Chawlk

1. Drawar
2. Fenxy
3. Decaflon
4. Two Credits
5. Wriging
6. Loose Suits
7. Chixe
8. Dud3s
9. Wing Colors

 

A great day for democracy!

Did I miss something? When was this a democracy?

*thinks RightOn just got caught in Flamebait.*

So, a vote was made by those active in the forums, to say that the only people who are important to the community are those who are active in the forums.

That is incorrect and not what happened.

Although having said that, if you choose not to vote in a political election do you still have the right to moan and grumble when someone you disagree with gets elected? // If you do not participate in discussions and offer your opinions on the future of something, should you moan when the thing (whatever it may be) takes a direction you are not happy with?

EDIT:
@Gnorb: Possibly make that two. ;-)

"I think that the team is doing a great job, and given how much broader the network is nowadays, this new agreement is merely a reflection of the things they need to change in order to adapt to such a large number of users."

That's hilarious! They're adapting to such a large number of users by getting rid of them?

Ignore it, RightOn, Ollie. On this great day of Ali 2, let nothing get in the way of total drunkdom, err, I mean celebration.

I've accepted their descision. Let bygones be bygones, there's nothing that can change this now. While I've still some questions regarding 9rules focus and direction (which to me is still blur, but let's after Ali 2 launches and we'll see), I'm confident the triumvirate will handle those questions adequately. In time.

A toast ... to a strange new future.

*grabs the flamebait by the tail*

@sinistertiger - That's hilarious! How many members did they kick out because of the new membership agreement?

Uhoh. I predict impending immaturity.

I think you're not seeing the whole picture here 'tiger'...

The membership of this network is a LOT larger than the numbers of those who have left recently... from my count I can see maybe 12-14 or somewhere around there that have packed their bags in the recent weeks.

The 9Rules team has not gotten rid of anyone and to accuse them of DUMPING members is just a blatant smear.

The Triad decided, from member interest and encouragement to ask their members to participate in the community and a fraction of the membership disagreed with their decision.

I fail to see why we're still having this discussion.

*Wonders why people keep feeding the troll. It gets bigger when it eats, you know.*

I fail to see why we're still having this discussion.

Because some people like to be attention w... errr, ponies.

Why the fighting on this holiest of days?

*burp*

Edit: enough. Pause discussions until after Ali 2. Then we'd have substantive missile material to throw at each other.

Their choice, their loss!

I personally hope RightOn is kicked out next (I heard he hates web 2 point oh). :)

Oh but Ryan you missed the memo... this is Web 2.1! I'm exempt from kickoutage due to the overtly kick ass nature of 2.1 style websites.

:P

I'm fascinated to know your definition of a troll? I disagree with your criteria so I'm offering flamebait? Of course you'll doubtless just write that off as flamebait too. Also, since the email went out today (to the people I know of, but then maybe their emails are held up for a month or two, just like the appearance of their blog entries on the 9 rules pages) I think that your visible exodus is pretty large.

You should be compelling people to participate by making them want to do so, not by telling them they have to do so. Why are you not asking yourself what is wrong with your forums that they aren't interested? The answer to that question could only enhance the quality of this site.

Let me tell you a little anecdote (a true one), and leave it at that since your responses are so dismissive.

The UK used to have a far more extensive rail network than it does now. Just about every rural community was served by a train station. Overall, the system was efficient and profitable. But then an assessment was done, and it was realised that the rural lines didn't turn a profit, only the core routes. So it was decided to close the rural lines. People could drive to the stations on the cores, and continue their journeys by train.

Except that gradually the remaining system stopped being profitable. What had happened? They had removed the routes that didn't contribute to their cashflow, this didn't make sense. But then it was realised (too late, for the lines are gone) that the core needed the feeder lines to function. People were getting in their cars, but once driving they just kept going - what was the point of changing onto the trains?

The vocal minority needs the 'silent' majority, whether they realise it or not.

