Author
|
Topic: CoV rescue plan (Read 4529 times) |
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
  
|
 |
another idea
« Reply #15 on: 2002-09-26 12:24:49 » |
 |
An alternative is to let the discussions on the list and BBS take place with no moderation and no rules whatsoever, but rely on client-side filtering. That way each individual can choose their own set up rules for the list, and filter out messages and subscribers that break their rules.
Though this has been suggested before in other online communities, I think it was missing one key component: feedback. Each poster should be able to see when they are being filtered. Not by whom, but just numbers or percentages. Reasons would also be helpful, like if they were informed that as of this date they were filtered by 38% of the audience for flaming, and another 16% of the audience for being offtopic.
Comments?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rhinoceros
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 8.39
Rate rhinoceros
My point is ...
|
|
Re:CoV rescue plan
« Reply #17 on: 2002-09-26 14:33:16 » |
|
Two problems of client side filtering.
- It does not do anything for the BBS interface of the list and some may still use immature practices to make the list "look good".
- You have to accept or reject all or nothing from any particular poster.
|
|
|
|
|
Kharin
Archon
Posts: 407
Reputation: 8.44
Rate Kharin
In heaven all the interesting people are missing.
|
|
Re:CoV rescue plan
« Reply #18 on: 2002-09-26 15:45:01 » |
|
Quote:| I like the idea of a contractual subscription, that is when people sign up they agree that they will abide by the rules or suffer the established consequences. One problem that I would like to hear some ideas about is how to evolve the guidelines without requiring everyone to sign up again with each change. |
As you say, there are ways round this. For example, as I recall, a subscription message is sent out to anyone new subscribing to the list. This could be amended to either have a precis of the code/contract (actually, I think contract might be the better term) or a link to the one on the bbs.
I think there are other problems than those mentioned with client side filtering, namely that it places the onus upon those who have done nothing to break the rules, rather than on those that have. Not to mention the fact that client side filtering represents the status quo for me at present, not a change in policy...
|
|
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:CoV rescue plan
« Reply #19 on: 2002-09-26 17:35:26 » |
|
Quote from: rhinoceros on 2002-09-26 14:33:16 Two problems of client side filtering.
- It does not do anything for the BBS interface of the list and some may still use immature practices to make the list "look good".
- You have to accept or reject all or nothing from any particular poster.
|
The idea is that it would be incorporated into the web interface. For instance a link would be included at the bottom of each message that would take you to a form that would allow you to set up a filter based on the message, e.g. send at most 3 messages a day to me from this author.
Anyway, clearly we don't have the technology now, but I threw out the idea in the hopes that it would generate other good alternatives.
|
|
|
|
|
rhinoceros
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 8.39
Rate rhinoceros
My point is ...
|
|
Re:CoV rescue plan
« Reply #20 on: 2002-09-27 20:03:27 » |
|
If it is hard to implement and enforce the rules of conduct and the moderation, we could achieve something similar using a variation of Zloduska's idea for a limited numbers of posts.
1. One can freely post at most in 4 different threads (existing or new) in a day.
2. One cannot create more than 2 new threads in a day.
|
|
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:CoV rescue plan
« Reply #21 on: 2002-09-28 13:32:12 » |
|
Quote from: rhinoceros on 2002-09-27 20:03:27
If it is hard to implement and enforce the rules of conduct and the moderation, we could achieve something similar using a variation of Zloduska's idea for a limited numbers of posts.
1. One can freely post at most in 4 different threads (existing or new) in a day.
2. One cannot create more than 2 new threads in a day.
|
Though the idea has its own merits, I don't see how it achieves something similar to a code of conduct.
What do you think should happen if someone exceeds the limits?
|
|
|
|
|
rhinoceros
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1318
Reputation: 8.39
Rate rhinoceros
My point is ...
|
|
Re:CoV rescue plan
« Reply #22 on: 2002-09-28 14:33:50 » |
|
[rhinoceros]
If it is hard to implement and enforce the rules of conduct and the moderation, we could achieve something similar using a variation of Zloduska's idea for a limited numbers of posts.
1. One can freely post at most in 4 different threads (existing or new) in a day.
2. One cannot create more than 2 new threads in a day.
[David]
Though the idea has its own merits, I don't see how it achieves something similar to a code of conduct.
What do you think should happen if someone exceeds the limits?
