to the laws of that country - it can't not be. Countries have laws about what is legal to be published, what is considered defamatory, what is considered slanderous, what is considered libellous, what is considered obscene and therefore unpublishable. They also have laws about spreading material of a classified nature and of spreading material that can be used for dangerous reasons (e.g. you can't exactly publish 'how to make a bomb' without someone knocking on your door). And should someone post that *here*, Cedric and the moderation team have a legal duty to remove it, lest the government comes after *them* for spreading it.

And this is where you get to legal entities. Even if you bring your own servers, own hardware, own software to the party, you're still running this on someone else's physical network, someone else's electricity and so on. Someone has to be legally responsible for this; the power company is not going to send a bill to 'a loose collective' for the power for the servers, they're going to want to have a contract with a legal entity to provide that service and bill for it. Ditto the physical internet connection that the server is plugged into.

The byproduct of this, of course, is that there is legal accountability: in the event a site disseminates material considered illegal, the government has the ability to forcibly disconnect it. This has happened, even to the point of seeing entire countries having their connection to the rest of the internet *turned off*.

The minute you connect to the real world, you have to deal with the real world on the real world's terms, and loose collectives don't exist when *money* is involved. Now, you can form a legal entity with a legal bank account to pay the money off to the electricity company and the internet company, but you're then in the situation where you need to raise funds from all members equally. And you have to deal with the fact that some people in that collective will have duties that others do not. You'll have to have someone whose responsibility it is to make sure the bills get paid - and to chase up the people who don't pay in. (And for the people who don't pay in, you now have to go collect from everyone else to manage the shortfall. Or you run at a surplus and you have to have someone making sure that the money doesn't get spent on things inappropriately.)

So you have a treasurer. This is someone who is doing a duty for free to the community, but at personal cost (time, if nothing else), and you're trusting this person to a standard the rest aren't being held to.

Meanwhile, you're going to want to set out policies for what is considered appropriate behaviour within these spaces. Which means you need rules. Now you can collectively agree on the rules, codify them and so on, that's all fine. But someone has to do that, and more importantly, someone has to *enforce* them. Which means you have to be able to trust someone else, who may or may not be the treasurer, with being the gatekeeper to the community. To evict troublemakers if nothing else. Because the alternative is sheer mob justice and we all know how well that actually works. History is replete with examples.

And then of course we have the general concept of rules. You can have rules, but you can also presumably change those rules, which means you have voting. Which means you need someone to oversee the voting and its outcome. You can delegate the voting aspect to software, if you trust it, but you still have to have someone *implement* that outcome.

Whichever angle you attack it from, you will continually come back to the fact that in any community, you will have responsibilities that need carrying out, which are required to be carried out by trusted members of the community that you're putting by default to a higher standard than the rest of the community, but somehow this isn't a de facto elite group within the community. How is it not?

You even said it yourself, people generally only contribute when there is personal investiture. Now, some people can and will do these things out of necessity for the whole, where their personal stake in it is 'because I believe in the community and doing my part to ensure the community remains viable', but this only ever holds true for a short while in a 'true democracy' such as the concept exists, because people will have different opinions on how things should be done, and people will do what people will do, namely oust those perceived as not doing it 'correctly'.

With a forum, of course, if a forum owner is perceived to be mis-running their community, there is always the choice of going somewhere else or even starting your own. But whichever way you turn, trying to do this in a collective necessitates people being an elite group, and by nature producing resentment because you *have* to have that working.

But I'm curious if you genuinely have a different model that somehow manages to defeat thousands of years of human nature. What I can tell you is that technological solutions to social/societal problems rarely work, but in the interim, I'm all ears.

 

[Ravenfreak]

So this community run forum would probably lead to some individuals getting power hungry and banning or issuing warnings left and right when someone doesn't agree with their opinions right? At least that's where I would think a community that was like this would eventually lead to if it gained traction. Though I suppose there could be limits placed to what sub moderators can do, to prevent this from happening. It's a interesting concept and it's something I've never really seen before.

 

[Arantor]

You just described how any group of people functions as it grows beyond a certain small size.

 

[André]

View attachment 1262

The forum format as we would recognise it today originated in the 1970s in BBS culture. The key is that they're decentralised units run by individuals or groups of individuals.


