|
|
|
This is an excerpt from our last BOD meeting. I am posting it set apart
because I would like any discussion about this to be seperate from the
meeting notes because I think this is a topic that is important enough
for it's own item.
Conferencing:
It was the opinion of some board members that the quality of
conferencing has gone down. For example there was an item recently that
started out with good content but then ended up with comments from users
about them having sex with the item author s daughter. Grex s
conferences might not be attractive to new people. How can Grex have
conferences that appeal to serious adult conversation? Here are some
rough ideas:
1. Introduce a second set of conferences with a different set of
rules 2. Create a new default conference with moderation.
Abusers could be
excluded. Users could be required to be validated before they can post.
Or we could allow any current users to post but validate any newusers.
Or it could be open to just paying users.
3. Allow item authors to moderate items.
4. Make no procedural changes to conferences but use social
pressure to
encourage thoughtful high quality posts.
Can Grex be different things to different people? Can we keep the old
conferences with no restrictions and have either another set of
conferences or just one conference with different rules. Would it work?
What do you guys think? Is there anything we can do to appeal to a wider
group of people and encourage new users. Would there be support for a
second set of conferences or for a single moderated conference?
133 responses total.
Ditch the Blue Ribbon!
I agree that the quality of the conferences (agora in particular, but then it's the only one with substantial activity..) has gone WAY downhill. The tone of the (for lack of a better word) "discussions", the personal attacks, and the constant pointless coarseness and vulgarity sadden me (and make me really sorry, as well, that I encouraged a teenage relative to create an account. AFAIK that person hasn't been active in any of the conferences yet but I'm embarrassed by what they'll find if they eventually join agora.) At this point commitment to free speech is about the only thing keeping me from advocating stricter controls. But I see it as an interesting question -- when garbage speech drives out other forms of expression is it really pro-free-speech to enable the clamoring idiots who shut down other conversations for their own amusement?
This response has been erased.
In order to balance the preservation of a free speech environment with the desire to maintain a civil discussion environment, here is how I would set up a new conference that allows persons posting topics to moderate the topics they've posted:
These powers, in combination, allow moderators to limit and hide off-topic, disruptive or abusive content expressed in postings, fullnames and in loginids while preserving the ability of readers to see all actions taken by moderators and review any content exclusions made by them. This allows the community to self-police and self-regulate abuse of the moderator's powers.
In addition, users should be able to remove their own posts and items
they've entered, though removed posts should be replaced with a notice
indicating that the posts were removed by the user, not the moderator.
and just who is going to do this?
One issue with allowing authors to moderate items is that often an author will create an item and then somewhere down the line, an interesting discussion develops. If the author were someone petty, they would have more control over that conversation than I would like. On the other hand, this seems to be the model that many blogs operate under. The owner of the blog moderates the comments to different degrees and if a blog post is authored by someone who excessively or unfairly moderates comments, people tend not to comment there anymore. I have seen how some of the bigger blogs manage to moderate comments in such a way that it can really foster discussion because people feel safe posting there. So I guess I am on the fence about that sort of solution. The solution I prefer, although I dont know how to impliment it, would be to keep things as they are but somehow find a way to get good posters to post more often. I think that the overall character of a place is what is important. If there are some abusive trolls mixed in, they are easy to ignore. All I know is that I have recommended Grex to people I talk to in the blog world but none of them have been interested in being here. Either they didnt like the conferencing structure or they came here and didnt find the discussions interesting enough to stay. Or they felt that Grex was too much of an "in crowd" I would like to see people be more welcoming and I know I can certainly improve in that area myself. Personally, I find most of the discussions here to be interesting but I worry that if we keep slowly losing conference participants, we'll end up with fewer and fewer people talking to each other. Also we will end up with fewer people willing to do the nuts and bolts things to keep the place online.
It was the opinion of some board members that the quality of conferencing has gone down. Opinions are acceptable. Censorship is not.
Is it censorship if Grex experiments with a system that allows item creators more editorial control over conversations if the system still allows participants the ability to post (virtually) anything they want to post? Imagine a hypothetical second conferencing system which allowed you to block or hide responses to items you created. Where's the censorship if the people whose items are blocked are entitled to create their own items and post any ideas they want?
i'm curious. how negatively do people see me? am i one of the 'abusive trolls' slynne talks about? am i part of mcnally's 'pointless courseness and vulgarity'? i think one of the things about my personality is that i SEEM more antagonistic than i really am. for example, i've posted all sorts of silly nonsense about how eric bassey (i.e., other) is a jew who has set out to conspire against me, but mostly that's in jest and parody and trying to understand people who actually think those sorts of things, and one of the things i like about some people is their ability to realize when i'm just fucking around. not that i don't also have the problem of saying things jokingly that are all too serious and important to me.
It's sad, though, when you are the only one laughing at you... usually a sign you may not be that funny ;)
re #9: One side-effect of a moderation system is that you'd have a pretty good idea (without even having to ask) whether people were offended or distracted by your posts enough to feel that the discussion would be better off without them. The user I primarily had in mind with the "pointless coarseness and vulgarity" comment is jvmv, who virtually never posts anything except attempts to disrupt the discussion or harrass participants. However I have to admit that there are other comments that I would prefer to see edited out of some discussions.
resp:7 - I think the idea is to keep the current conferences just as they are but to consider providing an alternative space with different rules than we currently have.
Like the Dave Parks Nice Conference?
haha. I think so.
I would like to see the graffiti painted over.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
i hope people don't ban me from their items. :(
i enjoy posting graffiti once in a while
re #20 No matter how you slice it, you're condoning censorship.
#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?
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.
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.
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!"
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.
My twit filter eliminates the drivel but not responses to it.
I have desires to moderate discussions sometimes but I would never act on it with Grex. Censorship is evil.
Keeping with the greek theme, lets call this the xenos.cf
Popcorn Cf
So this new thing would be like the twinkie conference on mnet?
basically yeah. just with an "old" twist
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.
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*
I see no subtlety escapes your derision.
I see you are full of syllables with nothing to say except "Censorship, my precious", Golum.
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.
| Last 40 Responses and Response Form. |
|
|
|
- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss