Force Read Test Thread

[oblivion]

Hello there and welcome to MindRomp!

Please click --> here

For a chance to win an exciting vacation getaway!

(not really, but click anyway to learn some exciting things about MindRomping)

[Cunt]

worked for me!

[charlou]

It worked form me too!

A couple of things though ... It might be less cumbersome if the initial link takes the new member directly to the welcome, brief info and checklist all on one page? Also, I could navigate away from the checklist without ticking anything ... I think the idea is that ticking the checklist is compulsory before new members can begin posting?

[oblivion]

that is what I would like for it to do. I need to figure out how to make the force-read point to a form instead of a thread. Like I posted somewhere earlier today, this is a clunky version.

I started to think about using the human verification modules for this, and it might work, and in fact might confuse the hell out of spambots which would be a side benefit.

There's a human verification option where you can have a Q with a defined A (or several of them). Instead of acknowledgement checkboxes, they could be yes/no questions with a "right" answer. If you don't answer them right, then your registration fails and you start over.

I can configure a notice that is always visible to guests saying "BEFORE YOU REGISTER, READ THIS -- THERE WILL BE A TEST. REALLY." The link could go to a description of the 5 or 6 key things we want new members to know. If they don't read it, then they can guess the answers and take their chances.

The main problem I see with this is that it might actually frustrate real people into giving up and not registering.

I was thinking about how the current thing would works especially if I can get the initial link to point directly to the form. Every time a new member signs up, the thread with acknowledgements gets bumped, and people show up to welcome them. Someone who somehow skipped the process will get curious about it and probably take a look, and maybe go ahead and complete the form. So it becomes a sort of bonding thing - a joining ritual - that you don't want to skip.

I dunno. maybe people don't really think that way?

[charlou]

Originally Posted by oblivion

that is what I would like for it to do. I need to figure out how to make the force-read point to a form instead of a thread. Like I posted somewhere earlier today, this is a clunky version.

I started to think about using the human verification modules for this, and it might work, and in fact might confuse the hell out of spambots which would be a side benefit.

There's a human verification option where you can have a Q with a defined A (or several of them). Instead of acknowledgement checkboxes, they could be yes/no questions with a "right" answer. If you don't answer them right, then your registration fails and you start over.

I can configure a notice that is always visible to guests saying "BEFORE YOU REGISTER, READ THIS -- THERE WILL BE A TEST. REALLY." The link could go to a description of the 5 or 6 key things we want new members to know. If they don't read it, then they can guess the answers and take their chances.

The main problem I see with this is that it might actually frustrate real people into giving up and not registering.

I was thinking about how the current thing would works especially if I can get the initial link to point directly to the form. Every time a new member signs up, the thread with acknowledgements gets bumped, and people show up to welcome them. Someone who somehow skipped the process will get curious about it and probably take a look, and maybe go ahead and complete the form. So it becomes a sort of bonding thing - a joining ritual - that you don't want to skip.

I dunno. maybe people don't really think that way?

I like these ideas ... oh yes, indeedy ... and I think people registering will be intrigued by the questionaire as it's a rather unique (I think) and informative introduction to a forum.

We can always drop the checklist if it seems to be offputting ... we could have a running poll of the members at some future point to ask what they thought/think of our unique and informative signup process ... We may even be able to drop the checklist at some future time if the forum ethos becomes well established and known (notorious even ) enough that the checklist is unnecessary.

[oblivion]

In testing my idea about the human verification questions out, the sign-up process picks one question from however many you have defined to ask during registration. So, it won't work like a checklist.

The way the registration process currently works is this:

once you are registered, you get a page with some links that let you update your profile or go directly to the forum.

I was thinking that we could change that part of the process to send you to the form instead of to the page saying change your profile or start posting.

however, I don't think there's a way to force someone to complete the form. but, if they SEE the form, even if they don't acknowledge it, at least they are aware of those 4-5 key aspects of the site that we want to convey.

[Cunt]

True, and if someone fails to understand the rules, it wont get them banned or suspended (unless they are spammers, in which case fuck them)

As long as they know that the only being protecting them on this forum is themselves, I guess it's fine. Even if they learn that later, it should be all right.

[charlou]

Yes, I think so, Cunt.


ob ... I've been looking in the ACP for the form you've created because I wanted to have a go at editing it ... just changing the word 'manoeuvres' to 'procedures', and that bit about all proposals, discussions and actions being public ... I can't locate the form itself ... Can you guide me on how to find and edit the form, please?

[charlou]

^ In the techy tacky subforum, if you prefer that level of security about it.

[charlou]

It must be late there, ob? We can do this tomorrow.

[oblivion]

I think you should be able to edit it without going to the acp.

Click Quick Links in the Navbar. At the bottom of the drop-down list you should see a link called "forms". Click that. You should go to a page that shows the one form we currently have. To the right of that form's link is a drop down box. Click it and choose "edit form" and click "go".

When you get to the next page, scroll down and you'll see all the questions. There is an edit link to the right of each question. Click that link and you should be able to modify the question or the answer.

