[URGENT] Survey: What do you feel about the current Group status?

[lattae]

This topic is for group members only, but I felt it was beneficial for other members to read it if they like. Please refrain from responding if you do not belong to a group, well unless you have something really helpful to say!

NOTE: I can see who picked what option, so if you do not belong to a group your vote will not count.

-jayx8318x



Hi,

JCnet is likely to undergo some changes in the near future, and we would like to hear our members out on a few issues. First being the rules, which is already up over here (http://jay-chou.net/forums/showthread.php?t=19872). Second being the group membership, which is pretty much the heart and soul of JCnet.

We admit there are some problems with the current system, and along with the many changes that are likely to take place, we can look into the operation of the groups. And of course it involves you guys.

Just to give you an idea of the major issues of late, it is that leaders being away from the forums, recruitment has been slow (cos only noobs are applying) and the private forums are slow moving because all the group members are becoming inactive.

We've got a few options, if you have other viewpoints/solutions you can voice it here.

This is not an Aprils fool Joke or a prank of any sort, we are as serious as we can get. We really need your input. Lets make this into a discussion, if you choose a certain option, it'd be good to tell us why.

[linny]

Hum, as a group member who has gone MIA lately... there is a need for change, but what kind of change, I'm not sure. I have noticed a decline in the heavy group culture that was at JC.net's core because of inactive members and a lot of the older members becoming recluses, but... I don't know.

I've always felt that groups on some level are necessary. They do provide a home for the floundering member who wants to make the forums feel a little more habitable and not so big.

Maybe a renewal of membership or starting over is good, but I think groups are still needed on the forum. Maybe they just need to be redefined and refocused.

[petricia]

I will go for option 3.

Basically, I wasn't really active until I joined KANR. That's when the daily visits to jc.net started. I also agree that the usergroups are really what makes jc.net special for me and I bet for some other people too.

To close the current groups and start new ones can also be an option but I would say it really takes a lot of effort to trust each other in a group and it is really a pity to just close it down, like cutting the ties off. I believe that most people will just re-apply to the one that the other members from their previous groups are going to.

[junnleenfaah]

i was kinda stuck between choosing option 1 and option 3. part of me wants to keep it the way it is because i guess you could say i'm content with the way things are now. however, it does seem kinda slow and dead around the private forums and such because the group members arent as active or the group leader isnt available. i know for DK, lisa has been MIA for a long while due to work, school, etc. and that's perfectly fine that she's busy with that because of course all of those things are major priorities. however, it was kinda sad how our leader couldnt join us for our recent theme week. i'm not saying lisa is a bad leader for DK. she is in fact a GREAT one, and we hafta understand that people have lives outside of JCNET. but it'd be nice to have a group where a majority of the group is consistenly active.

anyway, i decided to choose option 3.

[judes]

i chose option 1, because i like the current status.
i know we all have lives and stuff outside of jcnet but i feel that i've grown really close to the LQP kids and we're all a big family.

i really liked something that chun li posted in our private forum and i don't know if she'll let me post it here, but i think we should all be responsible and start taking care of things ourselves as group members if things are slowing down. she doesn't have to be around every day to take care of us because LQP members can be independent as group members and as individuals. and a lot of members in other groups are like that as well.

i haven't seen the group forums become super slow for LQP, but that's only one group, i'm not sure about the others. i love seeing older members come back and drop in once in a while to update us on their lives and also newer members that contribute. i don't know. i would be really sad to see the groups change.

[ColaPoP]

1) Status quo
I don't agree. The private forums (both group and F54) have been a lot less active than in previous years. If we ignore the trend in decline (inactive members, minimal activity in private threads), the problem will continue until there is no need for groups. Remember the April Fools prank: All usergroups will become obsolete? Is that what we really want?

2) No groups at all.
Without groups, the community aspect of the site dies. How long will members return to JCN for news and small-talk? It will probably just fill with leechers then...

4) New groups. Current groups become obsolete.
IMO, the current groups are distinct and refreshing in personality, why change a good thing?