I am confused as to whether this action was done here because it was considered there was a 'major problem', in which case the 12 or 14 it is claimed have left belies the need for such a drastic action, or whether it was done because a majority were perceived to not be contributing. They are posting their qualty content, they are raising your profile. They are contributing.

Tiger, I know of a handful of people that left because of participatory requirements that have NEVER participated in anything outside of having their RSS Feed pumped out by 9rules, so should I be surprised when they pack their bags because we're asking them to give a little back?

We've always (if at the least, a LONG time) been about community, whether it be notes or a member forum... why this is somehow a shocking thing to ask of membership is beyond me.

Do you join a blogging group and expect them to do all the work for you while you go off and do other things?

Personally, if I were running a community I would EXPECT people to at the very least contribute something other than an RSS feed.

A lot of people have seen this agreement from outside of the role of membership and are taking it the wrong way. There is nothing in the agreement (and I've read the whole thing) that says you have to outpost my.9r notes posters, or post a note/response a day, every day or anything even close to a "quota" of any kind.

Why would you NOT be compelled to participate? There are now TONS of ways members and non-members alike can participate and be a part of this community. TIME is the only thing I can see being a real issue. Ryanarrowsmith left because he didn't have the TIME to devote to his blog and the community here and I applaud him for recognizing that.

Show me how 9rules is putting up barriers to participation...

@sinistertiger: It was done because they agreed to be an active member in the community when they accepted to be in 9rules. They weren't honoring their agreement. It wasn't fair to the members that were honoring the agreement.

These discussions took place in the member forums, here in notes, and on the blog over a period of six months. Sorry, if a member can't check in during a six month period there is really no point in being in the community and we have no problem with them leaving. Like we said no hard feelings. Do your thing.

But don't criticize without bringing up the fact that they agreed to be an active member in the community in the first place. This isn't high school. I know what it is like to be excited about being accepted but I gave some thought to what was being asked of me and I held up my end up the deal - just like I expected 9r to hold up their end.

That's the problem. These people expected us to hold up our end and they didn't hold up theirs. If one is at fault themselves there is hardly room to criticize.

What's being left out here is that I could have simply removed them for not being an active member. Real simple. Instead we redefined the member agreement so it's very clear and although you can't see it now (transitioning) the new about area makes it very very clear about participation.

I can haz ignore funktionality?

It's important to remember that 9rules isn't a blog directory. If anything -- though this isn't something they'll even call themselves -- it's a blog community and a community is defined by its member interactions.

One of the benefits to 9rules members is that, through my.9r, there is an additional way to get blog exposure. You don't just get a link and an addition to an aggregated feed, but you get to interact with your readers and potentials (something for which most blog owners would give their right typing finger).

Though all this participation may not have been an original feature of 9rules, I think it should looked at as a helpful addition, not a death sentence. For example, I personally subscribe mostly to 9rules sites owned by bloggers with whom I interact with in my.9r. I subscribe because I "know" them and have seen the interestingness (sorry, Flickr) of their thoughts and the impressive ways in which they express themselves. So what I'm saying is that being active, even if just a little bit, is a definite way to get more blog traffic and if that's why you originally joined 9rules, then there's not much to really be complaining about, is there?

I have recently watched thriving community site after community site die, and watched with fascination the rise of facebook. I don't yet fully understand the differences there, but I'm working on that - a whole other topic. Nonetheless these phenomena have seemed to parallel each other, so it does behove us all to consider that topic.

In the meantime, what I am saying is that you need to have a care to your community. And not by telling them that they must participate, or that their participation in a particular structure or aspect is the most valuable.

"Why would you NOT be compelled to participate? There are now TONS of ways members and non-members alike can participate and be a part of this community."

The fact remains that they are, apparently, NOT compelled. The proof is in the pudding (or the proof of the pudding is in the tasting?). If they were participating this wouldn't be happening.

I would be very much saddened if 9rules were to become the latest in the line of community sites to bite the dust, and urge you to consider your methods. Broaden your concept of contribution, of active. Think in terms of the tip of the iceberg, the 'non-profitable' feeder. Culling is for the deer in Richmond Park, not a thriving internet community.