You have my interest.


Still listening.


Ahahahahahhahaahahahahahah, and there it is.


Yes, yes I have some knowledge of this, and here's where I think I need to get off this particular train ride, but before I do, allow me to explain.

A community space is nothing to do with the corporate enslavement system. I genuinely find it hilarious that you think it is. This space, for example, with the way Cedric runs it, is no replication of the corporate enslavement system.

Instead it is a space he has created, to foster certain kinds of discussions. It is his space because he's *paying for it to exist*. He's paying companies for usage of their physical resources (the server), he's paid a company for the use of their tools (the forum software). And because he lives in a country, he is personally subject to the laws of that country. By extension this site is subject to the laws of that country - it can't not be. Countries have laws about what is legal to be published, what is considered defamatory, what is considered slanderous, what is considered libellous, what is considered obscene and therefore unpublishable. They also have laws about spreading material of a classified nature and of spreading material that can be used for dangerous reasons (e.g. you can't exactly publish 'how to make a bomb' without someone knocking on your door). And should someone post that *here*, Cedric and the moderation team have a legal duty to remove it, lest the government comes after *them* for spreading it.

And this is where you get to legal entities. Even if you bring your own servers, own hardware, own software to the party, you're still running this on someone else's physical network, someone else's electricity and so on. Someone has to be legally responsible for this; the power company is not going to send a bill to 'a loose collective' for the power for the servers, they're going to want to have a contract with a legal entity to provide that service and bill for it. Ditto the physical internet connection that the server is plugged into.

The byproduct of this, of course, is that there is legal accountability: in the event a site disseminates material considered illegal, the government has the ability to forcibly disconnect it. This has happened, even to the point of seeing entire countries having their connection to the rest of the internet *turned off*.

The minute you connect to the real world, you have to deal with the real world on the real world's terms, and loose collectives don't exist when *money* is involved. Now, you can form a legal entity with a legal bank account to pay the money off to the electricity company and the internet company, but you're then in the situation where you need to raise funds from all members equally. And you have to deal with the fact that some people in that collective will have duties that others do not. You'll have to have someone whose responsibility it is to make sure the bills get paid - and to chase up the people who don't pay in. (And for the people who don't pay in, you now have to go collect from everyone else to manage the shortfall. Or you run at a surplus and you have to have someone making sure that the money doesn't get spent on things inappropriately.)

So you have a treasurer. This is someone who is doing a duty for free to the community, but at personal cost (time, if nothing else), and you're trusting this person to a standard the rest aren't being held to.

Meanwhile, you're going to want to set out policies for what is considered appropriate behaviour within these spaces. Which means you need rules. Now you can collectively agree on the rules, codify them and so on, that's all fine. But someone has to do that, and more importantly, someone has to *enforce* them. Which means you have to be able to trust someone else, who may or may not be the treasurer, with being the gatekeeper to the community. To evict troublemakers if nothing else. Because the alternative is sheer mob justice and we all know how well that actually works. History is replete with examples.

And then of course we have the general concept of rules. You can have rules, but you can also presumably change those rules, which means you have voting. Which means you need someone to oversee the voting and its outcome. You can delegate the voting aspect to software, if you trust it, but you still have to have someone *implement* that outcome.

Whichever angle you attack it from, you will continually come back to the fact that in any community, you will have responsibilities that need carrying out, which are required to be carried out by trusted members of the community that you're putting by default to a higher standard than the rest of the community, but somehow this isn't a de facto elite group within the community. How is it not?

You even said it yourself, people generally only contribute when there is personal investiture. Now, some people can and will do these things out of necessity for the whole, where their personal stake in it is 'because I believe in the community and doing my part to ensure the community remains viable', but this only ever holds true for a short while in a 'true democracy' such as the concept exists, because people will have different opinions on how things should be done, and people will do what people will do, namely oust those perceived as not doing it 'correctly'.

With a forum, of course, if a forum owner is perceived to be mis-running their community, there is always the choice of going somewhere else or even starting your own. But whichever way you turn, trying to do this in a collective necessitates people being an elite group, and by nature producing resentment because you *have* to have that working.