3) Same 6 groups, refreshed.
I agree with this point most, except for the change in leadership. For me, Chun Li will always be the LQP leader. As for refreshing the groups, let's do it. Clear out inactive members and unclutter the private sub-forums.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And to address the major issues concerning groups recently:

...is that leaders being away from the forums
In terms of general running of a group, I think group members are quite capable of organising themselves (i.e. - theme weeks, socialising). But JCN is a social online community to escape to, not a job... and unfortunatly the administrative aspect of being a leader (unclutter sub-forums, pending member applications, group website content) can make it so. As a suggestion, can the workload be shared? Thus mods/VIP (within the group) selected by the group leader are given moderating powers within the sub-forum as a 2nd-in-command?

recruitment has been slow (cos only noobs are applying)
Quality members are hard to come by. The only reason I can imagine a JC.net regular would not join a group is either cos they enjoy their non-attachment status, or they are unclear about the purpose of joining a group (lack of awareness re: social-group threads, lack of publicity re: group website info, etc).

and the private forums are slow moving because all the group members are becoming inactive.
This can be attributed to a number of factors, though becoming busy at work/school/life is the main reason. Perhaps group members can discuss and determine amongst themselves what is is they wish to get out from their membership with 'group X', and what they can do for their group.

[zhy378]

i voted for option 3. "Let's get a leadership change. Members reapply to groups to ensure everyone in it is active ."

Having the six groups are great but i think it lost its excitement of picking and joining a group. I remember when the groups were introduced to the site and it was pretty active with its group members everywhere with their pride of their group membership. but it would be great to have the groups full of active members because now it just seem like the group members who arent so active sometimes are something from the past like part of an event that happened awhile back.

[snowflake]

I like the group I am in now and have no wish to see it being changed.

[junnleenfaah]

after reading pei's comment, it made me think. really, i cant think of any other leader but lisa as our DK leader. yes, she has been MIA for awhile, but it's not like DK has completely fallen apart because of her absense. i think the only change that seems most needed to me is just weeding out the inactive group members. not just those that dont participate in the groups, but those that dont even participate at JCNET alltogether.

i know one thing lisa did awhile back for DK's membership is that for those who were part of DK and had not been active, if they didnt report to the DK lounge by a certain date saying they still wanna stay in, lisa just automatically pulled their membership from them, no questions asked or anything. maybe we could do something like that? just a suggestion.

[stitchphil]

I'm okay with the way things are now. But I have to agree that there's something wrong with the way things are, I just can't quite put my finger to it. I do log in every single day, sometimes more than once. However, I am finding it increasingly difficult to make a post. I don't quite know why..

Private forums have slowed down to a virtual halt, as to whether is it due to the leaders being away or inactive members? I think it's a little of both. But at the moment, I disagree with the changing of the group leaders. At least for SA, I think Meli should remain as our group leader.

Though I like the group I'm in now and would really hurt to see the groups disbanded or refreshed and get everyone to sign up again, there is a need for a change. Perhaps something that is not so extreme.

recruitment has been slow

I think that is most probably due to the fact that things get stagnant when there aren't any new albums by Jay. We experience this every year. The moment he come out with a new album, activity will pick up, and yes, it'll not be long after things slow down again.

I've not been here long enough to judge weather or not are things slower and worse than before in between the period Jay's next album is released.

Sorry I couldn't offer any alternative solution. I just couldn't choose among the 4 options. Just wanted to voice out on such a strong issue, that's all.

[jaychou_21]

I voted for the first option.

Everything is fine, lets keep the status quo.

I'm in no way going to agree with the second option. Because as someone has said before, the social groups are the heart and soul of JCNET. Things wouldn't be the same without it.

As for the third option, I'm not for the leadership change. No one does the CS leadership better than Ate Teresa. I dunno if I am allowed to say it here or if this is the SOP in all social groups but I think members need not reapply to confirm their group membership. Ate Teresa has started a thread in our private lounge where all CS members who want to remain CSers must confirm their membership by posting in that thread to uphold their status. It's a good idea. A leader could've just pulled out the inactive group members from the list but we've found out that even the inactive ones are just lurking in the corners; they still want to remain in the group even if they aren't as active as they used to. And they are showing themselves up in critical times like these.

I'm not in favor of closing the groups and getting new ones started. In the event that the group leaders can't handle their position anymore and are willing to give it up, they can always ask their subordinates to choose a new leader.

Just my opinion. Thank you.

[akane_chou]

i voted for Option 1.

like Brent, i dont agree with "doing away" with our groups. i admit that i cannot survive without my group. we're like a family and doing away with our groups is like taking away my parents and siblings. there's a certain emptiness.

i dont agree with changing our group leaders as well. i know that most groups, if not all, like their leaders and think that there's no one else who can lead like them. Like LQP, if Chun Li wasnt our leader anymore, things would be different. we didnt get down to what CS did [confirm before a deadline if you still wanna be in CS] because we have this thing called LQP for life. once you're in, you never get out.

i dont want to see any new groups replacing the old ones. because for me, they would never ever ever be able to replace LQP and i cant imagine my group name NOT being LQP and the members different from LQP. if this happens, i probably wouldnt join any other group. and besides, we'd probably create some sort of LQP underground group [like a secret society].

can you just imagine your group being called Mary Ducks [no im just kidding, mary ducks is a weird name]. besides. what other name is able to sound much cooler than your own group name?!

[liliceprincess]

I voted for the third option. In addition, i also had trouble like Jen from option 1 and 3.

But in the end, i voted :Let's get a leadership change. Members reapply to groups to ensure everyone in it is active

From that even being said i do agree with jen

i know one thing lisa did awhile back for DK's membership is that for those who were part of DK and had not been active, if they didnt report to the DK lounge by a certain date saying they still wanna stay in, lisa just automatically pulled their membership from them, no questions asked or anything. maybe we could do something like that? just a suggestion.

^ I would agree to that. There are times where yes, a lot of the members are inactive because they have other things to do other than JCNET, but once it had became obvious that they were not going to be able to contribute at all, it would be time to pull them out. I mean at the same time they could reapply and try to get back in.

I would say lisa-jie is one of the best leaders that i have ever met. She has been really great and i would also say DK would not be the same without her. But maybe we could have a partner in addition? From the fact that lisa-jie is MIA, we should get someone else to be kinda like a Vice Prez of DK, so that when she is gone there will be someone to take over.

I like the vote because we should get leader change in some way? but not in a way taht we kick her out of leader spot, just to have a partner. I have seen there are many people that have applied for DK and have not gotten an answer because lisa has not been able to do any of that cause of her MIA, therefore i would rather have someone else be there to work those duties out when she isnt. But i would still love to have lisa as our leader, Dk would not be the same with lisa gone.

I think for the active reapply, what i wonder if that we might and might not be accepted for that. I have noticed that people who are active and in a group are really happy with that group they are in. I understand that there are less active people in the groups, but we should just remove them out of the group if it is necessary, i dont think it would be fair to the active to have to.

Well that is all i think..lol But just my opinion to what i have seen throughout DK.

[catseyes]

Actually, i didn't really want to vote, because i just don't want to see a change of leader for LQP and the old LQPers coming back to know that they have been kicked out (LQPers are known to hibernate for months.). In the end, i went with option 3, not really about change of leadership and members reapplying, but more like adding 1 or 2 sub-captain for every group so that things like approval for pending members can be carried out more efficiently instead of just depending on the leader alone.

[kirasuran]

im torn between 1 and 3 because i feel that the group gives us somewhere to go to, somewhere special and somewhere we can relate to (hence acceptance into that group)

but yes i agree...a few members from my group INCLUDING and ESPECIALLY ME *sorry for saying this but i dont mean it in ANY OFFENSIVE WAY AT ALL!!!! * hav ....MIA-ed. from time to time. and yes, it obviously has slowed down quite a lot. so yes.

i chose to keep it though..because i think leaving the groups like this will probably save a lot of otherwise unnecessary work, but i would like small changes implemented. although im quite happy with the way things work at SA. mebe jus some different things...

[twilighthush]

I think the groups should stay the same. It really gives people a sense of belonging. Even though I am not an "actual" group member of LQP yet, I already feel at home there, and have been invited by several members to join. (Only reason why I can't is cuz of my nonRegular status u__u) But even still, it's a great forum and a great way to get to know people!!

In regards to the leadership, maybe there can be co-leaders or junior leaders that can help with the groups when the senior leaders can't really be around.

