|
Grex > Coop > #64: Moderated Conferences? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 133 responses total. |
slynne
|
|
response 14 of 133:
| 
May 2 15:13 UTC 2006 |
haha. I think so.
|
keesan
|
|
response 15 of 133:
|
May 2 15:38 UTC 2006 |
I would like to see the graffiti painted over.
|
tod
|
|
response 16 of 133:
|
May 2 20:35 UTC 2006 |
re #8
Imagine a hypothetical second conferencing system which
allowed you to block or hide responses to items you created.
Yea, we tend to call that the Parenting Conference circa Valerie regime.
It was censorship. You can create an item and a responder can invest just
as much time and intellect into responding. I do not think it fair for the
initiator of a thread to inherit absolute rights over all intellectual
discourse throughout the entire item.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 17 of 133:
|
May 2 21:27 UTC 2006 |
re #16: if everyone has the same opportunity I don't see how you can
object to it on the grounds of fairness. I think what you mean is that
you don't like the idea, not that it's not fair.
In the case of Valerie's abuse of the conferencing system, of course,
it *was* unfair, because Valerie used system privileges that are not
available to other users.
I predict that a system such as the one that's been proposed would have
a kind of a spotty start where the moderation got abused at first but
would eventually reach a kind of an equilibrium point where people would
either avoid certain items if they expected the initiator to abuse
moderation privileges or would create their own forums to express their
rebuttals and counter-arguments.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 18 of 133:
|
May 2 21:48 UTC 2006 |
You may be right, but the moderation would need to be frequent and
vigorous to have its intended effect, and it's important to never
underestimate the tenacity of people who lack both a sense of
decorum and a life.
Most non-agora conferences fail. I have my doubts as to whether there
is really a wellspring of potential high-quality discussion which is
being prevented from happening in agora by a lack of moderation and
control. People reward things by responding to them, and more responses
are generated by an idiotic mis-spelled opinion than a thoughtful tome.
|
tod
|
|
response 19 of 133:
|
May 2 23:00 UTC 2006 |
re #17
create their own forums
I see that as a problem caused by an ineffective solution to differing
opinions driving censorship. Why allow censorship? You either have the
savory debates or you don't. I don't think a FW should be an interior
decorator nor putting pearls on a pig to hide the fact that respondents may
not all be John Steinbeck.
|
mary
|
|
response 20 of 133:
|
May 3 01:30 UTC 2006 |
No one would be taking away the conferences you now enjoy. We'd just be
adding some new ones with different rules for folks who might like a
different style of conferencing. You won't be forced to join in. But
this may appeal to others and I'd like to see Grex mix it up a bit as long
as participation is voluntary and it's an alternate to what already
exists.
My biggest concern is that we waited too long to try this.
|
scholar
|
|
response 21 of 133:
|
May 3 02:11 UTC 2006 |
i hope people don't ban me from their items. :(
|
naftee
|
|
response 22 of 133:
|
May 3 02:57 UTC 2006 |
i enjoy posting graffiti once in a while
|
tod
|
|
response 23 of 133:
|
May 3 04:28 UTC 2006 |
re #20
No matter how you slice it, you're condoning censorship.
|
other
|
|
response 24 of 133:
|
May 3 11:50 UTC 2006 |
#23: To call this proposal censorship is as meaningless as calling what
the Bush Administration is doing "government." It is stretching the
definition of the word to the point at which it loses any connotation
that the original concept carries.
There is no applicable meaning of censorship to a system in which
everyone has the same rights to say whatever they want. It is
applicable to say that the speech is MINIMALLY regulated, but since
every user has the same regulatory rights over every other user, and the
whole system is voluntary to begin with, even that is stretching the
meaning.
