Grex Coop Conference

Item 64: Moderated Conferences?

Entered by slynne on Mon May 1 23:26:09 2006:

44 new of 133 responses total.


#90 of 133 by remmers on Thu Oct 11 14:35:55 2007:

Putting it another way:  I'm suggesting mechanisms that would allow
users to fine-tune for themselves what they see and don't see in the
conferences, based partly on the opinions of other users whom they
trust.  Basically, a more sophisticated filtering system than just
"ignore" and "forget", that takes into account that different users will
have different preferences.


#91 of 133 by lar on Thu Nov 22 10:02:53 2007:

re#90

Do what you like but if you do then remove the blue ribbon. Not that it
matters much. It's just a symbol. m-net doesn't have a blue ribbon but
it generally sticks to free speech due to jerryr's insistence on it. tod
and I are his strongest supporters in that particular area. In fact, the
only time I have seen the principle grossly violated was when the banned
April Morrison aka "hera" from the system for nothing but posting ,what
was in their opinion, bad content. I disagreed with the ban based on
principle as did tod and jerryr. The line of reasoning that was used, if
I recall correctly, was that hera's posts would have a negative impact
on the influx of newusers. We are still waiting for this "influx". We
get new users all the time but most don't dare tread on the bbs . Those
that do will get flamed to tears if they don't have a thick skin. Ask
veek, one flame from twinkie and he ran back here like a whipped puppy.
The world isn't a perfect place where everyone behaves and gets along.
There are total jerks. There are good people who get pissed and act like
jerks. There are good people who use a bad attitude as the first layer
in their self defense mechanism. If you can't handle a few insults that
amount to nothing but a few pixels on a screen then get some counseling 
 Aren't you the same bunch that screams bloody murder when christians
want profanity  and porn removed from movies and TV? You say "Hey, you
don't have to watch it... turn the channel and stop legislating
morality" Isn't a failure to maintain the free speech campaign because
you don't like the content, to a certain extent,hypocrisy?  


free speech makes grex. If you have to tolerate those who abuse this
freedom in order to keep it...so be it.


#92 of 133 by tod on Thu Nov 22 10:33:00 2007:

Give april time...soon this place will be run like a convent


#93 of 133 by mary on Thu Nov 22 14:14:10 2007:

I think you've got free speech issues confused with intentional acts of 
vandalism, lar.  Entering the same exact string of words in every item and 
then coming back an hour later and doing the same thing again.  And again.  
And again.

In terms of content Grex has a pretty thick skin.

But that said I'm not sure the totally open model works all that well 
anywhere anymore.  It's a magnet for people with social issues.


#94 of 133 by cyklone on Thu Nov 22 14:45:46 2007:

Lar's version of mnet events is only half the story. Some of us simply felt
that Hera did not keep up her end of a bargain she made with mnet many years
ago.


#95 of 133 by mary on Thu Nov 22 15:40:27 2007:

So if she'd come back and entered great items that were popular she 
wouldn't have been blocked?


#96 of 133 by cyklone on Fri Nov 23 14:09:52 2007:

Actually, I think the agreement (which I was not around for) was basically
to not act like the ass she had been when she originally left mnet. You'd have
to ask someone who was around then for the details.


#97 of 133 by remmers on Sun Nov 25 13:27:09 2007:

I was around.  As best I can remember, she agreed not to come back, in
exchange for a partial refund of her membership donation.  After a
couple of years, she came back anyway.  The M-Net board noted that she
was in violation of the agreement but took no action.  This was, like,
five years ago.  In view of the fact that her renewed presence on M-Net
was then tolerated for several years, citing the long-ago violation as
justification for the recent banning strikes me as more of a pretext
than anything else.


#98 of 133 by cyklone on Sun Nov 25 14:35:37 2007:

I don't, as I don't recall any time limit being involved. My understanding
was the deal was she had to behave a certain way. The fact is she violated
that agreement. Waiting to pull the plug on her was fully within the rights
of m-net. I'm mean, she can't very well tell a cop "hey, I've been speeding
for five years now, you can't give me a ticket!"


#99 of 133 by remmers on Sun Nov 25 16:20:51 2007:

What I'm saying is that I don't think that her violation of the previous
agreement had much to do with the fact that she was banned.


#100 of 133 by lar on Sun Nov 25 21:07:14 2007:

re#93
yeah, I guess spamming a board with multiple instances of the same post
isn't exactly free speech. However, I didn't get banned for it ( I got a
24 hour time from casper once) twinkie didn't get banned for it.
chamberl didn't get banned for it. The thing that got the ball rolling
looking back on it... If I recall correctly was hera threatening to call
tanis's employers about his totally alledged drug abuse. We all warned
her about it and she didn't do anything. However, it did serve to
escalate the long standing feud between her and tanis. An item voting on
the ban was started by tanis and it quickly became the hottest topic I
have ever seen on m-net. We had like 300 responses or something in 8
hours. The roots took note of the popularity of the item and the
overwhelming response against hera and booted her. cyklone is right,
someone did bring up the old refund issue but that was only an addendum
 to the item so remmers is correct. The final decision was made by a
root and not by the B.O.D. My argument was that a root should  intervene
in a fully paid member's activities  only if technical abuse is being
done by the member. Let's face it cyklone..we banned hera for content. 


