|
Grex > Coop > #64: Moderated Conferences? | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 133 responses total. |
scholar
|
|
response 39 of 133:
| 
May 5 16:59 UTC 2006 |
re. 35: no-one complained about it being censorship BY AUTHORITY.
moreover, it COULD be censorship by authority if authority knows certain
things are likely to be censored.
|
tod
|
|
response 40 of 133:
|
May 5 17:36 UTC 2006 |
Its still censorship. Someone doesn't like your tone, grammar, vocabular,
slang, drift, punctuation, style, etc and suddenly you've got Joe Stalin
himself re-writing the entire item. No f'in thanks, Goebels lovers.
|
krj
|
|
response 41 of 133:
|
May 5 17:53 UTC 2006 |
Arbornet III.
|
tod
|
|
response 42 of 133:
|
May 5 18:19 UTC 2006 |
1984
|
albaugh
|
|
response 43 of 133:
|
May 11 23:01 UTC 2006 |
Baying at the moon, tod.
I suspect (no proof) that grex is not the first conferencing system for most
of the people who come to grex. Therefore conferencers have undoubtedly seen
the lurid side of internet communication, and are not likely to be shocked
at what they see on grex. The question is, is there enough valuable and
interesting discussion, period on grex, even with the detraction of the
graffiti of trap etc.?
|
tod
|
|
response 44 of 133:
|
May 11 23:54 UTC 2006 |
Parenting Cf - The Sequel
What part of the board actions and discussions did you all forget about after
popcorn went apeshit? Censorship is nothing to take lightly.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 45 of 133:
|
May 12 01:00 UTC 2006 |
REMOVE THE RIBBON PLZ K?
|
naftee
|
|
response 46 of 133:
|
May 12 03:43 UTC 2006 |
TAKE IT OFF
STRIP IT
|
tod
|
|
response 47 of 133:
|
May 12 09:29 UTC 2006 |
"Take it off! Take it off!"
-Searching for Mr.Goodbar
|
jesuit
|
|
response 48 of 133:
|
May 17 02:16 UTC 2006 |
TROGG IS DAVID BLAINE
|
rcurl
|
|
response 49 of 133:
|
May 19 02:46 UTC 2006 |
I use some moderated mailinglists and all the moderator does is ensure that
all submissions are relevant to the topic of the mailinglist and presented
civily. I have no problem with such moderation. Of course, a moderator could
abuse his/her authority. I have seen cases where that has led to new
mailinglists splitting off from the original.
|
tod
|
|
response 50 of 133:
|
May 19 20:10 UTC 2006 |
I run one and it gets about 900 messages a day..half or more are spam. Its
a PITA.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 51 of 133:
|
Oct 2 04:50 UTC 2007 |
I have linked this item from the previous Coop Conference because it
seems relevant to issues that were discussed at Happy Hour. (Thanks,
gelinas, for pointing it out to me).
I am considering making this a BoD agenda item. My suggestion to the
Board would be that we make conference posting a Class 2 privilege.
I believe that the problem as posed by slynne in the original post still
remains.
Personally, I have been directing most friends to a different
(moderated) conferencing system with an Agora Conference that has every
thing I enjoy about Grex's Agora, without the verbal abuse, attacks, and
graffiti. (Really, it was already named Agora when I joined!)
I also have found myself avoiding Agora. I don't need to see all the
abusive item titles, nor do I need to page through all the ignored
responses. There are pleasanter communities, with just as broad a range
of opinions.
However, before I propose moving conference posting to class 2, I'd like
to see more of a consensus.
One thing that concerns me is that such a consensus may not be possible,
and that Grex may lose a large number of its supporters if we try to
create experimental moderated conferences. However, Grex is already
losing supporters and active participants, so in some sense, we lose
either way.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 52 of 133:
|
Oct 2 13:08 UTC 2007 |
I had a similar proposal for mnet that I wish they'd tried. Basically,
there would be an uncensored cf that mirrored gen/agora. I proposed
calling the uncensored cf "garbage" but you can come up with whatever name
you want. The key was that readers could respond to a post by typing "move
(post/item #) to garbage." There would be a program that automatically
counted the "move to" posts, and once a threshold was reached, that post
or item would be marked "moved." It would still be fully readable in the
uncensored mirror cf but not in the first cf. The only issues I could see
would where to set the threshold (five votes? ten? somewhere in between?)
and whether those whose items were moved would try to game the system by
creating new accounts to punish those who voted to move their items. Given
the new proposals to validate users, I think the second problem may be
more imaginary than real. The advantage of this system is that no power
is concentrated in the hands of a moderator, it is based on consensus (to
a degree) and there is no censorship, in the sense that no one's words are
permanently "disappeared." Something to think about.
|
keesan
|
|
response 53 of 133:
|
Oct 2 13:15 UTC 2007 |
How about allowing the fairwitness of agora to delete (is that possible) items
posted specifically to annoy (such as the recent spate by our resident
vandal)? Even if I filter the vandals, it is annoying to have to read the
responses to them.