But I'm curious if you genuinely have a different model that somehow manages to defeat thousands of years of human nature. What I can tell you is that technological solutions to social/societal problems rarely work, but in the interim, I'm all ears.

😃Omg! This is a magnificent post sir/or ma'am!

i'll have to get into it tomorrow because after 0100hrs here.

Spoiler

View attachment 1263

Spoiler

View attachment 1264

Spoiler

View attachment 1265

Spoiler

View attachment 1266
🤣

 

[André]

The forum format as we would recognise it today originated in the 1970s in BBS culture. The key is that they're decentralised units run by individuals or groups of individuals.

...

You have my interest.

...

Still listening.

...

Ahahahahahhahaahahahahahah, and there it is.

...😏huh.

Yes, yes I have some knowledge of this, and here's where I think I need to get off this particular train ride, but before I do, allow me to explain.

...

A community space is nothing to do with the corporate enslavement system.

😂Ya know how you've repeatedly accused me of supposedly attempting to entrap you in some imagined "gotcha" scenarios,...well, i could actually "getcha" right here if i were so motivated maliciously...

The actuality is that i am intending constructive discourse,...whereas it has become abundantly apparent your intentions are not constructive at all—no matter how cunningly veiled your attempts may be otherwise.

I genuinely find it hilarious that you think it is.

🙄i find that indicative of a somewhat dysfunctional personality affliction.

Deriving arousal from one's subjective belief that an other may or may not be mistaken about something—is not a behavioural predilection of a healthy developed individual.

The fact you've proudly boasted of this actually suggests traits of overt narcissism/possibly even sociopathy.

i am trying to help, whereas you're demonstrating the same "gotcha" types of vertical cognition which you've been gleefully projecting at me all morning.

This space, for example, with the way Cedric runs it, is no replication of the corporate enslavement system.

Ok.

Instead it is a space he has created, to foster certain kinds of discussions. It is his space because he's *paying for it to exist*. He's paying companies for usage of their physical resources (the server), he's paid a company for the use of their tools (the forum software). And because he lives in a country, he is personally subject to the laws of that country. By extension this site is subject to the laws of that country - it can't not be. Countries have laws about what is legal to be published, what is considered defamatory, what is considered slanderous, what is considered libellous, what is considered obscene and therefore unpublishable. They also have laws about spreading material of a classified nature and of spreading material that can be used for dangerous reasons (e.g. you can't exactly publish 'how to make a bomb' without someone knocking on your door). And should someone post that *here*, Cedric and the moderation team have a legal duty to remove it, lest the government comes after *them* for spreading it.

😄Perhaps you ought to consider comprehensively researching "Law" and then get back to me after several years.

And this is where you get to legal entities.

😏oh goody...

Even if you bring your own servers, own hardware, own software to the party, you're still running this on someone else's physical network, someone else's electricity and so on.

Agreed.

Someone has to be legally responsible for this; the power company is not going to send a bill to 'a loose collective' for the power for the servers, they're going to want to have a contract with a legal entity to provide that service and bill for it. Ditto the physical internet connection that the server is plugged into.

☝️🙂 Can you explain exactly what this "Someone" may be?

The byproduct of this, of course, is that there is legal accountability: in the event a site disseminates material considered illegal, the government has the ability to forcibly disconnect it.

Explain what a "government" actually is?

This has happened, even to the point of seeing entire countries having their connection to the rest of the internet *turned off*.

Yep, i agree.

The minute you connect to the real world, you have to deal with the real world on the real world's terms, and loose collectives don't exist when *money* is involved.

Sure, but what exactly do you mean by: "real world"?—& "real world"-"terms"?

Now, you can form a legal entity with a legal bank account to pay the money off to the electricity company and the internet company, but you're then in the situation where you need to raise funds from all members equally.

In all scenarios?

And you have to deal with the fact that some people in that collective will have duties that others do not.

Agreed.

You'll have to have someone whose responsibility it is to make sure the bills get paid - and to chase up the people who don't pay in. (And for the people who don't pay in, you now have to go collect from everyone else to manage the shortfall. Or you run at a surplus and you have to have someone making sure that the money doesn't get spent on things inappropriately.)

Again, i agree.

So you have a treasurer. This is someone who is doing a duty for free to the community, but at personal cost (time, if nothing else), and you're trusting this person to a standard the rest aren't being held to.