[rhinoceros]
The reason I said that it would serve a purpose along the lines of a code of conduct was that it would encourage the members to stay on a discussion, hopefully up to its logical conclusion, rather than drop out of the argument and create similar threads when this is not necessary.
The reason I said that it would be an easier solution than a code of conduct was that I supposed that the limitations could be enforced by software. If this is true, apparently the limits cannot be exceeded, and we might try it and see whether it is sufficient.
Apart from all that, a general remark that I wanted to make is that, while engaging in rational discourse, we should care more for encouraging individual rational thinking among the members, and that might matter for the final decision (form and function).
|
|
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.69
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:CoV rescue plan
« Reply #23 on: 2002-09-29 15:31:13 » |
|
I think that we should have a small group of moderators, three seems like a good number. The main problem with having one person do the job, like Hermit, is that people will more likely take it personally when the moderator steps in. It seems like one of the biggest problems when the list starts to take a dive is the run-away quantity of posts that begin flooding the list as members try to rapid-fire response against each other. When the moderators recognize that things are going sour this way, they could start with an announced temporary posting limit, maybe six a day, or whatever number seems to work. If this seems to cool down the situation, the limit can be lifted again.
If this doesn't seem to work, then more individualized action can be taken against the most offending posters. If it is at all possible, we should avoid having to make judgments about the content of particular posts, like deciding that a particular statement is pure flaming or ad hominem. But then on the other side when other content neutral moderation schemes like daily posting limits fail to remedy the situation, we shouldn't sit around and wail about censorship. Good moderation indeed is the opposite of censorship. It allows more voices to be heard more constructively. With no moderation you simply end up with conversation domination by the most anti-social drowning out the voices of the more socially well adjusted, whose voices are probably more crucial for a successful forum.
Love,
-Jake
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
BillRoh
Guest
|
|
Re:CoV rescue plan
« Reply #24 on: 2002-09-30 15:42:27 » |
|
If I were king:
I would elect moderators from the willing among the congregation
I would ban moderators from moderating threads in which they are posting - unless their post is a "stop flaming each other" post, or the like.
I would have a process of complaining about a moderator that gets seen by the other moderators
I would use banning only for e-attacks
I would give moderators a term limit - 6 months or a year.
|
|
|
|
|
Kharin
Archon
Posts: 407
Reputation: 8.44
Rate Kharin
In heaven all the interesting people are missing.
|
|
Re:CoV rescue plan
« Reply #25 on: 2002-10-01 04:55:37 » |
|
I suspect that the pool of members so willing would not be large enough for this proposal to be viable. I also suspect that those most likely to volunteer would also probably be those most that post the most already, which might be a problem for your second point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BillRoh
Guest
|
|
Re:CoV rescue plan
« Reply #28 on: 2002-10-04 20:39:06 » |
|
KHARIN:
I suspect that the pool of members so willing would not be large enough for this proposal to be viable. I also suspect that those most likely to volunteer would also probably be those most that post the most already, which might be a problem for your secoKnd point.
Well, how many do you think would be necessary? It seems to me that if 20 of us could agree to take some responsibility in this concern, that would be enough. Do we have 20 people willing to put up that kind of effort? I would. We all claim to love the CoV, who actually is willing to put in a few minutes a week to deal with some light moderation?
As for the second point, I would agree not to post at all to areas I was responsible for moderating, and I mean the forum - not just individual threads. Frankly, I have lost total interest in the political arena of discussion as the battles are now about idiologies instead of information. I have a hard time finding anyone here that I would not trust to moderate - with one exception of course. But I would be happy with Mermaid, Walter, Casey, Rhino, yourself, Z, and many, many others are certainly capable.
|
|
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:CoV rescue plan
« Reply #29 on: 2002-10-05 11:32:19 » |
|
Quote from: BillRoh on 2002-10-04 20:39:06
Well, how many do you think would be necessary? It seems to me that if 20 of us could agree to take some responsibility in this concern, that would be enough. Do we have 20 people willing to put up that kind of effort? I would. We all claim to love the CoV, who actually is willing to put in a few minutes a week to deal with some light moderation?
|
I thought moderation meant deciding which messages are published. In a moderated mailing list, each and every message is approved by the moderator before being sent to the list. On the BBS, moderators move or remove inappropriate postings. What do you mean by moderation and how would someone doing light moderation spend a few minutes a week?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
