[geekster]

[Tancorix]

When I looked at the list of who's on the board Spectabillis's name came up in Moderator green. I take it moderators have already been picked and i missed any announcements on it?

In any event congratulations Spectabillis.

[spectabillis]

[Ludwig]

I'm a bit surprised no one has suggested a Slashdot style moderation system. The gist of it is that everyone is a moderator, and while moderation powers are extremely limited for any one individual, in aggregate they're quite effective. The way Slashdot does it is to semirandomly hand out a number of moderation points to active participants from time to time, which they can use to score individual posts up or down according to a predefined list of criteria (e.g. +Informative or -Flamebait.) Each reader can set his own viewing threshold, such that he only sees posts that have been scored above a certain level. He can also classify other posters as Friends or Foes, giving their posts an automatic scoring bonus or penalty to that reader alone. (There are more details, but since I'm not advocating an exact copy of their system I'll leave it as an exercise to interested parties to find their moderation FAQ.)

The idea is that the good sense of the community at large outweighs the negative effects of any individual bad actor, without actually stifling that actor, and without resorting to grants of extraordinary powers to a select aristocracy. No one is censored, since anyone can set their prefs to view all posts. Everyone's a participant. Sounds familiar, huh?

(One prerequisite to making this work would be comment nesting, though. Reading visible replies to hidden comments gets confusing real quick.)

[Badger]

I'm wondering also if the discussion was tabled re. thread owners moderating their own area. I may have rushed passed any discussion that took place but if not I think it might be an interesting discussion to chew on.
_________________
.
Desert dogs drink deep.


.

[geekster]

Yeah ... Slashcode might make an interesting board. It is, though, I believe designed to have a limited number of people that are permitted to start a new thread (post a new article that collects comments)
_________________
Pabst Blue Ribbon - The beer that made Gerlach famous.

[geekster]

[Don Muerto]

I think that might have some problems when it comes to applying it to a purpose-directed board, i.e. burningman's eplaya.

What if I am the first to start the "Structures" thread and then kick all useful posters out of it, and make sure it sucks for imparting structural information?

Sure, good folks could start their own "Structures" thread in response, but then you have 2 and that could be confusing. Further, what if somebody non-evil creates the "Structures" thread, but I disagree with how they run or admin it? Should I create #2, and should those who disagree with us both create #3?

I am not sure how big a problem this would actually be, but it might be worth considering since there are certain threads here that are more "common domain" than on a board like the 3playa.
_________________
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.

[Badger]

Looking at the structure tree I can see your point Don. Maybe I can pare the suggestion back by saying, um, threads started in the general discussion might be a place to try it out. If a thread starts there but is inappropriate for the general discussion then it'd get moved over to the 'Structures' where ownership would be denied.
_________________
.
Desert dogs drink deep.


.

[Tancorix]

When it comes to thread ownership I feel it should be an all or nothing situation, either implement it for all threads or none. And while it works on the smaller scale 3Playa I can't see it working in this free wheeling melee over here.

Also from a technical perspective is there a mod to allow this or is thread ownership on a PHPBB board a pie in the sky idea?

[Don Muerto]

I am guilty of skimming. I thought we were talking wholesale thread ownership across the entire eplaya.

[i]Oh how I wish I could go back and edit my post to make it look like you are a racist.[/u]
_________________
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.

[Don Muerto]

BOLLOCKS!
_________________
Everyone is entitled to be stupid, but some abuse the privilege.

[theCryptofishist]

Yes, Sir!

_________________
Catch and release thrift store books.

Oops! I squid it again!!

Terminal City BM 08: http://www.apokiliptika.com/terminal_city_page.htm

[Zane5100]

[theCryptofishist]

I'll just whistle "Waltzing Matilda"
_________________
Catch and release thrift store books.

Oops! I squid it again!!

