中国DOS联盟

Actually, some categories can be separated.
For example, the current categories are "Site Affairs Area\New DOS World\Service Area"
We can divide the New DOS World into more areas.
Put the relatively unpopular ones in one area, and put teaching, answers, and boot disks in another area?

Actually, the moderators are also quite hardworking, having to often surf the internet to handle issues.
After all, this is completely voluntary work.

Michael's suggestion is actually quite good, but this website itself can only be considered a forum.
Unlike the current popular form of web pages + forums.
If we add web pages, the problem can be solved. Put all the informative content and relatively valuable questions on the web pages for reference.
But the production and maintenance of web pages is too much work. It恐怕is difficult to do it well without someone devoting 12 hours specifically to it.

I hope everyone can spare some time to do a good job on the website's web pages, and then the forum issues will be easier to solve.

I just tried to adjust the position of the "Q&A Area" and put it together with the "Tutorial Area", that is, first teach beginners to get started, and then if these users or other intermediate and advanced users have any problems in using DOS, they can ask questions and get answers. I also modified the descriptions of the relevant sections. For example, the Tutorial Area is not only for teaching, but also a platform for everyone (mainly beginners) to learn, communicate and share basic knowledge and experiences of DOS, equivalent to a "Newcomers' Communication Area", giving newbies a paradise to participate in exchanging experiences and learning knowledge, and also stimulating their interest in learning DOS; while the Q&A Area is mainly for answering questions in the actual application of DOS, for various actual DOS users or those who don't want to learn DOS but just want to use DOS to solve other problems. If you are not used to the current order of the sections, I can adjust or restore it.

In fact, there are quite a few internal websites of the union. Besides the union homepage, there are also everyone's DOS small stations, etc., but mainly some columns in the current union homepage are not officially open yet. These are also the key things to do recently. If you are interested, you can also come to help.

Originally posted by Dark-Destroy at 2005-8-16 20:26:
By the way...
The statement "There are so many version masters who only eat but don't work" made by Climbing, I think it's overstated. There are many version masters, such as mys.Roy, ko, cn_archer, etc., who have made a lot of contributions to the forum, how can...

Let me answer DD's question:
1. The so-called "only eat but don't work" is only within the forum. I think that the version master of the forum is not an honor or reward, but an obligation. I don't need to explain in detail what obligations the version master should bear. I have been soaking in the "Q&A Room" for so many years. I have hardly seen any version master in the Q&A Room (except Wengier) answer the questions in the version, and have not managed the section. This is what I call only eat but don't work. If you don't want to fulfill the obligations of the version master but want to enjoy the honor of the version master, then you can definitely set them as honorary version masters or honorary administrators, but remember: this is just an honor!

2. The reason why I don't want to be a version master is very simple. It's because I am too strict with people (to the extent of harshness). And as a version master, I need to make people feel at home. Obviously, I can't do this, so I don't want to be a version master. But my main purpose of coming to the forum is to help people (but it's not helping people without principles, I only help those who I think are worthy of help). In fact, I have been doing this all the time. For example, the only summary of essence posts in the Q&A Room was initiated by me first, and I persisted for a long time (until I felt that there was no more meaning to update). And I am always teaching forum novices how to effectively use the forum to solve their own problems (don't everyone come to the forum to solve problems?). Take my signature as proof!

Of course, my statement "only eat but don't work" was criticized by DD, but I think what I said is the truth, and the truth is like this, which cannot be refuted. But how many people in this world like to hear the truth?

Climbing, before strictly demanding others, you should first think about yourself. I think this is a basic principle of being a human.

Moreover, the various forum moderators are not idle every day just hanging out on the forum...

And the forum is a place for everyone to discuss, not entirely for the moderators to answer. Even if you want to do that, it's not allowed in terms of time, and moderators are not all-knowing. The duty of moderators should be based on managing the posts in their sections.

I admit that some moderators indeed don't come often, but it's a minority. You can't deny all the contributions of moderators to the forum with just one sentence. I think, with your writing skills, there must be a more appropriate way to say that "only eating but not working".

The above is also the truth, but also as you said "How many people in the world like to hear the truth?"

