In order to keep the comments on Stephen’s post on topic, please direct your comments regarding Barbara’s comment, to this post.
Barbara says
December 18, 2018 at 12:18 am (Edit)
@BB: “We need to get people coming back to Brock.”
First step: how lovely it would be if someone actually moderated the forums and simply culled the repetitive and incessant chatter on some of the (formerly) useful threads. Many of the most essential threads have turned into a free-for-all which veer way off topic, raking over the same-old-same-old coals that have been raked over in every one of the other popular threads. It’s become so that I don’t even come to IBS much anymore. I check for new top-level posts and anything new on the “Current Media and Articles” thread and skip the rest of the bla-bla-bla because I’ve read it all so many times before.
Sorry to be so negative. When I first joined IBS a couple years ago, it was a clean, mean source of wisdom. I wonder how I’d feel if I joined now, with so much of the useful discussion buried under so much steamy hot air. I wish there were a separate thread called “The IBS Pub” where all the windy conversations can cheerfully continue, while those who simply need clarity about renunciation, etc., don’t have to comb through page after page of blather to find the few nuggets.
I still very strongly support the principles here, and the actions of the brave souls who put their time, money and lives on the line for the rest of us, and therefore I am happy to offer financial support.
**************
Thanks.
Here below is the response of USCitizenAbroad to Barbara’s comment.
Both comments were originally on my Post dealing with our Plaintiffs’ (Gwen and Kazia) upcoming January 2019 Canadian FATCA IGA Litigation trial in Vancouver.
“I agree completely [with Barbara’s comment]. In fact the time has come to reflect on the purpose of Brock and what Brock should be going forward. As a long time poster/author I am particularly disappointed that the site seems to have lost its focus. In the early years it had a research and educational purpose. It had many contributors. It was a forum for collaborative learning. That is no longer the case.
Brock has now disintegrated into a chat site where the purpose of the posts is no longer even part of the chat. The effect has been (IMHO) to drive a number of people away. These people could be making valuable contributions. The chatter is so incessant and so divorced from the purpose of the posts that new people cannot see beyond the chatter. Beneath the chatter lies, what I believe is the best source of research on the problems of Americans abroad which exists in the world. But, it is now invisible.
The use of Brock as a forum for endless chatter is actually destroying the value of Brock and all the work that was done to make it the site that it was (and if people could see beyond the chatter) what it really still is (as noted by Barbara).
I believe that Barbara’s suggestion has merit. Why not establish a group of “Chat Rooms” – where it is understood that the only purpose is to just chat. This would encourage intelligent, sustained discussion on the content of the posts. It might encourage more posts.
The “Chat Rooms” could be on the side bar”. But, even the Chat Rooms might be themed. For example:
“Dear Abby”
“FBAR Penalties on Mars”
“The Once And Future Renunciation”
“To Comply or not to Comply, That Is The Question”
As goes the chat on Brock, so goes the future of Brock.
To be clear, that is not a criticism of any specific individuals (it is a general trend). But, if this does’t stop there will no longer be a Brock.
As I conclude this comment, I realize that this comment is also unrelated to the core purpose of this post. But, it is an addition to the thoughts of BB and Barbara. I thought of making this comment a separate post, but have decided not to.
I urge the administrators of Brock (who clearly care about the future of the site) to please consider this problem!”
Hitler.
Just kidding. Moderation and proper forum software is a fine idea. As one of the guilty parties, I could do with cutting down the commentary and keeping it more focused. Too hard to find the kernels of wisdom in here. And also the blog interface is just bad.
Moderators:
Please feel free to delete my comments at the links below, in the interests of getting that thread back on topic. And please also feel free to delete this post.
Thanks.
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2018/12/17/canada-is-expected-to-defend-the-constitutional-rights-and-freedoms-of-its-citizens-and-not-bargain-them-away-or-capitulate-to-threats-from-a-foreign-bully-state-say-plaintiffs-gwen-and-kazia-in/comment-page-1/#comment-8544715
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2018/12/17/canada-is-expected-to-defend-the-constitutional-rights-and-freedoms-of-its-citizens-and-not-bargain-them-away-or-capitulate-to-threats-from-a-foreign-bully-state-say-plaintiffs-gwen-and-kazia-in/comment-page-1/#comment-8544940
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2018/12/17/canada-is-expected-to-defend-the-constitutional-rights-and-freedoms-of-its-citizens-and-not-bargain-them-away-or-capitulate-to-threats-from-a-foreign-bully-state-say-plaintiffs-gwen-and-kazia-in/comment-page-1/#comment-8544995
I like the idea a sidebar called the Brock Pub where it could be gently suggested that a discussion be continued when a thread is starting to go off-track. I truly hope new visitors will continue to be welcomed here because there’s nothing I like more than to see people getting empathy, some degree of comfort and hopefully good advice when they arrive burdened with the big worry that US taxing insanity can evoke.