|
cyklone
|
|
response 54 of 133:
|
Oct 2 13:23 UTC 2007 |
I would oppose that method as concentrating too much power in the hands of
one person. My method would allow grex as a group to do the same thing. Under
your proposal, who's to say that I wouldn't be censored if I used "indelicate"
language to start a "bruce is an ignorant moron who refuses to use his brain"
item? Also, your proposal would remove the item entirely, while mine would
allow it to live on in another cf.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 55 of 133:
|
Oct 2 13:47 UTC 2007 |
Sindi, the Agora fairwitness already has that power.
|
keesan
|
|
response 56 of 133:
|
Oct 2 14:21 UTC 2007 |
Should we vote whether to allow the Agora fairwitness to remove postings
designed primarily to be offensive? Or will this encourage the vandal to
flood other conferences?
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 57 of 133:
|
Oct 2 14:32 UTC 2007 |
You're assuming that the proposal would pass.
I don't think you've got the votes to do that, but go ahead and start
the process if you like.
|
keesan
|
|
response 58 of 133:
|
Oct 2 14:36 UTC 2007 |
I am asking people to discuss whether to vote on this. Please read what I
write more carefully before you respond to it.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 59 of 133:
|
Oct 2 15:11 UTC 2007 |
"Should we vote whether to allow the Agora fairwitness to remove
postings designed primarily to be offensive?"
I'm not sure what you are proposing to vote on. The fairwitness has the
ability to remove posts right now. She can use it or not. So far,
she's not chosen to use it.
I assumed you were asking to change Grex policy and allowing
fairwitnesses to remove "postings designed primarily to be offensive".
Since Grex does not have a Code of Conduct, there is no definition of
"offensive" that can be applied.
Your proposal appears to be "Allow fairwitnesses to decide what they
find offensive, and remove it from any forum they are fairwitness in."
If that's what you want us to vote on, all you need to do is propose it.
I, personally, don't think there is support for that. But my opinion
doesn't have anything to do with what proposals other members put forth.
Meanwhile, back to the original discussion. I think we might be able to
test a couple of the theories. I like cyclone's "move this post" idea,
and I like slynne's idea of a second set of conferences.
Two test conferences I can see are Current Agora with "move this post"
voting, and New Agora with post-level editing and/or moderation.
For example, if I were the moderator of New Agora, and part of a post
was interesting information, but part of it was a personal attack on
another user, I could edit that post to remove the personal attack.
If I were the poster, I could go back and edit my posts at any time.
Not just hide/remove but actually edit content.
I'm not sure of the code/technical implications of the second proposal,
but perhaps we'll hear from one of our staff about this.
|
mary
|
|
response 60 of 133:
|
Oct 2 21:04 UTC 2007 |
Almost every forum in which I participate requires a form of validation
before posting is allowed. For most, it's a confirmation emailing, and
turnaround access is pretty much instantaneous. Anyone who wanted to
cause problems would just need to be able to provide lots of valid email
addresses. But still, it seems to be enough to keep twits to a bare
minimum.
I'd very much prefer we go that route and not get into wholesale
censorship.
Between asking for some type of validation-lite and encouraging users
to invoke the "forget" feature, we should be in reasonable shape,
I'd think. If not, we look at more aggressive measures.
But moderation and censorship should be considered the atom bomb of
fixes. It would probably solve the problem and kill Grex at the
same time.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 61 of 133:
|
Oct 2 21:43 UTC 2007 |
"provide lots of valid email addresses."
Mary, I'm assuming that the email addresses are from a different site.
So, for example, someone wanting to validate to post to Grex conferences
would give a yahoo, or google, or some other email address.
This is a bit different from how the Board envisioned Grex doing it. At
the moment, you will be able to create a Grex account, and use that
account to request validation.
Are you supporting the idea that we move conference posting into the
Class Two privileges?
|
mary
|
|
response 62 of 133:
|
Oct 2 22:16 UTC 2007 |
I am supportive of a new policy that would require Class Two privileges
before a user could post in the conferences. The founder in me is saying
"yuck" but I sense we've taken the totally open experience as far as we
can.
As to the specifics - I'd suggest we start with the lightest possible
touch, evaluate how it goes, then adjust as necessary. Try validating
using only a Grex email address and local (social) contact. It may be
enough of a barrier but key to this would be that a user would get a
prompt response to their request for access. The less automated the
process the more I fear folks will end up moving on. Having to wait
would be a reallly bad thing here.
That is indeed the beauty of the kind of off-site email validation I run
across almost everywhere else. You give the system your gmail address
(for example) and you immediately get an email response that requires
you click to confirm you indeed requested access. Click and tah-dah!
You're in. It's almost that fast.
You could abuse this system, for sure. But it would take some time.
And a whole lot of email addresses.
So, overall, I'd choose whatever system would make it the easiest for a
potential new user to get in and posting and part of the community.
|
keesan
|
|
response 63 of 133:
|
Oct 2 23:00 UTC 2007 |
I like hearing from nonlocal people in Agora and they do not have any social
contacts here to start with.
|