Making the site private?
June 3, 2015 4:43 PM - BoerumHillScott
A couple of debates are going on, and I think it makes sense to have one place to discuss that's not buried in various OT threads.

Right now, the public groups, including this one and the OT can be read by anyone on the internet, and are included in search engines such as Google. Public groups are managed by site admins/editors, and new posts can only be bade by site authors.

Private groups cannot be seen by people who are not members, which also means that they cannot be seen by people not logged in or search engines.

I see several options when it comes to "privacy" (Note: I put privacy in quotes because the policy of the site is still to let anyone join who is not an obvious spammer or has previously been banned).
- Keep things as is.
- Create a new type of public group that can only be seen by logged in members.
- Make it so all public groups can only be seen by logged in members.
- Something else????

88 comments
June 3, 2015 4:48 PM - pepper
I will put my comment here, too:

I would still like it to be public. I suppose it's because if you had been private all along, I never would have been able to join. Perhaps it's wishful thinking that some other person might do the same, but hope springs eternal. And I never would have joined without first lurking and knowing what I was getting in to. I don't mind that people lurk.
#1
June 3, 2015 4:48 PM - Deleted
The existence of a thread should be visible on home page ie "WEDNESDAY OT" but its contents should be only visible to logged in members.
#2
June 3, 2015 4:56 PM - Partridge
Re-post of my thoughts on the subject:

I think the OT should be made private. I agree with Randi and DH. If we are not going to pursue getting new members, then we should accept that we are at our maximum membership level and should do what we can to hold onto those we have. I can think of no reason to keep it public anymore and can certainly think of benefits to keeping things private.

I also think that The What should not be allowed to ever return. I really don't want to be a member of a club that would allow him. This "open, free, equality" BS should not apply to maniacs. Personally I am completely over debating his "rights" to post.

#3
June 3, 2015 5:01 PM - Deleted
In terms of getting new members I think more posts like the ones snappy was doing for a while recently about real estate or design etc are what will entice people to join. The OT conversation is like walking into an inside joke and I think very impenetrable
#4
June 3, 2015 5:03 PM - dibs
Isn't there a way for anyone who wants to join to contact Scott if it's all private???

Realistically is anyone who hasn't been lurking here at all before going to all of a sudden stumble on the site and want to join????

If so then make it private in whatever way works.

But Snappy's real estate post is exactly what I have no interest in…having some discussion over there just because she has some issues with some people in the regular OT. If she wants to post a separate post as she was doing for a specific discussion, that's fine.


#5
June 3, 2015 5:04 PM - dibs
Well, those are all public then. Will you not comment on them if they remain so, just because they are public???? You are talking out of both sides of your mouth
Edited by dibs at June 3, 2015 5:05 PM
#6
June 3, 2015 5:04 PM - Deleted
That is her choice.
#7
June 3, 2015 5:05 PM - dibs
Yes, because of her "issues."



#8
June 3, 2015 5:06 PM - Deleted
Hi

May I ask a question: why do people want to take the site private? Has there been an issue with people's privacy being invaded?

PS: Hi R'andi
#9
June 3, 2015 5:10 PM - dibs
I believe randi thinks the What will stalk him.

Other than that, I have no idea.

Let me clue you in on something, randi…long before you were ever on brownstoner, What and I were going at it and he knew where I lived. Did he ever stalk me. No.

Some of us realize that, in most ways, life on the various OTs is different from real life no matter what is said here

Edited by dibs at June 3, 2015 5:11 PM
#10
June 3, 2015 5:11 PM - Deleted
this


plus - i think our most recent legit recruits (pepper and part) had previous knowledge of this from b-stoner - we have never had a cold recruit.
#11
June 3, 2015 5:12 PM - dibs
I recruited wackjob Heather from over there too. Townhouselady and bedstuymaven were around for years
#12
June 3, 2015 5:12 PM - Deleted
Hi benson.

Go to the other thread for people's reasons to make it private.

Where do you stand on this?
#13
June 3, 2015 5:15 PM - Deleted
May I make a suggestion?

How about we take the OT private, but have a public portion of the website describing what we are about? An advertisement, if you will. I remember that Rezmo said that he was looking for Brooklyn-centric electronic chat room, and I imagine that there might be other such folks.
#14
June 3, 2015 5:15 PM - pepper
No, I was a cold recruit. I knew nothing of the OT from Brownstoner. Although I did get here from Brownstoner; Dave mentioned this site to someone else in the Brownstoner comments, and I followed it.
#15
June 3, 2015 5:15 PM - dibs
So we are discussing this in three different threads now??????????????

Thanks for making my point.


#16
June 3, 2015 5:17 PM - pepper
No. It should all be discussed here.
#17
June 3, 2015 5:18 PM - Deleted
Wow your OCD is really going off because of these 3 threads.