[charlou]

ah, that seems too easy ... hehe ... will take a look, thank you.

[charlou]

okay, tweaked ... What do you think?

[oblivion]

Nice!

[charlou]

I see there's a guests only option (currently unticked) for those statements ... What does that mean?

[oblivion]

Originally Posted by Elouise

I see there's a guests only option (currently unticked) for those statements ... What does that mean?

that means that you have to be registered in order to see the form.

[Hermit]

How about this?

I take responsibility for a portion of the content of this forum by posting.

I can say anything I want and will be responsible for what I say.

Spam and illegal content will be removed. Personally identifying information will be removed by request.

I will post any proposals and requests for admin action in the Proposals & Requests forum, for open discussion.

Admin actions are limited to technical procedures, such as deleting spam/spammers and illegal content.

I accept that Postcard Messages I send may be publicly quoted by the receiver. I am responsible for my own interactions and disclosures.

The asterisks and note about compulsory questions are unnecessary while the quiz can be easily bypassed.

[charlou]

Originally Posted by Seraph

Yes! I like this ... Was wanting to trim it down to something more concise ... and blunt ... and in the first person "I" ...

[Magicziggy]

Originally Posted by Seraph

How about this?

The asterisks and note about compulsory questions are unnecessary while the quiz can be easily bypassed.

I'm finding #1 a little troublesome.
The responsibility I am taking is for MY posts. Not for some undefined portion of the content of the forum. Where does this one come from?

#2 , ok. But "anything I want" is qualified by the illegal content clause in #3, and should (perhaps) also make reference to defamation. I'm concerned that defamation is our biggest threat. I think we need to clearly define the concept for members.
#3 could be split in two.

In fact to make it all I.. I.. I.., "I accept" or "I understand that" should prefix these statements.

#4 ok

#5 prefix with "I understand that..."

#6 could be split or reworded as one sentence. In fact the second sentence is covered by #2

[Magicziggy]

Also, why a check box for all of these? Why not just one?
Yesterday I got a 63 page upadted terms and conditions from paypal (I think)
1 click and I had agreed.

What I'd really like is the impossible to fail quiz on these questions to come up next.

Simply true or false.

Each dot point reworded.


For example:

Admins will intervene in issues around personal attacks. T/F

The postcards I send can be posted elsewhere in the forum by others. T/F

My personal information will be removed automatically by admins if posted in the forum T/F

Etc...

[Cunt]

Originally Posted by Magicziggy

I'm finding #1 a little troublesome.
The responsibility I am taking is for MY posts. Not for some undefined portion of the content of the forum. Where does this one come from?

How about: I take responsibility for my own posts on this forum and their consequences.

Originally Posted by Magicziggy

#2 , ok. But "anything I want" is qualified by the illegal content clause in #3, and should (perhaps) also make reference to defamation. I'm concerned that defamation is our biggest threat. I think we need to clearly define the concept for members.

I'm all for teaching that. How and when might be tricky, though...
How about recommending that folks inform themselves of their local defamation laws...

[charlou]

Originally Posted by Magicziggy

I'm finding #1 a little troublesome.
The responsibility I am taking is for MY posts. Not for some undefined portion of the content of the forum. Where does this one come from?

#2 , ok. But "anything I want" is qualified by the illegal content clause in #3, and should (perhaps) also make reference to defamation. I'm concerned that defamation is our biggest threat. I think we need to clearly define the concept for members.
#3 could be split in two.

In fact to make it all I.. I.. I.., "I accept" or "I understand that" should prefix these statements.

#4 ok

#5 prefix with "I understand that..."

#6 could be split or reworded as one sentence. In fact the second sentence is covered by #2

I meant to come back to this earlier ...

These are all good points and I agree with your thoughts here.

wrt your thoughts about number #6 .. I think reiterating that point in the context of private messaging is important, so favour retaining it.


Also, this one from Cunt, to reword #1 :

How about: I take responsibility for my own posts on this forum and their consequences.

I'll take a look at rewording the checklist with these ideas in mind.



MZ, you also asked:

Also, why a check box for all of these? Why not just one?
Yesterday I got a 63 page upadted terms and conditions from paypal (I think)
1 click and I had agreed.

I wonder, when registering, how many people fully read the (often default) forum user agreement before clicking 'agree' ... or just think tl:dr and click it anyway.

We have some pretty specific values and ideas that we want to impress upon new members. I think the simple checklist with a check box next to each concise point is more likely to be read and understood because it's something different, both in concept and in the information it imparts ... it's not over wordy .. people don't mind (some even like) doing short surveys ... the process of reading each point and ticking each box might reinforce the uptake of the information.

[charlou]

Is defamation illegal?

[charlou]

I mean, if we were instructed to remove defamatory content by a representative of legal authority, then we would do so ... so for that reason defamation is covered under 'illegal content'?

[charlou]

Illegal content basically understood as being anything the law obliges us to remove ... ?