#101 of 133 by cyklone on Sun Nov 25 21:44:08 2007:

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that. While I don't know the terms of
the old agreement, I'm fairly certain she agreed to restrictions on what and
how she posted.


#102 of 133 by cmcgee on Sun Nov 25 22:08:44 2007:

Folks, this conversation does not belong in Grex's governance
conference.

Please move it elsewhere.



#103 of 133 by jep on Mon Nov 26 19:55:33 2007:

I was starting to wonder why Grex was discussing M-Net's policies in
Grex's coop.  I'm doubtful that most of Arbornet's Board participates in
this conference, so I don't think much is going to get decided here. 


#104 of 133 by lar on Mon Nov 26 20:33:47 2007:

Whatever, The issue came up as a basis to compare grex's moderated 
conf. proposal with current m-net practices as relating to free speech 
and NOT as a discussion that would effect m-net policy. Didn't mean to 
slay your sacred "don't discuss m-net in coop" cow


#105 of 133 by nharmon on Mon Nov 26 20:38:47 2007:

I agree with Larry. The conversation is very relevant.


#106 of 133 by cmcgee on Mon Nov 26 20:42:37 2007:

Starting with post 92, this topic has had nothing to do with Moderated
Conferences on Grex.  

Please stay on topic.  


#107 of 133 by lar on Tue Nov 27 11:26:53 2007:

In any case a grex already has somewhat of a moderated forum, does it
not? Take coop for example. The FW has cracked the whip. For the record
I want to know why #92 is considered off topic? It's off the cuff humor
but it makes a relevant prediction. In a nutshell, tod is predicting
that a discussion of moderated conferences will soon be a non-issue as
agora will probably be strictly moderated out of necessity.   


#108 of 133 by slynne on Tue Nov 27 18:20:49 2007:

There is a difference between a conference being moderated with
technology and one where a FW simply redirects the conversation. The big
problem is that around here, the latter takes a LOT of work and isnt
always effective anyways. 


#109 of 133 by lar on Wed Nov 28 20:19:22 2007:

"the latter takes a LOT of work and isnt always effective anyways." 

Especially when the opinion about a particular post (such as #92) being 
off topic is doubtful to say the least. tod does often post off topic 
but that doesn't mean every time he posts it should be considered so.


#110 of 133 by remmers on Thu Nov 29 13:43:59 2007:

I detect some misunderstanding of my suggestion in resp:90 as it wouldn't 
limit what people can say or where they can say it, nor would it involve 
moving or removing anything that's been posted, but then I haven't thought 
it 100% of the way through myself and in any case it would be a major 
project to implement so I doubt it'll happen anytime soon, so don't worry 
about it.  :)  (But I'll try to expand on it if there's interest.)

In the meantime - Drift tends to happen when there's a lull and nobody's 
injecting new ideas or viewpoints into a discussion.  If the Board is 
actually thinking of anything by way of conference moderation, I'm sure 
they'll bring it up in Coop for discussion first, and that will put 
discussion back on track.


#111 of 133 by lar on Tue Dec 4 21:12:29 2007:

this dead horse has been beat for years by you guys. nothing ever 
happens

:forget


#112 of 133 by hera on Sun Feb 24 02:41:40 2008:

AHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! I only scanned over this, but it's hilarious that all of your
cowards are talking behind my back! hahahaha!!! Especially cyklown!!! I knew
he was reading every word I write on here. This is rich. NOT TO MENTION that
way back in May, up there in response #2, someone was complaining that agora
was going downhill and it didn't have anything to do with ME. You're all such
a bunch of whiny cowards. Except lar. I have respect for lar. I also respect
those who don't join in the lynching party and hera bashfest. hahahah!
Cyklown, what a jerk you are.
Oh, and there's keesan talking about ME too! Oooh, I thought she was
FILTERING! What a fucking lying cunt. SEE? I am TOO a great judge of
character. I can spot a fucking lying cunt a mile away. ;)


#113 of 133 by hera on Sun Feb 24 02:43:59 2008:

re #96: AHAHA! WRONG! Cyklown is totally fucking wrong. He doesn't know
anything about any "agreement" which, in fact, there was none. Stupid asshole.
Listen to the stupid asshole, if you want "facts" that aren't true. WHERE ARE
YOUR CITES FOR THAT REMARK, cyklown? Yeah, I thought so.