[cs_omigosh]

I chose the first option. I think for members who just joined a social group (e.g me), it won't make sense to delete their membership and get them to apply to join again.. ^^

I am not sure what is happening in other social forums, but perhaps a thread can be started to ask if members still want to stay on? If they don't response within a certain time period, then their memberships should be deleted.

Regarding the last option, I strongly disagree. Cos if the Social groups were to be closed down. Why start new groups? I think we should continue with the existing groups instead. ^^

[kewlpiggy88]

there was no option for my opinion because i really don't know.

even though i've been in CS for a long time now, i think when it first started, i rarely go into the subforum. when i first started visiting jcnet, i had more time to read other ppl's posts and participate in group activities like the annual group games, but now i just need to get the "essentials" (like jay updates, or any other show/singer i'm into at the time, e.g. the jolin forum), and get out. it's hard for me to only periodically read the stuff that's happening at CS because that means i have to go back and read previous posts to get a clue on what is happening. so i just stopped going there. i think it's good for the newer and younger members of jcnet but for slightly older ppl, it's hard, esp with harder academics and also the fact that our (gasP!) jay obsession has been in a decline so i don't really feel those sudden impulses of jay appreciation as often, and so i have less feelings to share.

[karyn531]

I chose option 1.

Personally I love being an LQP member, and I love having Chun Li as the group leader, everything's nice and I don't want it to change. JCNET will be very different without its 6 social groups. If we start new ones, or get new leaders, the situation will come back to the square one eventually, so why should we?

Sometimes group members have to "hibernate" because of exams, shifting houses, etc etc, and because of that they might not be back for a while so I think it will be sad to come back and see that one have been evicted out of their beloved group.

I think group members should inform, or give reason, towards their going away for a while so that we'll know they are coming back. There is one member away since 2003 and not back until now, it's not fair that there are members unactive for so long. And yet, there are members away for a long time but they came back!! Well ... they shouldn't just disappear :tongue:

[aina]

I'm rooting for option3.

I already realized about some leaders and used-to-be-active members have been inactive a pretty long time ago. Well, maybe I'm one of those people, even though i still visit this forum once in a while.

But I believe we still have members who are qualified to take over the leaders position in each groups to re-build the groups. Other members in the group should support and participate too to make it happen off course.

About the re-applying to groups..does it mean we can apply to different group or we only able to re-apply to the same group.
If we can apply to different group...errr..i think it's not a good idea. Hard to explain but surely some problems will occur later.

[jay_is_cute]

I haven't picked anything yet, but all I know is that I don't want the usergroups to close. I know that for me, there are bound to be gaps where I just don't feel very active, yet I do enjoy the company of my group members and always make an effort to catch up later. Perhaps that's how some of the other members are too.

For option 3, I don't know how effective a solution it would be because inactive members might just come back to reapply so that they can stay and then slowly, but surely, they'll drift off again.

I think if I had to choose, I would choose to keep things the way they are and not tamper with the groups.

[Saharial]

i know i can't vote in this poll because i am not in a group. I did apply ages ago... but my application wasn't even rejected or accepted :(
i like the idea of the social groups, and having a smaller amount of people to gett o know cos its initimidating otherwise, but if your application doesn't even get looked at its difficult to want to be there y'know

[xJayChoux]

i voted for option 1.

why? first of all because i really think that the 6 social groups are the soul of JCnet and what keeps the spirit alive. i feel that it creates a special bond between the members. it gives you a place where you can find people who listen to you and are supporting you while you're having a bad time. i don't think this has ANYTHING to do with leadership.

2nd of all, KANR's leader, lepencil, has been MIA for some time already. this didn't mean that our group was doomed forever. no, we moved on as a GROUP and worked together as a team. though i became its interim leader, all i had to do was to take care of the application list while our boss was away and of course we miss our leader, but that doesn't mean that our group has fallen apart because of his absence.

being named as group means GROUP. teamwork.

[Pugwash]

I vote for option 5 (FYI, there is no option 5) :wink2:

I posted this in the WMZY forum and I'll post it here too. Groups aren't what it used to be. Anyone who was here 2 or so years ago remembers the group games we did and what not. There was actually an incentive to being in a group at that time, however I feel like there's no real motivation to be in one now.

I think what this forum needs is to develop some sort of ideas or incentive to being in a group.