# Private Forum - Applications Open



## StachuK1992 (Sep 27, 2011)

*To apply for this sub-forum click here.*

This subforum is designed to be a clean, healthy, no-noise atmosphere of construction. Everyone on SpeedSolving will be allowed to view the threads posted here, but only certain members (members that we think are particularly constructive to a discussion) are able to respond to such.

If you have any questions, feel free to PM me or ask here.

As we've just started this private forum, for serious discussion with the filtering of 'noisy' members, I feel as though it's very important to keep a healthy, steady user-base here.

If you know of a member who should be added (for example, I just added macky) then please post here with the suggestion, and if it's not obvious why we should add them, include reasoning. Obviously, as of now, only members in this section can request here. However, feel free to PM someone to get someone added if you think it's particularly needed.

As of now, there are only 74 members here, but this will definitely expand overtime. Contribute quality information/thoughts/insights, etc. on the forum, and you can get access to this private forum. Show us that you are competent to have a rational discussion without adding worthless noise to the conversation.

Thanks.

List of current members (may be outdated)


Spoiler



amostay2004*
anders*
Anthony*
aronpm*
Athefre*
AvGalen*
blade740*
blah*
Bob*
Brest*
Bryan*
clement*
cmhardw*
cmowla*
Cride5*
Cubenovice*
cuBerBruce*
Cyrus C.*
Dave Campbell*
DavidWoner*
Dene*
Erik*
Escher*
fazrulz*
gogozerg*
guusrs*
Henrik*
Herbert Kociemba*
IAssemble*
irontwig*
jazzthief81*
Joël*
joey*
Johannes91*
JTW2007*
Kenneth*
Kian*
kinch2002*
Kirjava*
Lars Petrus*
Lofty*
Lucas Garron*
macky*
masterofthebass*
MatsBergsten*
Mike Hughey*
mrCage*
Muesli*
okayama*
oll+phase+sync*
Pedro*
pjk*
pkelly*
qqwref*
Ranzha
riffz*
Robert-Y*
rokicki*
Ron*
Sa967St*
Sébastien_Auroux*
shelley*
SimonWestlund*
StachuK1992*
Stefan*
Swordsman Kirby*
teller*
tim*
Tim Reynolds*
TMOY*
Ton*
waffle=ijm*
Yes, We Can!*
Zane_C*


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 27, 2011)

So this is just a private version of the 'Constructive speedcubing discussion' subforum?

Would this be for more experimental/fresh ideas, with establised ideas going to the more public forums?

Part of this memberlist I disagree with, but I find it doubtful those people will post much here anyway. 

Looking forward to discussing things without noise. Should make for some interesting polls, too.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Sep 27, 2011)

"Essentially", to your first question.
I think that this would be a fantastic for fresh ideas to start here, then once they're a bit developed, unleash them into the main community.

I disagree with part of the memberlist as well. Oh well.


----------



## pjk (Sep 27, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> So this is just a private version of the 'Constructive speedcubing discussion' subforum?
> 
> Would this be for more experimental/fresh ideas, with establised ideas going to the more public forums?
> 
> ...


The idea is to have a forum where only members who have contributed quality content/ideas/thoughts can discuss stuff (beginners are welcome if you can prove to provide quality insight into discussions). It will somewhat act as a role model to the rest of the forum - write quality content and you are then allowed to write in the private forum. The idea isn't to draw away from the quality of the rest of the forum, but more so allow people to discuss without all the noise that exists. It somewhat will give a feel similar to the Yahoo group when speedcubing was small.

As for the memberlist - it is simple, if someone begins to cause problems or create noise, they will simply be removed from the private forum. We are looking forward to quality discussion, and only posts that actually mean something or contribute something instead of "yeah" or "+1" or "go search first". If someone does this, they will be removed, no questions asked.

Also, we will have a form setup so you can request to have access to the private forum (everyone will always be able to read the content, but only approved members can post/discuss). We don't want to push people out. If you can contribute to a quality discussion, you are welcome to join and want you to join. Keep in mind this will take some time to develop.


----------



## Erik (Sep 27, 2011)

mod-edit: [SUGGESTIONS]

Btw. I think it's obvious, but maybe not everyone would think about this at first: adding quality to a discussion, doesn't mean you necessarily have to be an expert on everything. It is also important to *not* respond to something if you lack the ability to add something contributing. I get the feeling there are a lot of members around that just post for the posting-sake...


----------



## Escher (Sep 27, 2011)

Erik said:


> I get the feeling there are a lot of members around that just post for the posting-sake...


 
+1 



But seriously, any remaining WCA board members or delegates who are members should be automatically added for obvious reasons.

Also, I should hope that this mini-forum does turn out as pjk wishes - it should be made explicit that its a place to put consistent, quality content rather than just 'speedsolving's private club'. I think speedsolvers appear elitist enough already without the centre of the community structurally reflecting that.

I also am a bit unsure of the lack of interactivity with newer members who want to ask questions about the more advanced topics (which is what will get posted here) - is that not how most people came to be on this list?