#114 of 133 by tsty on Sun Feb 24 08:27:10 2008:


#64.93 Mary Remmers (mary) Thu, Nov 22, 2007 (09:14):
I think you've got free speech issues confused with intentional acts ...

[[...xnip...]]

But that said I'm not sure the totally open model works all that well
anywhere anymore.  It's a magnet for people with social issues.

#64.100 larry (lar) Sun, Nov 25, 2007 (16:07):
re#93
yeah, I guess spamming ......

[[...xnip...]]

Let's face it cyklone..we banned hera for content.
  



#115 of 133 by tsty on Tue Feb 26 05:49:45 2008:

maybe a moderated   newuser  woeuld work .... see latere item.


#116 of 133 by hera on Sat Mar 1 01:22:28 2008:

Retard.


#117 of 133 by hera on Sat Mar 1 01:39:32 2008:

re #114: You're the one with a "social issue" you skanky cunt whore bitch.
I don't see you contributing much of anything in the General conference.


#118 of 133 by tsty on Sun Mar 2 01:59:22 2008:

lar;s 100 wnas slighterly off ... nort 'content' raterh, ;mal-content;
  
mdoerated newsuer nad/or psoting resotrictions seemm the learst-worst chioce.


#119 of 133 by hera on Fri Mar 7 02:41:25 2008:

What the fuck did you say???? You retard.


#120 of 133 by madmike on Thu Oct 23 17:58:15 2008:

Not that I read every post in this topic but as I read remmers#85 the 
following occured to me.

What if... individual posts where rated - say, on a five star scale. 
Further if all posts were to default to five stars and as grexers read 
and rate the post would be rated to reflect the average. With some 
filter arrangement grexers could choose the low-end threshhold they 
would be willing to subjec themselves to. Of course those who "live" 
here would be subjected to everything whereas the more casual among us 
would be treated to a dialed down version, if so desired. 

Of course there would need to be a mechanism to limit rating to once 
per customer. I think a system whereby the users have a direct say in 
what we want to represent would help build community spirit. 

Further the public access portal (read anonymously) could be tuned to 
reveal 'threes or above' (or whatever.) That might intice folks to 
register and log-in to see 1.what passes for low grade and 2.perhaps 
enter their 'vote' on the topics they did view.

What could possibly be more democratic than that? 2cents << madmike


#121 of 133 by madmike on Thu Oct 23 18:06:47 2008:

...kinda' like cyklone was talking about in #55(?) I suppose...


#122 of 133 by cross on Thu Oct 23 19:32:31 2008:

Something like that is certainly possible....


#123 of 133 by remmers on Thu Oct 23 21:24:45 2008:

Re resp:120 - Hmmm...  I'm glad somebody is reviving this thread.  In
resp:85 and resp:88 I detailed my objections to such a rating system
and proposed a more individualized alternative that would allow users to
fine-tune their filtering to their own tastes.  Just to remind y'all.


#124 of 133 by madmike on Fri Oct 24 01:08:58 2008:

Thanks for the redirect remmers. I get what you're saying. Perhaps 
there could be several filtering "cliques". For example one could tune 
in using the administrators clique or the moderator clique, the newbie 
clique or the self admitted twit clique. Imagine the hoops that could 
be constructed to determine who may be admitted to a particular group.
You could collect group labels as sort of merit badges. 

You might even allow for revoking of group membership based on fellow 
cliquee votes. 'Cyber-Survivor' as it where.

For the record I think the MySpace model is okay for them but too 
restrictive for grex. 

I really dig that I can post to Coop. And I did not even have to pass a 
psyc test. ;-)


#125 of 133 by naftee on Fri Oct 24 02:17:00 2008:

this is grex's most interesting conference.


#126 of 133 by tsty on Wed Jan 28 07:13:27 2009:

i noticed that the groups stuff is (seems to be) un-updated. ???
  


#127 of 133 by cross on Thu Jan 29 14:34:42 2009:

Which groups?


#128 of 133 by tsty on Fri Feb 6 05:53:08 2009:

well,  i thought i'd be int eh verified group, for one example.
don;t wanna get a buncha ppl too upset.


#129 of 133 by krj on Fri Feb 6 17:34:12 2009:



#130 of 133 by davel on Tue Feb 17 15:53:11 2009:

eh?


#131 of 133 by mary on Tue Feb 17 23:40:41 2009:

Dave!  Missed you 'round here.  And at the Lighthouse.


#132 of 133 by krj on Wed Feb 18 16:29:10 2009:

There seems to be something in FrontTalk where a character sequence
which I expect to result in a cancelled posting instead causes 
a blank posting to happen.  Not sure what that sequence is.
But it probably involves a CTRL-C.


#133 of 133 by cross on Wed Feb 18 17:39:09 2009:

Hmm; that's weird...


There are no more items selected.

You have several choices: