Helpful non-inspector message board users

[Chris Morrell]

Hey folks,

We're setting up a new user group for helpful non-inspectors users so they can have unmoderated access to the message board (not including the members-only sections). This group is only for non-inspectors, and you must be nominated by an InterNACHI member to get access. Please e-mail me directly to nominate a non-member for this account status.

Cheers,

[Jae Williams]

Can we nominate Ray Wand???

[kpierce]

Sweet! I like it. Good decision.

[James H. Bushart]

So that leaves us with a message board where you suggest we be censoring only the posts of non-members who nobody knows.....

And, although we don't know them...we must be able to tell from one post if they are telling the truth or intentionally being malicious.

This is getting even tougher.

[kpierce]

Originally Posted by jbushart

So that leaves us with a message board where you suggest we be censoring only the posts of non-members who nobody knows.....

And, although we don't know them...we must be able to tell from one post if they are telling the truth or intentionally being malicious.

This is getting even tougher.

No, I believe it has boiled down to censoring problematic, non-members. The way it should be. Does the current scenario define if we "know" the non-members or not?

[Chris Morrell]

If a non-member is also a non-inspector (ie. can't join InterNACHI) and has a proven track record of being helpful, it only makes sense to give them more unrestricted access.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by kpierce

No, I believe it has boiled down to censoring problematic, non-members. The way it should be. Does the current scenario define if we "know" the non-members or not?

The solution to "problematic non-members" is simply to ban them from the message board and delete ALL of their posts...not selected posts.

[kpierce]

Originally Posted by jbushart

The solution to "problematic non-members" is simply to ban them from the message board and delete ALL of their posts...not selected posts.

I'm in full support of that. But that's not what we're working with. This new usergroup is what we're working with and is a great idea.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by kpierce

I'm in full support of that. But that's not what we're working with. This new usergroup is what we're working with and is a great idea.

Censorship is wrong. It has no place on this message board.

In addition to the fact that censorship is simply wrong...is the fact that there is no single member to be trusted by all to carry it out, and Nick wants to find 50 of them.

[kpierce]

Originally Posted by jbushart

Censorship is wrong. It has no place on this message board.

In addition to the fact that censorship is simply wrong...is the fact that there is no single member to be trusted by all to carry it out, and Nick wants to find 50 of them.

That's all dandy Jim, but it's more rantings of your opinion on what should happen. This thread is about a decision of what IS happening and I support it, that's all. Everyone is clear that you don't like censorship, 10-4, gotcha, over and out, we get it.

[Bob Elliott]

How about calling them VIP's?

[Nick Gromicko]

Our message board is still the wild wild West in comparison to others. For instance, WAHI's Boad of Directors just passed a motion that prohibits their own members from complaining about their own association. A member going public with a complaint about their association "will be grounds for disciplinary action" at WAHI.

[klott]

I nominate John Bubber or whatever his real name is.

[kpierce]

Originally Posted by klott

I nominate John Bubber or whatever his real name is.

Hey slappy:

Originally Posted by cmorrell

Please e-mail me directly to nominate a non-member for this account status.

[Jae Williams]

Originally Posted by klott

I nominate John Bubber or whatever his real name is.

Of course, and Peedy Speetey...and several others who have been helpful.