I second USCA’s proposal – I think that a social aspect adds to the vitality of the site, but that the chatter should be separated from the serious content so that new users can more easily find what they’re looking for. If possible, it would be helpful NOT to include comments on the “social” pages in the comment stream on the sidebar. I find that valuable comments disappear way too quickly when there’s an active chat occurring. Perhaps some sort of discussion forum software could be used as a social outlet – allowing those who are interested to subscribe to post notifications or digests.
Maybe a moderator can step in when a comment veers off topic and post a comment saying:
“Take this tangent to the identity theft topic / Japanese family registration topic / CBT violates human rights topic / etc. Further off topic comments in this thread will be deleted.”
Hear here! I was on the verge of unsubscribing to some of the threads for the very reason Barbara wrote about. Happy I no longer have to, as I hate to miss anything important.
Oops, messed up on my email on subscribing. I’ll try again.
Thanks for taking my rant seriously. I strongly agree with a whole “social” section with different general topics, including one called “Eritrea”. One further comment: As Nononymous stated, this WordPress forum theme needs to be updated to something post-1999. The ability to go back and edit or delete one’s own posts would eliminate half the list of “Recent comments”, i.e. “In my post above I meant to say ‘screw the IRS’, but spell correct changed it to ‘scrupulous'”. This of course would require a registration system, which I acknowledge would be anathema to many. But nobody is checking your ID or asking for a FinCEN form.
It is entirely possible to change to a new WordPress theme without losing a single word of the original content. There are free themes that would do the job. Not being a moderator (and please, I don’t want to be), and not being a WordPress expert, I can’t walk you through it, but there are a zillion freelancers on Fiverr who could do it for US$50 or less, to which I’d be happy to contribute.
I sincerely hope that some effort is made to do a much-needed reform of this site. I feel guilty just complaining and saying “you do it”, since I am often on the receiving end of such suggestions. But this moment, when there’s a bit of lull in major news before the Canada court case and the ever-elusive Holding TTFI bill in Congress, might be an opportune time. Cheers.
Brock has always been unstructured and has always been an amateur site. There are no professionals involved and hence no money and little time to make super structure. A moderator must do WORK.
If there was money for professionals, the site would be organized/structured to view news on one line and permanent posts on another line.
In the early days, most people were quite fearful of FATCA and its potential affect of enforcing laws not previously known. The fear drove much discussion and put many participants on the edges of their seats. Many participants watching…..particularly as the first FATCA IGAs developed and then went into a global klausterfauch.
THe early intense fear has degraded to disgust, and lots of people have reprioritized or moved on to competing forums.
If you look at big professional publications, the article is there and there can be 1000 comments….and nobody really has grounds to complain about commenters.
I think it is very difficult to prevent thread shift. Many contributors start by trying to answer newbie questions but then if disagreement occurs the thread extends beyond the limiits of the original question.
I think we should all try to limit ourselves to answering the questions asked and trying to decipher any new developments, but many of us have been on the Brock road for a long time and a little humour now and then helps to keep us present and sane.
When I had my OMG moment in June this year, Brock helped me to take a deep breath, stop panicking, and look at my options. There is still too much fear mongering out this, and IB is a voice of reason and compassion in the midst of condor speak.
I actually don’t mind all of the chatter, but then, I’ve renounced and I’m out the other side.
And, the contributors of Brock provide the content. Comments are not meant to be the site presentation, it is meant to be chatter between people……..there is no need to provide structure in comment section……if something in the comments is relevant, it could be drawn out by a contributor and made to a separate post (LIKE THIS POST!!!)
I have been keeping an eye on the counter at the foot of the IBS pages during 2018.
There probably has been some decline recently. However, despite the admittedly extremely obscure conversations (at worst, dialogues….almost monologues) on parts of the site, that counter still shows over 20,000 upticks per day – every day, on average.
That’s over 650,000 per month and nearly 8,000,000 over the course of a full year.
That’s something to be proud of having built. Together.
This website is still an active, wise and valuable resource for many frightened and beleaguered people around the world.
Let’s be sure not to throw out any babies with any muddy bath water that might seem to need draining.
@KingOfTheRoad
I don’t keep track of the counter at the bottom of the page but rather, do see the number of views per day via JetPack. I do not want to get into numbers publicly but they are half of what they were a few years ago. This is definitely a noticeable trend.
I do believe some are concerned about how the site will present to newcomers once the trial takes place and there is the likelihood of donations. Some people offend very easily particularly where any poking at religion, historical figures, racism, etc occurs. One would hope comments would avoid this sort of thing. While being angry etc due to the severity of this situation has always been tolerated, it does not mean that people can say absolutely anything.