Suggestions; 
a) sticky a link to this forum, or to the last thread posted in this forum, to the front page - perhaps above the new posts box - avoids the problem of these inevitably low-post threads dropping off the front page into the ether and losing views.
b) that's it.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Sep 27, 2011)

Lots of updates just made, will update list in OP soon.

Mods; please delete lists of suggestions as you deal with them, so other mods know to bother or not.

Thanks, all!


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 27, 2011)

disagree with oll+phase+sync


----------



## StachuK1992 (Sep 27, 2011)

Why?


----------



## Stefan (Sep 27, 2011)

Just compared the list with the most posting members (about 1000 or more posts), here are those left out, maybe it helps.



Spoiler



~Phoenix Death~
a small kitten
alexc
ben1996123
bigbee99
brunson
byu
CharlieCooper
cincyaviation
Cool Frog
cuberkid10
CubesOfTheWorld
daniel0731ex
dChan
Derrick Eide17
dillonbladez
Edward
Ellis
EmersonHerrmann
emolover
EricReese
ExoCorsair
fanwuq
fatboyxpc
Forte
freshcuber
Godmil
Hadley4000
hawkmp4
hdskull
Hyprul 9-ty2
IamWEB
ianini
iSpinz
James Ludlow
jms_gears1
Julian
koreancuber
Lotsofsloths
Lt-UnReaL
MichaelErskine
miniGOINGS
MistArts
MTGjumper
Neo63
nitrocan
nlCuber22
Oliv├⌐r Perge
oprah62
PatrickJameson
pcharles93
PCwizCube
rachmaninovian
Ranzha V. Emodrach
RCTACameron
rickcube
Rpotts
RyanReese09
ShadenSmith
Shortey
Sn3kyPandaMan
That70sShowDude
theace
theanonymouscuber
TheMachanga
Tim Major
TimMc
Toad
trying-to-speedcube...
uberCuber
vcuber13
Vulosity
Zarxrax


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 27, 2011)

The only useful thing I've seen him do is mention L2L4. Hooray? Just appears to be someone wanting to put their name to something and creating many posts about minor trivial variations of existing methods in the process. Sometimes not even variations.

Anyone can produce endless variations of things. It takes skill to recognise when your own ideas are bad and that they have to be discarded.

I'd also like to mention Dene. I think the mod who deleted a lot of his counterproductive posts would agree with me. People like this (think rethinking the cube) can be damaging to a topic.

Although, if many people disagree with me I'm happy to drop it. I hope I'm wrong but thought it best to air my concerns. 

Removal isn't even needed until problems appear anyway.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Sep 27, 2011)

If they don't do harm, and they at least push a conversation in the right direction, I say we keep them. There's no harm in having 80/100 people that are productive vs 55/60.
We get a tiny bit of noise, but more productivity.
We can always weed the list.

Stefan - thanks, I'll get to that tonight.


----------



## Stefan (Sep 27, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> I'd also like to mention Dene. I think the mod who deleted a lot of his counterproductive posts would agree with me. People like this (think rethinking the cube) can be damaging to a topic.


 
I don't really know what posts you're referring to, but I think many counterproductive posts stem from "going with the flow", provoked by earlier stupid posts, and they're often at least still entertaining. In other words, I think people who might behave both productive and counterproductive overall might likely be purely productive in the decidedly productive environment intended here.



StachuK1992 said:


> Stefan - thanks, I'll get to that tonight.


 
Just to be clear: I didn't suggest to include all these, it was just one way to help finding possibly overlooked good candidates. It was a fully automatic comparison between your list and the list of members with the most posts.


----------



## StachuK1992 (Sep 27, 2011)

Of course, adding all of those would not be good at all.
Half of them are probably inactive anyway.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 28, 2011)

Ok. I've gotta say that I think this subforum is a success already. The topic statue made today would've been absolutely raped if it was open to the public.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 28, 2011)

meep and justinj


----------



## qqwref (Sep 28, 2011)

I think as this subforum moves forward we should take care to limit the type of topics included in it. All the topics here should be complex or important in some way, so that having lots of "noise" posts would severely hinder or destroy the progress of the discussion. Some people seem to be worried that this forum will end up being an elitist hangout for the most popular members, and it's important we make sure that isn't the case. I hope that if the moderators see threads such as "here's this new method/software", accessible puzzle theory discussion, social threads, politics/religion discussions, etc. they will be moved to the proper area.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Sep 28, 2011)

qqwref said:


> I think as this subforum moves forward we should take care to limit the type of topics included in it. All the topics here should be complex or important in some way, so that having lots of "noise" posts would severely hinder or destroy the progress of the discussion. Some people seem to be worried that this forum will end up being an elitist hangout for the most popular members, and it's important we make sure that isn't the case. I hope that if the moderators see threads such as "here's this new method/software", accessible puzzle theory discussion, social threads, politics/religion discussions, etc. they will be moved to the proper area.