Calm down
#18
June 3, 2015 5:18 PM - DeLepp
This site gives Bellevue a run for the money in the number of issues.
#19
June 3, 2015 5:19 PM - Deleted
i like benson's idea (somewhat same as randis)

wouldn't all of the archived OTs still be public? people can get a feel from it and decide if they want to join.

a big reason why i haven't been to a gathering in over a year is because i don't like that creepy stalkers like the what can know where we are at any given time - most gatherings are posted publically - i do not like.
#20
June 3, 2015 5:19 PM - Deleted
typical republican - unable to multitask.
#21
June 3, 2015 5:22 PM - dibs
I hope you all realize that the only reason we are having this long drawn out ridiculous debate is due to ONE person's paranoia.


#22
June 3, 2015 5:22 PM - Deleted
I have a kid and I am not a weirdo exhibitionist like you are. And reminding us that you brought "wackjob Heather" not to mention mrs m here is not helping your cause, whatever that is.
#23
June 3, 2015 5:23 PM - Deleted
Not true. I'm just forcing the issue.
#24
June 3, 2015 5:23 PM - dibs
It was your choice to introduce your kid here, complete with all the photos.


#25
June 3, 2015 5:23 PM - Deleted
and honestly - what makes you think reading the daily OT banter would make anyone WANT to join. it has been extremely vitriolic for the last several months - as my grandma (and dibs' mom says) you attract more flies with honey than vinegar.



#26
June 3, 2015 5:25 PM - dibs
I think the way Snappy dealt with rob's blogiciding and her attitude about it was the reason for the largest loss of members.
#27
June 3, 2015 5:26 PM - Deleted
if we want to expand membership we should take a cue from snappy and make an effort to generate some content - but i do not see the point of having what is essentially a personal chatroom of our daily lives up for all to see. i will not be posting anything substantive other than calling dibs a moron if the OT remains public. that's all i really have to add to this discussion.
#28
June 3, 2015 5:26 PM - Deleted
Yeah and I realize it was stupid but that is the type of openness I want to have here so let's go private. It's not just me that has privacy issues, but I'm not going to speak for others.
#29
June 3, 2015 5:26 PM - rf
For sure the OT has been diminished by the recent loss of semisane posters. There are so few of us now that it's not as much fun anymore and our numbers are getting really tiny. So I think it's not such a bad idea to discuss something that could bring a derpster back and give Dave someone to fight with all day.

Scott's recent redesign has brought many more ways for people to avoid one another if desired.
#30
June 3, 2015 5:28 PM - dibs
I have no problem with private.

Besides, dh's mom emailed me and said she wanted to post pics of herself but would only do it if we went private
#31
June 3, 2015 5:29 PM - Deleted
Oh gimme a fucking break. Rob begged to be deleted and she did it. Arkady slopey and cgar could also come back when rob did. Which happened numerous times.
#32
June 3, 2015 5:31 PM - dibs
It was the way she dealt with it. It was all about her power to do so and she made that the real issue.

As we all knew he would and told her so, he came right back.


#33
June 3, 2015 5:32 PM - Deleted
For the record I am not a fan of ignore. Much more detrimental to the community than private threads. I think part of being here is accepting all members of the group. I couldn't be around what so I left. I wouldn't want to be here and just ignore him.
#34
June 3, 2015 5:34 PM - dibs
Yes, "Ignore" is rather stupid and childish. But not as stupid and childish as redacting and deleting posts.
#35
June 3, 2015 5:35 PM - Deleted
Why are we even talking about this incident? It has zero relevance to the matter at hand.
#36
June 3, 2015 5:37 PM - dibs
It is relevant to the number of members we have, which some people have brought up as an issue if we go "private."



#37
June 3, 2015 5:37 PM - rf
The only reason I wanted Ignore was for the What. I thought he was a major annoyance but what made me never want to see his posts again was (in chronological order) 1) his open and extremely offensive homophobia, and 2) his Holocaust denial. That did it for me. The fact that he left the day it was instituted was fine with me. Obviously he didn't want to stick around if he couldn't be offensive to anyone he wanted to attack, every day, all day, with pictures.
#38
June 3, 2015 5:38 PM - rf
I used to joke about it during Legion's rants but really, it was no problem to scroll past his shit.
#39
June 3, 2015 5:38 PM - Partridge
Snappy doesn't answer to you or the dearly departed. As an administrator, she had Scott to answer to and he fully supported her actions. As a real life friend of Rob's she had him to answer to, and he fully supported her. What you, Cgar, Arkady and Slopey thought was irrelevant to the deletion.

For all the democracy that Scott uses in the governing this site, don't forget that it is his and only his site.
#39
June 3, 2015 5:40 PM - Deleted
((redacted for privacy of others))
Edited by Deleted at June 3, 2015 8:14 PM
#40
June 3, 2015 5:42 PM - dibs
I actually didn't care one way or the other as I knew rob would be back.


#41
June 3, 2015 5:44 PM - Deleted
I hate rob for being such a prick to me always but hope he is doing well.
#42
June 3, 2015 5:44 PM - dibs
I believe he only "badgered" people because he was trying to get a head count for social functions.


#43
June 3, 2015 5:46 PM - dibs
Pot = Kettle
#44
June 3, 2015 5:48 PM - rf
*sigh*

CGar still texts me about Survivor and invited me to his fete, which I would have attended but was out of town visiting my kid. But he took his social director function very, very seriously and I know it got on the nerves of some who looked in for a while and then disappeared.
#45
June 3, 2015 5:53 PM - dibs
I'd like to hear Cobble's input.
#46
June 3, 2015 6:01 PM - Deleted
"biff for hitting on any woman he found remotely attractive at gatherings"

Wow I never knew about that!
#47
June 3, 2015 6:07 PM - dibs
You probably never stayed late enough at any gatherings.

-A bigoted, bitter, hate-filled person with nothing good to say.

PS That's my new closing, compliments of Snappy in today's OT

Edited by dibs at June 3, 2015 6:09 PM
#48
June 3, 2015 6:18 PM - Deleted
I think it is clear that The What wanted to ruin this site, and I think it would be a shame if we let him do that.


#49
June 3, 2015 6:19 PM - dibs
I think he's a lonely person.

-A bigoted, bitter, hate-filled person with nothing good to say.
#50
June 3, 2015 6:36 PM - Deleted
I'm not passing judgment on his motives. But it turned many people off - we were hemorrhaging members long before our Brownstoner banishment

Why don't we stick to the topic at hand rather than trying to distract by airing out dirty laundry?
#51
June 3, 2015 6:44 PM - dibs
So, like I said, I don't care if it is private or not. Makes no difference.

-A bigoted, bitter, hate-filled person with nothing good to say.

Maybe there could be an old "representative" thread posted for public view to let potential new members know what they were getting into.

-A bigoted, bitter, hate-filled person with nothing good to say.
#52
June 3, 2015 7:23 PM - dibs
So what are we gonna do??? Vote???
#53
June 3, 2015 7:30 PM - Deleted
Y'all know my vote.


#54
June 3, 2015 7:38 PM - rf
That's up to Scott.
#55
June 3, 2015 7:40 PM - dibs
((((Rolls eyes)))))
#56
June 3, 2015 7:47 PM - rf
Why? He's the site owner.
#57
June 3, 2015 8:04 PM - Deleted
This is a user driven site. I don't think scott cares either way as much as others, and I think he is adult enough to honor the group decision.

Dibs- I know you are super duper butthurt from what snappy said but can you drop the snarky shit for a minute and let people speak their minds?
#58
June 3, 2015 8:08 PM - rf
Randi, I agree, and it does appear that there's a consensus to close the site. There were a few suggestions for how to demonstrate to any newcomers what's here and how to request registration. Scott's the one who'd have to figure out how to implement it.

#59
June 3, 2015 8:14 PM - Deleted
True.
#60
June 3, 2015 8:15 PM - Deleted
derp
#61
June 3, 2015 8:55 PM - Partridge
Which thread is this? Where am I?
#62
June 3, 2015 10:16 PM - Partridge
If we go private and get used to being more open about personal info, what can we do to protect that info if we get a new member? Would we be able to limit the new member's access to old posts until we felt ready to share all?
#63
June 3, 2015 10:25 PM - Partridge
New member by "Invitation Only"?
#64
June 4, 2015 9:31 AM - More4Less
We losing members cause you peeps can't get along - for whatever reason and tend to blow up over little shit.

So many ant hills turned into mountains here.
#65
June 4, 2015 9:35 AM - More4Less
I aint banking on new members when we haven't stopped the hemorrhaging of existing members.
#66
June 4, 2015 9:46 AM - Deleted
interesting perspective panda.
#67
June 4, 2015 10:05 AM - BoerumHillScott
A decent majority seems to be leaning in the direction of Making the OT viewable to logged in members only.
Some variations of this include:
- Making the whole site private
- Making the OT private, but keeping other pubic groups public
- Making a new private OT, but keeping all existing OT posts open to the public.

Any of those could be implemented by mid next week.
I like Randi's idea of making it where the public can see the opening post on the home page, but have to log in to see the comments.
#68
June 4, 2015 10:08 AM - More4Less
All you peeps from the stoner OT days that still post there are fucking hypocrites when referencing how who did what to whom hence why we ain't friends, not posting here etc.