Why are you so afraid of the idea that users can begin a conversation
and actually limit (as explicitly opposed to "eliminate or completely
control," by the system I proposed) the ability of others to sidetrack
or destroy the social value of that conversation? Especially when the
users who participate will inevitably decline to participate in
discussions moderated by those who abuse the limited powers they're given?
|
scholar
|
|
response 25 of 133:
|
May 3 13:06 UTC 2006 |
it's odd you're using that most people would understand to be mere rhetoric,
since the bush administration (doesn't GOVERNMENT just jump out at you as a
word to use there?) is obviously a government, regardless of what they've
done, because of the position they occupy. i'm also not sure how you can call
it 'minimal' regulation when it includes allowing any users to excise the
words of other peephole.
my position on this subject is obviously going to be marginal. i'm not
particularly popular, my odd ideas are probably expressed in an inadequate
manner, and i'm probably one of the biggest causes of distress this item seeks
to address. however, i can't imagine that, given the argumentative and
rivalous nature of many of grex's users, that this won't cause more problems
than it solves. There really aren't all that many offensive posts.
|
jep
|
|
response 26 of 133:
|
May 3 13:11 UTC 2006 |
I'd love to see a way to elevate the level of discussion on Grex. It
can really be a drag to wade through the viciousness and drivel in some
items in agora. It's definitely understandable to me why so many people
have left the conferences.
I don't see any harm in trying a different approach in some separate
space. Anyone who doesn't like it can always skip using it, after all.
Under the Picospan model on a Unix machine, a separate filesystem could
be used for each moderated conference. That would prevent linking
between the conferences. The moderator could pretty much have free
reign within the conference, without having any ability to take
liberties outside of that conference. The filesystems wouldn't have to
be large. All of the conferences combined on M-Net during it's busiest
period fit into about 30 MB of disk space. I'd expect 1 MB for each
conference would be plenty. I'm not sure if there's a limit to how many
filesystems there can be, or how difficult it would be to create,
administer and maintain them. I'm also not sure if there's a better
way, technically, to implement a moderated conference system.
|
tod
|
|
response 27 of 133:
|
May 3 18:14 UTC 2006 |
re #25
Why are you so afraid of
the idea that users can begin a conversation and actually limit (as
explicitly
opposed to "eliminate or completely control," by the system I proposed) the
ability of others to sidetrack or destroy the social value of that
conversation?
To quote a great statesman:
"Why don't you take your social regulations and shove em up your ass!"
|
mcnally
|
|
response 28 of 133:
|
May 3 19:55 UTC 2006 |
Maybe if there was less talk of shoving things up people's asses
some of us wouldn't feel some sort of moderation system might be
desirable.
|
keesan
|
|
response 29 of 133:
|
May 3 20:19 UTC 2006 |
My twit filter eliminates the drivel but not responses to it.
|
tod
|
|
response 30 of 133:
|
May 3 21:11 UTC 2006 |
I have desires to moderate discussions sometimes but I would never act on it
with Grex. Censorship is evil.
|
eprom
|
|
response 31 of 133:
|
May 3 22:01 UTC 2006 |
Keeping with the greek theme, lets call this the xenos.cf
|
tod
|
|
response 32 of 133:
|
May 3 22:10 UTC 2006 |
Popcorn Cf
|
nharmon
|
|
response 33 of 133:
|
May 4 03:14 UTC 2006 |
So this new thing would be like the twinkie conference on mnet?
|
naftee
|
|
response 34 of 133:
|
May 4 04:07 UTC 2006 |
basically yeah. just with an "old" twist
|
other
|
|
response 35 of 133:
|
May 5 01:43 UTC 2006 |
The proposal creates a SELF-regulating system to foster the development
of a more constructive mode of discussion. It defies logic to insist
that this is the same thing as censorship by authority. To cling to
that position can only marginalize you and your opinion, especially in
the absence of an alternative constructive suggestion.
|
tod
|
|
response 36 of 133:
|
May 5 04:24 UTC 2006 |
To cling to that position can only
marginalize you and your opinion, especially in the absence of an alternative
constructive suggestion.
Alberto Gonzales? Is that you? *Seig Heil*
|
other
|
|
response 37 of 133:
|
May 5 16:28 UTC 2006 |
I see no subtlety escapes your derision.
|
tod
|
|
response 38 of 133:
|
May 5 16:35 UTC 2006 |
I see you are full of syllables with nothing to say except "Censorship, my
precious", Golum.
|