I would like to thank you for the respectful responses, and expression of your opinions, and to emphasise that I am only expressing my concern from my observations of other internet communities.

I know I didn't sleep as many hours as I should have, but let me get this straight.

The problem is that members don't feel compeled to participate.

Is it just me, or does anyone else realize that the triad can only do so much regarding that aspect. The only things they can do is to create the proper means for people to communicate and interact, and moderate it.

So on the 9rules end, I think that they've more than filled their part of the bargain.

On the private Clique members have access to member-exclusive business oportunities, and discuss the development and evolution of the site and community.

On the public Cliques and Notes member can discuss with a relatively mature audience regarding any subject that interests them.

On most of the pages of the website you can now see the latest notes and entries from the members of the community.

I fail to see how the Triad can do better from their end of the deal.

The exodus is a fact. But like I said before, it's not because 9rules has shifted it's direction. It's because those former members either they felt that they didn't have enough time to participate actively with the community (from their own standards, not 9rules'), or because they simply didn't have any interest in participating.

If a former member left because he felt "offended" by the new terms, then it may just be because, deep inside, he knew he was doing something wrong to begin with.

9rules has provided a multitude of venues in which to participate... how is it their fault that some of these now, ex-members felt 9rules was a parking lot?

I would guess that even the people who have decided to leave do feel a strong affinity for what 9rules has stood for, and still stands for...they wouldn't have applied to join if there wasn't something there. The part that stings is the feeling that they are being REJECTED AS INDIVIDUALS, when actually this is more of a decision by the Rulers to focus on people who want to be part of an active one-on-one community, not just membership in a faceless group of affiliated members.

Tough decision to make when you're already doing a zillion other things...9rules members probably tend toward this more than the general population. It comes down to deciding whether community participation in 9rules is an active part of your methodology for achieving continued success. If it's not, then no hard feelings...our paths just diverge.

I think it goes without saying that everyone who's been a part of 9rules is pretty darn awesome at what they do, and membership does not add or take away from their accomplishments or status in the world. It's wrong, I feel, to assume that this is somehow linked that with the desire to commit time to 9rules. Nah. However, this is a hard concept for some people to understand...it's not a zero sum game here. Everyone wins so long as we are all kicking ass.

One other aspect a lot of my.9r members seem to be missing from this new membership agreement is that it opens up the doors for Tyme and others to pluck new members from notes members as they're already highly involved in the community aspect of 9rules.

This has already taken place so it's not just talk.

It's because those former members either they felt that they didn't have enough time to participate actively with the community (from their own standards, not 9rules'), or because they simply didn't have any interest in participating.

Amen to that. With this, the first (or second, max, but also the last) time I'm posting in this thread--I don't know how many times it needs to be reiterated that nothing has really changed in the member agreement. If ex-9rulers are stepping down (and with a lot less qualms and/or animosity than I'm seeing from non-members surprisingly or not surprisingly) then it's something in their conscience that's telling them to do so.

That's like not washing your neck when you shower because you will be late for work.

Bahahaha. I just laughed in the office - thanks, Scrivs.

Are there actually any statistics anywhere?
Number of member sites.
Number of members in the notes etc. community.
Number of posts.

I think all of those stats should be prominently displayed somewhere (and just in case they are: in a place where old, stupid, blind, deaf and dumb people like myself can find them). Just about any forum software displays this kind of stuff and more often than not is an indication as to how popular/etc. a site is.

Great job with the new design/layout/course.

I'll need until Christmas to get a feel for it.

Kudos and tons of Karma points to the 9rules team.
They outdid themselves on this one.

*thumbs up*

I do wonder how many bailed from the move vs. current membership.

It would do a lot for those who seem to think 9rules lost all it's members I would think.

Yep.
This is a smokin' community.
I think there should be some front-page showing off of the facts, even if they are in small print at the bottom. One sentence like

"XXXX member sites, xxxxx notes members, xxxxx posts ...."
S.th. like that.