@ KingOfThe Road
Thanks. I haven’t looked at that counter in ages. So people are still reading here — good! I skim a lot more than I used to when I literally hung on every word written but I have never stopped checking in on a daily basis.
There was this question on the post listed below, that I had hoped would result in some answers and refinement of legal angles for suing the Canadian Government in regards to the tax treaty (which might be useful for http://www.fixthetaxtreaty.org in Australia).
“whether Canadian residents could sue the Government of Canada for entering into a treaty which would subject them to U.S. worldwide taxation.”
Brock project: How would the absence of the “savings clause” in the Canada US tax treaty change the tax treatment of “US citizens” in Canada?
The comments got sidetracked on that one.
I think once the ADCS lawsuit fires up there will be more activity here.
“I do believe some are concerned about how the site will present to newcomers once the trial takes place and there is the likelihood of donations.”
Perhaps it would be better to appeal for donations from a crowdfunding site? which might also attract donations from a wider range of donors, given the Charter issues raised by the case.
@Plaxy
We were completely unsuccessful at using a crowdfunding site.
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/2014/12/17/holiday-coupons-from-greedy-giver-for-adcs-fundraiser/
The fact is, Brock is where people come for info and particularly that which concerns the Canadian lawsuit. The lawsuit as well as other efforts that were taken, grew out of connections people made here. So while there has always been an element of discussion from the support function, Brock was not primarily a forum. We actually had a separate forum but it died due to lack of participation.
Referring to a suggestion I believe you made earlier, there is a Facebook page for Brock (but not a group).
https://m.facebook.com/The-Isaac-Brock-Society-341446319218930/
I am hopeful that members can make more of an effort to keep threads more on track as we try to come up with a set-up that addresses everyone’s needs.
“We were completely unsuccessful at using a crowdfunding site. The fact is, Brock is where people come for info and particularly that which concerns the Canadian lawsuit.“
It doesn’t have to be the only site though.
How about using a Facebook site to publicise the legal case, ask for “click-throughs” (to the Facebook site), and invite donations large and small, and also “Get involved” suggestions to encourage individual fundraising initiatives by supporters?
Aim for a more viral approach, in other words.
“Referring to a suggestion I believe you made earlier, there is a Facebook page for Brock (but not a group).”
I was suggesting ways to control commenters and comments. Moderation is one way; retreating to a private Facebook is another method, since applications can be vetted.
But what I’m suggesting in relation to fundraising for the legal case is simply that there could be a separate information and fundraising site (Facebook public page or other), with no discussion element.
Merely a suggestion.
@Plaxy
Thanks for your suggestions.
We already have Facebook sites ( I do 5 separate pages- 2 of which are ADCS-only sites- plus one group) to promote the lawsuit, funding, etc
The fact is, this site is the main draw.
We do not “moderate” here; we don’t go in and edit comments, move them around and so on, like you will see on other forums. It goes against our original principle. And frankly, none of us has the time to do that anyway.
All that is wanted is the commenters try to stay on topic more. It was one of the few “rules” if you will. (somehow seems to be absent from our most recent statement- see link at end of post). It’s not impossible. The site has a function that goes beyond discussion. That’s always been the case. We have to rely on our members to reflect on the effects of their comments and behaviour. We cannot control anyone. We can only ask.
http://isaacbrocksociety.ca/site-rules/
“We already have Facebook sites ( I do 5 separate pages- 2 of which are ADCS-only sites- plus one group) to promote the lawsuit, funding, etc”
OK. It was merely a suggestion.
I think Mark Twain’s comments make a lot of sense. If this site is getting half as much interest as it used to, why is it the fault of those who comment on the writings of the Brock authors? The draw is the articles not the comments from anonymous people.
Another way to look at the reduction in site visitors is that many of these people have found resolutions to their situations and moved on. If less people feel the need for support from Brock, this is a good thing not a bad thing!
Annie:
“Another way to look at the reduction in site visitors is that many of these people have found resolutions to their situations and moved on. If less people feel the need for support from Brock, this is a good thing not a bad thing!”
Hear hear!! 🙂
@Annie & Plaxy
If what you are saying were the only true aspect, then we wouldn’t have the complaints about the comments about Hitler, slaves and the like. The site is a total package, like everything else in life, it is not black and white.
The authors often put hours into writing a post. Making sure they can back up their points with facts. Working at composing it so that it is as effective as possible. I can tell you with certainty some of these authors feel unappreciated, insulted and angry when people come on and dominate with lots of comments that have nothing to do with the post. There also are less authors contributing…
It may be true as well that there are less because they solved their issue.
Why is it so difficult to keep on topic when asked? No one is asking people not to comment.