How will the proposed private rooms work?

[LilyBolero]

In the light of the DM stuff, I imagine MNHQ will be looking to get the private rooms sorted out quickly. So I wondered how they would run? Will it be a case of a single user opening a room and then inviting people to join them? Or will it be possible to request an invite?

How will you avoid narnia type incidents?

[muggglewump]

If they did ask to be allowed to join the group that they weren't invited to join, then what?
Even if they were discussing something they knew about, and/or were involved in?

Would they be allowed in, or told no, as they weren't wanted in the group?

[LilyBolero]

Yes I can't imagine 'appealing' to MN - would be a bit like telling the dinner lady that those horrid children wouldn't let me play!

[YetMoreTech]

As to how this will work exactly, we're still open to suggestion.

I am not convinced that it will become as divisive as some people seem to think. A private room set up by someone to invite a couple of friends to join to moan about another poster (not that I'm suggesting anyone would ever do such a thing!) is undesirable of course, but functionally not much different to them doing it by email or on Facebook.

But more than that, it's self limiting - a room (is that what we've decided they'll be called? hmmm, we refer to them as topics when they're not private, but anyway, I digress) with very few participants will likely wither and die quickly and rooms with plenty of people will be largely self-regulating, just like the topics we have now are. People will make reasoned arguments against posters that are out of line and any that need action from MNHQ will be alerted by a Report This Post function.

Creating a group won't give you the right to delete or edit the posts it contains I don't think. It will give you the right to invite other people to join and to accept requests from others who wish to join it too. Additionally you would be able to grant similar rights to other members, so that you can delegate those responsibilities which would be particularly useful if you were going to be offline for a while (perish the thought).

If people have thoughts about how other aspects of this might work, we'd love to hear them, because it's still in the design stages. Let's 'ave 'em.

[PleaseDeleteMeLetmeGo]

[kathyis6incheshigh]

I think the key is having clear criteria for who can join a particular room.
The reason I want private rooms was because the CAWK (Crap Competent Academics With Kids) thread turned out to be hugely useful to quite a few of us but we were inhibited by fear we would be outed in real life and the inability to say what academic subject or institution we were in because of the googleability of it all.
We could of course just go off and set something up on Facebook, but it would be nice to keep it on MN because after all that's where we all are and the potential new members would come from.

Having a private room to discuss something specific is very different from having something where the point is excluding people at will.

Maybe every room and its criteria for joining would have to be agreed by MNHQ?

(Incidentally my take on one reason the Moldies thing upset so many people is the lack of clarity re criteria - if it had genuinely been 'MN Oldies' ie everyone who joined before a certain year, fewer people would have been hurt by it.)

[Babieseverywhere]

We already have 'rooms' every board is a self contained subject.

Why not just make a couple of the existing boards members only if you see a need for it.

Or if you really have to introduce 'private rooms' can MNHQ do the creation of the rooms and authorising of members - else I reckon there will end up having as many 'rooms' as there are currently 'threads' at the moment.

[Bleatblurt]

I don't like the idea of 'rooms'. I vote no. Not that I get one but it would be no if I did.

[WideWebWitch]

So let me get this straight:

• some people on MN want privacy
• Some people don't want journalists to quote them
• Some people will be 'allowed' to join a private area (what will the criteria be for letting people in then?)
• Some people will make the decision to allow others to join the private area and, will, presumably, also not allow some to join the private area (from IAmajournowhowritesforTheDailyMail for example)

Interesting.

[beanieb]

why not just have a PM (personal mesagge) function?

[MamazontheDailyMailtakingadump]

so MN will no longer be a forum and instead will evolve into a chat room.

Chat rooms attract the easily bored who like to troll. and unless your going to start refusing entry to anyone you don't recognise they will still get in.

I really don't understand why this needs to be done.
If MNHQ are unhappy with people C&Ping then they need to make their stance about copyright of the sites content clear.

If MNHQ have ownership of what we put then they need to take action against anyone that uses it without permission.
i don't see why we need to alter the way we do things, which works very well for us, simply because it may detere lazy journalists.

we have already lost one prolific poster to my knowledge and if it turns into a Faceparty type site then i will be off too.

[FiveGoMadInDorset]

What Mamazon said, sort out your copyright rules rather than turn it into a clique.

[KingCanuteIAmAndTheDMCanFOff]

I just don't see how it can work properly, using the example above where users want a room because they can't mention the name of the acadamy or whatever their kids are in....

They have a room, all is fab then my dc join one of these acadamies, how do I get access to said room? DO I have to email HQ or the admin of the group with my "plea" to join complete with supporting evidence (to proveI do have dc there and I am not a journo/head teacher trying to get in)? That is not something I would be comfortable with TBH.

[hocuspontas]

Why does any of it have to be googleable? And why not be like most sites and have to register before you can access the talk boards. I know this doesn't solve the current problems but I don't realy like the idea of private rooms.

[battlehips]

Awful idea. Surely it goes against everything that is MN?

And hasn't those who wanted a 'private room' got one over in mouldie land (and that worked out so well they are all now flooding back onto MN)

If you want to discuss a personal topic with friends then go on MSN. If you want everyone's opinion then you have to post publicly. There is no other way that can work.

[battlehips]

Mamazon who has left?

[sandcastles]

Yes, Wickedwaterwitch...it is interesting!

I wonder how many of those who want it originally complained about the whole moldies thing! After all, that was started for privacy initially, was it not?

I think that people need to realise that this is the WWW! Everything put out there has the potential to be read/copied by anyone! Hasn't this always been the way?

Why worry now just because journos are getting hold of it? If you are worried, don't put it out there!

Also, I think (as someone already suggested), MNHQ need to stipulate that text is not used without asking express permission. If MN own copyright of the content on this site, isn't this Leah Hardy (whoever she is, do we know her chat name, how do we know she is trusted?) breaking some rule somewhere by just lifting material for her column...one that she obviously can't be bothered to put any thought into herself!

Or am I missing the point! MN has to make what I feel are awful changes for it chat members...how many newbies might be put off after being refused entry into private rooms? Or is that the point...you have to have been here X number of years or made X number of posts to qualify for room access?

[MamazontheDailyMailtakingadump]

FAQ has de regged.

[juneybean]

awrr no

[sandcastles]

FAQ? Really....that's crap!

[kathyis6incheshigh]

Of course there can be a middle ground, it is ridiculous to suggest that the only options are MN being as it is with 100% of material open to everyone and MN degenerating into a series of bitchfest chatrooms.
There is no reason at all why there should not be a small number of rooms on particularly sensitive topics with clear criteria for entry. The people who post in those rooms will still spend most of their time on the main threads, it's just that sometimes there are things that you can't talk about in a completely open environment.

[TheChilliMooseSpeakstheTruth]

I haven't read the whole thread, but I think it sounds like a bad idea. It'll be like the playground at school all over again.

[BadgersArse]

haha
it will be like modlies
i am not in the hun pram room

wah wah wah

[BadgersArse]

b ut FAQ is always leaving
shell be back

[battlehips]

Nice. One of the founders of moldies here laughing at the people who were hurt by it.

[IdontliveinaYurt]

This whole situation is awful imho
I accept that many people are perfectly happy about it - but many of us arent

If FAQ (who has recieved a lot of support from MN) that is truly very sad. ditto anyone else who has deregged

At first I was keenish on the private discussion idea - but no longer
Surely that will just cause Moldie/Narnia style chaos

I for one am going to stay on MN under another (frequently changing) name and go elsewhere to chat about stuff that really matters to me