Aye? Where'd you get that idea?

Furthermore i think you're wildly mistaken about this whole "trusting" angle, though of course an individual in such a position of responsibility is inherently burdened with far greater responsibilities than the average community member who is not in such a position.

Meanwhile, you're going to want to set out policies for what is considered appropriate behaviour within these spaces. Which means you need rules. Now you can collectively agree on the rules, codify them and so on, that's all fine. But someone has to do that, and more importantly, someone has to *enforce* them. Which means you have to be able to trust someone else, who may or may not be the treasurer, with being the gatekeeper to the community. To evict troublemakers if nothing else. Because the alternative is sheer mob justice and we all know how well that actually works. History is replete with examples.

Yes that is true—of any social collective predominantly comprised of dysfunctional individuals.

And then of course we have the general concept of rules. You can have rules, but you can also presumably change those rules, which means you have voting. Which means you need someone to oversee the voting and its outcome. You can delegate the voting aspect to software, if you trust it, but you still have to have someone *implement* that outcome.

Sure.

Whichever angle you attack it from, you will continually come back to the fact that in any community, you will have responsibilities that need carrying out, which are required to be carried out by trusted members of the community that you're putting by default to a higher standard than the rest of the community, but somehow this isn't a de facto elite group within the community. How is it not?

i do see your "logic" and it appears to make sense, however it is fundamentally flawed.

You even said it yourself, people generally only contribute when there is personal investiture. Now, some people can and will do these things out of necessity for the whole, where their personal stake in it is 'because I believe in the community and doing my part to ensure the community remains viable', but this only ever holds true for a short while in a 'true democracy' such as the concept exists, because people will have different opinions on how things should be done, and people will do what people will do, namely oust those perceived as not doing it 'correctly'.

Yeah sort of aye.
What is this "true democracy" concept?

With a forum, of course, if a forum owner is perceived to be mis-running their community, there is always the choice of going somewhere else or even starting your own. But whichever way you turn, trying to do this in a collective necessitates people being an elite group, and by nature producing resentment because you *have* to have that working.

No, that is absurd.

But I'm curious if you genuinely have a different model that somehow manages to defeat thousands of years of human nature.

😂Pretty funny actually.

What I can tell you is that technological solutions to social/societal problems rarely work, but in the interim, I'm all ears.

😏Well i feel much better about sharing my ideas with you, as you've presented responses premising no less than genuine reasonability in each case.

i appreciate your feedback however i see now the unlikelihood for a constructive outcome eventuating from continuing interaction with you.

Good luck.

 

[ClicketyKat]

I know this idea might be a bit out there, but I find it really interesting and I'd love to hear what others think.

Typically, we want our forums to be more than just a place to post and chat - we want a community with a friendly atmosphere where people can socialize and share information and resources.

Normally, forums have administrators and moderators. Administrators make the rules and have ultimate power, while moderators enforce them. This is something we expect on any forum we visit, as it creates a clear hierarchy.

But is this really the only way to run a community? Shouldn't a true community be run not just for its members, but by its members as well? Instead of members simply accepting whatever the administration decides for them (and leaving if they don't like it), what if we let members actively contribute their ideas and suggestions?

We could create a group of active and dedicated members who have been on the forum for a certain amount of time and made a certain number of posts (or other qualifications). These members could serve as a forum council and put forth ideas and suggestions (like a Congress proposes bills) which would be implemented (or not) based on a majority vote. These ideas would then be passed on to the administration for final approval. If the administrators do not approve, it would go back to the council and require a higher vote threshold, such as 2/3 or 3/4.

As for voting on the ideas, it could be limited to just the council members or open to any member who meets certain restrictions.

Of course, there are some decisions that should be left solely to the administration, but they should be relatively few and far between.

What are your thoughts on this idea?

On Christianity Haven, we used to have a private forum for what we called "Senior Members" and that's where we hashed out problems on the site PRIVATELY as well as tested out new ideas. I know it's not exactly what the OP described, but it was a step closer to it because we wanted to listen to our wants and needs of the members. Plus, when issues came up about other members, they didn't create any drama by talking about it in the public areas, we kept our dirty laundry inside, away from everyone.