Now that I've flamed everyone. Let's all go out to the porch, prop our feet up and have a nice cold one. :)

9rules has provided a multitude of venues in which to participate... how is it their fault that some of these now, ex-members felt 9rules was a parking lot?

I don't think that's a fair statement to the members who left. 9rules was founded as a collection of the best blogs on the net. Up until the addition of notes, there wasn't really an expectation that members keep up an active dialog with non-members. Using your logic, 9rules came into being as a parking lot, not a forum.

Scrivs, Mike and Tyme have every right to take the site in any direction they feel best serves the business, and I respect their decisions. But the early, pre-Notes members aren't wrong for disagreeing with their direction. When they became members, the requirements were to keep up a quality site and update on a regular basis (which is very similar to the agreement I signed off in back in December). Obviously, if they're still hanging around today, they fulfilled that requirement.

I enjoyed my time as a 9rules member, and was extremely proud to put the leaf on my site. But, if I were to stumble across 9rules today, I don't know that I would have gotten as involved. The initial appeal to me was discovering new voices on the net who were intelligent, prolific and brought an interesting viewpoint I wouldn't have been exposed to otherwise. 9rules still offers that today, I'm definitely not knocking any of the current members. But, to me, the focus has clearly changed. 9rules is less about presenting quality content and more about having an active forum, with quality content as a side dish. I don't think that Scrivs, Mike and Tyme would disagree with that either.

In the end, Scrivs, Mike and Tyme are going to do what they think is best for the business. I just hope that they listen to the feedback they've gotten from Snook, Chris J. Davis, Khaled, Natalie, Stammy, Kyle Neath, etc. because, as much as I respect the 9rules team, this site wouldn't be as successful as it is without the members. It's tough to see the long-term members departing and not feel disappointed. Many of those people were the reason I kept coming back to the site; they were the 9rules community to me.

Members leaving? Relax. Ebb and flow. It's part of the blog (or community) landscape, and happens whether the rules change or not.

How about some stats, Deus? Over the last couple of days I've looked in on each of the 134 Round 5 selectees' blogs listed by Tyme last December. That was less than a year ago.

I was interested to see how they've held up, because I was one of them.

Results

78 bloggers (58%) are still keeping it fresh with 9r Leaf firmly in place.

44 bloggers (33%) have removed the leaf; 8 of these blogs are just plain dead. Interestingly, only 9 from this 44, so far, have announced they left 9r because of the new member agreement.

8 bloggers (6%) have abandoned their sites, but left the leaf up (uh oh).

4 bloggers with leaf haven't updated in more than a month (member agreement, anyone?).

Hey, it's a fast paced virtual world out here. Ya gotta keep up :)

*steps into discussion real quick

For the 44 bloggers you mention above you have to consider that some of them were also removed or left before they even got an email about the new terms.

*steps back out to have fun on the site

Yes, some chose to leave (for whatever reason), and we should try to respect their choice, even if we don't agree with it, and even if we miss them.

I think we need to start focusing on those of us who signed the updated agreement, and have decided to stay. Let's look at the positive side of the coin.

I chose to stay because I like the interacting in my.9r. I like the site, find most people friendly, and I adore the 9rulers! I like the new look, the new garb, it's a perfect fit for me.

I'm not sure why some people are upset about others leaving the network. It happens all the time and we rarely hear anything unless someone writes a post that explains why they left or someone asks Tyme and she replies that it's not her place to disclose the reason the member left and suggest that we contact the person directly.

In my mind this all comes down to how you value your time and perhaps the reason you originally joined 9rules. Without having a more input from some of the people who just left, we're simply speculating about their motivation. I still think this comes down to how you want to spend your time and what you expect to get in return for the time you spend here.

Scrivs, I know you're going to disagree with me on this one but for some of the guys who left recently it was a decision about not getting anything substantial in return for the time they spent at 9rules.

