The Direction of Discussion
You might have noticed a bit of a ruckus on the Indus Delta discussions recently. There aren't any limits on posting activity on the site, and this made it easy for a single poster to monopolise the discussion section.
In general, Indus Delta discussions have been positive, useful, and characterised by people talking about practical issues. This contrasts sharply with welfare-related discussions on most other sites, which invariably turn into a shouting match between the pro-reform and anti-reform camps. I don't see anything useful about that argument, and I'm unhappy that it surfaced recently on here.
Having said that, we're open to anyone who has an interest in the delivery of welfare-to-work services, and I'd like to keep it that way. There are very few opportunities for 'customers' to have a voice in service delivery, and without their input it's easy for discussions to miss out on their wants and needs.
As with all aspects of the site, we're open to suggestions on how this should develop, and I'd like your views on what to do next. I've set out some thoughts below. Please take a minute and think about what you'd like to see next.
What should be allowed on the site?
I'd be interested in knowing what you would find acceptable and interesting:
- Front line delivery
- Contracts and contract
- Customers talking about their experiences or saying what kind of delivery they would like
- Customers/advisers/managers complaining about the industry
- Full-on 'we hate all politicians and providers' comments
How should we police the site?
Kill, move, users only or a free-for-all?
- Delete offensive or ranty comments
- Move offensive or ranty comments to a special location where they don't interrupt the normal conversation
- Allow anyone to report comments they felt broke the guidelines
- Only allow logged-in users to comment. Users can easily change their usernames to something unidentifiable, so this won't remove anonymity
- Allow logged-in users to vote down comments they don't like, or block commenters they don't want to see anymore. This will take a fair amount of work, and might involve setting up a full online community
What do you think?
So what's the point of talking in the first place? Well, judging by the site discussions thus far, it's been pretty much anything people wanted to talk about. Some of the discussions so far include:
Hi Daniel,
I gave up reading the web site last week. It was becoming boring, even though that person had some valid points. I think you have done the right thing. I think it should be open for all, but when someone starts to dominate discussions, step in and moinitor. The site is great and if that person was the only one to dominate, why try to change things. keep doing what your doing.
Hi Jaynie,
Good point. I'm possibly overreacting with all this talking about talking stuff, but I'm worried that I'll turn my back one day and the Have Your Say hordes will descend on the site. There's very limited functionality for controlling conversations at the moment, and nothing stopping banned users from reregistering or posting anonymously.
Update 7/3 - I've installed troll management software that allows banning by IP address. This should hopefully allow control of anonymous posting. If it fails, I may have to look again at requiring people to log in before leaving comments.
Good news.
I welcome open discussion and constructive criticism of JCP/Provider procedures and programmes, but incessant slagging-off for the sake of it really doesn't take the debate anywhere, imo.
Great. really good news