Terminal City BM 08: http://www.apokiliptika.com/terminal_city_page.htm

[Captain Fuckwit]

 In ePlaya Feedback -> Policy Discussion -> Edit Discussion: The Theory of Gravity

[Chai Guy]

[Tancorix]

Sheesh, quit trying to invoke Godwin's law to have the last say.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/legends/godwin/

[Nightterror]

Thread over
_________________
I express my excitement by brutally interrogating whomever is nearby

[spectabillis]

I figured there would be a followup to this, which is why I would normally prefer to reply via notes in a more personal fashion. But I actually appreciate that you feel you can post this under the moderator discussion because I think I am the last person who honestly wants to see moderators become some sort of nazi enforcers of policy. This is a community board, and would like to moderators remain in the same spirit.

Historically, discussions on policy and case studies have been the hot spots that spark fires and quickly spread to other areas of the board. When you have people refer to other's ideas as stupid, or start to pull in references to people as dickheads that has the tendency to escalate quickly into a personal bitch-fest.

Making personal references to users can also cause this, please visit the case studies thread for a good example of how it pulls people off topic and into flaming.

I hope you did not take my comment as inferring you were ignorant, from your language and points you make I would not make that assumption. It was aimed more at emotional tone than mental ability - and I dont place much relevance in a person's name, at least not in any negative context.

Unfortunately we need to keep the edit discussion on track as much as we can since a decision is needed before the next meeting, that is my prime concern. I, and probably many others, would appreciate a slightly less antagonizing tone in that discussion because many feel they are not comfortable posting in a thread with it. Since this is a community, we want to make sure as many people voice their opinion and concerns as can be made. Does that mean we have to be overly nice and accomodating? Absolutely not, there just needs to be a balance.

My intention is never to censor, I sincerely want to hear peoples thoughts and beliefs. But this can be done in a civil manner that does not degrade the benefits of social interaction.

[theCryptofishist]

[spectabillis]

[Captain Fuckwit]

CF Digest Regarding Censorship, Oct 12 2005

(03/23/05)
This is a paradox: Moderation does not equal censorship; however, Moderation is censorship. The real heart of the matter is-- What is it that is wanting of censorship? In the wanting of censorship, the Eplaya has to serve two masters- The E-playa community and the BMORG.

[Chai Guy]

CF,

I've read and re-read and then read once more still your post. I'm not sure exactly what it is that you're saying.

Do you wish this board to have no moderation what so ever? That's what I'm hearing.

Do you think that Bmorg is somehow censoring this board in some fashion?


Other than shutting the entire board down, I haven't seen Bmorg do anything that resembles censorship, and I've been posting on these boards since it's existance as a single thread way back in the day.

[Kinetic IV]

I think the censorship stuff described above is a bunch of crap. The ORG's funding this board and if they want to implement draconian rules it's their right to do so. We're all here as guests so if you don't like the rules you can ask nicely for change and if that doesn't work you leave, start your own place, whatever.

This might be a jungle but I have no problem with the moderators, I see them as keeping the peace and putting out minor fires so the jungle doesn't burn down. And that can happen.

In any event I haven't seen a good argument yet that's changed my mind on our moderators here. They do a great job...I've sure given them a few things to do and some of the things they had to do didn't come out in my favor. But I still think the world of them and the thankless job they're volunteering to do. I hope they stick around awhile. </soapbox>
_________________
K-IV
~~~~
Thank you for over 7 years of eplaya memories. I have asked Emily Sparkle to delete my account and I am gone. Goodbye and Goodluck to all of you! I will miss you!

[Mozy bonz]

Your right........its hard when your a newbie .............
we don't want to be lurking ......but there are some people that just look for a fight....
it's what drives them.

I have found that thick skin works for me .......but not every one has one...... or want's one.

I started my reading with the old Threads.

I like the people and the info that i have read

and I try to keep this in mind

"Take cars of your reputation. It;s your most valuable asset."

"Take charge of your own attitude. Don't let someone else choose it for you."

"Don't waste time responding to your critics"

"Every person that you meet knows something you don't; learn from them."

Never acqire just one kitten. Two are more fun and no more trouble.

[Mozy bonz]

and put you glasses on before you post

care not car

[Don Muerto]

[spectabillis]

[spectabillis]