Baby needs new shoes and Dadddy's gotta make the tough decisions.

Scrivs, I know you're going to disagree with me on this one but for some of the guys who left recently it was a decision about not getting anything substantial in return for the time they spent at 9rules.

Why would I disagree with something like that? It's a shame they didn't feel they were getting anything out of it. Maybe they didn't put enough into it and maybe they did, to be honest I'm not concerned about it. Like everyone else I am looking towards the future and it is bright.

44 bloggers (33%) have removed the leaf; 8 of these blogs are just plain dead. Interestingly, only 9 from this 44, so far, have announced they left 9r because of the new member agreement.

Since I removed them, yes I removed quite a few before this happened for various reasons.

Hi.
I like it here.

/toasts some marshmellows on Peroty's flames

I want a pony! :)

I am probably the oldest 9rules member. I am an extremely busy person. I am an author and am writing two books, I write travel articles professionally, have five blogs, three children, four grandchildren, am a constant traveler (for vacation pleasure, travel writing, and for family occasions), I am involved in six charitable organizations, I exercise each day except on Saturday (both jogging and cardio) I am Jewish and involved in interests/organizations involving Judaism, I set aside at least two hours each evening for reading, I take university courses, and so much more.

I make time for 9rules...because I want to. I like it here.

oh i want marshmellows too.

anyway, this is not a big deal, and Erin had a point (she basically said if you were here just for traffic you should be kicked out anyway regardless of activity). if you can't be active you can't be a member, it's that simple. this is not our place, we play by the rules of the 9r team.

I read this note a while ago, not sure what to think, but reading back on it now, I think I'm starting to understand the confusion, or perhaps the contentiousness of the issue of participation.

While the member agreement says that you agree to be an active member in the community, it's also been mentioned that there is no quota.

To me, this is like saying, "You MUST go to our weekly meetings, but the number is up to you...including none". A rather contradictory statement if I ever heard one, and it seems like this is the root of the debate. People either believe one side (forced participation) or the other (no quota) takes precedence.

Everyone has their own opinion on what makes a "good" member, measured in participation. I think some of members who left felt that they couldn't be a good member on their own terms. This, of course, is different from what other people think makes a "good" member, but they didn't want to be people who abuse the system (in their own eyes) by making one or two posts, and letting this be the entirety of their participation. Even if you're forced to make just one post for your entire stay as a member, it still means that you're forced to participate, and I can understand why some people don't like that. I think it's totally fair and honourable for these people to leave. Less so if they gripe about the changes — You don't like them? Then don't be a part of it.

I can understand from The Rulers points-of-view that they don't want to commit to a specific amount of participation, because amount of participation isn't everything, there's quality of participation as well. It's a very subjective thing. Someone may post several notes a day that are pointless or self-promoting. Others may post notes once a month, but they're deep, well thought-out, and promote discussion.

Not an easy subject to settle on, because of it's subjectivity. Putting a quantitative number of participation wouldn't work. I think that in the end it's up to The Rulers to make a decision. Even if you disagree with them on the amount of participation, it's their network, it's their choice. As a member, you have to accept this.

I think that the quota doesn't exist because it depends a lot on the subject's situation and availability. I don't know how long it takes for a ruler (probably Tyme) to contact an inactive member, but let's just say it's 3 months.

Three months go by, the member has said nothing in the website, Tyme drops him an e-mail asking if everything is ok, and if so, if he wishes to remain a member of 9rules.

It's not like anyone's ever received an e-mail from a ruler threatening to kick someone out. Regardless of how busy one might claim to be, I think that in three months time one should have enough time to make a little post in 9rules, or just check a topic in the Clique to see how the network is developing beneath the public eye.

I know of no organization that doesn't require some degree of participation from it's members. And 9rules tried to implement the participation "condition" as mildly as possible.

If your schedule only allows you to have time to browse 9rules once a week: that's fine; once a month: that's fine. But it's not fine for a blogger to gladly accept the recognition of being accepted into a quality-content network and show no interest in how the network is doing, or to do what you're supposed to do in any network of any kind: to interconnect.