 
Absolutely agree. As I said in the other thread, we're not creating another community here. So far the two threads created seem to demonstrate the kind of topics we should want in this forum pretty well I'd say. Each would be quite hindered with noise.


----------



## DavidWoner (Sep 28, 2011)

qqwref said:


> I hope that if the moderators see threads such as "here's this new method" ... they will be moved to the proper area.


 
Is this for fully developed method ideas only? I think if something needs development it should be able to stay in the private forum.


----------



## qqwref (Sep 28, 2011)

Good point. If a method is currently being developed, and isn't finalized, it should probably be here (although it depends on whether you want input from everyone or not). But if we're showing something to the community, we don't need to limit it to the private members.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 28, 2011)

Using this thread as general discussion for this forum right now.

I'll ask this question while this subforum is still young - the last two new threads in this place feel a little forced. Do they fit in here?

EDIT: Also should we move existing 'good' threads into this place? A nice place for them to be archived and it prevents noobbumps. Alternatively, is a thread for "list of useful threads" something that would fit in well here?


----------



## Godmil (Sep 28, 2011)

Kirjava said:


> Alternatively, is a thread for "list of useful threads" something that would fit in well here?



I'd put a list of useful threads in the main section, that way every member could contribute, and you only need to have one person compiling everything into the first post. Spam wouldn't be an issue and it would be a lot quicker to get every good thread with more people helping.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 28, 2011)

Agreed. Although I think the other idea has some merit - it's an attempt to merge the private forum and hall of fame ideas.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 29, 2011)

Ok so.

Four people brought up that fact that they didn't want someone added. Statue went and added him anyway.

I thought it was supposed to be up to the group to decide who is a member, not a single moderator?


----------



## StachuK1992 (Sep 29, 2011)

Get another mod to delete them, then.
As far as I'm concerned, being lenient is the best option here, deleting them if they pollute.


----------



## Kirjava (Sep 29, 2011)

An admin deleted them without me even asking. It's worth listening to what people have to say instead of ignoring them.

Something that is done on another forum I visit is that members are suggested in a certain thread and are not added until people have given their opinions on the user. Maybe this could work after the initial bulk of members has been created.


----------



## riffz (Sep 29, 2011)

Might be too much work, but we could have a sub-forum called 'Private Forum Member Applications' (open to all users). There people could create their own thread and state why they think they deserve to be given access to the private forum. Others could reply and give their feedback. If this were implemented it should certainly not count toward post count.


----------



## DavidWoner (Sep 29, 2011)

From what I've gathered PJK is working on some sort of application process at the moment. Not sure how the approval process would work though.


----------



## Athefre (Sep 29, 2011)

I'm not claiming to be a useful contributor or that I have any say. But, wasn't the point to be careful with this? Someone begs and complains a lot and is let in. Is that how things should be?


----------



## RyanReese09 (Sep 29, 2011)

Athefre said:


> I'm not claiming to be a useful contributor or that I have any say. But, wasn't the point to be careful with this? Someone begs and complains a lot and is let in. Is that how things should be?


 
There is nothing wrong with someone explaining why they should be allowed to be in the private forum. Instead of Robs idea, where a whole new subforum is created, I do think PJK will create a cleaner and less "noisy" alternative.

Though whining and complaining (as recently done by Owen, to an extent) should not be tolerated. They should be able to rationally explain why they deserve to be in.


----------



## Athefre (Sep 29, 2011)

I didn't say there was something wrong with someone presenting his or her case for why he or she should be added. My worry was, as I said in my post, the acceptance only because of the begging and complaining.


----------



## Cubenovice (Sep 29, 2011)

Member suggestion: *gasmus*


----------



## Bapao (Oct 1, 2011)

Wouldn't it be less intrusive to just send suggestions concerning potential participants to the mods via PM for review? Hooray for the private forum, but I don't think that a mere "member recommendation" post should clog up the home page.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Oct 1, 2011)

Bapao said:


> I don't think that a mere "member recommendation" post should clog up the home page.


 
Way ahead of you [noparse][/noparse].

Users can now apply to post in the private forum by going here.


----------



## PatrickJameson (Oct 1, 2011)

Discussion between me and kir on the chat:



> 22:01:22 <+Kirjava> PatrickJameson: why are we not allowed other discussion in the thread?
> 22:01:33 <+Kirjava> surely you want other members to give their opinion?
> 22:02:20 <+PatrickJameson> hm. I suppose. should there be a waiting time for a decision to be made to give time for discussion?
> 22:02:35 <+Kirjava> yes
> ...



What do you guys think? How should we handle applications?


----------



## RyanReese09 (Oct 2, 2011)

Whatever is decided, the application process must be done non privately so others can give their input.

I'd say have htem do an application online, but keep their files accessable via a link, and everyone can see "x and xx and xxx applied, lets' open their files and see what they have to say"

Then it can be discussed here who should/shouldn't go in.

Or perhaps they can just apply in a thread in the main part of the forum.

However it works out (those are meh ideas IMO), all the applications need to be visible to everyone.


----------