Jon and Kael fucked us over and told us to GTFOH and that's why we had to find a new OT site and ended up here. So you peeps can forgive him and continue to support those fuckers' site but cant forgive your friends here. Y'all fucking hypocrites.
#69
June 4, 2015 10:09 AM - BoerumHillScott
I would caution anyone about giving out more private information in a "simi-closed" group than they would on the internet as a whole.

For one, I don't want to get in the business of deciding when a person is good enough to enter the "inner circle."
Also, you never know when feelings will change and someone can use what you post against you.
Third, I don't want to program in even more layers of security.

I recommend that private info stay in private groups where you know and trust the group owner and members.
#70
June 4, 2015 10:52 AM - Deleted
"Jon and Kael fucked us over and told us to GTFOH"

they are running a for profit business, its their livelihood not some fucking game. i do not begrudge the decision to kill the OT. how they went about it was lame but whatever.

"cant forgive your friends here."

i can forgive everyone here except rob and the what, those two seemed to have a serious and deep personal hatred for me and they meant it.
#71
June 4, 2015 11:01 AM - petebklyn
I don't go for making OT private. If you have something so personal then post on a members only or keep to urself.
you have the ignore button now - so if someone aggravating you -just ignore and can't get in some battle. takes 2 to tango.
#72
June 4, 2015 11:06 AM - More4Less
Randi, my issue isn't that OT got killed but how they went about it. They asked us to help with testing the new site then no warning gave us the ambush boot along with kael's fucking letter / article. That to me was the betrayal and the "fucking us over". Look, I don't need to find or convince peeps to share my disdain for those two fuckers - eg I see enough for me to keep that stance regardless of whether others agree or not. I just don't like how peeps been acting here over little shit being unforgivable but "that" was a small slight.
#73
June 4, 2015 11:19 AM - Partridge
I'm not sure who you are talking about, M4L, but I suspect they are no longer here. Dave, Pete and R'andi are the active posters there and do not seem to subscribe to grudge holding.
#74
June 4, 2015 11:21 AM - Deleted
i can't post there anymore, i got banned and they can't figure out how to turn me back on.
#75
June 4, 2015 11:33 AM - Partridge
lol, and you believe them?
#76
June 4, 2015 11:34 AM - Deleted
i have been emailing with cate and she said they are working on it. i think she would just ignore me or say no if they were not trying.
#77
June 4, 2015 11:41 AM - Partridge
"I don't go for making OT private."

Hey, Pete. I'd be interesting in hearing your thoughts on why it should stay public.
#78
June 4, 2015 11:43 AM - Deleted
he already said why LP

"f you have something so personal then post on a members only or keep to urself."
#79
June 4, 2015 11:43 AM - Deleted
and

"you have the ignore button now - so if someone aggravating you -just ignore and can't get in some battle. takes 2 to tango. "
#80
June 4, 2015 11:54 AM - Partridge
Those are not reasons for keeping it public.
#81
June 4, 2015 11:58 AM - Deleted
i think his reasons are implied
#82
June 4, 2015 12:10 PM - Partridge
I'm seriously curious to what people feel are the benefits of a public site. There may exist some good reasons. For instance, there may be many non-member lurkers out there who will suddenly be cut off. They may be friends or family members of members. Could be their 'private' way of following what's going on. I don't know.

If people who want it to remain public give their reasons for that, it would be helpful in making the best decision for the group.
#83
June 4, 2015 12:26 PM - BoerumHillScott
Here's another reason for keeping it public: people who have not posted in a while check out the site, don't see any activity, and don't bother logging in.

I think there are a lot of pros and cons on both sides, and I don't have strong feelings one way or the other.
My gut is to keep it public, but I will go with the consensus, which seems to lean to make at least the OT for logged in people only.
#84
June 4, 2015 1:14 PM - Deleted
i thought you were considering changing it so that private threads would still show up on the home page and would tell people they need to be logged in to see the comments?
#85
June 4, 2015 1:51 PM - BoerumHillScott
I'm still open to several options.

One minor issue is going to be what to call this new proposed public/private group.

As I see it now, I will create a new type of "Public" group where the main posts show up for everyone, but you have to be logged in to see the comments.
#86
June 4, 2015 3:14 PM - Deleted
FWIW here is dudley's input, in response to "will you come back if the site is private":

"Yes, but I do not like when some of the posters there intentionally try to be antagonizing by listing all my previous usernames and then my real name and often mentioning that I live in Park Slope :/ Tell them I will be back if they can learn to curb their verbal violence."
Edited by Deleted at June 4, 2015 3:16 PM
#87
June 4, 2015 6:27 PM - BoerumHillScott
Introducing LifeinBklyn 2.07, featuring a new type of public group where the comments and images can only be seen by people who are logged in.

I also fixed an image viewing bug in private groups, although that was caused by a configuration error and not an actual bug.
#88