It's fine if you rent a parking lot space and never use it. But if the rent period expires you're expected to pay for the next month, whether you use it or not, or else you'll lose the space. A similar thing is expected from 9rules members, except no one's asking for your money, and no one's setting a deadline.

You should participate in accordance to your will, availability and interest. If you have neither of those, perhaps a Blog Top Site would be more indicated for you, since they require no interaction whatsoever from you, except for the registration, and you can still receive a bit of traffic.

But please, or even pretty please... stop making this stupid detail of the new member agreement bigger than it really is. The only reason why that detail was specified was so that members and users wouldn't complain when the rulers needed to find a legitimate, or officially declared, reason to take away an idle, and completely uninterested, member's membership.

Griffith, I agree with many of the points that you make - the quota depending on the subject and availability, the fact that one should participate in the network of which one is a member, and that one should leave if one doesn't - but there are very fundamental differences as to how we're looking at this issue.

You may think it's fine that someone "gets away" with not posting once a month or once a week. But someone else may think it's fine not to post for once a year, or once a decade. Or another person may think it's not fine unless you post every day. At what point does it become an abuse of the 9rules membership? It's a very difficult thing to judge correctly, because who's right? The Rulers, the only people who really have the right to judge, have decided not to put a quantitative measure on it.

Even in the worst case scenario where someone only posts once throughout their membership and uses this as the entirety of their participation, the fact remains that one is still forced to participate. In terms of the example you use, a parking lot, I think participation would be considered the monthly fee, which, as you say, is expected from a member in return for the benefits of the network.

Just because no one has received an e-mail from one of them about participation yet, doesn't mean it won't happen in the future (if you haven't been in a car accident yet does this mean you never will?).

If there's no deadline, what if someone made absolutely no effort to contribute, using the excuse that they will begin participating in a couple years? I have a difficult time believing that they wouldn't be asked to leave (but this is up to the Rulers, and they may prove me wrong). Why would this rule be in place if they didn't mean to enforce it? As you said yourself, it was specified so that users wouldn't complain when they're taken out of the network.

Don't get me wrong, I think that members should participate, and that this should be enforced. But I can see why someone would leave or why someone would take issue with the specific amount of participation required, because the contentiousness of this subject lies in the fact that it's very difficult to enforce a rule that isn't very clear, and just as difficult to abide by this rule (in terms of knowing exactly how much is expected).

I think it's unfair for you to say this "stupid" detail is a bigger deal than it should be, because it's obviously a big deal to some, big enough for them to leave the network, even if it isn't a big deal to you. Perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree on this if you don't want to hear about it anymore. The issue remains very contradictory and confusing, although understandably so.

I think that the rulers simply didn't establish a quota because they prefer to look at every situation in a case-to-case basis instead of establishing something like "If you don't participate here for X months you're out".

This is a situation upon which they would be criticized regardless of what they did. If they had set a quota, people would feel offended that they were being offended by the obligation and some would leave. From the list of people who didn't leave, some would feel offended because in their opinion the quota would be too big or too small.

By choosing to not establish a quota, the rulers are settling for the middle ground. Some of the older members might feel a bit upset that they are now being "forced" to participate, but they don't have a quota so they'll just have to do it as they see best.

It is impossible to please everyone, but this was the solution that the rulers could come with that would appeal to the largest percentage of members. Certainly, it upset some of them, but it would have been impossible not to do so.

9rules has evolved into a more open social website. Leaving the rules for the 9rules members the same would be against that evolution, and make the network lose it's objectives.

On one hand it would be a social website, where everyone can participate. On the other hand it would be a blogging network that gathers some of the best bloggers who are completely oblivious of the rest of the network's website.

How can we define an organization like that?

The decision and change of membership terms wasn't made to appeal to everyone. But the rulers implemented it in a delicate way to try to appeal to most. I couldn't have made a better call with the decision, and I doubt most of us could.