Last edited by Dark-Destroy on 2005-8-17 at 19:58 ]

Re DD:

First, let's make it clear. I'm not quarreling. We can argue if there are differences of opinion, but let's not damage the harmony.

I'm very curious. It seems I've never denied any moderator's contributions (though I don't know much about what contributions they've made). But there's no life tenure for moderators, while honor can be lifelong. So don't tie honor to being a moderator. We can give out a lot of honor, anyway, it doesn't cost money, right? But moderators are for doing work. No matter their level, as a moderator, they should manage the section (not necessarily answering questions, I actually think the most important thing is to organize the highlights in the forum, just like what I do). If they do nothing, what's the use of having moderators? Just to put up a front. But then we should invite Bill Gates, because he's famous. Who else knows what the others are for. Of course, this is also not polite, but I really haven't seen some senior predecessors (or veterans) show any materials, and I've never seen their事迹 introductions. Forgive my ignorance.

Also, my requirements for moderators are very low, definitely lower than my own requirements. I just hope they show up occasionally, so that we can see they're still alive. That's enough.

Climbing, I think you misunderstood me... I just have an opinion on the sentence you said "There's no need to set up so many moderators who just eat but don't work", and I don't want to quarrel. I also hope you can modify it, because that sentence sounds like many moderators are "fools"... The matter of honor moderators can be discussed by everyone, but it seems irrelevant to the sentence you said.... Also, once the moderator system is formalized, I think probably no one will be willing to be a moderator in the future. Currently, only a few moderators have been recruited. If we are strictly required, won't everyone run away?

I don't know what you mean by the systematization of the moderator system? If no one is a moderator, I倒是 hope to recommend myself. I think the work of a moderator is not to answer questions but to help others.

Re Climbing:

Regarding the enthusiasm of forum moderators, I think we need to view it from a more comprehensive perspective. The original forum moderators are mostly the founders or early members of the China DOS Union or the United DOS Forum. For a long time since the forum was established, they have made positive contributions to the development of the forum.

Take the "Q&A Room" section I'm in as an example. When I was organizing the essence posts in this section, I found that there were quite a number of old posts in the early days posted by moderators ko20010214 and MYS, either original or reprinted. In short, they made many contributions, and I also benefited a lot.

As for the recent development of the forum, some original moderators have rarely been involved in the forum, which also has its own reasons and difficulties, and cannot be generalized.

Re Administrators:

DD probably wants to say "institutionalization of moderator management", which should belong to "institutionalization of forum management".

My view is that at present, institutionalization is necessary. Because institutionalization is not only to restrict moderators, but also to restrict the management of the entire forum. All forum members, including administrators, should be within the scope of restriction. Therefore, it is beneficial and necessary for the development of the entire forum.

As for whether institutionalization will reduce the enthusiasm of moderators for participation and application, I think there is no need to worry. A good system will not restrict development, but guide development. Currently, it is true that some moderators in various sections of the forum are less active. Of course, everyone can understand the reasons. But as Brother Climbing said, moderators are not honorary titles that can be enjoyed for life. Moderators have the rights and obligations of moderators, and moderators have the functions and responsibilities of moderators. It is a pity to set them up and not use them.

In addition, when I was selected as a moderator in the "Q&A Room" section, I once applied for the "Implementation Rules for Section Management", but unfortunately did not get a detailed text, so I could only act on my own. I estimate that this is also an important reason why many moderators do not act.

Finally, I would like to make two suggestions to the management regarding the management of moderators:

1. Regarding the appointment of moderators, an open recruitment, individual invitation, and free application qualification selection method can be adopted to broaden the source of moderator resources. As for formal appointment, methods such as management discussion and member election can be adopted to avoid the risks brought by the free selection of moderators;

2. Regarding the term of office of moderators, for example, three months. If the performance is too passive or seriously violating regulations during the term of office, the management can discuss and cancel their appointment. If they do not apply again after the term of office, they will be regarded as automatically giving up the qualification for the next term of moderator.

Last edited by willsort on 2005-8-19 at 22:02 ]

Haha! Wonderful! From whether the forum adds a new section to the management of the forum moderators to the management, wonderful! Even the administrator who "only eats but doesn't work" has been demoted!